Although it is Hans Küng whose theory Bosch use in pointing to paradigm changes in the church, on the phenomenon of paradigm changes, Bosch uses especially the work of Thomas Kuhn. In describing the current paradigm change, which Bosch calls postmodernism. In describing postmodernism Bosch recognizes it as appearing first in the natural sciences:

The first fundamental assault on it (it refers to rationalism from the previous paragraph on this page) did not (as one might have expected) come from the side of the human sciences. It came, quite surprisingly, from the very disciplines where the Cartesian and Newtonian canons appeared totally inviolable: the field of physics. (:350)

Using especially the work of Fritjof Capra and Micheal Polanyi, both who were initially specializing in the natural sciences before writing works of importance to philosophy, he then describes the emerging “model or theoretical structure, or a new “paradigm”" (:184). Although this is a topic for another day, I believe his strong reliance on those in the natural sciences provided for a more robust understanding of postmodernism.

It is the following quotes that I’d like to point to:

Rationality has to be expanded. One way of expanding it is to recognize that language cannot be absolutely accurate, that it is impossible finally to “define” either scientific laws or theological truths. To speak with Gregory Bateson, neither science nor theology “proves”; rather, they “probe”. This recognition has led to a reevaluation of the role of metaphor, myth, analogy, and the like, and to the rediscovery of the sese of mystery and enchantment. (:353)

… the authentic Christian position in this respect is one of humility and self-criticism. After the Enlightenment it would be irresponsible not to subject our “fudiciary framework” to severe criticism, or not to continue pondering the possibility that Truth may indeed differ from what we have thought it to be” (:360)

And yet, even as we are “humbly acknowledging the uncertainty of our own conclusions”, for a “fudiciary philosophy does not eliminate doubt”, the Christian continues to hold on to unproven beliefs. It is precisely such a self-critical posture of faith which may protect us against the “blind and deceptive” nature of a “creed inverted into a science”. A post-Enlightenment self-critical Christian stance may, in the modern world, be the only means of neutralizing the ideologies; it is the only vehicle that can save us from self-deception and free us from dependence on utopian dreams. (:361)

Within Bosch’s argument, it would seem to me that the pages from which the above quotes come is key to understanding his hermeneutical presuppositions. Missing these thoughts might lead us into literilizing a theological concept such as the “Missio Dei”, which within the postmodern approach of Bosch must be understood as metaphor. Missing these thoughts can also cause us to misuse Bosch to create another triumphant Missiology that make claims of providing the final and only possible solution for humankind, whether in this world or outside of it.

From Bosch we must construct a Missiology which self-critically holds to unproven beliefs, and recognize them as such, always holding to the possibility that Truth may indeed differ from what we have thought it to be…

1. Piet Meiring always says that David Bosch had this amazing encyclopedic ability. He could bring together the voices of a wide range of people and integrate them. When reading Transforming Mission you’ll see this. Bosch tell how certain ideas has developed and changed in the church. In doing this, Transforming Mission is the voice of the church in many places. Rather than saying “Bosch says”, in many places it’s better to day: “According to Bosch the church says”. When reading Bosch try and distinguish between the voice of Bosch and the historic voice of the church. It will bring life and dynamic to the book.
2. If I understand Bosch correctly, then I think we’ve been overemphasizing the big chapters and undervalueing the inbetween chapters. The large mass of info is found in the chapters on Biblical perspectives (2-4), historical perspectives (6-9) and the elements of an emerging ecumenical missionary paradigm (12). However, I believe that the inbetween chapters, 1, 5, 10, 11 and 13, provide the backdrop against which the larger chapters should be read. If you don’t understand Bosch’s understanding of postmodernity, his use of Capra, Kuhn, Polanyi etc, then you’ll totally misread the larger chapters.

So try these two tips. Listen to hear the voice of Bosch, and read the book against the backdrop of the inbetween chapters.

this is a test post

cobus skryf ook hieroor

“Maar as God almagtig is, hoe kan hy teen Jakob verloor?”

vra een van die graad 11′s in die belydenisklas noudieaand. En hulle sien ook raak dat God vir ‘n klein rakker kies hier. Esau is eintlik ‘n baie beter keuse, hierdie Jakob vent is ‘n klein liegbek. Maar God kies hom. En dan is daar nog God wat spyt kry oor hy mense gemaak het, hoe kan ‘n alwetende God tog spyt kry? En Abraham wat vir God afstry daar kort duskant Sodom. En ons het nou maar nog net begin raak aan Genesis.

Ek dink dit was Anton van Niekerk wat iewers skryf dat ons die God van die filosowe so bietjie moet los ter wille van die God van die Bybel. Nou, dit het niks met ‘n letterlike lees, of ‘n konserwatiewe godsbeskouing of enige so iets te doen nie. Die God van die filosowe het maar net ‘n manier om presies in te pas in een of ander teorie, mooi gesistematiseerd, agtermekaar, met beskrywende terme wat verabsoluteer word.

David Bosch skryf:

It is only when one loses faith in a plausibility structure that one senses that its powers were excessive and specious. In this respect Polanyi quotes Arthur Koester who, only after ht had ceased to be a Marxist, was able to write: “My party education had equipped my mind with such elaborate shock-absorbing buffers and elastic defenses that everything seen and heard became automatically transformed to fit a preconceived pattern”. The point Polanyi is maing is that the worldview one embraces may not be “true”. It may, in fact, be the Big Lie. Still, it remains “irresistibly persuasive, since it sweeps away all existing criteria of validity and resets them in its own support”

Ek dink jy weet beter waarvan Bosch (en Polanyi, op wie se werk hy baie sterk steun) praat as wat jy dink. Daai mense wat wanneer hulle praat dan kom jy net agter dat julle praat heeltemal by mekaar verby. Julle praat verskillende tale. Julle gebruik dieselfde woorde, maar bedoel totaal verskillende goed. En die ergste is, hulle an glad nie verstaan hoekom jy nie kan insien wat hulle probeer sê nie. Punt is dat beide van julle met sulke “elaborate shoc-absorbing” sisteme sit, dat julle tekste en stories op die mees wonderlike manier kan maak pas in die bekende patrone.

Daarom dalk dat meer en meer van ons hier van die ander kant af, of ons nou grade in teologie, filosofie, literatuurstudies, of sommer net graad 11, het, goed in die Bybel lees, wat vir ons so obvious lyk dat dit is wat daar staan, en dan kom jy net agter dat bitter min mense aan die duskant sien dit eers raak, hulle het experts geword om die spanninge in die teks uit te stryk tot alles mooi inpas in hulle verstaan van wat daar moet staan. En jy? Jy kan of konformeer, of jy kan die teks lees, en weer lees, en elke stukkie spanning opraap as ‘n geleentheid om iets van die rykdom van hierdie teks te ontdek. Die Jode het dit gedoen in hulle midrash, die Reformatore het gesê ons moet, en die post-moderne teoloë kan bloot nie anders nie.

Skuif die volgorde van Bely, Beleef, Behoort na Behoort, Beleef, Bely, skryf hy. Bely, Beleef, Behoort is die sisteem waarin hy grootgeword het. Ek dink dit is die sisteem waarin ek ook grootgeword het, alhoewel dit nooit eksplisiet gesê is nie. Ons het immers aanvaar dat jy bely, die moontlikheid dat jy nie saam bely nie is nooit eers oorweeg nie. So ook oor beleef. So ons het gepraat oor om te behoort aan hierdie kerk waarvan ons nou klaar deel is. Selfs voor ons amptelik belydenis afgelê het. Dat ons behoort deel maar heel vlak was het egter duidelik geword as enige van die vorige twee skielik gequestion word. Waag dit om te luister na daardie liberale teoloë, en ons sal dit duidelik maak dat jy nie meer behoort nie. Waag dit om bietjie rond te kuier by van daai crazy charismatics, of dalk die weird mystics, en ons maak dit baie duidelik dat jy nie meer behoort nie. Wanneer bely of beleef op die tafel gekom het, het dit altyd duidelik geword dat behoort nie eerste bestaan het nie, maar voorwaardelik tot die eerste twee was.

Nelus pleit al ‘n rukkie hiervoor, en ek waardeer dit. In sy boek Nuwe Drome, skryf hy byvoorbeeld:

As die ryk van God ‘n sokkerklub was, sou die klub oop wees om almal as lede te ontvang – kinders en grootmense, mans en vroue, beginners en ervare spelers, vurige ondersteuners en rustige bejaardes. Net mense wat sokker haat en alles wil doen om dit met boks te vervang, sal nie welkom wees nie.

Die vraag is egter, hoe lyk iemand wat sokker haat? Ek bedoel, ek kry netnou ‘n email van die Learning Community af, en op die voorblad is tans eerste Leonard Sweet en Frank Viola se Jesus Manifesto waaroor almal nou so begin rave, en so entjie onder dit goed oor Nelus se boek. As ek egter Sweet en Viola se manifesto lees, dan wil dit vir my lyk asof mense wat sokker haar hulle is wat nie saamstem met hulle ekstreme high Christology nie. As ek Sweet en Viola lees dan wil dit vir my klink of hulle die reëls klaar gemaak het, klaar besluit het wat jy moet bely, sodat jy kan behoort, en eintlik is daarbinne sommer opgesluit hoe jy moet beleef ook. Kyk en na daai bladsy dan lyk vir my my asof selfs al weet ons dat die sokkerklub teoreties oop is, is dit maar moeilik om mense lid te maak wat sokker se reëls anders verstaan as ek.

As ek Nelus reg hoor, en ek hoop ek doen, dat maak ons die klub eers oop, en dan bepaal die wat deel van die klub is saam oor tyd hoe ons bely, en partymaal op verskillende tye verskillend bely, hang af waar ons op hierdie geloofsreis is. Tony Jones het dit vir my die beste verduidelik toe hy geskryf het oor hoe die baseball community die baseball reëls oor tyd verander. Dit bly baseball, maar die reëls skuif. En wie bepaal die reëls?

Similarly, Christian orthodoxy is held in tension by you, me, the Pope and Benny Hinn — by all 2.2 billion of us. Plus, we’re also listening to the interpretations of those who’ve gone before us — the church fathers.

Dalk bly van die beste pogings om behoort eerste te plaas die van David Bosch. Gaan lees gerus bladsy 185-187 van Transforming Mission. Hy beskryf die kerk as ‘n “international hermeneutical community“, waar sokker beteken dat ons kies om oor die Bybel te praat, dit is ons oriëntasiepunt. En almal wat saam wil praat vanuit hierdie oriëntasiepunt is welkom. Sweet, Viola, Niemandt, Van Wyngaard, en wie ookal nog wil saamkom, hier behoort ons, en daarom dat ons saam kan bely oor tyd, nie andersom nie.

Ronald blog ook in reaksie op Nelus se artikel by Wurmblikkie.

It’s like falling down Alice’s rabbit-hole, the further you fall down, the more you realize that the world in which you lived will never again be the same. Everything has changed. And you cannot go back. This is obviously not only true of theology. This trip down the rabbit hole we call a paradigm change.

• If you fall down the rabbit-hole and realize that the three-storied-universe need be dropped, much need to be changed. Where is hell if not down under? When is heaven if not up there? Where is the spirit world if not inbetween?
• If you fall down the rabbit-hole and Plato’s dualism starts crumbling, it raises a number of questions (most of which I don’t even understand yet) on body and spirit, spirit-world and flesh-world, God-world and human-world. Can these actaully be taken apart like we do?
• If you fall down the rabbit-hole and western rationalism with it’s veto-right in every conversation starts to become a little blurry, then much of you’re critique on mystical experiences feel a little shaky. Then much of you apologetics, from whichever side of the argument, just becomes relativized.

Thomas Kuhn called the rabbit-hole paradigm changes, “the entire constellation of beliefs, values, techniques, and so on shared by the members of a given community”. Hans Küng used his theory and applied it to theology. David Bosch has made one of his biggest contributions to the world of theology by applying Kuhn and Küng to missiology. This was the task of Transforming Mission. The church still seem to be struggling with the implications of the rabbit-hole that we are falling down into when it comes to missiology.

• The imperialistic approach of medieval and colonialist times still pops up every now and again, where mission and the expansion of the empire (or the expansion of American culture) goes hand in hand.
• The apologetics of conservative high-modernists still remain popular in places.
• The conversion of souls to become part of heaven and the church from early Roman-Catholic times has not left us yet.

If you want to understand Transforming Mission, if you want to understand David Bosch. One of the key chapters would be Chapter 5. You need to understand how Bosch used Kuhn, Küng and Capra. Not doing this will make Transforming Mission another book of quotes which you use when it fits your own approach to missiology.

This post is part of the posts growing out of our discussion of Transforming Mission. I’ve blogged on previous chapters here:

Chapter 2

Chapter 1

And others who have blogged on our last discussion (chapter 5 and 6 of Transforming mission) can be found here:

Arthur Stewert

pg. 177 “suffering is not just something that has to be endured passively because of the onslaughts and oppositions of the powers of this world, but also, and perhaps primarily, as an expression of the church’ active engagement with the world for the sake of the world’s redemption (cf Beker 1984:41).  Suffering is therefore a mode of missionary involvement.”

in light of this spirit of antagonism that has been swirling around me the last several weeks, i have been faced with a healthy challenge by my good friend Arthur: “do you want the results of Jesus without the way of Jesus?”

so often i get surprised that there would be enemy attacks on my mind and heart when I move into mission.  i assume God will just block all of those things from me because i’m serving Him.  but God didn’t call anyone into cheap, easy lives.  he called us to follow Him in His ways.  early Christians were called followers of “the way”.  and that way often times led to their certain deaths.
so why do i assume i can eat from the fields without having first experienced the back breaking work of plowing the them?  the way of Jesus is a way into territory not easily handed over.  while that does not invite us to naively entering into highly dangerous places, it also doesn’t say we should sit back in the comforts of what we know either!  whenever you enter into these places of service, you are upsetting someone.  embrace it as a mark that you are part of God redeeming the world… carry the work of the cross & resurrection deep in your soul for the sake of the world’s salvation.  those things may never leave your side, but with the prayers of many, you will be reminded of the truth as you move deeper into the heart of kingdom expansion.

there’s a sense that when i had my conversion experience, i was just made fine.  now i could move through life knowing my eternal destination was secured.  then one of my fellow discussion partners chimed in with this line, “the problem with Christians is that no one wants to kill us.  we fit in nice and neat into the society around us and we don’t worry too much about calling sin ‘sin’ because we’re often caught up in it ourselves!  what’s different about me than anyone else?  i still lust after consumeristic things, i still go after success at the sacrifice of my family… i’m no better, and in many ways, i’m worse than everyone else!”

a better way of understanding what is happening at this moment is that i have entered into a journey of following the WAY of God.  rather than saying “you’re a sinner going to hell” (thus scaring some into a decision, chasing others away, and isolating everyone), offering a wholistic system of life that God wants to renew in every human being.  so then every day, i’m confronted with the things in my life God wants to restore and make new.  it’s a better option for life, not a ticket out of hell!

when i experience the life of Jesus as my option, i then move into service out of gratitude for his love.

I notice this is true with kids.  when i have loved Ezra well, like right after a good afternoon of backyard soccer, i can ask him to clean up just about anything, and out of gratitude, he obeys.  he’s not obligated to obey (which we experience more often than we’d like), but he’s grateful for the love we just shared in and serves from that place.

i prefer gratitude out of love than gratitude out of guilt.  it’s more unifying and intimate with my master.

In the American conversation I notice a lot of talk about atonement. I found the fact that I don’t share this love of talk about atonement a bit strange, untill I realized that the Afrikaans translation of this word wasn’t one I ever heard much in church. Rather, we talked about salvation. But similar issues seem to be at stake.

If I’d ask the question “Why was Jesus crucified?” to a group of informed church members in our church, I’d probably get something in the line of the following: “God intended it” and “For our sins“. But my change in talking about the crucifixion isn’t that much a critique against these answers, but rather a reading of the Bible which calls for something else. I try and find the answer to the question “Why was Jesus crucified?” in the gospels, especially the synoptics, and I use historical and social scientific research as a lense in reading this.

Piet Meiring always talk about chapted 13 of Transforming Mission as vintage Bosch. If you want to know what Bosch thought, read chapter 13, he says. There Bosch the theologian moves to the background, and Bosch the preacher emerge, so to speak. I was just reading the part on salvation in Transforming Mission, and here Bosch does something similar than in chapter 13. His argument in both these parts is that we need to understand salvation and mission within the comprehensive christological framework – “his incarnation, earthly life, death, resurrection, and parousia” (p399). He explains the need for doing this with saying that

• the Greek patristic tradition was orientated to the incarnation (I’ll have to read on the Orthodox church again to be able to point to the implication of this)
• Western mission was oriented towards the end of Jesus’ life, his death on the cross. That tend to get us into a purely early Pauline understanding of salvation which focus on an apocalyptic event in the future
• a Third model focused on the eartly life and ministry of Jesus, it was an ethical interpretation of salvation. According the Bosch this made Christ redundant in the end.

I think there is value in this comprehensive approach Bosch propose. However I’m thinking more and more that we should reorder this comprehensive narrative.

I love the historical Jesus writers. I really do. I’ve been reading parts of Nolan and Crossan again over the past two days. Bosch also liked the historical Jesus research, as can be seen in his approach to Transforming Mission. In writing Transforming Mission, he started out with the historical research on Jesus and the early church, and then moved onto three paradigms of mission found in the early church, this he found in Matthew, Luke and Paul. The historical Jesus research  help us in understanding Jesus, the person who lived and walked and talked in Galilea and Judea roundabout 27-33 AD. Who was crucified. Historical research has difficulty talking about the resurrection, not because of unbelieve, but the sources really makes it difficult (please make sure you really understand this point before critiquing). Historical research can however help us in understanding what the early church believed about this event.

The reordering I propose is to start where the early disciples started, and work in the same order that the story developed for the early church theologians.

1. Jesus lives, walks and preaches in Galilea and Judea.
2. He gets crucified
3. The disciples experience him as alive and develops a theology of the resurrection
4. Parousia (Christ’s second coming)
5. A high Christology develops which lead to thoughts on the incarnation

So I simply moved the incarnation towards the end of the story. I think a fairly good case can be made that of these 5 elements, that was the one that became important to the early church last. My reason for doing this, is that when putting it first, we tend to answer the quesion “Why was Jesus crucified?” from the intentionality of God, while reality is that Jesus was crucified because the Jews [UPDATE: meaning, certain Jewish leaders, certain members of the Sanhedrin.  Thanx to Hugo's comment] were really reallymad at him, and probably some Romans weren’t that fond of him either. This is reality: Some people really didn’t like Jesus, they didn’t like what he said or did, he was a threat, so they killed him. And at least some of what he said would have given enough reason to label him a terrorist, whether rightly so or not, so they could give him the death of a terrorist, and not of a religious heretic, which was being stoned, as with Stephen.

OK, but if this is why Jesus was crucified, where do we go from here? Well, we can say quite a lot about what Jesus said and did, the resurrection must have at least had a first meaning that what he said didn’t end with his death. That crucifying Jesus couldn’t kill what he started! But obviously his resurrection also gave rise to thoughts on his divinity, which I think there is also good evidence for that his disciples didn’t consider him divine before the resurrection, and it even took a while afterwards for the idea to sink in.

Only now could thoughts on the Parousia and incarnation develop. Now we could go full circle, or work backwords, and sya that if Jesus was God, and God was crucified, and a few obvious links with Jewish sacrificial rites can be made, and Jesus was God incarnate, then God’s intention with becoming incarnate in Jesus was to be crucified. That wouldn’t even be theologically incorrect! But that definitely is not the only interpretation! And I’m sure that wasn’t the first interpretation made in an upper room somewhere in Jerusalem; maybe it was in the house of Marcus’ mother, who later wrote a gospel with no incarnation as part of the narrative.

So, how do I preach it? I think historically a good case can be made that Jesus expected his own death. He knew about the rizing tensions, and that the leaders wanted to kill him. But did Jesus have to die? Yes, because the message he brought was so at odds with the rulers of the world, that they couldn’t exist side by side. Either he had to kill his message, or be killed because of the message. But the resurrection tell the story of hope, what Jesus brought cannot be killed! If I now turn the narrative into it’s usual order, I’d say that this is so at odds with what God is bringing to the world, that it would even go so far as to try and kill it, but it cannot be killed! The world cannot stop what God is bringing about in it.

Maybe I’ll have some more thoughts on how to preach this before Sunday. If you’ve actually read all the way down to this point, thank you! Let me know, and please critique and add on.

Thursday this week, we met again.  So much stood out to me in the discussion, it was hard to summarize one point.  So let me pull a few things out that I think connect.

We are all… every human on the planet… called to care for the poor.  So much of what Jesus said in his short three years on earth mandates us to this end.  I don’t believe the lie that I so easily fell into when living in the States that said “well, I support missionaries in Africa or wherever, and that’s my part”.  That’s fine, and that’s a start, but there’s actually quite a lot of things that I contributed to in my day to day life that actually perpetuated world poverty.  Sometimes I even knew about it, but let’s be honest, shopping at Walmart was just easier than figuring out where I could get clothes NOT produced by kids in sweat shops (I don’t think I will be apologizing for being blunt here).

Further more, I’m concerned about some of the initiatives I see when it comes to church outreach.  Far too often, a small percentage of the church actually sees injustice in their communities and moves to address those issues.  What’s easy is for the majority to write off their part and say “well my community does it, so I don’t have to.”  That’s a pretty unbiblical response I’d say.

So what’s my part?  Yeah, welcome to my world of tension!  I think there’s actually something intrinsically crucial to how we set up our communities that lead me to my response to this question.  Rather than 10% doing something and 90% taking credit, I wonder if the 10% could help the 90% by finding places where every member of the community could get involved in addressing the problem.  SO, with that, let me be a help to you, my dear friends in America, by giving you a copy of a link my friend sent me this week.  CLICK HERE

If you’re unaware, there’s a global crisis within the impoverished world, of young people being sold into the sex industry (common day slavery).  Unfortunately, I found out that one of my favorite chocolate companies, Mars, has been contributing to horrific child labor so as to alleviate their costs and increase their profits.  Here’s a small step for all of us to take:  DON’T BY MARS CHOCOLATE!  That’s simple, but we must continue to push and do more.

I fear there are HUGE social systems that cause us to NOT deal with the issues we’re facing in the world.  The proof came when the first bailout package was signed last year in America.  What I witnessed was how that had effect on making the South African currency drop 5 points.  We don’t think our choices affect the world so significantly… but we all have played a part in the destruction of others.  It’s our duty to reverse the course of our actions and the actions of previous generations to put an end to the destruction of others for the betterment of ourselves.

My friends who are blogging on this topic:

Cobus

Tom

Chris

Chapter 2 was under discussion, on the Matthean sub-paradigm of early Christian mission. Matthew is known as the discipleship book, known for the sermon on the mount, and the Great Commision. All of this was discussed. I made some comments on Matthew 28 two days ago, and wrote about Bosch’s interpretation of this passage in my dissertation last year:

“In this article Bosch expounds his exegesis of The Gospel According to Matthew, especially chapter 28:18-20, to counter an interpretation which says that this text talks about leading non-Christians to a first commitment to Christ (make disciples), which only then must be followed by a stage of “perfecting” (teaching them to observe) (Bosch 1984:19). As Bosch explains, the teaching is not something which follows making disciples, but qualifies the main verb “make disciples” (Bosch 1984:24). The content of the teaching Bosch summarizes using two words: justice and love (Bosch 1984:26). “In summary then: Jesus has commanded the fulfilling of the Law which is the practice of justice-love. To love the other person means to have compassion for him or her to see that justice is done. Love of neighbour and enemy manifests itself in justice” (Bosch 1984:27). He endorses the words of Waldron Scott who wrote: “One must understand discipleship in order to make disciples, and discipleship is not fully biblical apart from a commitment to social justice…. To be a disciple is to be committed to the King and his Kingdom of just relationships” (Scott in Bosch 1984:28). Of the narrow evangelistic interpretation against which Bosch is writing in this article he then says: “They falsely teach that if individuals have a personal experience of Christ in traditional pietistic terms they will automatically become involved in the changing of society” (Bosch 1984:29).”

From Chapter 4 of David Bosch as Public Theologian

In conclusion: The way we live was of absolute importance to Bosch. We don’t evangelize people into heaven, and then disciple them into a way of life. We live the way of Jesus, the way of love, and make disciples, others who join us in living this way of love.

Others who blogged on chapter 2 of Transforming Mission:

Tom Smith

Joe Reed

Arnau van Wyngaard

Chris Kamalski

Tom Smith 2

Feel free to blog your own thoughts on this chapter, and send me the link. Even if you’re not joining us in conversation.

Falling from Tom Smith’s lips as a way of explaining his rationale in not engaging with poverty in a more profound way in his daily life, I sat in our second book discussion of David Bosch’s master work, Transforming Mission, profoundly disturbed by the searing truth of Tom’s words.  Have you experienced those brief moments when all becomes clear, as if your mind starts to order fragmented thought, flashes of desire, and your fleeting heart passions into one cohesive statement of fact?  The phrase above was that experience for me this morning.  

So much could be/should be reflected upon our shared conversations thus far, and I’m sure both myself and others will pour out their thoughts in the next few days, and throughout the course of this amazing discussion that is unfolding. We ‘attempted’ to unpack some of Bosch’s thoughts in terms of how Matthew’s theology of mission as shown through his writing, and (again) barely scratched the surface of Bosch’s masterful work.  I’ll follow up with further thoughts on the introduction and initial chapter on Matthew’s Gospel, as well as what we are diving into as we continue reading in Luke/Acts and Paul’s writing throughout the New Testament.

However, I don’t want to stray far from Tom’s initial phrase this evening.  In a wide-ranging, convicting discussion on the gospel, the nature of mission, and the integration of the poor and marginalized among us, my heart was laid bare by the honest admission above.  Questions that prevent me from sleeping easily tonight & desiring to turn off my heart in a sea of endless Internet surfing include the following:

• Why am I not ‘doing more’ to engage the end of poverty in my world?  
• Why have I allowed guilt, my own comfort and sense of security, and a healthy distance from ‘the poor’ (Even that label de-humanizes the people that this entails, exposing my continued, deeply rooted hypocrisy) to determine how I live?  
• Why is there a sense in my heart that I am living in a ‘better way’ than those with ‘less’ than me?  
• Why do I not have poor friends?  
• Wouldn’t having ‘poor’ friends be nothing but a social exercise for me, something that further rounded out my personality?  
• At my core, am I as deeply prejudiced as it seems?  
• Why do these problems fall on my shoulders alone (at least, I make it out to be this way)?  
• Is poverty a much deeper and more pervasive disease than pure material possession (including such things as poverty of spirit, purpose, family, hope, etc. as Curtis brilliantly pointed out tonight)?

The fact that I am rich beyond measure (Check out www.globalrichlist.com for a disheartening confirmation of this matter), and yet impoverished in so many other ways, is both disturbing and hopefully catalytic tonight.

One thought from Bosch:

It is unthinkable to divorce the Christian life of love and justice from being a disciple…To become a disciple means a decisive and irrevocable turning to both God and neighbor (Transforming Mission, pp. 81-82).

Another from Henri Nouwen:

Wherever I turn I am confronted with my deep-seated resistance against following Jesus on his way to the Cross and my countless ways of avoiding poverty, whether material, intellectual, or emotional (Spiritual Direction, p. 138).

Just to clarify, I’m speaking publicly to myself with these words, not in an effort to self-martyr, or to declare my own existential sense of goodness, but to call my own apathy out.  I love ideas in all forms, and yet am deeply aware that my ideas often do not become action, and therefore actualized reality that has power (infused hopefully by the Spirit’s work) to actually transform and heal.

In another of Tom’s haunting phrases, “I need a new conversion.”

Fake astroturf makes for a sweet Apprentice pic! (Clockwise from me in army green: Me, Adrienne, Oupa, Melanie, Tony, Colletta, Curtis, Busi)

The (1/2)Week That Was: Spent Thursday morning with a fantastic group of South Africans (Cobus, the seminary graduate I mentioned previously, that I will likely do some spiritual formation/direction work with this year; Tom Smith, a pastor in Jo’Burg that leads a fairly revolutionary church called Claypot; Annemie Bosch, David Bosch’s widow and a brilliant thinker in her own right; a friend of Cobus’ named Marina) and Americans (Myself; Arthur Stewart, our NCSA Director; and Joe Reed, new staff member) beginning to read Transforming Mission by David Bosch. I’ve yet to post on this, but my friends have, and let’s just say that the discussion was profound. Take a look at what has been reflected on so far:

*Cobus’s thoughts; *Tom Smith’s thoughts; *Arthur Stewart’s thoughts; *Joe Reed’s thoughts

Suffice to say, our discussion was revolutionary–and that was largely confined to one page of comments (the ubiquitous page 49!). Much more on this discussion as it unfolds throughout this year. One minor thought prior to moving on: It was SO HEALTHY for me to get off of Pangani’s (beautiful) site and into a South African home to discuss this in mixed company (gender and ethnicity). The discussion crackled with different points of view, yet a shared common heart.

Friday was spent preparing for Rhythm (our Friday evening common meal, worship, and prayer gathering for our extended community–our version of a ‘service’), in which I was assisting Adrienne and Bryan in St. Ignatius’ version of contemplative (imaginative) prayer. We showed a powerful clip from the beginning of Finding Neverland where the boy who would be later written as Peter questions J.M. Barrie as to whether imagination has any place in life, which set us up perfectly for a guided experience in placing ourselves in the text of John 9:1-11. So profound to hear how God was (and is) speaking to our community as we ‘practiced’ sanctifying our imaginations by deliberately entering into a text as if it is alive and speaking to us still. I am still moved by our time, and was so touched on a creative level to engage my imagination as this burgeoning desire in me unfolds to engage my artistic/creative side through writing and photography. I even used pastels to paint a picture for a learning conversation on Friday, and it wasn’t half bad! Plus, we ended Friday night by watching the whole film of Finding Neverland.

Saturday and Sunday were a blur for me–super exhausted and drained from a great, heavy week here considering ministry options and engaging my heart. Need to find the balance between rest, grace, fun, and isolation–spent way too much time watching old Office episodes. Melanie and I (the two introverts) went together to separate movies Sunday night (Finally caught The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, which I thought was good in some parts, boring in others, beautifully shot, and made an excellent point about the ability to ‘re-start’ one’s life if you aren’t satisfied where yours is heading).

Today I met with Cobus again to continue dreaming about spiritual formation/direction stuff, and we also toured the city with the Twashane Leadership Foundation (TLF), a consortium of inner-city ministries in Pretoria that seek to care for the city and it’s inhabitants on a holistic level. Lots to chew on. Where I Am At The Moment: Staying up past my bedtime outside (A hint of the coolness of a Fall evening is nipping at my skin!).

On My To-Do List This Week: Getting up at O’Dark AM tomorrow to finish Grip-Burkman stuff (more on this later), ’cause Hal Burke, our consultant, just arrived tonight to lead us in a ‘grip’ (Pun fully intended) of team-training and personal leadership development exercises Wednesday-Friday this week. I’m actually stoked that he is here, although he seems to be a USC fan, which is horrible. More on this later AS WELL (Aly).

Procrastinating About: Financial stuff like finishing my taxes (Uggh), setting up a savings account (Huh?), and updating my personal donor records (DO IT!).

Books I’m In The Midst Of: Thinking the most about Transforming Mission right now. I’m loving the engagement of a group of people who love God deeply, have studied theologically at a fairly high level, are in various roles of leadership and influence, and yet are asking highly personal questions about missional living–such as Joe’s question of whether he should truly go through with getting barbed wire for his fence.

On The Current iTunes Playlist: Old-school Passion worship stuff.

I’m Thinking About: How I can live stategically and missionally for maximum impact this year (Sounds like a John Maxwell statement, but it is a deep thought of mine right now).

Next Trip: Down to Lorraine’s for my first Supervision with her group of Spiritual Director’s this Wednesday. Excited and curious about this!

How I’m Feeling About This Week: Pretty amped. Mission and ministry stuff seems to be slowly falling into place–The question is when/how/how much for me right now. I feel like I’m beginning to connect with locals such as Cobus, which is awesome.

Prayer Request: Three: 1) Discernment in how to provide spiritual direction and care to care workers in Soshanguve, as well as possibly to Cobus and friends from his theological studies. 2)Appropriate pace in moving forward in these ventures. 3)Discipline to catch up on things I have been procrastinating on, such as donor stuff.

When the infant Jesus was presented to God in the Jerusalem temple, so Luke tells us, the aged Simeon blessed him and said to Mary, “This child is set … for a sign that is spoken against” (Lk 2:34). So even the signs that he did erect and the sign that he himself was were ambigious and disputed. It was not possible to convince everybody of the authenticity of Jesus. He ministered in weakness, under a shadow, as it were.  This is, however, how authentic mission always present itself –  in weakness. As Paul says, in defiance of all logic: “It is when I am weak that I am strong” (2 Cor 12:10).

Bosch (1991:49)

It’s been two years since I told Roger that one thing that I belief the South African emerging conversation can give the world is to really engage the work of David Bosch. This morning we started discussing Transforming Mission. Tom,  Arthur, Joe, Chris, Marina and Annemie joined the discussion. The feel under us was that this discussion was neccesary to root our theology in South Africa again (both for the South Africans and the Americans).

What stood out? First I think was the quote above. Mission in our churches seem to be discussed using battle terminology and metaphors, looking like political rallies, and always in a triumphant tone. Our consumer culture require from us that we use this kind of talk, that we share the amazing success stories. But for Jesus is was grounded in weakness, it ended in the cross. It’s difficult to translate this into our world though… Annemie shared a story of someone from a communist country that they knew that became a Christian, and went to a local Charismatic church years ago, and then reporting that this looked exacty like a communist pollitical rally.

It remains impossible, however, to fit Jesus into a clearly circumscribable framework. Schweizer rightly calls him “the man who fits no formula”

Bosch (1991:47)

This was the other thing that stood out for me. Jesus pointed to a “different way”, we however struggle to interpret this for our day and age. The honesty within the group really stood out here, how we struggle to know what to do within our context.

So, lot’s of questions after this discussion. But it really was a brilliant discussion! Even without the triumphant answers you get the feeling that their is something real in this discussion, a willingness to be challenged on what it really means to live in the way of Jesus in South Africa today.

Other bloggers on Transforming Mission, Chapter 1:

Tom Smith

Chris Kamalski

Joe Reed

Arnau van Wyngaard

(list would probably still grow)

You can find info on today’s reading here. I will be blogging in this later, and some others have indicated that they might blog this as well. If you join us in blogging on the first chapter of Transforming Mission let me know so I can get a list up. There has also been an idea to use a wikispace for commenting on Transforming Mission, creating a kind of shared commentary on Transforming Mission or something… we might just do that as well, will keep you posted.

The Holy Spirit who guides into all truth, may be present not so much exclusively on one side of a theological dispute as in the very encounter of diverse visions held by persons…who share a faithfulness and commitment to Christ and to each other. (Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commision, quoted in Transforming Mission, p. 24).

I am deeply challenged by this idea–that possibly, maybe even likely, the Holy Spirit doesn’t ‘care’ about what I believe as much as He is intricately woven into the relational fabric of developing unity between those who stand on ‘opposite’ sides, opposed deeply to each other.  And this leads me to thinking that maybe those who think  they are opposed may often have more in common than they would ever admit or realize.  This isn’t to say that all beliefs or positions are the same, or that there isn’t a sense of right and wrong within one’s position, but rather to ask:

“Is that really the point?”

May I embrace this reality, and the Spirit beneath this idea, with increasing openness this day. I am praying for you, my friends and family.  I love and miss you deeply!

ADDED PORTION:  Tyler Savage, a new friend from CRM Boat Trip days (way back in September 2008!), added a brilliant comment to this post that deserves recognition.  His thoughts:

In recent years, God has used a very different reference to trip me up on a similar line of thinking. In Lincoln’s second Inaugural address, speaking of the two sides in the Civil War, he said, “Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. [...] The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes.” That quote threw me for a loop several years ago, and still does.

Well this coming month, I have the unique privilege of holding myself accountable to not only reading the book, but LEARNING the book with some of South Africa’s up and coming church leaders. Not only that, but none other than the Mrs. Annemie Bosch (David Bosch’s widow) will be joining us as well. I’ll be joining this group (meeting once a month for discussion on the assigned chapters) with my teammate, Arthur Stewart. It will indeed be a very special opportunity that will help shape much of what we do at Nieu Communities and in the surrounding Pretoria area.

Hopefully we’ll start in the week of 9-13 March, although we still need to find a day that would fit everyone, and then get together every second or third week. I’ll be blogging on this as the discussion go on, and invite all who cannot physically join us, to join us in blogging about Transforming Mission. I’ll blog about some updates on what we’ll be reading, and sometimes some info that might be important when reading as well. So here is the first mail I sent out last night:

OK, so now that everyone is back in SA, it might be time to get digging into Transforming Mission.

I suggest we get together during the day, morning or afternoon, rather than evenings. Let me suggest Wednesday mornings, starting on March 11. Let me know if this won’t work for you. I’m happy with doing a weekly thing if everybody is up for it, but maybe getting together every second or third week might be better for those who are already highly committed at other places (which is everyone).

Lesslie Newbigin described Transforming Mission as a Summa Missiologica.

“It has been said that “any missiology can only be done as a footnote to the work of David Bosch” (Bevans & Schroeder 2005:69), making it analogous to the words of Albert the Great which were spoken at the funeral of Thomas Aquinas, that theology after Aquinas will be only a footnote to his work After the death of Bosch, König (1993) described him as probably the greatest theologian ever to come out of South Africa, particularly where scientific theology is concerned.”

I believe that at least three academic fields/qualities come together within Transforming Mission. Bosch as historian, Biblical scholar, and missiologist. It was the combination of these three (at least) that made the writing of this work possible.

For the first discussion, read the Introduction and Chapter 1. The significance of starting in this way shouldn’t be overlooked. It’s not neccesarily obvious. Looking at Jesus and the early church before describing three different “missiologies” from within the New Testament open some windows into the approach Bosch used at other times as well. Of special significance in understanding Bosch (although you might well differ from me in my highlighting of this one aspect above the rest) might be the long quote from Schweizer on page 47. His own words after this quote was: “In all our discussions about Jesus’ mission we should keep this perspective in mind”. Read the chapter, let’s discuss the significance of this.

To attempt and get a grip on the work, I’d suggest you take a look at the three short chapters: Five, Eleven and Thirteen.

The subtitle of the book “Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission”, might have more than one meaning, but one of them would be the fact that Bosch works with paradigm theory, consider a paradigm shift to be under way, and attempts to point a way forward for mission within this emerging paradigm (used long before the emerging church got it’s name). Chapters 5 and 11 comes before and after the description of the different paradigms from the time of Jesus onwards. And would give a picture of underlies the writing of the book.

Proffesor Piet Meiring always talk about chapter 13 as “vintage Bosch”. The student of Bosch become almost frustrated at times, because you struggle to find the voice of Bosch within Transforming Mission. This summary of mission up to the end of the 80′s, foundation for the 90′s onwards, sometimes seem to hide the voice of the author. Chapter 13 provides the reader with a glimpse into Bosch’s vision of what this might mean, captured in only a few pages.

I pray that the reading of this would be much more than a mere intellectual exercise, but that it would be a spiritual journey of discovering the life with Christ which calls us to be part of the mission of God and the church within this world.

Some questions you might consider is to try and see the tensions and similarities between Transforming Mission and your own tradition and thoughts.
The implication for the church of what we are reading.
How this relate to our current context in South Africa.
And make notes where something seem unclear. This is not the easiest book you will ever read.

Looking forward to reading this with you.

Cobus

So, if you want to blog on the Introduction and Chapter 1 within the next few weeks, that will be a great way of taking part in the conversation. If you do, let me know, and I’ll link to all the posts as we go along.

• “Jesus Wants to Save Christians:  A Manifesto for the Church in Exile”  (Rob Bell)
• “Jesus for President:  Politics for Ordinary Radicals”  (Shane Claiborne & Chris Haw)
• “Everything must Change:  Jesus, Global Crises, and the Revolution of Hope”  (Brian McLaren)
• “The Tangible Kingdom:  Creating Incarnational Community”  (Hugh Halter & Matt Sway)
• “The Forgotten Ways:  Reactivating the Missional Church”  (Alan Hirsch)
• “The New Conspirators:  Creating the Future One Mustard Seed at a Time”  (Tom Sine)
• “Good News about Injustice:  A Witness of Courage in a Hurting World”  (Gary Haugen)
• “Activate:  An Entirely New Approach to Small Groups”  (Nelson Searcy)
• “It:  How Churches and Leaders can get It and Keep It”  (Craig Groeschel)
• “Simple Church:  Returning to God’s Process for Making Disciples”  (Thom Rainer & Eric Geiger)
• “The Irresistible Revolution:  Living as an Ordinary Radical”  (Shane Claiborne)
• “We the Purple:  Faith, Politics & the Independent Voter”  (Marcia Ford)
• “Transforming Mission”  (David Bosch)

This week’s post comes from Howard Snyder, quoted in David Bosch’s important work Transforming Mission:

“Kingdom people seek first the Kingdom of God and its justice; church people often put church work above concerns of justice, mercy and truth. Church people think about how to get people into the church; Kingdom people think about how to get the church into the world. Church people worry that the world might change the church; Kingdom people work to see the church change the world.”  (p.378)

It would be tempting to see this quote as pitting Church and Kingdom against each other. But it’s more accurate to see this as simply distinguishing Church from Kingdom.  It’s not that “Kingdom people” work at cross-purposes with the Church (no pun intended), but that they do not see Kingdom as limited to work “inside” the Church. Rather, the Church is doing Kingdom work. The Church’s work IS Kingdom; it IS justice, mercy, and truth. If we see this as not the Church’s work, then we have misunderstood the Church’s fundamental identity. The “Church people” that Snyder references lack a fully Biblical perspective and purpose. Kingdom people know that to focus solely on intra-Church work is to drastically limit God’s call on our lives and to rob Him of the glory He deserves. Greater Kingdom focus will grow the Church in the ways she should grow, and limit her growth in unhealthy ways.

One story really stood out: While she and David Bosch attending a colloquem by Karl Barth, Barth said that “if I was on guard in the war, and my best friend was part of the enemy, and came walking over the bridge, I would shoot him”, to which a young man responded out loud: “No you would not”. Bosch wispered into the ear of Annemie “that man is a Mennonite”… that man was John Howard Yoder.

Bosch became good friends with Yoder, ever since the 1970′s if I remember correctly, and the theology of Yoder made a very deep impression on Bosch. It was not the only impression, and Bosch cannot be called a pure Anabaptist. From the beginning Bosch also had a very deep appreciation of Reformed theology, and found his own ecclesiology somewhere between the two, saying that that the Reformed tradition drew too direct a line between church and world, and the Anabaptists too sharp a distinction.

That was the value of Bosch though, the amazing way in which he could keep the creative tension between different perspective. All through his life the Anabaptist influence remainded, although it is not clearly visible to the reader of Transforming Mission not aware of this, since he later-on stopped using the ‘alternative community’ concept which he borrowed from the Anabaptist tradition. But if aware of this, you will find it in Transforming Mission, and even more clearly in Believing in the Future, where he reacts very positively towards Stanley Hauerwas.

Bosch’s is an approach in creative tension. His vision was that of a distinct community (the concept he used in the place of alternative community when writing Transforming Mission), but without rejecting the insights of Reformed ecclesiology, or even (in his later writings), liberation theology! Bosch could truely be considered a third-way theologian. This is clear in the way in which both Apartheid and Stuggle theologians was highly uncomfortable with him, but also had the greatest respect for him. It is especially clear in the way he interprets Jesus all through his career.

Some of this came from the research on my dissertaion. Will hopefully have  a first draft ready within 24 hours, and then upload it here. I need to print in by middle next week somewhere, but would appreciate any feedback, would obviously appreciate feedback afterwards as well, but I can consider it before printing that would be especially nice:-)

I’m not gonna put references into the post, but you can follow his argument by reading Witness to the World and Transforming Mission, and checking the index to see where he is talking about Lausanne, and then his article titled The Scope of Mission publiched in the International Review of Mission, January 1984 (page 17-32). I’ll be spending some time on this in chapter three of my dissertation, which will be published on the wikispace I created for it next week, better references can be found there.

Time and again Bosch critiques the Lausanne Covenant for making evangelism primary and service secondary. This critique will be found from the late 70′s, right through the 80′s into the early 90′s, when Bosch died. Although Bosch admits the advantage of the “evangelism plus social responsibility” approach, he rejects it in the end. Now, on many occasions Bosch took the time to recognize points of Lausanne that he agreed with, but differed when it came to the primacy of evangelism part, which seem to be what is important in the current conversation, since so much of it concerns evangelism.

Interesting is that Bosch, even after knowing that Luke 4, rather than Matthew 28, was becoming the primary mission text, still seem to opt for the Matthew text. But he then points out that Matthew should not be understood within this view of evangelism being primary, but rather within the framework of teaching people justice-love. For Bosch the ultimate mission is the establishment of justice, and he doesn’t believe that if individuals have a personal experience of Chris in traditional pietistic terms they will automatically become involved in the changing of society.

Bosch wasn’t against evangelism. He wrote about it frequently and passionately. But Bosch helps us to put evangelism within a balanced perspective. Maybe all of us, no matter from which side of the emerging conversation we come from, need to again sit down and read what this great thinker of mission have written.

The missio Deihas become an ever more popular topic over the past years. Also in emerging circles, which interest me very much, it’s very popular. Sometimes I find that Bosch seem to be credited for this concept. I’m not exactly sure why. Alan Hirsch called it Bosch’s greatest gift to us, and Nelus Nimandt in a recent article said that emerging churches has learned greatly from Bosch’s thoughts on the missio Dei. I might not be the Bosch expert, so maybe I’m missing something, but as far as I can see Bosch is simply giving an overview of how the concept has developed since 1932 onwards. At a few points one do however find some comments…

First, let me give an overview of the missio Dei.The classical view of the missio Dei says that God is a sending God. God the Father sends the Son, and God the Father and the Son sends the Holy Spirit. This become important for mission when to this is added another “movement”: Father, Son and Holy Spirit sends the church into the world. The church then change form being on a mission, to being an instrument in God’s mission. And from this our title: The missio Dei institutes the missiones ecclesiae. The sending God is the motivation for the missionary activities of the church. To use the words of the synchroblog: The missional church is not the church that send other on a mission, but it is the church that was sent by God.

We could have stopped the post here, but some questions remain, and Bosch doesn’t stop his exposition here. The missio Deithen developed to embrace both church and world. The world become the focus of God’s mission and the church is privileged to participate. A radicalized version of this started suggesting that the missio Dei actually excluded the church.

Well, Bosch so make some comments. And these help us to understand his own views. Apparently Bosch also thought that maybe the missio Deihas lost it’s usefulness because it has become so wide that it can be used by people who subscribe to mutually exclusive theological positions. But still he found the value of this in that it helps us to remember that neither church nor human is the author of mission. In his own words: “God is a fountain of sending love. This is the deepest source of mission.“

In our denomination I have heard people talking about participation in God’s mission a lot lately. This is a phrase which Bosch used in his writing about the missio Dei. However, it has found a strange pragmatized meaning which I’m a bit uncomfortable with, and also which I don’t find in Bosch (I’m open for correction on this one, but I’m pretty sure). When talking about participating with God where God is working in the world, people are then told that we should go and search where God is already at work in our community, and participate. There might be some good intentions, and also theological truth in recognizing that God is working wider than the church, but it leave us with some questions:

• Is God then not working at some places?
• How would we know when we have found God where God is working?
• Isn’t it possible that God might be working exactly when we start doing something?

This pragmatic understanding of the mission Dei seem to remind me of what Bosch wrote about a radicalized understanding, where the missio Dei exclude the church’s involvement, where we should be very glad if ever we are allowed to participate.

OK, I haven’t done so much metaphysical speculation in a very long time, Trinity, the character of God… not at all my style. So let me make some final remarks… but first, a last quote from Bosch:

“During the past half century of so there has been a subtle but nevertheless decisive shift towards understanding mission as God‘s mission. During preceding centuries mission was understood in a variety of ways. Sometimes it was interpreted primarily in soteriological terms: as saving individuals from eternal damnation. Or it was understood in cultural terms: as introducing people from the East and South to the blessings and privileges of the Christian West. Often it was perceived in ecclesiastical categories: as the expansion of the church (or of a specific denomination). Sometimes is was defined salvation historically: as the process by which the world – evolutionary or by means of a cataclysmic event – would be transformed into the kingdom of God”

The missio Dei remind us of why we talk about missional.

And now Bosch is quite and Cobus is talking. Although answering the why question obviously influence the whatpart, the missio Dei do not provide the blueprint of what I should do tomorrow. I get highly uncomfortable when some claim to be part of God’s mission in contrast to others. I get highly uncomfortable when what we say imply that we might forget about some people who suffer, because we haven’t found God working there yet.

Themissio Dei institutes the missiones ecclesiae. This is why we are missional. Here we are, we cannot with a clear conscience do anything else…

I’ll be walking with lions, literally, the next few days. So feel free to comment, but I’m not sure whether I’ll be having signal, so might only join in again after Thursday. If you’ve read through all this… thank you!

Other synchrobloggers on the missional topic today:

Alan Hirsch
Alan Knox
Andrew Jones
Arnau van Wyngaard
Barb Peters
Bill Kinnon
Brad Brisco
Brad Grinnen
Brad Sargent
Brother Maynard
Bryan Riley
Chad Brooks
Chris Wignall
Cobus Van Wyngaard
Dave DeVries
David Best
David Fitch
David Wierzbicki
DoSi
Doug Jones
Duncan McFadzean
Erika Haub
Grace
Jamie Arpin-Ricci
Jeff McQuilkin
John Smulo
Jonathan Brink
JR Rozko
Kathy Escobar
Len Hjalmarson
Makeesha Fisher
Malcolm Lanham
Mark Berry
Mark Petersen
Mark Priddy
Michael Crane
Michael Stewart
Nick Loyd
Patrick Oden
Peggy Brown
Phil Wyman
Richard Pool
Rick Meigs
Rob Robinson
Ron Cole
Scott Marshall
Sonja Andrews
Stephen Shields
Steve Hayes
Tim Thompson
Thom Turner 

Mission therefore means being involved in the ongoing dialogue between God, who offers his salvation, and the world, which – enmeshed in all kinds of evil – craves that salvation. (Bosch, p.400).

The qoute acknowledges that first and foremost mission is above all God’s mission (missio Dei).  He is reaching and at work in the world.  It is because loving the world with the Gospel of Grace was first God’s mission that we the church are able to do so, both in word and action.  That is the other reason I like the quote so much, it is broad enough that it does not give priority to word or deed in defining mission.  For so long the church has tried to give an order of importance when it comes to mission.  Do we preach the Gospel or do we live in such a way that fights for justice and love our enemies as ourselves?  We must realize that you can no longer separate the two.  There is no either/or.  It is time that Christians “repudiate as demonic the attempt to drive a wedge between evangelism and social concern.” (Bosch, p.406).