I read Neil Cole’s book “Organic Church: Growing Faith Where Life Happens” last summer. Cole is founder and Executive Director of Church Multiplication Associates, which began in 1990 fostering and serving organic church movements and the network he founded called Awakening Chapels. I found myself in association with Neil in 2006 when he and I were both asked to consult the leaders of the Campus Transformation Network. Neil is also author of Cultivating a Life For God, co-author of Raising Leaders for the Harvest, and Search & Rescue: Becoming a Disciple Who Makes a Difference.

This book is an appeal to Christians to go where life happens to connect with the disaffected people who would not otherwise come to church. Cole presents more than a consistent organic theme as he outlines his story and the story of a movement of simple, reproducible churches, he argues that the very nature of the church is organic and must therefore contain within the smallest grouping the complete DNA for reproduction.

The core of this book is the study of the “DNA of healthy church life and reproduction” (99-140) Cole wisely shows that the practice of Modernity, seeking a universal principle or pattern, such as Thom Wolf’s “New Testament Discipleship Pattern (NTDP),” is not necessarily wrong. Cole shows how the “pattern” must be “easily passed on by both example and teaching.” Wolf called this “napkin theology…if you can’t pass it on by writing it down on a napkin at a restaurant, then it isn’t worth writing down at all.” (110-111) Cole has benefited from Roland Allen’s “Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours?” and George Patterson’s thinking about “spontaneous multiplication movements” and “obedience-oriented education” in his journey seeking the simple reproducible church model. (113)

Cole examines the organic nature of the Church in Jesus’ agri-parables and the organic nature of the Kingdom of God through agro-biology and astronomy. Seeking the basic pattern of church multiplication, Cole explains how the organic church goes beyond the popular “cell churches or house churches.” Cole shows how the scriptures consistently affirm the small group of two or three, “the ideal size for effective fellowship and ministry” where reproduction is easiest and community, accountability, confidentiality, flexibility, communication, direction and leadership are strongest. (100-102)

The DNA of Christ’s Body (D-Divine Truth or Faith, N-Nurturing Relationships or Love, and A-Apostolic Mission or Hope), like a seed, which is the “contagion” of the Kingdom of God, “must be whole, intact, and in every cell…complete in its simplicity.” (117-120) Cole warns that many churches have succumbed to Modernity’s tendency to specialize, concentrating on one part of the DNA and eliminating or segmenting out the other parts, such as “excellent preaching on Sundays, which is where we have divine truth.” Those same leaders will argue that they have small groups for nurturing relationships and a mission committee for apostolic mission, however Cole argues, “To separate each part is to destroy the whole thing.” (120)

Cole defends the “beautiful…design and order” of the organic structure of church, which is of “utmost importance.” (124-125) While some church leaders may argue that an organic structure will lead to disorder and chaos, Dee Hock, founder of VISA, author of the book The Birth of the Chaordic Age, writes:

“Purpose and principle, clearly understood and articulated, and commonly shared, are the genetic code of any healthy organization. To the degree that you hold purpose and principles in common among you, you can dispense with command and control.”

Some may think that Cole is arguing for chaos, but he clearly states that, “structures are needed, but they must be simple, reproducible, and internal rather than external.” (124) For internal structure, a structure based on principle and purpose, to work, we must put more faith in the DNA than in organization.

In summary, Cole simply reminds us that, like a seed, “multiplication starts with death” and “there is no resurrection without a death.” (103)

Cole, Neil.
2005. Organic Church: Growing Faith Where Life Happens. 1st ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Have you asked this question? What kind of leaders does the church need today?

There is no simple answer, unless you say that it needs more and better leaders. But it takes more than wishing for better leaders. What is needed is better training. Churches and those training church leaders need to clarify their purpose.

Recently, I completed significant training with Fuller Theological Seminary. I now have a Masters in Global Leadership. Yippee!

But seriously, what was emphasized in my training was the basic questions. I was taught to name the “why”, to clarify the purpose for training.

Certainly the purpose for training Christian leaders must be founded on the Great Commission. When training emerging leaders the emphasis needs to be on “obeying,” not just “knowing.” More importantly, our training must be centered on obedience as an overflow of our relationship with God. We obey God because we love Him; we look to Him and follow His lead, His way, and His extraordinary love for everyone.

So let me ask you this: Have you received teaching that has led you to greater obedience or has that teaching just filled up your head?

Every Christian leader is charged with the task of making disciples. We’re directed and empowered by the Holy Spirit to lead people, modeling a life of learning and loving. We’re called to equip them who follow the One who loves them unconditionally. As we personally follow God’s extravagant ways in response to His amazing love, we will equip emerging leaders to do the same.

Those disciples, those learners, will also obey all that Jesus commanded because they will see us doing it as a response to God’s love. Whether you are involved in formal training of emerging leaders or whether you do it informally, every Jesus follower, every lover of God, will be involved in teaching the next generation to obey the Great Commission.

What do you think is the best way to train people to obey?

I think we’ll miss the real importance of this question if we jump right to the questions of technique. We should not be so concerned about how to lecture, what materials to use, or how to create a syllabus. Our primary purpose should be life on life, or live-learn experiences, teaching with the goal of obedience.

The paradigm from which we operate our training is what will determine our results. Have you considered the results of the past century or so of seminary training for church leaders?

From my studies of leadership emergence, the history of the church, and my personal observations in 30 countries and almost 25 years of faith missions, it is obvious that in many cases the paradigm of training has been ineffective.

To be effective in training emerging leaders to obey, we must begin with full on love for God and a passion to know him. We must be whole-hearted followers fully engaged in the Great Commission. As we respond to God’s love through our own obedience, he will give us the understanding of the most appropriate way to teach every individual emerging leader he brings to us.

Too many have been concerned about knowing Jesus as a means to an end. That kind of teaching will never produce life in our churches. Jesus spoke these words in prayer for you and me, “Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” (John 17:3)

By:Scott Tompkins

Dr. Karl Watts, who took a year out of medical school to do a YWAM Discipleship Training School in Kona, was recently honored by the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) as its 2010 Family Physician of the Year. The award annually recognizes an outstanding American family physician “who serves as a role model to other health professionals.”

Dr. Watts lives now in Boise, Idaho, where he is president and co-founder of Genesis World Mission, a non-denominational Christian organization that works to meet the physical, medical, and spiritual needs of the less fortunate in Idaho and around the world. His DTS in 1986-87 took him on outreach to the Philippines, and he has since done medical missions to Kenya, India, Haiti, Honduras and Guatemala.

“My mom and my academic advisor weren’t pleased when I took that year off to do DTS,” he recalled. “But it was a God-ordained time in my life. It set the foundation for my relationship with Christ.”

He said he still has all his notes from DTS and often refers to them. “The teaching, fellowship, intercession and field work from that experience are the energy behind my work today.”

When the only free clinic in the Boise area closed its doors in 2002, Dr. Watts led Genesis to open up the Garden City Community Clinic. He regularly volunteers at the clinic and recruits other medical professionals to help at there and on overseas missions. In 2007 he was appointed to the Idaho Governor’s Select Commission for Health Care and the following year he was recognized as the state’s Family Physician of the Year.

Dr. Watts said he’s honored by this attention, but says he’s just doing what the Lord led him to do. “God has orchestrated it all.”

For more on his work go to: www.genesisworldmission.org

John Henry has a contagious love and passion for Jesus and his call to make disciples of all nations. John will inform and challenge your group to re-align your vision and programs toward God’s plan and purposes. His high content and inspirational presentations will help every participant focus on what is really important in life, love, and learning.

Through carefully customized presentations designed to meet your group’s specific needs, John will help emphasize God’s calling for any audience, aligning career goals with God’s purposes.

In addition to being a mission mobilizer, John has been a frequent guest speaker in churches, conferences, seminars and workshops around the world. John is the founder and international director of the University of the Nations’ Student Mobilization Centre. The Centre was first commissioned internationally at the UofN Workshop in Korea in 1997. John serves a growing network of over seventy YWAM university ministries in over thirty countries.



Following the Youth With A Mission foundational value of “first do, then teach,” John brings nearly 25 years experience “doing” what he teaches. Since 1985, John has been a faith-missionary with experience in many different aspects of church, missions, and leadership, especially among university students.

Since 1989, John has learned many essentials for spiritual formation and leadership emergence as he has coordinated, equipped, and mobilized seventy-five student teams from over 100 colleges and universities from nine nations to serve and learn alongside long term field projects on short-term internships in over thirty countries.

Through various lecture and activity presentations, John not only shows people what to do, he teaches and models how to think Christianly and listen to God’s heart. If you want a tested witness of God’s faithfulness in Christian ministry and mission with experience in over 30 countries who approaches learning from an integrated relational perspective, invite John to come share his life with your group.


John and his wife, Mary, have three children, two boys, and one girl adopted from China. As a Christian parent with active involvement in his family’s education and local congregation, John is also in touch with the daily challenges confronting families, young people, and churches. John is able to share through experience what works, what doesn’t, and what makes the difference in your family, your Church, or ministry group.


Education: MA Global Leadership, Fuller Theological Seminary. 


Experience: Speaker (Since 1983) Short-term Outreach Leader/Trainer (Since 1987) Church/Mission Consultant (Since 1989). 


Keywords of all John’s messages include: Faith, Calling, Mission, Learning, and Leadership

General Topics include: Careers, Ministerial Training, Education, Culture, and Leadership & Motivation.

Most Requested Topics:

1. Call to Relationship: Hearing and Responding to God

The heart of every relationship is found in four essential elements. Without a working familiarity with these elements, relationships eventually break down. Listening to God is urgently necessary if we are going to understand our value, our identity, and our purpose in life. Until we have that relationship with our Creator, we will struggle in virtually every other relationship. This most vital relationship is not merely for our own benefit, however. It is necessary to have a living relationship with God in order to have a living relationship with our families, our friends, our neighbors, our leaders, our teachers, our church community, and every aspect of our world, including our physical surroundings.

This message will penetrate through the non-essentials to help participants respond to God’s initiative of grace in relationships.

2. A Biblical Christian Worldview

Worldview is more than what we see; it’s how we see. John will surprise your group as he leads you into a worldview learning experience. He will help you discover how learning happens and how to understand worldview and how it influences every area of our lives. John leads his audience into a path of discovery, emphasizing the role of personal relationship in the learning experience. John will explore revelation, paradigms, and the four basic questions of worldview. However, this lecture is not a presentation of a simple reduction of philosophical concepts; it is an exposition of the breadth of worldviews, from materialism to spiritism, in contrast with a Christian worldview. Your group will discover together, through small group discussions, the relational nature of learning and the impact worldview has on every sphere of society.

3. Leadership and Collaboration: State of the Church in the 21st Century

The world has changed. Have you noticed? John brings his experience, his travels and ministry in thirty countries in four continents over the past twenty-five years, to his message on Leadership and Collaboration. His studies of culture, theology, and the history of the church will be obvious as he leads your group a thoroughly engaging discovery of the major waves of mission advance during the past 200 hundred years including global shifts which have occurred during the twentieth century. Your group will examine the implications of the significant shifts of the Western Church and the Church of the Global South. In so doing, he will present the need for a new kind of leadership for the Church, and the need for partnership and collaboration in the 21st century.

4. Being Sure about God’s Calling

Where do you fit in God’s unswerving plan to make disciples of all nations?

God is calling you to do kingdom works that he has planned and prepared for you and your community. The Creator of the universe desires you to work alongside him as he crafts his work on planet earth. In this lecture, John Henry shares about finding your place in fulfilling God’s plans for your community and for the nations.

What do you think of a God who creates everything, and then tells his creation to “name” the things he created? Incredible. Adam was not created to serve God; he was created to rule and reign as a co-creator with God.

When we innovate and consider alternative perspectives, we are creating with God. We are encouraging vision. This kind of creativity is what makes the Church a people and a community on mission with God. 
 
The nomenclature we use, naming things, is one of the greatest gifts of God; we’re given the privilege of naming things. It’s not an exclusive task for just a few, to avoid confusion. It’s a task given to all. That shared responsibility of naming things, and the shared creativity that ensues, is the process of creating culture, I believe. It’s happening all around us, and it can’t easily be contained or controlled to avoid confusion. 
 
Confusion may be a temporary, though necessary, part of the process of transition, liminality, and stepping into a future together. 
 
Certainly, the Children of Israel did not know all that was before them when they were delivered from Egypt. They entered into a transition in the wilderness. Nomenclature from the past carried meaning of the past and habits and sins of the past. Finding terms for what God is wanting to do next is an exciting process I would hope we could all embrace and explore with faith and hope and love.
 
Moses didn’t just say, “Let my people go.” He completed the phrase, “that they may worship God.” Ultimately, we’re on a journey to ascribe greatness to God. He’ll receive glory as we follow him in faith, so long as we don’t hold too tightly to security of the ways we knew.
 
I have been using this phrase a lot: The Church does not have a mission, God’s mission has a Church. 
 
As we step out into that unknown future, as Abram did, we are the people of faith God called us to be. 

Henri Nouwen describes a new kind of leader, one who is the “articulator of interior events” leading people spiritually from the inside out. Are we preparing this generation of leaders in the church? Nouwen writes, “The first and most basic task required of the minister of tomorrow therefore is to clarify the immense confusion which can arise when people enter this new internal world… Most [leaders] are used to thinking in terms of large-scale organization, getting people together in churches, schools and hospitals, and running the show as a circus director. They have become unfamiliar with, and even somewhat afraid of, the deep and significant movements of the spirit.” Will the church be accused of failing “in its most basic task: to offer men and women creative ways to communicate with the source of human life”?

I recently read Brian Stanley’s new book “The World Missionary Conference, Edinburgh 1910 (Studies in the History of Christian Missions).”

I read this book wondering what may have been learned among Protestant church mission leaders during the 20th century. My biggest question as I read this book: DID THIS EVENT “ENLARGE THE STORY”? In other words, was the presence of “younger churches” heard? Brian Stanley has provided a thorough and useful study, a snap shot of the state of Christian Missions at the height of Western Christendom.

Probably the most important appeal made at the conference was that the “individualistic view of the missionary task must now be ‘entirely abandoned’.” (p.133)

I have selected some excerpts for those interested in what happened at that event.

p. 4 – “…however vibrant the state of missionary passion among the evangelical public may have been in 1910, the intended appeal of the conference was not to the popular Christian imagination so much as to the concentrated attention of serious Christian minds. “A Grand Council for the Advancement of Missionary Science.”

p. 16 – Two intermingled voices of the conference:

The first and most audible – boundless optimism and unsullied confidence in the ideological and financial powers of western Christendom.

The second – “the more muted and discerning voice, heard periodically throughout the text of the Commission reports, and deriving from the more astute serving missionaries whose questionnaire replies formed the raw material for the reports. The voice spoke of crisis and opportunity, of challenge and competition, and occasionally even of threat and danger.”

p. 25 – “emphasis was to be on study and consultation by the leaders of the foreign missionary forces of the world concerning the large and most vital questions of missionary opportunity and policy.” (Apparently following the template of the Shanghai conference in 1907)

p. 33 – Eight Commissions – reports allowed only 7 minutes.

p. 99 – If the African churches were deemed to be insufficiently ‘advanced’ to merit their own representatives, it was not simply because these churches were young in years, but also because their members were thought to be starting from much further back in the process of human development than were Christian converts in Asia. Africans were regarded as “primitive, childlike, and at the bottom of the evolutionary hierarchy, relatively unimportant in the future of the world church.”
There were no Africans present and no one noticed.

p. 108 – The young Chinese made a profound impact, even “disturbing” through two speeches. … urging … not to be afraid to allow Chinese Christians to assume the challenge of sustaining and managing its own life. Cheng’s second speech to the debate of the report of the Commission VIII on “cooperation and the promotion of unity” – “Without question, the best speech.” Cheng presented a vision of a church in China without the denominationalism of Europe. Was this the beginning of post-denominationalism?
Was Cheng correct saying denominationalism and nationalism limit apostolic missionary power? If so, how do we now respond 100 years later?

However, some commissioners, including Gairdiner, pushed back – claiming Cheng was “artless” and apparently naive of fundamental ecclesiology.

p. 111- Nationalism issue emerged with Japan’s delegates. “The spirit of nationalism, so deeply stirring in all lands, found utterance again and again at the conference. …China, Japan, India must bring their own traditions and their own passion of patriotism into a Church of Christ, truly become also the Church of China, Japan, India. Missions exist to make missions unnecessary.” Japan especially demanded autonomy.

p. 112 – Rev Dr. Harada Tasuku (studied at Chicago, Yale, with Ph.D in England and Germany.) Prof. Japanese History, Literature, Language – Dean of new dept. of Asian studies at U. Hawaii. Spoke three times at Edinburgh – Expressed his indebtedness to western theology, while arguing for uniquely Asian expressions of Christianity. He argued that “a church’s expression of faith should grow naturally out of the distinctive Christian life and spiritual experience of its adherents.” He urged that christianity’s should teach bible without too much of our interpretation, and then be patient as well as watchful to await the outcome of the Christian life in non-Christian lands.”

p. 113 – The heart of Harada’s paper was an exposition from an organic liberal Protestant perspective of the essential qualities of the three Asian nations could offer to the body of Christ.

p. 123 – Samuel Azariah – Anglican from S. India – very upset about his 3rd class treatment during his travels, later being told to dress in a turban, etc.

p. 124 – Made remarks with this backdrop “The problem of race relationships is one of the most serious confronting Christianity today.” He went on to complain of ‘a certain aloofness, a lack of mutual understanding and openness, a great lack of frank intercourse and friendliness’ between European missionaries and their national Christians.

p. 125 – He identified the problem as the “financial structures of mission movement.” Which he revealed was a “failure of basic Christian spirituality.”

p. 128 – This speech was the first shot in what became the campaign against missionary imperialism.

p. 130 – Speer’s review of these key Asian speakers was that “true listening to their message had been, at best, partial.” Speer had a “progressive enthusiasm” for “a substantial modification of our interpretation of Christianity.”

p. 133 – Important general conclusion – “individualistic view of the missionary task must now be ‘entirely abandoned’. The church on the mission field could no longer be regarded as a mere by-product of mission work, but the ‘most efficient element in Christian propaganda.” – The church was not simply the goal but also the instrument of mission.

p. 136 – church structures and emergence of new “overtly episcopal role of missionaries” among independent Baptist and Congregationalists guaranteeing voice for laity.

p. 145 – only one Indian church being wholly self-governing, self supporting, self propagating in Orrissa
Baptist do not have power over churches, so no transfer necessary

p. 160 – theology “must be written afresh for every fresh race” and “not misrepresented as if it were no more than a precipitation from the antiquated text-books of the West.”
“what was conspicuously lacking was a ‘living form of Christian knowledge’ …

p. 163 – “a vigorous theology..is likely to arise…”

p. 176 – “three aims of missionary education – evangelization, edification, and leavening”

p. 164 – “the churches of Europe & america should…give “full authority” to modify western forms…”

p. 195 – The vision of heaven is one where the cultural gifts of the nations are brought to the holy city

p. 198 – determined mission boards should not emphasize leavening function of christianity education

p. 216 – Howells saw no comparison between Christianity & Hinduism, rather approach should be the commendation of the person of Christ.

p. 222 – Hogg rejects view that Christianity is fulfillment of Hinduism.

p. 224 – The missionary should point out differences, to “upset the equilibrium of Hindu consciousness” -a dialectic approach offering Christ as Satisfier to those with a newfound sense of need.

p. 228 – Gaidner (Anglican expert on Islam) said it’s explicit attitude was to “supersede” the original Revelation of Jesus. Therefore, not compatible.

p. 229 – “Islam is the greatest direct contradiction of christianity.. (and) could not be said to be a preparation for christianity.”

p. 236 – The Commission found nothing in Africa “fetish belief” that was a help, consolation.

p. 238 – Most respondents saw no congruence with tribal high god and Christian deity.

Why should individuals and teams develop collaborative, inter-organizational approaches to Christian ministry and projects serving the needs of the poor?

If emerging leaders have a desire to work together and to accomplish more than previous generations of leaders have done within their own organizations and churches, a new default understanding of leadership is needed.

Leaders will need to focus together on the various factors directly affecting collaboration. They will need to identify and develop the collaborative capacity of their own organization. This is no simple process.

Collaboration is birthed through God’s initiative. God is calling a new generation of leaders that already have the tools for collaboration, especially through Web 2.0 social networking. God is also raising up a new generation of young leaders who understand the power of sustained faith-filled prayer. This is exemplified in Campus America’s Wilder Project.

To respond to God and to begin to truly collaborate, these emerging leaders must examine the sequence in which a spirit of trust is cultivated so that ministry organizations can work through limited achievable objectives and goals, and find a balance of task and relationship.

This process of developing collaborative capacity will involve five stages: preparation, exploration, formation, operation, and transformation.

Example of a Collaborative Process to Reach a People Group:

Initially, a visionary leader is concerned that ministries to an unreached people group could be more effective. The exploration stage begins with patient research for relationship building, identifying key ministry organizations, past histories, cultures and context. This advocate connects with God and with leaders through prayer, listening and interviewing key players, and cultivating trust.

The formation stage will begin with a meeting with influential leaders. All must clearly understand the objectives and expectations for the first gathering. The purpose is to cultivate collaborative spirit by praying together in small groups, encouraging individual input, and providing feedback so that all will get the big picture and trust builds. These leaders will decide whether to move forward with a common vision, values, and a common data set.

Deciding to “go,” a core group will then guide the partnership into the operation stage. Maintaining consensus, they will define roles, responsibilities, guiding principles, and develop action steps for “easy wins.” The challenge is to develop competence, reliability, and faithfulness.

The transformation stage emerges when systemic issues are addressed. The perception of unmanaged complexity and plateaus emerge, because a series of single point projects will not lead to transformation. True integration will cause systemic changes, even within ministries, which have been defensive or reactive in the ministry environment.

Transformation can occur as the structure remains fluid, able to adapt to the changing needs of a complex environment.

Now, consider what collaboration would look like on a university campus. This is one of the key issues of our School of University Ministries & Mission scheduled to run at YWAM Madison, Wisconsin (Jan. 4 – Mar. 26, 2010). This 12 week training module is part of Youth With A Mission’s University of the Nations. If you have completed YWAM’s Discipleship Training School, you are eligible to join us. Find out more.

Do you need to find a “happy optimum” between push and pull of being a part of your home church and being your own distinctive person with a calling and experience in your wider community? Does your work or school life look like a mission field to you? Perhaps you have a desire to start a bible study, prayer group, or plant a simple church in your community? Pursuing that desire will likely require that you will have to say “no” to appeals to volunteer in your local church.

Does your hope for your own community, your work, school, and neighborhood, make you feel like that your concern is in opposition to the needs of your local church?

This is the tension many of us are experiencing today. Why? While some mega-churches are still serving the needs of our culture attracting large numbers of evangelicals to a market-based church program, the attractional model of church is no longer effective in our growing post-christian culture. To put it simply: It’s a great time to be THE church, but it is not a good time to be A church.

This presents a tremendous personal challenge to us, and especially to pastors. Many will simply not understand your desire to engage your world and network beyond the local church. Some may find self-esteem and safety within the local church. Some will already find acceptance and significance within the church and therefore not have a strong sense of need to extend their relational group. The more successful and “tight” the church group, the less likely it is that some would sense any need to extend their relationships.

Those of us who reach beyond our church communities are in a dynamic tension called Optimal Distinctiveness. Optimal Distinctiveness is the desire to be identified within a group and distinguish oneself from the group. This is the dynamic tension, this shifting identity, distinguishing oneself from the local church group, is part of the process of a new missional spirit in a post-Christian world. This is a spirit of collaboration.

If you are experiencing this dynamic tension, you need to learn the spirit of collaboration. You must be able to balance your identity within the context of collaboration, working with other groups and ministries outside the local church. To explain, let me share a bit of my own journey.

For 24 years, I have been serving with Youth With A Mission. I have worked with and among many church groups, mission agencies, and student organizations in over 30 nations. All the while I have extended the “fame” of my own spiritual father, my pastor, George Isley. He died a few years ago, but he continues to be my model of pastoral ministries. Over the years, I have come to realize a significant part of my identity was shaped in that local church and with that pastor. Meanwhile I have also found a significant part of my identity in the extended inter-group ministries I founded with Youth With A Mission, the Student Mobilization Centre of the University of the Nations. Though it was often a challenge for me to find the right approach to ministries outside the local church, the spiritual identity of a humble servant-leader modeled by George Isley continues to be my standard. To sum up, I have not followed the model of the popular itinerant preacher with products to sell and a slick appeal for an offering. The spirit of collaboration is not self-serving; it develops trusting personal relationships, freely giving, serving, and loving in the Spirit of Jesus.

As faithful believer in Jesus Christ, our ultimate responsibility and loyalty is to the Great Commission and our Servant King Jesus. We must continue to respect the amazing work that God has done and is doing through our local churches and pastoral leaders. However, our commitment and loyalty to Jesus and his mission must be greater than our commitment and loyalty to our own denomination, local church, and even our pastors. Reaching out in the spirit of collaboration is not a disloyalty to the local church; it is a greater commitment to THE global church.

You could appeal to your pastor for “permission.” Though it is difficult, you could also appeal to your pastor’s own human need to extend relationship beyond the boundaries of the local church. Your appeal to your pastor will reveal something to you; it will reveal your own search for personal balance.

The challenge will come when you are expected to continue to work in your local church and perhaps meet your pastor’s expectations. I want to leave you with a few recommendations:
1. I recommend that you clarify your identity, the identity God has shaped in your life as a committed member of your local church.
2. I also recommend that you take it slow. If you change too fast and too much, you may find yourself ostracized or excommunicated from your home church.

This is the topic of the next several posts. Let me know you are reading and post your questions, suggestions, and testimonies.

Pope Innocent 12th, 1243 AD said, “Universities are rivers of knowledge that feed and fertilize the universal church.” The attitude of the church toward universities, including the UW – Madison, was at one time positive. “We do not want to repeat the errors that have come from not revisiting the theological and biblical underpinnings of our mission.” (Taylor 2001:7) The mission for the Church in Madison is to make disciples of all nations, including the powerful institution of the university.

“The way of the Christian leader,” Henri Nouwen writes, “is not the way of upward mobility in which our world has invested so much, but the way of downward mobility ending on the cross.” (Taylor 2001:9) The challenge of the cross today, is to enter the halls of the universities as reformers. Luther, a professor in a university, never intended to be a reformer. Christian professors at the UW may be unwilling, however these professors may be called to be the leaders in a reformation that is as significant for the university as Luther’s was for the church.
Prophetic engagement with the university is underway through various agencies, such as New College in Madison led by Vern Visick. The challenge is to allow that prophet call to stimulate apostolic response. The apostolic call to the Church in Madison is to engage global issues. With effective church partnership, for example, a challenge could go out to the Church in Madison in response to the global HIV/AIDS crisis: “If you adopt an HIV/AIDS orphan (of which there are over 10 million today), the church in Madison will sponsor that child’s education.” “If the Church of Jesus Christ rises to the challenge of HIV/AIDS it will be the greatest apologetic the world has ever seen,” writes Ravi Zacharias. The Church in Madison’s acceptance of a new apostolic call to engage the university with its influential role in the world, it will present a powerful apologetic of the love of God and the love of our global neighbor.

Ray Bakke points out that an “incarnational servanthood” model presents a “unique and profound combination of Jesus as message and Jesus as model.” (Sider 2004:137) Families opening their homes to students will counteract globalization’s isolating effect, for the host and the student. My wife and I have hosted internationals in one way or another since we were married in 1988. Relationships with students from Japan to Colombia, Ethiopia to Indonesia, and China to Saudi Arabia have been cultivated at our dinner table, living room, and backyard BBQ. This kind of hospitality, friendship with the foreigner, is biblical. It’s loving our global neighbors.

When the church responds to the opportunities for international relationships at the university community, she will find herself more apt to pursue answers to desperate social issues, presenting a more hopeful message.

The growing global need for pure water reveals our interdependency and our call to environmental stewardship. Because the “goal of the church’s holistic outreach is the transformation of people, communities, and society for the glory of God,” water is a primary operating theme for development.

The Au Sable Institute, a biblically based Wisconsin Idea, is pursuing a vision to help develop livable cities, energy-efficiency, and rising standards of living around the world. Au Sable presents a view of God that comes from the revelation of creation. By our faithful stewardship of God’s creation we witness to the world that our faith is real. The church is marginalized in influence in as much as Christians have little revelation of the God of the material world where environmental issues and global poverty are very real.

“The Christian answer to the educational problem must be given in unity with the answer to the problem of personality and community…it must point men (sic) toward such a community as is sufficiently concrete and commanding to claim the hearts of individuals and masses and yet also sufficiently transcendent and universal to embrace all human ideals and possibilities.” (Tillich 1988:18)

Why is it sixty-two percent of the churches in Madison, including ten congregations with one thousand or more weekly attenders, identified no missionaries serving on mission fields? (Jericho 1997:7) Perhaps the lack of significant cross-cultural engagement is the result of an insufficient biblical model of the church. Perhaps the weakness of the “modern” church is the preoccupation with growth and size as a measure of success. Many say that “bigger is better”, but this has no biblical foundation.

The church is a complex system, “a living organism.” The church is called to bear fruit. Jesus taught us the “mustard seed” principle, which like complexity theory “illuminates the long-range significance of small actions.” When individual decision is made the foundation of church identity, the fruit that is borne is a culture of individualism. Individual choice and personal need becomes ultimate, rather than the unswerving purpose of God to share his mercy with every person in every culture. To begin to overcome this culture of individualism, one must first deny self and then lead a community of believers to do the same. Only then will the church fulfill her mission.

With no epistemological base on which to build, the secularist in Madison grasps for a utopian future in which tolerance is the ideal. This ideal, however, is inconsistently applied to those with fundamental Christian beliefs.

Since September 11, 2001, the UW has created opportunities for dialog with the world of Islam. The vision and history of Mohammed contains the implication of violent Islamic expansionism; non-Moslem territories are Dar Ul-Harb, or the “Sea of War.” From the Maghreb to Pakistan, the jihad, properly translated as “struggle,” for a new world order is underway. How should the Church in Madison respond? Several families in Madison, some of whom are Christians, befriend and/or host Muslim students who come to the UW or seek to learn English at the Wesli school. Christian mission has always been the expression of the gospel across cultural barriers, including hospitality to strangers. The opportunity for such gospel witness in Madison is significant, since over 4000 international students attend the UW.

The secularized Madisonian may fail to recognize the conflict within a pluralist culture is more than modern, economic, political, or ideological. William Taylor writes, “We cannot seek harmony by revitalizing the truth claims of religions. We (must) commit to be agents of reconciliation.” As agents of reconciliation, we must see that we are in the midst of a spiritual war with amazing biblical promise:

“In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria (modern day Iraq). The Assyrians will go to Egypt and the Egyptians to Assyria. The Egyptians and Assyrians will worship together. In that day Israel will be the third, along with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing on the earth. The LORD Almighty will bless them, saying, “Blessed be Egypt my people, Assyria my handiwork, and Israel my inheritance.” (Isa. 19:23)

Rather than react to the forces of secularism and pluralism, the Church in Madison has opportunity to proactively respond by loving our neighbors in the public arena of the university community.

The Madison Senior Pastor Survey conducted in 1996, found eighty-four percent of the congregations placed “some” or “a lot” of emphasis on meeting the needs of the poor. (1996:7) Madison area Christians may disagree, however it is obvious that their standard of living has gradually increased so much that they are blind to the influence of materialism. Living in the comforts of Madison, it is difficult to see the effects of materialism. Until we are shocked into awareness by a trip to a country, and not to the confines of a typical tourist hotel, where the annual income is less than an American child’s allowance. Those who earn more than ten thousand dollars per year share the top ten percent of the world’s wealth. (Barret 2001)

Michael Budde writes, the “Protestant ethic is dysfunctional in the consumption-driven postmodern era.” Budde adds that the apostle Paul’s admonition has been turned on its head in our materialist economy; it “dictates that if people will not eat (and drink, and buy compact discs, the latest in fashions, and home appliances) in sufficient volume, then no one will work.” If the Church in Madison does not allow herself to be shocked out of her slumber, she will fail to be effective confronting the desperate human needs of the world.

The good news is that technology has opened new vistas of communication and broken down centuries old barriers to the gospel. “The Information Age is boundary blind,” William O’Brien writes in his article “Mission in the Valley of Postmodernity” (from the book ‘In Global Good News: Mission in a New Context’). O’Brien adds, “There are no unique continental or regional areas identified exclusively as ‘mission fields’.” Easy access to people of every nation and culture is suddenly made available through the world wide web.

This access provides opportunity for the flow of up to the minute information for prayer, generous giving, and a deepened understanding of the plight of peoples around the world. However, as desperate needs cascade across our computer screens, there may not yet be sufficient spiritual equipping for the Church in Madison to respond appropriately.

How does globalization undermine the ministry of the Church in her context in Madison and her strategic influence at the University of Wisconsin at Madison?

Probably the greatest hindrance to effective ministry is split thinking. Paul Hiebert describes this problem in his article “Spiritual Warfare and Worldview” from The Iguassu Dialogue. He writes, “The worldview of the West is shaped since the 16th century by the Cartesian dualism that divides the cosmos into two realities – the supernatural world…and the natural material world of humans, plants, animals, and matter.” (Hiebert 2001:169) In his book, “The (Magic) Kingdom of God: Christianity and Global Culture Industries,” Michael Budde describes how dualism is the “greatest internal obstacle to revitalizing the Church’s sense of mission and commitment.” This split in thinking has also divided the Church. Sadly, followers of Jesus either see no need for intellectual pursuits, asking the difficult questions, and working to solve social problems, or they have little interest in an intimate relationship with God.

Because the church has been divided, many well-trained believers do not know how to relate their faith to their everyday lives. They feel divided between private interests, such as church, spirituality, etc., and public concerns, such as economics, politics, environment, etc. This split has resulted in a greater distance between the Church and the world.

A profound opportunity has emerged, however, with regard to the Church’s exchange with the university community. Today’s apologists, reformers, and missionaries should understand the cultural metaphors without which, as Alasdair MacIntyre writes, would “deprive children of stories” and “leave them unscripted, anxious stutterers in their actions as in their words.”

Budde points to the opportunity for story telling in post-modernity. His view is that the post-modern era has given the Church freedom “to take its own values and commitments seriously, to be different in the world, and to tell its stories.” Budde sees the recent changes in social theory as freeing scholars who can do what they are called to do: “explore problems we care about…that passion and commitment are preconditions for (and not barriers to) important intellectual work.”

How do people react to individualism, environmentalism, and poverty in Madison? These forces may be at the same time subtle and powerful. Globalization is having a paradoxical effect, connecting people and resources through technology and isolating people in reaction to the enormity of global needs. “As the [global] demand for water continues to increase, there is greater pressure placed on an already shrinking water supply,” says Joel Pedersen, a UW-Madison environmental chemist. “More people are considering the reuse of water.” While most expect individual freedoms to continue, others are sounding the alarm to warn us that individualism in Western culture is a major contributor to global problems. In Madison, research on water resources, HIV/AIDS, and global poverty is churning in the laboratories of the University of Wisconsin. How should today’s Jesus follower respond? Followers of Christ believe in community, but most have so aligned with the culture of individualism that they take little notice of urgent global human needs. Jesus said, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Perhaps, like the Pharisees of Jesus’ day, evangelical believers in the 21st century should ask “Who is my neighbor?”

Secularism and pluralism present a problem for the notion of progress. The Wisconsin State motto is “Forward,” calling all subjects of the state toward progress, including the university. But how can a society move forward without acknowledging its own history and knowing the core beliefs that produced it. If the core of belief is supplanted by the state itself, it will soon fail to produce the “good” it purports to do. In his book, “The Spiritual Situation in Our Technical Society”, Paul Tillich writes “education without a determining center is impossible. The nation became the ideological center that demanded absolute devotion, though itself was above criticism.” (Tillich 1988:17)

Once the state became the central defining institution, all religious influence was sequestered into the private arena, hidden behind stained glass windows. Os Guinness writes, “Secularization is the process by which religious ideas, institutions, and interpretations have lost their social significance.” How shall Jesus followers in Madison respond? Do they stir up their confidence in Jesus’ victory by redoubling their spiritual exercises, attending to religious duties, and gathering in religious settings? Or should they instead return to the God of their fathers who interpreted the words of the Lord for a public arena?

In that public arena, we no longer find the predominant values of a society informed by Biblical principle. Madison is home to many religious groups with very different values. Pluralism is what exists when there are “a competing number of worldviews available to its members, but no worldview is dominant.”

With no roots or absolutes, people in Madison represent “all religions and no religion;” they are “seeking for a sense of roots, an affirmation that there is something bigger than the existence we know-something of ultimate value.” In his book, “The Soul of The American University,” which traces the history of the secularization of American universities, George Marsden calls for academics of religious faith, including those in Madison, to re-think the connections between their faith and their scholarly endeavors.

Madison is progressive, leaning forward into a vision of the future with little reference to Biblical values. Without that Biblical reference and religious values, what should we expect to be the result of that progressive vision?

Marsden’s challenge is to re-think, and re-interpret a progressive vision of the future by reviewing the vision of those who have gone before us.

Scientific advances are the fruit of discovery, however the need for direction is just as great for a poor society as it is for an advanced to society. While “technical reason” guided the first cultivation of embryonic stem cells in a lab at UW, the “reason” provides “means for ends, but offers no guidance for the determination of those ends.” (Tillich 1988:6) ”Progress is measured in terms of growth, scientific and technological progress, and the amassing of means.” (O’Brien 2001:16) Madison is mostly affluent and comfortable. With an average two-thousand-two-hundred-square-foot single-family home in Madison costing over two hundred thousand dollars, Madison was rated “One of the Most Secure Places in the Country.” (Farmers Insurance Group, June 2004) That security and comfort may have negative effects, a population averse to risk-taking and entrepreneurism.

Global business is salivating over the millions of potential consumers in India and China. Not surprising, those two nations have been the top two in numbers of foreign students studying in the USA, and the UW has been among the top ten hosts for international students. Since early in the 1970s, the Chinese government has been sending their future leaders to prepare for a consumer focused market economy. Do citizens appreciate the comfort, security, and opportunity Madison, Wisconsin offers?

How does globalization impact the city of Madison? Some may be unaware of the impact. To respond, we need to first understand how our lives have been shaped by Modernism. “During the last decades of the 20th century, an unfortunate overemphasis on pragmatic and reductionist thinking,” significantly influenced by the modern university, “came to pervade the international Evangelical missionary movement.” Responding today requires understanding the way Christians have responded in the past. “Crippling omissions,” such as reducing the gospel to proclamation, created Christianity without regard for culture or the nations. (Taylor 2001:4)

The forces of Modernism created a greater wall of separation between the private and the public worlds. Today, secularization and privatization are powerful influences in culture, which isolate the influence of traditional Christian ministries. The postmodern response appears to reinforce the reaction to modernism. A new response is required.

This discussion continues…

During his 1978 run for governor, the former UW-Stevens Point chancellor, Lee Dreyfus, was quoted saying Madison is “thirty square miles surrounded by reality.” (Moe 1999) There are major “gaps between gospel values and the practices of Christianity in ‘Christian’ Europe” and other formerly Christian territories. (Budde 1997:5) Equally true is the gap between the early gospel values and practices at the University of Wisconsin. A plaque on Bascom Hall reveals the commitment to “encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth may be found.” Etched in the stone of South Hall, is: “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. Class of 1955.”

The following posts will discuss four characteristics of globalization in the Madison context and how they affect the Church in Madison. They are post-modernism; materialism; secularism and pluralism; and individualism, environmentalism, and poverty.

This is the first of a series of posts from a study I performed in 2004 on how the Christian community can respond to the effects of globalization in the city of Madison, Wisconsin. In it I will describe the context and an appropriate missional response. As I review this study with you, I will also post some real time activities and ministries responding to globalization taking place in Madison.

Introduction
Satellite television is broadcasting the notable influences of globalization as global culture industries seek ways to quicken the pace and broaden the demand for entertainment, variety, and convenience. The microchip has ushered Western civilization into a new age of ever more rapid development and information transfer. Modernism, and the “in-between” era of postmodernism, has guided individual participants toward the shared values of materialism, secularism, and individualism, with a vast array of interrelated characteristics of globalization.

Madison, the capitol of Wisconsin, is a city with over two hundred thousand residents and host to over forty thousand University of Wisconsin students. Sometimes called “Berkley of the Midwest,” the UW-Madison has a history of radical student activity. At the time of the Vietnam War, Madison was shaken by a series of student protests. Madison residents can buy organic smoothies at the Library Mall Juice cart run by Karl Armstrong, famed for his part in the 1970 bombing of Sterling Hall, which killed a graduate student of physics. Madison, proud of its progressive thinking and tolerance, powerfully influences state and national politics, philosophy, entertainment, and education. The “Wisconsin Idea” is described as the compelling need to carry “the beneficent influence of the university … to every home in the state.” (Stark 1995) With more than four thousand international students from one hundred and twenty nations, the UW impressively shapes more than Madison; it affects the world. (Bollag 2004)

The examination of how globalization has affected Madison, especially with respect to the influence of the University of Wisconsin, will help us to understand the context in which the Church in Madison is ministering. With that understanding in mind, we will discuss how the Church in Madison ought to respond and what the kingdom of God could look like in a major university community.

Paul’s main concerns in his two letters to the Thessalonian believers, if indeed he did write the second letter, relate to Christ’s second coming. In his first letter, the believers are concerned and despairing over the long delay of Christ’s return. Paul affirms their fame which has spread beyond Macedonia, even though there is apparently little formal church organization. Paul writes to assuage their concerns in Christ’s delayed return, especially their concern for those who have died.

In his second letter, Paul addresses the Thessalonians’ anxiety that Christ may have already returned, a festering eschatalogical confusion. In this letter, he is comforting those suffering under persecution and uncharacteristically speaks of the coming wrath and judgment. This is partially the reason the authorship of this second letter is in question. Paul is primarily addressing apocalyptic issues, which are consistent with his background in apocalyptic Judaism.

The apocalypse will occur with suddenness. Observable events will precede the Messianic coming, Paul assures. Paul writes with an intimate pastoral concern, especially in his first letter. He not only teaches and corrects, he also admonishes with advice regarding behavior. He is writing to the whole community in a letter that has a shared authorship with Timothy and Silas, which he defends carefully to assure that it is written “with his own hand.”

In my view, the demand for certainty has likely caused more pain and suffering, more confusion and disillusion, than any other single assumption in the study of the Scriptures.

The opposite of certainty is subjectivity. Those who fear the loss of total certainty, must not allow themselves to conclude that if the accounts of the events in Scripture are not absolutely certain, they must be a total fabrication. A total fabrication of events is not what we are reading in the Scriptures. It is a limited, value-based, and biased personal understanding of the events that took place.

While I do not agree the events were fabricated, I also disagree with those who approach biblical studies with the attitude that in them they will find pure objectivity. In the New Testament, we learn of the actual events as they most probably occurred through the perspective of “insiders” whose concern for precision will vary from our own.

The notion that certainty and complete objectivity may be obtained in any study, including biblical studies, is a modern myth. Yes, Paul wrote to Timothy with these words: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” (2Ti 3:16) It’s important for us to acknowledge however, that Paul was referring to Old Testament texts. He did not boast of his own letters, even if succeeding generations of believers have properly understood them to be “God-breathed.”

I welcome the evaluative process, measuring the probability that the events occurred as they are presented to us in the New Testament. The value of a thorough historical study, making use of extra-biblical materials, helps us fill out the story with details of the social and religious setting, which is not necessarily found in the Bible alone.

We should approach the Scriptures with humility, recognizing that they are not what we want them to be. Instead, they are what they are and they point us to Jesus Christ.

The Book of Acts is obviously Luke’s continuing historical account transitioning from the story of Jesus to the story of the Church. What’s somewhat surprising is the necessity to foster a theological perspective, or rather a missiological perspective, as you read the chronology of the early witnesses of the Good News to the Gentile nations. The fact is we would not be able to understand the rest of the New Testament without the Book of Acts.

Luke & Acts are primarily historical documents in nature. It is not a pure history. It comes from a limited perspective of what occurred in and outside the community of believers, which expanded throughout the Roman Empire. It should not discourage us to know that we will not find a purely objective history. It is value-based, biased, and a limited view of the events.

Our study of the Scriptures requires respect; no method of study will “correspond precisely to the conviction that the New Testament… comprises the Scriptures of the Christian Church.” (Achtemeier, Green, and Thompson: 12)

By having respect, I mean that we should employ a “critical openness” posture, listening respectfully and responding thoughtfully. We should examine the literary and historical nature of the documents, and at the same time understand their importance shaping the faith and conduct of communities of Christ followers through the centuries and in many cultures.

The letter to the Galatians may be Paul’s most important, representing the life and death struggle for the universal Church. It may have been followed by what may be the most important event in early church history, the Council of Jerusalem.

Paul also exhibits his most combative attitude in this letter. He does not open with any sense of gratitude for the church at Galatia, as was his custom. Paul, instead, must take on those other “teachers” who are presenting a “different gospel”, which undermines Paul’s gospel of justification by grace. Those other teachers were what Paul calls the “circumcision faction” (NRSV), who were demanding Gentile believers to observe the law of Moses, to become circumcised, which is to rely on Jewish Heritage.

Paul had met with Peter, had joined him at table fellowship with Gentiles, and later rebuked him for pulling away from that fellowship when those “Judaisers” arrived. Even Barnabas pulled back and joined in this “hypocrisy.” Paul calls into question the motives of those teachers; was it to avoid persecution or to gain some advantage?

It’s unclear exactly who those other teachers are that are putting Gentile believers under a “yoke of slavery,” but his words for them are as biting as ever. He claims they will “pay the penalty,” that they are “accursed,” and he wishes that they would “castrate themselves.”

Paul declares that the believers who have come under that “yoke” are “stupid” and “foolish.” They are by their actions denying the sufficiency of Christ, the gospel of Grace Paul preached to them. They are willing to “add” something, as if something more were necessary, to their simple trust in God.

Paul’s argument is that everyone, even Jews who do ‘works of the law’ in accordance to their heritage, must abandon their hope for a right relationship with God through trust in any other means, including Jewish Heritage. We must all find our hope and place our trust in Christ alone. Paul argues that Jewish heritage is more than adherence to Mosaic Law. Their father is Abraham, whose faith in God and not his adherence to any law. Therefore, Paul argues that reliance on law is finished for all Christians. The law does not and cannot foster the kind of faith and trust that leads to life. The Law was an imperfect agency, added as a kind of tutor, which identifies sin.

Followers of Christ are to emulate the trust of Abraham. The controversy called for the Council of Jerusalem. The consequences of this letter and this issue had divided churches, and if it had not been resolved, may never have allowed for Gentile believers without conversion to Judaism. The consequences would have dramatically hindered missionary efforts. The core of this issue may be the strong tendency of many Jews to place their trust in their ethnic and religious identity.

Paul’s letter to the Galatians calls us to eliminate all barriers to full religious participation based on race, sex, social status, etc. This is the challenge, I believe, for any cross-cultural transmission of the gospel. For that reason, if this controversy had not been sufficiently quelled, it would have done irreparable violence to the gospel of grace.

Len Sweet has been a prophet to the Church for some time. His voice has been out there in the “wilderness” like John the Baptist. And he’s affirmed other voices too, like Frank Viola and Alan Hirsch.

The word that comes to mind as I read this Jesus Manifesto is the eternal truth that Jesus spoke:

“So, for the sake of your tradition, you make void the word of God.” Mt 15:6

It’s a warning to the emerging church, and all new movements of the church. How did the bronze serpent, originally set up to bring healing, turn into an idol? How have we turned our best practices in religion, even house church, into traditions that make the word of God void?

My wife pointed out to me from a book she finished last night that the root meaning of the word religion is to “bind”.

I looked it up and found it has various roots. In addition to ceremony, it is connected with mystery, or superstition, or fear of demons, or to be troubled, clamoring in fear.

Jesus is not religious. As Sweet and Viola have described, it’s not what Jesus “would” do, it’s what he “is” doing in and through us.

I was asked “Why do you think Paul did not write the Letter to the Ephesians?” Well, there are a series of questions that lead to that one. First, who was the audience? Was it the Church at Ephesus? Possibly not. Why? Because the text “in ephesus” was not in the earliest writings of this letter. This is an important question, because the answer definitely reveals something of the author. The author apparently has no first hand knowledge of Ephesus. (1:15, 3:2, 4:21) There is no reference to Paul’s earlier visit.

Then who was the letter originally addressed to? Was it the Laodiceans (Col. 4:16)? Possibly, but there was no manuscript found with the text “in Laodicea.” 
Was it a general letter to all the churches? This is very possible. “In Ephesus” could have been added later since it was the third largest city in the Roman empire and letters were often circulated in this way. (Eph. 6:21 & 2 Tim. 4:12) Note that all the “churches” in the book of Revelation were centered around this major city of Ephesus.

So back to our question: Did Paul write the Letter to the Ephesians? If it was addressed to Ephesus, then NO, it was not Paul because it reveals that the author does not know Ephesus.

I’m not a Greek scholar, but I’ve read that the style of Greek is different. Many words and phrases are different from those of Paul. The letter is similar to Colossians though. In fact, the author seems to use Colossians as a reference.

So then, why was Paul’s name on the letter? Apparently custom demanded giving reference to the person whose ideas are being used. Writing in Paul’s name would have been a form of citation of reference common in that period.

If not Paul, then who did write Ephesians? It was likely a follower of Paul. Whether we agree on authorship or not, we can agree that the letter is very useful to learn of Paul’s theology. The author is clearly dedicated to Paul’s message. It was someone who obviously knew Paul’s gospel of grace.

By the time the Letter to the Ephesians is written, the church has emerged as a social and political force. The author, likely not Paul, has identified problems of the universal significance of God’s act in Christ. This letter shares the theme of Romans (Jew & Gentile conflict), but that conflict is apparently fading. There’s little reference to that conflict in Ephesians. However, a wider conflict in the Greco-Roman world has emerged: The challenge of the pagan worldview of pantheism. In this letter, the author argues that Christ is supreme.

This author is not likely to be Paul. Though clearly dedicated to Paul’s message, the author brilliantly outlines Paul’s gospel of grace. The message is Christ and his supremacy. In this letter we find a “representational Cristology”, which is the revelation that we can determine our future based on Christ’s life and resurrection.

The flow of the the argument is in two parts. First, the “Universal Significance of Christ” (1:3 – 3:21), which includes meditations on the meaning of Christ and the revelation of God’s eternal plan, with the presence of Holy Spirit as guarantee until inheritance. Christ is described as “head” of creation and of the church, but Christians sit with him in heavenly places. Therefore, Christians are free from the prince of the power of the air. God’s mysterious and eternal plan has always been Christ’s death & resurrection.

The purpose of the Church, then, is to make the mystery known, to declare the outcome of Christ’s finished work. That is, the church is to declare the unity of humanity in Christ, that there is no longer any “wall” or distinction between Jew or Gentile. Through the cross, Christ has reconciled all to God. (4:1-6:20)

The author then directs the reader’s attention to behavior, how we should then live, in light of these realities. Believers need to understand how to relate to non-believers and how to make their stand against forces of darkness. We are called to “live worthy”, functioning as members of a family, with good order, and self-sacrificial love.

Paul’s letter to the Romans may possibly his last letter. To ascertain the historical background, we must understand the purpose of the letter, the audience, and the apparent historical placement or time the letter was written.

Paul’s apparent purpose for writing the letter was to promote unity between the Jewish and Gentile Christians. In the letter, we read that Paul is praying and asking for prayer that Christians in Jerusalem would “accept” the collection, the gift from the churches in Asia. Those churches included, though not exclusively, Gentile Christians. Why was this collection so important? Perhaps in Paul’s mind it would legitimate his “mission” to the Gentiles? Perhaps he believed it would unite the church, if only the church in Jerusalem would acknowledge the Gentile church? Certainly this was part of Paul’s eschatological vision, the role of the Jews in history, fulfilling Israel’s destiny to be a “light to the nations” and be a “blessing” to every nation and people.

In addition, Paul’s purpose was to introduce himself, in anticipation of his pending visit. He also hopes they will support him on his journey to Spain. Mostly, however, he desires to bring reconciliation between Jews and Gentiles. Paul is not necessarily addressing Jews. His audience is primarily the Gentile Christians who had become leaders in the Roman church. He writes them in order to share his apologia on behalf of the Jews.

The Letter is written after Claudius, the Roman emperor, had expelled Jews from Rome. (Acts 18:2) Jews then returned to Rome after Claudius died in 54AD. During that time Gentiles became the leaders of the Church. Some acted superior. This raised questions in the minds of Jewish Christians of the legitimacy of the Gentile church.

Paul states his thesis in ch. 1:2-4, which is his theme throughout his ministry. Paul defends the universality of the gospel’s significance. He later restates this theme in ch. 11:32: “God has enclosed all people in disobedience, in order to have mercy on all.” The primary purpose and message of Romans is to state that the gospel of mercy is available to Gentiles as well as Jews. Paul apparently never visited that Roman church.

Hebrews is an “elegantly polished” text, which is “removed from the world of the Modern reader.” This book serves as a pastoral letter, which exhorts Christian believers, a “pilgrim people,” to “persevere” and to continue to grow. Though the letter is Pauline in content, he is not the author. Instead, the author is likely to have been associated with Paul. This author is an educated Jewish person trained in Greek philosophy and exegesis. This person is clearly an authority in the church with an important word for an increasingly diverse, though clearly the author’s contemporary Jewish audience, probably in Rome. This letter refers to the “tabernacle” more than the “temple”, with references to the “wilderness” through which the “pilgrim” community is venturing and can reach their destination “today.” This treatise, which describes the Hebrew Scriptures as “alive and active”, is clearly describing the realities and promises fulfilled through the finished work of God in Christ. The author outlines three key Christological arguments; Jesus is “superior.” Jesus is superior as the Son, the Pioneer of our Faith, and the High Priest. God has spoken in the past through angels, but now he speaks to us through his Son, the agent of God’s creation and revelation, in these “last days.” He shares our humanity, yet he is the heir of all things, who receives the promise on behalf of all human beings. As a superior pioneer, he has gone ahead of us, blazing a trail for us to follow, doing what we could not do. After the order of the priesthood of Melchizedek, he is a “perfect” high priest, who was made perfect through suffering, and can make our consciences perfect through his perfect offering made once for all.

CONCLUSION
The Christian life is characterized by struggle; however the readers of Revelation are given hope. Revelation is not an eschatological timeline predicting future events; rather it is a prophetic call to be vigilant, faithfully following Jesus Christ’s example of being truly human. What is Left Behind, or rather is removed, are those created beings and the “elemental spirits” over which Christ triumphed (Gal. 4:3, 9; Col. 2:8, 20) and those who reject Jesus’ universal invitation. Jesus leads his churches to look forward toward a new reality. Churches are exhorted to remain faithful, especially in the face of hostility. They are roused from their temptation to be comfortable in their surroundings. They are called to remain committed to Christ’s vision for all humanity. Revelation is plainly understood as a call to be faithful and obedient. It is not a mystery, or a road map to gain access to heaven. Revelation is a testimony of Jesus, calling the reader to exalt and worship him by every means, following his example and his eternal purpose to become truly human beings.

REFERENCES

Achtemeier, P. J., J. B. Green, and M. M. Thompson. Introducing the New Testament: Its Literature and Theology. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001.

González, J. L. Santa Biblia: The Bible through Hispanic Eyes. Abingdon, 1996.
Suter, David W., Harper & Row Publishers., and Society of Biblical Literature. Harper’s Bible Dictionary. 1st ed. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985.

Witherington, B., III. New Testament History: A Narrative Account. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.

Wright, N. T. What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997.