Comments on: cultural disagreement- a discussion between pastors http://www.pastorfairchild.com/2006-10/17/a-discussion-between-two-reformed-pastors-on-cultural-engagement/ Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:45:06 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: brian thomas http://www.pastorfairchild.com/2006-10/17/a-discussion-between-two-reformed-pastors-on-cultural-engagement/comment-page-1/#comment-8872 brian thomas Thu, 19 Oct 2006 17:15:36 +0000 http://david.kaleochurch.org/2006-10/17/a-discussion-between-two-reformed-pastors-on-cultural-engagement/#comment-8872 I think the Missional Helix developed by Van Rheenen is beneficial to this discussion.The helix is comprised of four strands of theological reflection, cultural analysis, historical perspective, and strategy of ministry within the missions environment. As Van Rheenen applies the insights of the helix to strategy formation he notes that missions practitioners should never merely ask “Does a given strategy work?” Rather, says Van Rheenen, “A question that better reflects the Missional Helix Model is: ‘Does this model of praxis reflect the purposes of God within this historical, cultural context?’” Van Rheenen urges the missions practitioner to constantly return to reflect upon each of the elements of the missional helix as complimentary and interpenetrating ways of forming appropriate ministry strategy and praxis. He concludes his discussion by stating that the missional helix, "provides the Christian practitioner with a model of decision-making that is both intentional and instinctive. In other words, the missionary or minister should seek theological understandings, cultural analysis, historical perspective, and strategy formation in the process of developing patterns for ministry." The point of having a missional mindset and ministry is because it is what God desires - no one is arguing this point. He desires to draw sinners unto himself (making worshippers). So the argument centers around the "how" of this - methods. When a missional church argues for contextual worship and practice, it is not about jumping on trends or fads, but about adopting a means/method of communication. Calvin understood this; Spurgeon understood this; Edwards understood this. Their sermons, books, and churches reflect their historical time and culture. They spoke and dressed according the customs of their time. Why then do their 21st century followers not follow suit? God used them as instruments of his saving grace. I think the Missional Helix developed by Van Rheenen is beneficial to this discussion.The helix is comprised of four strands of theological reflection, cultural analysis, historical perspective, and strategy of ministry within the missions environment. As Van Rheenen applies the insights of the helix to strategy formation he notes that missions practitioners should never merely ask “Does a given strategy work?” Rather, says Van Rheenen, “A question that better reflects the Missional Helix Model is: ‘Does this model of praxis reflect the purposes of God within this historical, cultural context?’” Van Rheenen urges the missions practitioner to constantly return to reflect upon each of the elements of the missional helix as complimentary and interpenetrating ways of forming appropriate ministry strategy and praxis. He concludes his discussion by stating that the missional helix,

“provides the Christian practitioner with a model of decision-making that is both intentional and instinctive. In other words, the missionary or minister should seek theological understandings, cultural analysis, historical perspective, and strategy formation in the process of developing patterns for ministry.”

The point of having a missional mindset and ministry is because it is what God desires – no one is arguing this point. He desires to draw sinners unto himself (making worshippers). So the argument centers around the “how” of this – methods. When a missional church argues for contextual worship and practice, it is not about jumping on trends or fads, but about adopting a means/method of communication. Calvin understood this; Spurgeon understood this; Edwards understood this. Their sermons, books, and churches reflect their historical time and culture. They spoke and dressed according the customs of their time. Why then do their 21st century followers not follow suit? God used them as instruments of his saving grace.

]]>