Keep in mind that this book was first written in 1927 for those engaged in foreign missions… (and as such is probably very relevant for a post-christian context)

Allen asks how can the gospel spread (in foreign countries) if there is always presupposed to be a need for paid missionaries, buildings and infrastructure? The gospel that we desire to see spread is actually hindered by these things because they communicate a mode of operation that is not possible by locals.

As I read Allen today he saying that the greatest hindrance to the gospel being the penetrating force it could be in society are overly controlling leaders who refuse to believe that the Christian faith can spread spontaneously without falling into disorder. He argues that there is natural order about the spreading of gospel seed and it is our egos and desire for control that prevent its effectiveness.

We as leaders in our desire for control actually circumvent what we say we hope to achieve.

A few quotes:

P. 12 "Many of our missionaries welcome spontaneous zeal provided there is not too much of it for their restrictions"

P. 13 "We instinctively think of something we cannot control as tending to disorder"

P. 14 "That we often ascribe absence of missionary zeal to the incapacity of our converts rather than to that restraining influence is sufficent proof of our blindness. That we at once pray for the manifestations of zeal on the part of our converts and instinctively shrink from steps which may tend to realise it is rather sad and surprising. The force indeed is so strong as to be alarming".

Much of what Allen says falls in line with Hirsch’s ideas on the role of the apostolic leader being that of creating the field for others to operate in – being the one who gives permission for the spontaneous expansion rather than being  the bottleneck thru whom others must pass.

One of his compelling arguments is that we actually stifle the passion of new Christians by seeking to molly coddle them and keep them safe – by not really believing that they are quite competent to ‘propagate the faith’. He writes of the missionary method of bringing in teachers to educate the new converts – teachers who often had none of the zeal of the first missionary and by the time the deadpan ‘teacher’ is finished with them these  new converts a) believe evangelism is for experts b) no longer care because they are bored shirtless.

I have to say that as a leader I would love to see spontaneous expansion – the gospel out of control like a wildfire but I am one of those who is anxious about losing control over where it goes.

Why?

Maybe because then what happens won’t bring kudos to me or ‘my church’…

Bloody pathetic hey?

I can only say that sounds and feels a lot like sin.

free tapioca movie download

How can the EMC and the Established church co-exist?

Actually a prelim question actually relates to what we see the EMC as being. There is so much divergence on this one issue that to answer the original question might be tricky.

Anyway here are my thoughts as to how we can work together:

• Recognise we are all kicking the ball the same direction – we are actually on the same team… this is critical if we are to see any kind of synergy.

• Accept that everyone will not see the world way we do and that does not make them an ‘inferior’ being or someone who lacks an understanding of scripture. This cuts both ways. Emergent folk can be pretty harsh on est church people and est church people can be very dismissive of EMCers. Lets not judge each other simply because we have different opinions of scripture. Who’s to say my/your opinion is the right one?…

• There has to be more open dialogue. In a sense the EMC are those without power ie. they lack resources, numbers, identity etc. However EMC folks actually hold an incredibly powerful position in this whole scenario because they are the new ‘cool’ (whether they like it or not) and in our world ‘cool’ always trumps ‘established’… Unless we talk and keep good lines of communication I can see us in danger of wielding our respective powers to smack each other around a bit. That’d be very sad.

• I believe the Est church needs to seek to resource the EMC and set leaders free to experiment with new projects. This will mean $$$ and risk. But investing in the R&D folks will send a very strong message that there is some level of belief in both the project and them. In return the EMCers will need to adjust unneccessarily adversarial rhetoric, not to compromise their own beliefs, but to accept that there is a place for some of the est church.

That’ll do for now!