with some colleagues I have been doing some reflecting the last few weeks on "discipleship" and what we are really supposed to be doing with this thing we call 'church.'
It's interesting to note that nowhere in the new testament are we asked to 'plant churches.' Partly because, if we are 'in Jesus,' we are the Church, the body of Christ; in that sense, God has already 'planted The Church.' What we are given is the mandate to 'make disciples.' Try this... Jesus said,“I’m leaving; the Holy Spirit will guide you; now go and make disciples yourselves – incorporate them into our family and help them learn to be a follower in the same way I taught you!”
So, as we go about this business of 'making disciples,' people are naturally brought into a collective/community setting -- cuz that's how Jesus did it. That little 'called-out', counter-cultural, collective/ecclesia is the setting in which we make disciples. I think our greatest challenge is that we have made the assignment about "initiate a collective and find ways to sustain it," rather than about the real assignment -- make disciples. 
Then we get preoccupied with those elements that sustain a congregation: worship, community, spiritual formation, service, and evangelism -- all necessary, but not the main point of congregational life. Congregational life is just a context to 'make disciples.' But what if we asked ourselves -- is what we are doing (in our congregational life) making disciples?, or just forming Christian consumers/attenders/congregational sustainers (or whatever...)?
Overlay the "things" we do in the name of church in that box where it says 'make disciples' and ask, "are we making disciples as we do these things?"
And that is a profoundly Wesleyan question as well. This is one of my favourite John Wesley quotes:
"What is the end (or purpose) of all ecclesiastical (church) order? Is it not to bring souls from the power of Satan to God, and to build them up in His fear and love? Order, then, is valuable so far as it answers these ends; and if it answers them not, it is worth nothing."
[hang on, for further thoughts on "what kind of disciples are we making, with the things we do?"]
traditional western aid has had its day
Ben Knapen, the minister of international cooperation for the Kingdom of the Netherlands has an interesting perspective on international aid. The Netherlands has an excellent track record of insightful development practices around the world. Here are a couple thoughts from his article in DEVEX...
A third reason behind the disappearance of the old aid architecture is the change in global poverty patterns. To begin with, the number of poor countries is on the decline. The International Development Association, the division of the World Bank concerned with lending money to poor countries, is expected to lose more than half of its clients in the next 10 to 15 years. At present, 68 countries are categorized as “poor”; by around 2025 that number will have fallen to around 36. Most of them will be those tragic places we call “failing states”: Afghanistan, Yemen, Congo and the like.
The idea of spending a proportion of gross domestic product on development aid originated in a world that came in only two flavors: poor countries and rich countries. The aim of development aid was an international and more equitable redistribution of wealth. But the spectacular drop in the number of poor countries shows that the dominant practice of dividing the world into poor countries and rich countries is no longer accurate.
See the whole article here.
January 23, 2012 in Current Affairs, Intercultural development, Social justice commentary | Permalink | Comments (0)