Mark Russell

Freaked Out By Bio Technology

Mark Russell — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 11:43:11 -0700

I’ve been a part of the Lausanne movement since I attended a Lausanne Younger Leaders Gathering in 2006. Coming out of that congress, some of my new friends and I started a conversation about what it means to be an evangelical and did we want to be one. Some of that conversation has taken the form of a book called Routes & Radishes And Other Things To Talk About At The Evangelical Crossroads.

One of the things that prompted the conversation and frustrated me with evangelicals were the somewhat narrow views regarding social engagement. From what I experienced social engagement was either defined as simply telling everyone to get saved or promoting 2-3 “values” that coincidentally aligned with the political platform of a particular party.

I decided in order to stay in Lausanne and in the evangelical movement, there needed to be some significant progress in processing and articulating thoughtful social engagement. If our faith is true, surely it has implications for everything we do.

To be a part of that process, I became a member of a couple of Lausanne think tanks, one the theology working group and other, the newly formed, Government, Business and Academy think tank (GBA).

At one of our first meetings here in Cape Town we were treated to a presentation by Nigel Cameron, President of the Center for Policy on Emerging Technologies in Washington, DC, and a Research Professor at the Illinois Institute of Technology.

According to Nigel, there are not many people of faith thinking deeply about bio-technology. I know that I haven’t. But after listening to Nigel I am completely freaked out.

Don’t get me wrong; Nigel is not a bombastic over the top guy. In fact, he is your typical reserved Brit who didn’t raise his voice one decibel his entire presentation. He spoke with a frankness and calmness that made you feel like he was giving you directions to the soda machine.

However, he was spelling out how bio-technology has the radical potential to change our lives.

He said that in the next 7-8 years we will see changes as radical as we have seen in the last forty. The speed of technological advancement is getting faster and faster. The potential for creating human beings and manipulating human beings is becoming increasingly more effective and easier. We are not at the end of the technological revolution but rather we are at its beginning.

Most notably, he said there will be radical life extension. In the western world, the average life span has nearly doubled in the last generation. This will probably continue.

The power and efficiency of recreational pharmaceutical drugs will radically improve, giving us greater powers to manipulate and control our feelings.

The ability to create virtual realities will get close to perfection paving the way for brain to brain communication.

Artificial intelligences will not be a thing for science fiction novels. They are right around the corner.

He cited, Bill Joy, the founder of Sun Microsystems, who said that through technology we will either destroy ourselves or create robotic creatures smarter and superior to us.

It’s not that I have never heard any of this before. Well, frankly I hadn’t heard all of it before. But what freaked me out was that I was being told all of this by a stoic Brit who had seriously researched the topic and had occupied esteemed research positions in recognized universities. Nigel is no reactionary alarmist. He is a thoughtful intellectual and when he says our world is about to change as we know it, I believe him.

Another thing that freaks me out is that I have never thought about this and from what Nigel says there are not many people of faith thinking about it either. Remember the old phrase, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good people do nothing."

But I have hope because there are some people here in Cape Town, South Africa who realize that we can no longer lounge at church for an hour a week and count that as a meaningful faith. For our faith to be anything of significance it means bringing it to bear on the most challenging questions of our day.

What is World Evangelization?

Mark Russell — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 11:36:54 -0700

Travel is one of my favorite activities and experiencing other cultures is one my greatest passions. But with kids and a wife I actually enjoy, long haul flights to Africa and beyond have become something of a burden. After taking six such trips in 2009, I decided it was time to slow down, well actually just quit.

When the opportunity to participate in the third congress of Lausanne, what Christianity Today called the most diverse gathering ever in Cape Town, South Africa, I wasn’t sure if I should go. Normally, I would be ecstatic to go a place I’ve long heard about and experience a multitude of cultures at one time, but the sixty hours on airplanes and 12 days away from home, gave me some pause.

But there was something else that gave me hesitation. Lausanne calls this gathering, the third congress on world evangelization. While I definitely believe in sharing my faith and in people’s rights to convert to other faiths, and, furthermore, I’ve recently co-authored a book on evangelicalism identifying myself as a part of the movement, I am still nervous tossing around terms like “world evangelization.”

There are really two reasons why: First, the phrase can carry a sort of “conquering” implication that is, frankly, creepy at best and horrifying at worst. As if we, Christian people, are out to make everyone like us.

Second and perhaps, even more serious for me, as a person of faith and a follower of Christ, is that evangelization has been frequently defined quite poorly to mean simply a cognitive assent to some doctrinal beliefs in order to seal a deal to obtain a get out of hell free card.

This type of evangelization reveals a reductionistic view of the gospel that I believe is far from what is intended when one reads the words of Christ.

Despite my hesitations, I opted to kiss my wife and kids good bye and make the long track to other side of the world. Now that I am here, I am definitely glad that I have made the trip.

What I see and hear is a fresh awareness of the complexities of life and the reality that our faith is a way of life that we are to live with genuine love for our neighbor, not merely something we are somehow obligated to impose on people who don’t really care.

In recent years through active missions the evangelical church has done a tremendous job in spreading the gospel message geographically around the world. Now, I think the time has come to integrate the gospel of love into the various spheres of society, because we take it seriously that Jesus prayed, “Father, may your will be done on earth as it is heaven” (Matthew 6:10) We take it seriously that Jesus said, “Heal the sick who are there and tell them, 'The kingdom of God is near you'” (Luke 10:9).

Evangelization does not simply mean spreading the message of salvation, but of love as well. A love that drives us into slums, ghettos, and bordellos, to seek and save those that are lost and in need of healing. A love that drives us to be kind to people on the street, embracing of those that are different, compassionate to those with questions, and gracious with those who disagree.

Right now in Cape Town, South Africa, there are nearly 4000 people that get that and that’s why I’m glad I came.

Lover or Fighter or Both?

Mark Russell — Fri, 08 Oct 2010 13:15:58 -0700

A recent post of mine on whether we should love God or fight for him, got some push back from a friend on my facebook page.

His primary arguments are that:

1) the biblical warfare worldview is basic to all biblical revelation and prescription.

2) I created a false dichotomy between loving God and fighting for Him i.e. surely we can do both.

3) I was "fighting" against the "fighters" as I tried to promote love

Here are a few quick thoughts:

First, the Bible makes quite clear that we battle not against flesh and blood (Ephesians 6), therefore any biblical battle motif cannot be construed to apply to human interactions.

This is further seen in Christ's refusal to fight, his rebuking of Peter when he cut the ear off the Roman soldier and embodied by the early church who did not fight eye for eye or tooth for tooth and instead followed Christ's example and command and turned the other cheek.

Second, agreed that two apparently contradictory things may not be in contradiction i.e. fighting and loving. For example, I love my children but I discipline them. However, that is a "paternalisitc" relationship and it not necessarily appropriate to extend that to all relationships. However, as a society we still need judges, courts, etc.. and in church we need boundary enforcers to root out evil doers (abusers of children, powermongers, gossips, etc..) and protect innocents even though our call to love the evil doers is not lessened.

Nevertheless, saying that disciplining, boundary enforcement or even fighting is consistent with love takes a lot of nuancing as they are not clearly always consistent with love. In fact, I do not think it is too audacion to say that they are rarely consistent with love and are generally consistent with humanity's desire to control one another.

Even when there is a necessary confrontation or speaking against, it shouldn't be attacking and it should be done in love and most importantly, we continue to see more fighting than love so we need to just get love on the agenda as much as we can.

For love to get on the agenda, we will need to start talking about (the reasons for my blog posts) and be willing to give concrete examples of how we can do it and that involves pointing out the error of the culture war/religious warfare framework that is so detrimental to the cause of loving God and others.

It'll be a great day when evangelicalism is more identified with love than it is with fighting or 'being right.'

To Love God or Fight For Him? or What is Evangelicalism?

Mark Russell — Fri, 08 Oct 2010 09:28:00 -0700

What is evangelicalism? It's a term that eludes clear definition and is something that some of my friends and I have tackled in our forthcoming book, Routes & Radishes and Other Things to Talk About at the Evangelical Crossroads.

The question is raised once again with the recent Christianity Today cover story on Al Mohler that unabashedly refers to him as a reformer, invoking thoughts of Luther and Zwingli. Mohler is the president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. He has been a chief architect of the conservative revolution of the Southern Baptist Convention and the primary promoter of the new Calvinism (note: a SBC church ordained me and my wife and i were SBC employees for 6 years).

Mohler has been undboutedly very influential (more so than many people would like!). Nevertheless the title "The Reformer" has to be considered exceptionally overblown.

Scot McKnight wrote a post making some interesting observations on the CT article. His main point is that evangelicalism is changing and it could be changing in the direction of fundamentalism rather than then in a more inclusive direction befitting of the "big tent evangelism" of Billy Graham, et. al. who emphasized focus on core gospel issues rather that excluding people on the basis of theological particularism like the age of the earth, role of women in the church, etc...

McKnight rightly points out that the big tent evangelicals are not "fighters" but the new guard of folks like Mohler and others in the SBC are "fighters."

This raises what I think is a very key point. When one group fights and another group doesn't, will not the fighting group advance farther and faster? This is what appears to be happening and what furthered the conservative resurgence in the SBC and in the evangelical movement at large.

So, what should we do, if we feel comfortable being evangelical but uncomfortable with some of the direction it is moving?

First, I think it is helpful to remember that the first commandment is to love God, not fight for Him. I still scratch my head all the time at how under-discussed the topic of love is in evangelical circles and how quickly evangelicals rush into fight mode.The idea of fighting for God should be completely alien to us.

Second, evangelical is just a term or label. Who really cares what happens to it? I mean it has some value. But I have decided that I will be an evangelical as long as I get to say what it means. If it's up to others to decide what it means and if that means I have to be a Calvinist, complementarian, young earth creationist, I'll probably pass even though I would support having Calvinist, complementarian, young earth creationists as a pat of the evangelical fold.

Third, in lieu of the commands to love God and neighbor, we have to focus on that and not fighting or resisting the 'fighters.' God's way is always better.

Fourth, people tend to tire of the 'fighters' thus their influence while at times enormous is generally temporary. Jerry Falwell and James Dobson are examples of people who millions loved and followed but whose influence waned because everyone tired of their fighting ways. If fighting remains a central part of anyone's church/social engagement they too will become tiresome.

Evangelicalism is changing; that's for sure. Hopefully, the evangelical future will consist of more emphasis on loving and less on fighting.

What are your thoughts on the direction of evangelicalism? What about the tension between fighting for your beliefs and loving others?

Should Christians Practice Yoga?

Mark Russell — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 08:51:10 -0700

Recently, my wife, Laurie, started taking yoga classes and has gotten a lot out of it. (you can see some of her comments here).

Years ago, I heard Christians murmur against yoga as an “eastern” or “spiritual” practice that ran against fundamental Christian teaching. I never concerned myself with it since I didn’t really care much about yoga.

But now, my wife is a fledgling yoga darling and I am increasingly seeing my need for it. All of this got me remembering the good ol’ days of warnings against yoga and got me reflecting again.

Mohler’s argument is essentially that yoga is a New Age practice and you can’t really divide the exercise from the spiritual purpose. He cites postmodern spiritual confusion for the reason many Christians (like my wife!) ignorantly practice it resulting in a form of syncretism meaning the mixing of religions.

As passionate as Mohler seems in his position, I’m prone to disagree for several reasons.

First, Christianity is fundamentally an eastern religion. These were the first words out of my wife’s mouth when I told her about Mohler’s blog. The context has that truth ringing deeper in my mind than ever before. As much as modern Christians imagine Christianity as a “western” religion, its roots are undoubtedly eastern.

References to Daniel praying three times a day and to meditation in the Scriptures shows that our historical practices of prayer are quite similar to those of other religions.

As a result, we have nothing to fear because of the “eastern” origins of a practice but it is rather something we can learn from. Perhaps it can even shake us out of the “western” captivity of the gospel.

Second, all truth is God’s truth. In many Christian circles there is a certain refusal to accept any part of another discipline if it doesn’t affirm every single aspect of Christianity. You can see this with science. In other words, some churches reject scientific teachings because those teachings don’t culminate with affirming orthodox Christian teaching.

A more balanced and reasonable approach is to realize that every discipline is imperfect and we should strive to take what is good and noble and reject that which is not. In the case of yoga, flexibility, building body strength, and exercise combined with relaxation and stress removal techniques is good and something we all need on a periodic basis and a part of the "sabbath" principle in Scripture. Granted some yoga tries to direct one’s energy toward other spiritual teachings and that’s what we should guard against. There is no need to throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater.

Third, Mohler’s blog reveals an even deeper and more troubling aspect, namely a black-white or good-bad way of viewing the world. Just because an activity or even a religion does not affirm Jesus Christ as the way, the truth and the life does not necessarily mean that it is all bad. Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism all have aspects that we should all learn from and redeem.

Life is more grey than many of us care to acknowledge. Living in the grey requires more discernment and humility and is often times more difficult than the black-white world. But it is a more honest reflection of reality.

Fourth, Christians have a long history of re-purposing “pagan” practices. The Christmas tree is a notable example. It would have been hard to divide the tree from its pagan roots, but Christians did. Many of our hymns were adapted from “worldly” bar tunes, even Amazing Grace. So, history has shown us that certain things can be used for new purposes without detrimental spiritual confusion resulting.

Fifth, Mohler’s blog carries the implication that we can be accidentally duped into engaging in a false religion. While undoubtedly there are many people who do not have spiritual clarity about what they believe or what they are doing, the idea that we can be worshipping another god against our knowledge seems quite dubious. I doubt anyone is accidentally worshipping Satan because they have a Christmas tree.

Sixth, as yoga has moved mainstream, there are now plenty of centers and instructors that are devoid of the religious/spiritual aspects of yoga. Mohler acknowledges this but says that you can’t really divorce the spiritual from the physical in yoga. I believe that is true for the Christ follower as well. If you do yoga to the glory of God then it’s a spiritual act. As yoga is secularized or even repurposed as a Christian act, we are again reminded that our spiritual loyalties are a matter of the orientation of our hearts and not the historical origins of our preferred exercise routines.

I would have posted all of this on Mohler’s blog but his is the only one I’ve ever seen that does not allow readers to post comments. Hmmmm….

Does the Earth Care What We Do To It?

Mark Russell — Wed, 15 Sep 2010 08:38:12 -0700

One of my most favorite social commentators is George Will. Recently I read an article from him that said that the earth doesn't care what is done to it or for it. His main point is that over "geologic" time (i.e. extended time millenniums, millions of years, etc..) what we do to the earth is so minimal as to barely register. He notes the amount of rain that falls on the earth to illustrate that we should all be flooded out yet we are not drowning on a global scale.

The article raises some good points when one thinks about the big picture and that is necessary from time to time. Comparing our present few generations to geologic time, George Will is right (i believe) that whatever happens will just be a blip and the earth will survive. After all the earth survived ice ages. We can be so short-term near future focused that we forget to look at history or into the future 20,30 even 1000 years.

This can work in two ways. One way it works is that we become alarmist and think that everything will fall apart in the very near term. While things can go array, a more balanced perspective is to realize that while there are bumps along the road, we can still make the trip.

A second way this works, however, is that we neglect responsible environmental stewardship because we don't look beyond our present situation to see the unintended consequences of our actions.

The earth did survive an ice age, but would it not be terrible for us all to go through another ice age? So I suppose it's really a decision of what is the issue: 1) altering the earth over geologic time or 2) having an unnecessary environmental impact that could seriously alter our lives in the near term future.

A lot of the environmental rhetoric tends to get fuzzy on what the goals are. Global warming is a complicated issue and I don't know what the remedy is. (But I do know of a book coming out in a couple of months that we should all read.)

Regardless of where you come down on global warming, there are numerous reasons why we need to reconsider our use of fossil fuels:

1) dependence on unstable regions of the world (Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Angola, etc...),

2) complicated extraction methods which among other things lead to oil spills or the death of coal miners,

3) dirty air leading to respiratory illnesses and general unpleasentness,

4) social dependence on a non renewable and depleting resource, etc...

So for me global warming or the fear of altering the earth over geological times is not the issue as much as it is being a good steward of God's good creation and keeping the bigger picture in mind for our children's lives.

What are your thoughts on our current environmental situation and use of fossil fuels?

Why Christians shouldn’t burn the Quran or the NIV Bible

Mark Russell — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 18:32:17 -0700

News is rippling around the Internet regarding the Quran burning plans of Rev. Terry Jones and his Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida. Reverend Jones (who will henceforth be referred to as TCMUO for The Completely Messed Up One) has announced that they plan to symbolically burn the Quran on September 11, in order to demonstrate their displeasure with our accommodating foreign policies and to confirm their conviction that Islam is of the Devil. The plan has generated such a response that their church website has crashed. Unfortunately, it appears that their plans have not.

Now burning books out of protest is nothing new. In fact, the Nazis did it regularly during the Gestapo. So for anyone interested in burning books, the Nazis can serve as a good role model for you.

In fact, Christians have typically burned more of their own books than those of other religions. Check out this one church, aptly named Amazing Grace! They burn the NIV and other “satanic” versions of the Bible.

Ninety-nine percent of Christians with a heart beat and a half functioning mind know that this is completely ridiculous stuff. (Although, I must admit I am attracted to the idea of using the KJV version more often as I’ve really been looking for a new way to say ass more often in church.) Nevertheless, the impact of a few, including TCMUO, can have an enormous effect on others.

Here are just a few reasons why Christians should do everything they can to encourage, TCMUO and his wacko amigos to stop. And if they don’t stop, we need to use all means necessary to let everyone know that we are completely opposed to this stuff.

1) Loving God and loving our neighbor sums up the commandments.

Because of these words, Christians are called to a higher standard than anyone else. Loving our neighbor means many things, but most poignantly it means we don’t trash his/her religious faith and burn his/her holy books. That’s sort of love your neighbor 101. But I kinda think TCMUO missed that class. (oops was that not loving?)

2) Christ said to love our enemies.

Muslims are not our enemies. In fact, I think they are our neighbors. According to Jesus there really are no “enemies.” However, he invokes that terminology (Mt 5:44) because he knows there are some people who cannot eradicate it from their vocabulary. For those people I include this point. The end result is the same: Love is our calling which means (note the repetition) we should not seek to offend by burning holy books.

3) The Golden Rule

The golden rule is do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It’s a practical way of articulating what it means to love others. So, if we don’t want anyone burning our holy books then maybe (just maybe) we shouldn’t do it to them.

Those are my top three reasons which are more theologically based reasons. Here are three more “practical” reasons why.

1) It deepens the "us" versus "them" divide.

After 9-11 I remember a TV shot of some Muslims in Palestine dancing that the thousands of Americans had died. I remember it because our TV networks showed it over and over and over again. They did this, of course, because viewership (and advertizing rates) skyrocket around such controversial themes. However, at the end of the day, it was really just a few folks (side note: as a traveler to over 70 countries I have become completely convinced that idiocy is everywhere!).

At the time, I had many friends and colleagues living and working in predominantly Muslim countries. Ironically, every single one of them told me that their Muslim friends expressed sorrow and pain for them. I even talked to some tourists in Pakistan who said everywhere they went, people came up to them saying how sorry they were.

But it only takes a few of “them” to act like fools and for “us” to be fooled by our own media. The same thing is happening and will continue to happen in the other direction. Right now, Muslim Imams and others are justifying anger and hatred toward Americans and Christians because of TCMUO. That’s downright painful.

When you read Jesus he played to the “us” versus “them” scenario a lot. However, he always made “us” the bad guys and “them” the good guys. It was a powerful rhetorical tool that eventually got him killed. After all if he had talked about how bad the Romans were (like everyone wanted him to) then he probably would have achieved the “king” status others were expecting.

Interestingly, the parable of the Good Samaritan which symbolizes what it means to love one’s neighbor plays extensively on the “us” “them” categorization tendencies that we still have today.

2) It confuses nationality and religious boundaries.

In what can only be considered unfortunate, there is a lot of confusion over who “us” and “them” really are. Us is sometimes Americans and other times Christians (side note: these are not the same things!). Them is sometimes Muslims and other times Arabs (side note: these are not the same things!).

As news of the Quran burnings spreads around the world like a wildfire (stupid pun intended), there is increased confusion over this. We, Americans, become a bunch of fundamentalist Quran burners in the minds of many. I’m not sure our non-Christian fellow citizens will like that either.

Apparently, a lot of the reason TCMUO is burning the Quran is to protest weak foreign policy (I suppose two wars totaling 16 years of combat is not enough?). That just starts the religious-political fusion and confusion.

Christians need to proclaim that we are not the same as Americans and vice versa.

3) An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

Apparently Ghandi said, “An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.” I know this because I’ve read it on some bumper stickers. Regardless of whether or not he said this it is a true statement and is consistent with the teachings of Jesus to turn the other cheek.

Frankly, the cycle of violence continues and gets faster because both sides feel completely justified in their actions. Watching the Quran get burned will justify acts of violence against Christians who had nothing to do with it. The cycle continues with Quran burnings justified because some wacky Muslims killed some innocent people. Round and round we go on a not so merry go round.

Before we move on, it should be noted that there is a biblical verse that speaks positively about burning books, namely Acts 19:19:

Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver.

(note: out of fear of having my blog burned I have used the KJV version. Unfortunately, this verse did not contain the word ass.)

This is a verse used by book burners to justify the action. However, this is very different than contemporary book burning. The books (referred to as scrolls in the satanic NIV version) that were burned were books that were owned by the burners and were a part of their previous personal religious practices. This means they burned books that they themselves used in a previous religion. (note curious arts is like witchcraft or sorcery)

Thus the act of burning the books completed the transformational conversion from their pagan religion to faith in Christ. That is comparable to, say, a former Hindu burning his idols at home, not to say, a bunch of fundamentalists in Florida led by TCMUO burning the Quran!

Despite these obvious reasons why Christians should oppose the Quran burnings there are a couple of reasons why we need to allow it:

1) Freedom of Speech

Burning the Quran is a constitutionally protected act. So long as it does not accompany proclamations to incite acts of violence (which is a possibility), this should still be a legally protected act. Along with burning the NIV study Bible!

Freedom of speech is very important something we should protect. It is a powerful mechanism in preventing human oppression (even if it causes some in the meantime) and is a fundamental component of a free society. Besides without it, we couldn’t make jokes about our presidents which is the main reason Communism didn’t work.

2) Freedom of Religion

If a religious person wants to burn books and pronounce someone else the devil, they should be allowed to do so (so long as this is not to incite violence as previously stated). But that doesn’t mean we all just sit there and watch it.

Part of a free society is the right to oppose a certain act without legally forbidding it. Ideally, I would be in charge of determining what morons can be spokespeople for a particular religion, but that would take a lot of time and a free society means that people can practice whatever religion they want, regardless of how wacky (this is something we are doing quite proficiently in America!).

So, where does this lead us?

Here is what I propose:

1) Let the Muslim world know that we love them and are appalled by this ridiculous PR stunt.

2) Let the Muslim world know that this is really the act of a small marginal dysfunctional group that is totally rejected by mainstream believers.

3) Let the Muslim world know that we stand for freedom of speech and freedom of religion and that they are welcome to live their faith in our country. But unfortunately that means TCMUO can as well. And it’d be great if the predominantly Muslim countries could join us in promoting religious freedom.

4) Let us pray for peace. For Christ came and preached peace for those far away and those who were near (Eph. 2:17).

Entrepreneurialism and God's Mission

Mark Russell — Thu, 27 May 2010 19:34:38 -0700

There comes a day when we sit back and ask ourselves what we are going to do with our lives. In a sense, I’m still asking myself that question. But many years ago, while studying Spanish as a university student in Paraguay, I felt a nudge, a call if you will, to spend time in cross-cultural contexts advancing the gospel.

At the time, I had no idea what that entailed. The only role models I had to look to were the missionaries I had met and gotten to know in Paraguay. They were either medical doctors or preachers. As a business student, it seemed I would have to leave behind my business interests and develop a new set of skills.

Thankfully, I’ve always been good with language and have enjoyed speaking and teaching so over the years, that became the primary focus of my ministry. But a few years into my overseas ministry, I began to ask myself some new questions about why couldn’t one be a businessperson and a kingdom builder at the same time?

At the time I was working in a traditional missionary setting, but quickly found a lot of people resonated with my search to integrate business and mission. Later, I realized that people all over the world were working independently to the same end. It seems God is up to something.

Through the years as I’ve worked in various BAM activities and researched/interviewed/talked to others who have likewise been engaged, two points have emerged as worthy of pondering.

First, Westerners tend to live according to categories that are not always beneficial. This tendency is not limited to Westerners but is expressed more strongly there. This is the sort of categorization that leads us to designate one person a “missionary” and another person as not.

For example, ask most people if the Apostle Paul was a missionary or an entrepreneurial businessman. They will tend to reply that he was a church planting apostolic missionary or something to that effect. Nevertheless, a close study of his life and work reveals that he was both. For many of us, it’s difficult to accept that so some in the church have taught over the years that Paul worked as a tentmaker solely for financial purposes i.e. to pay the bills so he could preach the gospel.

However, a closer look reveals that Paul lived and breathed the gospel everywhere he went and generally he went and worked as a tentmaker. Paul was a tentmaker because that is who he was, who he was designed by the Designer to be.

Our categorization causes us to force choices we should not have to face. Should a businessperson have to choose between their work and serving God? Nonsense. We can and should do both.

Second, we have troubling definitions of what it means to be engaged in mission.

This is particularly problematic when one realizes that the truth is we are all called to be on mission with God. It is not a unique or special call, but a reality that we should all recognize. It is worth noting that to “be on mission” is not the same as “going into missions.”

One of the unfortunate side effects of “categorizing” life is that we shift what should be ultimate into a category. Mission is one of those things. Frequently it is understood that missions (note the s) is serving in ministry in a cross-cultural context.

Mission is different. Mission is being engaged with whatever God is doing wherever you are. That is what we are all called to do.

This means that our job or location can change but our mission should not. Maybe someone should change careers or locations, but that’s not at all necessary to be on mission.

These two points, our pension for categorization and our inadequate definitions of mission, are primary factors in what has prevented millions of Christian businesspeople from being actively involved in business as mission. When we realize that we are all on mission and our location or vocation does not matter, then we are released to be more fully and actively involved in mission as businesspeople.

Recently, I traveled to a foreign country and confused some missionaries when I said there greatest hope of reaching that country for Christ was to convince the local entrepreneurs that they were contemporary Apostle Pauls. They were a bit confused because they considered the work of Paul (and of contemporary Apostle Pauls) to be focused on a church-based ministry as opposed to a marketplace one. Furthermore, they assumed mission or missionaries had to be cross-culturally engaged.

It is worth noting that globalization offers businesspeople everywhere to be engaged with businesspeople everywhere else. Thus we have a unique opportunity to be engaged in cross-cultural work like never before. Sometimes without even moving.

Not too long ago, I worked with a consulting company that set up a new company for a South African in Thailand. No one moved to Thailand, yet the South African sources shirts and what not from there. This was all arranged by Americans. Almost every week, I have conference calls with people in India or China or somewhere else. When we open the door to globalization, we see a brave new world with a bright future of opportunities.

Despite these wonderful opportunities for engaging cross-culturally, I still believe that our greatest hope is showing entrepreneurs all over the world how they can be engaged with God’s mission right where they are.

It is sometimes tempting to have grandiose imaginations that have us speculating about big scale multinational endeavors. But the truth is that most business is conducted through small businesses on a local level and most people come to Christ through genuine relationships with people they know and trust.

Business as mission should be focused on that reality.

Jesus in the Workplace

Mark Russell — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 14:56:32 -0700

There seems to be a serious conflict with our current lives and strongly held concepts about church and ministry.

So many churches that I know of, which are actually great churches, hold to a local church-centric view of ministry. This means that the goal of the staff is to get the lay people involved in ministry, which is defined as either volunteering at the physical church location or through church organized service projects in the community.

Undoubtedly both of those are valuable and needed avenues. However, this is really what I call "faith addition", living your faith means 'adding' certain activities to your already busy life.

The contrast to this is "faith integration', living your faith means integrating your faith into whatever you are doing.

The average church goer in America spends 70-80 hours a year at church. The average work week is getting close to 50 hours a week or 2500 hours a year. If living one's faith means doing things at church then we are not on a whole living our faith very much.

If however, living our faith means following Christ in everything we do, everywhere we are then the doors have opened to a deeper, more meaningful conversation.

As a result, it seems we need to take seriously what it means to follow Jesus in the workplace.

Thoughts?

Preach the Gospel Always. When Necessary, Use Words: Part 2

Mark Russell — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 16:11:47 -0700

A while back I wrote a blog post on the often cited quote, “Preach the Gospel always, when necessary use words,” which is attributed to St. Francis of Assisi.

The blog addressed a difficult and challenging relationship of Christian proclamation aka word vs demonstration aka deed.

One inquisitive reader raised the following questions:

1) Jesus seems to prioritize his teaching ministry over his “deed” ministry at various points (e.g. Mark 1:35-39, 3:7-19, 4:1-2 and the parallels in the other synoptic gospels).

2) Jesus seems to describe the ‘self-sacrificial’ life of following him to ‘adhering to his words,’ and doing so is for his sake (which is equated to the gospel’s sake) in Mark 8:31-38.

3) In commissioning his followers, Jesus does not command them to “do good works,” but only to “make disciples” by means of “baptizing” and ‘teaching them all that Jesus commanded’.

4) There aren’t any blanket imperatives in the Bible to “do good works” in a context of evangelism. There are plenty of imperatives to do good things, and good works seem necessarily incidental to those imperatives as a matter of Christian living. But it seems that even in those moments which might suggest a prioritization of works over words or even an equivalency of works and words (e.g. Ephesians 2:10, James 1:19-27, James 2:15-26), the author is subordinating ‘works’ to teaching on ‘faith’ and ‘grace’ (Ephesians 2:8-9, James 1:18, James 2:14). A person comes to faith (through grace) in the New Testament only ever by the Word of God preached and explained (cf. Romans 10:10-17).

These are good questions and I believe represent why so many Christians struggle with fully embracing the integration of word and deed. To further explain my position I’d like to briefly respond to the four questions:

1) Does Jesus prioritize his teaching ministry over his “deed” ministry?

If we look carefully at Jesus, we see the perfect integration of word and deed. I would go so far as to say that Jesus would not even be comfortable with that categorization.

The Mark 1:35-39 passage shows Jesus in prayer, then he goes to preach and at the same time drive out demons. Driving out demons is a form of deed ministry. Thus even in this “preaching” text I really don’t see any prioritization at all.

Furthermore, Jesus was once directly asked for priorities:

One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" (Matt 22:35-36).

Jesus famously responded by saying Love God is the greatest commandment and to love your neighbor as yourself is the second. To illustrate what he meant by loving one’s neighbor he told the story of Good Samaritan in which there is no mentioning of proclamation whatsoever but is rather a story that exemplifies faith in action.

Now I do not extrapolate from this passage that “deed” is more important than “word.” But I don’t see how you could possibly come away saying that “word” is more important than deed.

2) Does the equation of a “self sacrificial” life with Christ’s words mean that proclamation is more important than demonstration?

I would actually say quite the opposite. The Mark 8:31-39 passage shows the interdependent relationship of action and words. If you don’t act (deed) on Christ’s words then your faith is pointless. This passage, like many others, demonstrates that word and deed cannot be parsed out as it is by so many in our contemporary culture.

3) Doesn’t the Great Commission elevate proclamation over demonstration?

Again, when looked at clearly, Matthew 28:19-20 shows us the interdependence of proclamation and action. This passage has frequently been distorted to be a purely evangelistic commissioning. That is unfortunate. The call to “make disciples” is much more encompassing than simple conversion or evangelistic proclamation.

These two verses contain several key action terms (deeds) such as “Go” and “obey all that I command.” Both of these again show that action is what should flow out of teaching or other forms of proclamation. One is not more important than the other. They are both vitally necessary and important which is why we should always be focused on doing both!

4) Is teaching priority to deeds?

The final question raises a number of points which might be addressed more fully in another blog entry. However, for now, I would just reiterate that the categories cannot be parsed out so distinctly.

If the Bible makes clear that we should do good deeds (which it does) then why would we feel the need to make sure that teaching or preaching or whatever else is more important. To me it is kind of like saying which is more important: tell my wife I love her or show her that I love her.

Some husbands may answer this one differently but I think I should do both as much as I can. The same is true to the gospel. What is more important to live the gospel through our deeds or share the gospel through our words? We should be doing both as much as we can.