Lay Ministry in the Mission of the Church

This post explores an idea which some missiologists consider to be the key to practical mission and evangelism. Indeed, many churches   currently making a significant impact on their community operate de facto from this ecclesiological first principle.  The idea in question is lay ministry and lay involvement in the mission of the church.



Accessed from morelikechrist.com

Questions raised by the focus on lay ministry

The contemporary emphasis on lay ministry raises a number of questions when it is contrasted with the historical model of parochial ministry within the Church of Ireland.  How do we know that this is not simply a trendy modern approach which will one day pass its sell-by date?  Moreover, is it not really the preserve of one particular stream of churchmanship and practically irrelevant to those outside that tradition?  Indeed, is there any evidence that it is a feasible model for ministry in itself? 

The bulk of this post will involve addressing such questions and attempting to flesh out a rationale for developing and enhancing this approach to ministry within our own Irish context.

Foundations

The main groundwork for any realistic thinking about lay ministry lies in the foundational document of the church, Holy Scripture.  Here we are given both a description of the church as it was then and, arguably, a model for what it should be now.  Writers from a wide variety of theological background (e.g. liberal Roman Catholic scholars such as Hans Küng and Edward Schillebeeckx and that great nineteenth century Anglican exegete, Joseph Barbour Lightfoot) are united in their view that the church has moved away from the models of ministry that were seen emerging in the New Testament.  Indeed, there seems to be a genuine dissonance between some time-hallowed patterns of practice with which we are all familiar and the kind of church life that was current at the beginning.

In contrast to much of what happens in today’s setting,  there seems to have been no indication that one could possibly be a Christian without at the same time being called to some ministry within the church. Thus when Paul writes explicitly about individuals’ involvement in the church in Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12,  his chief concern is to demonstrate that every single member has his or her part to play in the service of God.  All without exception have a ministry. Indeed, that much bandied about phrase ‘every member ministry’ has its origins in these insights given by St Paul to the earliest Christian communities.

The general New Testament picture of church life is that of individuals living out a life of gratitude on the basis of something that God has done for them.  The gospel accounts offer us little cameos of this life of gratitude.  Zacchaeus the crooked tax collector and the lady with the shady past who washed Jesus’ feet with her tears are those whose sense of forgiveness meant an altered life. Fascinatingly,  many of those converts mentioned in the Gospels seem not to be untypical of the early church demographic.  Paul says in 1 Cor 6 verses 9b ff.,

‘Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers …  will inherit the Kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were.’

The model and motivation for life in the church was precisely the model and motivation that the people of Israel were to have for obeying the Torah: gratitude for God’s deliverance.  Certain New Testament words are used to describe the devoted service of the individuals who know themselves graced by God. The most common word is doulos.  This means bondslave and can describe how Paul viewed his relationship to his own converts but more often it refers to his and others’ relationship to Jesus.  Wholehearted devotion to Christ was the only possible response to the phenomenal love  displayed on the cross. The metaphor of slave was extremely telling because in first century Roman culture it indicated that everything about the person’s life was at the disposal of his master.  Both Paul and Peter repeatedly employ this image to describe how the church member is related to Christ.

Perhaps what is most vital to underline is that this term was not simply  applied to the apostles or the church leadership. It was a characteristic description of all Christians without distinction (Rev 1:1; 1 Peter 2:16)  In the years prior to Constantine,  this understanding of discipleship enabled the Church to function as a very effective counter-culture with members busily involved in serving Christ and giving witness to the society.  The achievement of that period was not just the work of the professional apologists. The great German church historian Adolf von Harnack was quick to acknowledge the every member ministry of the early centuries. He declares,

It is impossible to see in any one class of people inside the Church chief agents of the Christian propaganda … we cannot hesitate to believe that the great mission of Christianity was in reality accomplished by means of informal missionaries. (Mission and Expansion of Christianity)

We are given a further glimpse into the lay fervour of ordinary Christians by this citation from a work by Origen.  Here he records negative comments made by Celsus against the sort of informal Christian propagandizing that went on.

We see in private houses workers in wool and leather, laundry workers and the most illiterate and bucolic yokels, who would not dare say anything at all in front of their elders and more intelligent masters. But they get hold of the children privately, and any women who are as ignorant as themselves. Then they pour out wonderful statements: ‘You ought not to heed your father or your teachers. Obey us. They are foolish and stupid. They neither know nor can do anything that is really good, but are taken up with mere empty chatter. We alone know how men ought to live. If you children do as we say, you will be happy yourselves and make your home happy to. (Contra Celsus)

It was in Celsus’ interest to portray the Christian influence as negatively as possible.  However,  despite the negative propaganda, what undoubtedly emerges from historical study of the period is that people from the lowest social stratum were playing their part in the promotion of the faith. 

Alexamenos gaffito accessed fromcarl-jacobson.blogspot.com

A third century picture drawn in the quarters of the imperial page boys on the Palatinate Hill depicts a boy standing in the attitude of worship, with one hand upraised. Underneath is scrawled, in a youthful hand, ‘Alexamenos worships his god.’  The object of his devotion is a figure on a cross, a figure of a man with an ass’s head. Here seems to be an example of a young boy undergoing criticism for his talk of a crucified Saviour.  Written immediately beneath in another hand are the words, ‘Alexamenos is faithful.’ It would seem that without such informal missionaries (as Harnack referred to them), it is doubtful that Christianity could have made the impact that it did on the ancient world.




 

  

The Swiss theologian Emil Brunner, commenting more specifically about the New Testament church itself, highlights the fundamental insight about ministry which makes mission truly possible.

Emile Brunner accessed from inp-biografias.blogspot.com

One thing is supremely important; that all minister, and that nowhere is to be perceived a separation, or even merely a distinction, between those who do and those who do not minister, between the active and passive members of the body, between those who give and those who receive. There exists in the Ecclesia a universal duty and right of service, a universal readiness to serve, and at the same time the greatest possible differentiation of functions. (The Misunderstanding of the Church)

 

Further Pauline images of ministry

Alongside the powerful concept of every member ministry, there is Paul’s acknowledgment of particular ministries which enable leadership of the church and facilitate the building up of the body. In Ephesians 4:18-13, Paul speaks of the gifts of the ascended Christ in these terms:

his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, for the equipment of the saints for the work of ministry, for the building up of the body of Christ.

Some significant themes emerge out of these words. Firstly, church leadership in Pauline thought is plural rather than singular. Not all the gifts of leadership are meant to reside within the person of one or two leaders. The variegated list of ministries given to the church include the following.

 Apostles.  Paul means not merely the Twelve but those who are gifted to found or establish new congregations.  Andronicus and Junia (a husband and wife team) are commended by Paul in Romans for being ‘outstanding among the apostles. (Romans 16:7)

Prophets.  Those with the ability to proclaim God’s message to a congregation.

Evangelists.  Leaders who are able to communicate the gospel message in such a way that other people are able to find faith.

 Pastors and Teachers.   A single unified ministry gift that is embodied in the one person.  Arguably, traditionally ordained clergy have this ministry gifting but the vital point to note is that this is meant to be complemented by other ministries.

Drawing conclusions from the New Testament

The call to ministry or leadership was not primarily cultic (i.e. – the delivery of particular religious rituals and ministrations which ordination had made the priest uniquely equipped to perform.)

The New Testament does not seem to delineate a clear divide between clergy and laity. Indeed, such a distinction might have appeared quite odd to the earliest generation of Christians.  Israel, like every society in the world, had specialized holy seasons, holy places and holy people. However, in Christianity, all three were abolished, or more precisely, universalized.

The keeping of holy days was a matter of indifference to the early Christians (e.g. Romans 14 verse 5,  ‘One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike.  Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind’). 

The church possessed no holy buildings, but met in private houses (Rom 16:23). 

All believers were called to a universal priesthood which the mediation of Jesus had made possible.  Moreover, this abolished the need for an intermediary caste of priests who were somehow in a fundamentally different category to everyone else. One of Anglicanism’s greatest biblical scholars, J.B. Lightfoot, in his celebrated Essay on the Christian Ministry,  underscores the fact that priesthood and that those other good things of the Old Testament had now been gloriously universalized.

The Christian ideal is a holy season extending the whole year round, a temple confined only by the limits of the habitable world, and a priesthood co-extensive with the human race.

He continues in that essay,

For communicating instruction and for preserving public order, for conducting public worship and dispensing social charities, it became necessary to appoint special officers. They are called stewards of God, servants or ministers of the church, and the like; but the sacerdotal title is never once conferred upon them. The only priests under the gospel, designated as such in the NT, are the saints, the members of the Christian brotherhood (1 Peter 2:5,9; Rev 1:6; 5:10; 20:6)  

The Reformation and lay ministry

This notion of universal priesthood, although re-claimed as a theological concept at the Reformation, has not substantially filtered down until very recent years. Some theologians would argue that the end of the so-called Constantinian church has helped open up a new reality. The American theologian, Elton Trueblood, expressed the matter in these terms.

Now, after more than three centuries, we can, if we will, change gears again. Our opportunity for a big step lies in opening the ministry to the ordinary Christian in much the same manner that our ancestors opened Bible reading to the ordinary Christian. To do this means, in one sense, the inauguration of a new Reformation while in another it means the logical completion of the earlier Reformation in which the implications of the position taken were neither fully understood nor loyally followed.

A new paradigm for ministry – I would add, a new yet old paradigm – is opening up again and the challenge is to do something with it. Canon David Watson, one of the most significant influences on English Anglicanism in recent decades,  suggests that there is a need to look with fresh understanding and re-examine, critically and biblically, the traditional patterns which have been passed down to us over the centuries.

According to Watson, no-one can claim that the familiar picture of the parish priest, working faithfully but single-handedly in a parish comes anywhere near the rich concept of Christian ministry put forward in the NT. If some within the Church are slow to see this, those outside the Church are quick to expose the anachronism of much of the existing structure.  Watson cites this article from the Weekend Telegraph. These coments refers specifically to the situation of the Church of England, though it is surely not a far cry from that the Church of Ireland.

‘The Anglican priests of England, a motley band of underpaid and generally frustrated men, provide some of the most poignant casualties of the 20^th century… They are like armless lifeguards trying to save the drowning. They become priests because they believe they can help people through God – and they find themselves trapped in an archaic structure. There is nothing wrong with their message, and very little wrong with them. Their methods of communication, though, are appalling.’ (The Weekend Telegraph)

This writer describes the ordained priesthood as ‘armless lifeguards’ because all too few churches have any real idea of shared ministry or shared leadership.  The priest has to do it all. And what so sadly can happen is that the Rector or minister in that situation becomes the bottleneck if not the cork, of his or her church: with nothing going in or out except through them.  This bottle concept of the Church makes growth and maturity virtually impossible. Members are unable to develop into the God-given ministry they could well experience because, in structure and in practice, there is room for only one minister or priest.

What needs to change

For growth to happen, it must be the fruit of a mobilization and empowerment of the laity.  Moreover this growth must not be seen in purely numerical terms.   Release of the laity into ministry involves conceptual growth whereby church members increase in spiritual maturity and understanding; organic growth wherein people learn to love each other and come together in unity and incarnational growth which involves the church reaching out into society and being an instrument of grace.

Diagnosing the church’s state

John Stott accessed from baldreformer.wordpress.com

 

Dr John Stott, writing at the end of a long ministry in the Church of England, suggests that some churches have a disastrously false image of what they are meant to be. He highlights two false images, in particular, which seem to characterize much of the contemporary church.  The first is that of the Religious Club. He suggests that in this model of church members have forgotten or perhaps never known that perceptive dictum attributed to Archbishop William Temple, that ‘the church is the only co-operative society in the world which exists for the benefit of its non-members.’ Instead, such church people  are completely introverted like an ingrown toe-nail, focused on their internal life and not particularly attuned to what goes on outside their doors.

 

The second false image is that of the church as an institution which is there to do good in society, but which is fundamentally divorced from its spiritual roots.  Stott refers to this approach as one in which worship is reinterpreted as mission, love for God as love for neighbour, and prayer to God as encounter with people. 

According to Stott, there is a third way to understand church which combines what is true in both false images, and which recognizes that we have a responsibility both to worship God and to serve the world. This is what he terms the ‘double identity’ of the church or Incarnational Christianity. By double identity is meant people who have both been called out of the world to worship God and sent back into the world to witness and serve.

Stott notes that it is seldom in its long history that the church has managed to preserve its God-given double identity of holy worldliness. Instead, it has tended to oscillate between the two extremes. Sometimes (in an overemphasis on its holiness) it has withdrawn from the world and so has neglected its mission. At other times (in an over-emphasis on its worldliness) it has conformed to the world, assimilating its views and values, and so has neglected its holiness. The answer is to arrive at a godly blend and that can often be achieved through the re-modelling of structures and the revivifying of spirituality.

Is this vision for lay ministry a viable future option for the Church of Ireland?  I have to say that it is because it is a viable present option within the Church of England. But the cost of the transformation is great in terms of what is expected of future leaders.  Those called to leadership will need a spirituality rooted in a deep love for and gratitude towards Jesus. Only that passion will carry them along when the going gets tough.  What also will be needed is to communicate, in a gracious and non-judgmental way,  the claims of discipleship as they are laid out in the New Testament.  Every member ministry is possible when people understand and have submitted to the claims of Jesus in their lives.  Courses like Alpha, Emmaus and Christianity Explored provide a context where individuals can hear that challenge whilst, at the same time, enjoying what the church has to offer.

Questions to ponder

What excites you about lay ministry within the church’s mission?

What particular problems do you envisage with this approach.

What practical steps might be taken to make it a reality in Church of Ireland parishes.

Read the additional post summarizing Bosch’s thoughts on this issue and engage with the additional questions found there.

Mission and Practical Theology

Accessed from stoned-campbelldisciple.blogspot.com

At this point in series of posts I am pre-empting something that you will be doing in much greater detail later in your course,  and that is looking at the nature of practical theology.  The reason we are beginning to examine it now is that so much of it has relevance to the church’s mission.  You might say that practical theology relates to the internal life of the church and, of course, the effectiveness of the church's external life (which is its mission) will in large part depend on the quality and health of its inner life.   Practical theology is all about that domain.

What is also vital is that practical theology is a theological discipline which has a very close relationship to what we might say are corresponding secular realms of knowledge. I will give a few examples and hopefully the connections will become apparent. Pastoral care is one of the prime responsibilities of the church and the field of psychology arguably offers models which can be usefully employed in pastoral ministry.  We will briefly outline some of those in a moment. Religious education – whether it be in the context of an RE lesson,  school assembly or All Age worship – must draw on pedagogy or, if you like,  an effective teaching strategy.  We are going to think of those in the comparatively narrow field of your own ministries.

Similarly, homiletics or the study of preaching is greatly enhanced by the study of rhetoric, as I hope you will find out a little later on.  In addition,  congregation building has a very natural bedfellow in certain models of community work. We are going to look at each of these subjects very ‘practically’ in this post and explore how secular knowledge can aid and develop the internal life of the church. 

Pastoral Care and Psychology

Accessed at c;arityway.com

 

Not all Christians subscribe to the notion that pastoral care of individuals can in any way be aided by secular psychology. They point to Freud’s atheism and seeming obsession with sex, Jung’s alleged flirtation with the occult and the solidly humanist presuppositions behind so many of the well known approaches or models that have influenced the churc (Rogerian Therapy, Transactional Analysis and Myers Briggs being just some examples of models taken from secular psychology that have been frowned upon).  The time given in the lecture series to this theme is too brief to explain in detail or assess any of these psychological approaches sometimes employed by the church. What I want to do instead is suggest a few guidelines for how we might understand the relationship of psychology to pastoral care.

First,  I think there are at least three possible models by which we may define the relationship between the two and I suggest it would be helpful to arrive at some kind of judgment regarding these.  I am drawing here on the work of John D Carter and Bruce Narramore in their book,  The Integration of Psychology and Theology.  The first model they identify is simply, in their terminology,  ‘the Against Model’.  In other words, the view that Christianity and psychology are incompatible and cannot be integrated. 
 

‘Psychotherapy is the counterfeit currency of the world and a substitute for the healing balm of Gilead. And Christian psychotherapy is a house divided against itself. How long shall we have one foot in the wilderness of the cure of minds and one in the promised land of the cure of souls.’

(Martin and Deidre Bobgan, Psychobabble)
 

The Bobgans represent a whole school of thought which suggests that all nonorganically related mental-emotional disorders have a spiritual, Christ-centred solution rather than a psychological, (and as they would put it) self-centred solution. You might add the name of Jay Adams and his theory of ‘nouthetic counselling’ to that grouping.

The second model has been termed the ‘Parallels’ model and this is one which implicitly acknowledges the validity of both but doesn’t in any way try to integrate them.  It simply avails of psychological insight where it is thought to be helpful.  In a very pronounced form this outlook simply accepts whatever is the current practice in terms of psychology and does not really ask any questions.

The third model, the one championed by the authors is termed the ‘Integrates’ model and this is based on the idea of ‘the unity of truth’. In other words, truth found through legitimate psychological investigation will not contradict biblical truth and moreover they can be brought together in a legitimate harmony.  There are particular reasons for why people judge this approach as legitimate.  1. That there is a common bank of truth out there that both secular and religious people have access to.  2. That some expressions of psychology enable individuals to reach a higher degree of self-honesty and accountability which is itself a biblical requirement for human beings. 3. The view that complex mental problems require skilled therapeutic responses that have been honed with psychology.
 

Which of these positions is most convincing to you? Does Christianity need psychology? 

Religious Education – Pedagogy

It is difficult to talk about what religious education is and what are appropriate strategies for teaching it.  Not least because religious educators are struggling to do that themselves.  Michael Grimmit from the School of Education in the University of Birmingham admitted that ‘there has been very little discussion between religious educators and researchers about the theoretical basis upon which pedagogies can and should be devised, developed and evaluated.’

Part of the reason might be that it is impossible to have a generic approach to religion since religions are different and can not all be taught in the same way. Indeed, a pick and mix approach to religious education where the pupils are given a little bit of Christianity, a smattering of Islam, a drop of Buddhism etc might be pedagogically disastrous because the resultant impact is potential confusion and no real clarity about opposing religious tenets. This is the case because the exposure to the different viewpoints is potentially too shallow and too limited.

Of course,  there are reasons for why it happens that way. Dr Trevor Cooling talking about the English system of education – which is at least partially driven by a secular agenda and which might be the shape of things to come in the future Ireland – said that this system was built upon the four ‘isms.’  ‘Fallibism’ – the notion that beliefs should be held with the expectation that they may be wrong.  ‘Relativism’ – the notion that all religions are equally valid perceptions of reality. ‘Subjectivism’ – the view that my beliefs are merely statements about me and what ‘works’ for me. ‘Individualism’ – the view that everyone should choose their own religion for themselves.  This outlook may become stronger here as time develops and it is unquestionably defining religious education from premises or starting points that are in opposition to traditional religious premises.

Thankfully, as clergy you are not called to develop a full blown religious education strategy but to think about personal strategies  which you can use to communicate effectively to children in an assembly or an All Age service.  Here are a few very practical pointers.  (1) Gather good teaching resources (which genuinely cater for the age you are dealing with) and allow those resources to stimulate and enthuse you. (2) Get the children to actively participate in the activity. (3) In All Age worship remember that the ‘lectionary is made for the people and not the people for the lectionary.’ If you schedule a regular All Age service do not feel you must use the lectionary reading for the day if it is not amenable to All Age use. This is just my personal view and I am not speaking for the church. (4) Avoid moralistic addresses and major on ones which use imagination, humour and radically open up the biblical text.

Homiletics – Rhetoric

Accessed at shop.vook.com

Homiletics has been described as the application of the general principles of rhetoric to the specific area of public preaching.  Rhetoric in this definition stands for something we should all be very interested in.  It is the art of using language as a means to persuade. 

Rhetoric is not about learning to speak loudly and coherently with a number of pebbles in your mouth (as the great orator Cicero once did),  nor is it about mastering the art of giving grandiloquent (pompous and bombastic) speeches (Laurence Olivier’s rendering of some of the speeches from Hamlet comes to mind) . Rhetoric was actually, even in its inception, about the art of persuasion. The term itself may have gone missing from modern discourse but the idea is still powerfully present in the field of Communication Theory.  And preaching, if it is about anything, is about communication.

In our short interaction with Rhetoric this morning we’re going to travel back in time to listen to the father of rhetoric,  the philosopher Aristotle.  Aristotle, in his Rhetoric, which was published more than three centuries before Christ, observed effective (and ineffective) speakers in various settings and wrote the earliest comprehensive volume of rhetorical theory. Here he defined the art of rhetoric as ‘the ability to see the available means of persuasion.’

Persuasion,  according to Aristotle, takes place in the interplay between the speaker, the message and the audience.  More specifically,  it is the interaction between the ethos of the speaker,  the logos of the message, and the pathos of the audience.  These terms are unfamiliar but the model that Aristotle laid down has served as the prevailing model of the communication process for twenty three centuries.  Let us unpack these terms and try to apply them to what you will be doing in your ministry.

Effective communication will depend much on the ethos of the speaker.  Put simply, an audience will more likely believe and take on board what someone is saying if they perceive that person as being trustworthy and believable. In other words the credibility of the message depends in large part on the credibility of the speaker. Ralph Waldo Emerson described eloquence as ‘the art of speaking what you mean and are.’  He added, ‘the reason why anybody refuses to ascent to your opinion, or his aid to your benevolent design, is in you. He refuses to accept you as the bringer of truth, because, though you think you have it, he feels that you have it not. You have not given him the authentic sign.’

(By the way, if you wanted to sum up Emerson’s basic insight, it would be the words, ‘Who you are shouts so loud I cannot hear your words.’) 

Emerson talks about not giving ‘the authentic sign’ that the audience are looking for, what exactly is that sign? Well, Aristotle identified three principles in the communicator’s ethos that made the message believable.  Intelligence, character and good will.  Unless the speaker is perceived as informed, knowledgeable and competent in the subject matter he or she is addressing, with a capacity for valid reasoning and balanced judgment (ie he or she is intelligent), they will not be believed. 

Likewise, to be trusted by a listening audience the communicator needs to be perceived as having honesty, virtue and integrity.  But even that by itself is not perfect communication. There is an additional element at play which is pretty crucial. The audience needs to sense that you are ‘for’ them.  That you are on their side and that you’re more concerned for the audience’s welfare than your own gain.  Aristotle believed that the communicator’s ethos  is so important that it is … almost the controlling factor in persuasion. 

I want to briefly mention two other issues related to ethos before we move on.  The first is simply to define more specifically what I mean by being ‘credible’ in the eyes of the listener.   A skeptical listener will ask of the preacher, ‘Does he or she really believe it?’  ‘Do they live by it?’ And, most scarily of all, ‘Does it make a difference for them?’  If our lives answer ‘yes’ to those three questions we will have a far greater likelihood of truly communicating. The final issue relating to ethos is passion or dynamism. Information and argumentation are unlikely to trigger action.  Thomas De Quincy (the author of Diary of an English Opium Eater) likened an effective speech to a ship; to move a ship you need both rudder (understanding) and sail (passion).  To move an audience you need clarity but also conviction or dynamism. The story is told of one of the sceptical Scottish philosophers (possibly John Stuart Mill or maybe Hume) racing down the street one day in an awful hurry. A friend called out to him, ‘Where are you going in such a rush?’  ‘To hear Whitefield preach,’ came back the answer. (Whitefield was a colleague of Wesley’s and possibly an even greater preacher).  ‘But you don’t believe in Whitefield’s message,’  the man said. ‘No, I don’t. But Whitefield does.’

Much of what I have said under ethos also relates to the logos of the communication. It must be rational, coherent as the speaker must be rational and coherent. We might add to this definition the use of imagination and creativity in communication. It’s also that which draws and captivates.

Finally pathos is the art of affirming and engaging the emotions of the audience. Of course, it’s very possible to be manipulative and to play on emotions.  That’s certainly not what Aristotle had in mind.  Good preaching, done from good motives and with good will can appropriately engage emotions.

Before we leave Rhetoric let me quote Scottish rhetorician, George Campbell, in his summary of what good communication is meant to do.

To please the imagination

To move the passions (emotions)

To enlighten the understanding

To influence the will

Given this brief cursory look at Rhetoric, it makes a lot of sense, does it not, that the risen Jesus told his disciples not to simply proclaim the resurrection but to wait until they were endued with the Holy Spirit : the one who would give credibility and dynamism to their words. So homiletics is about you. It is about your character, your lifestyle, your passion for faith and your creativity. 

Congregation building – models of community work

Our next partnering of disciplines is congregation building and models of community work.  Effective community work in secular terms is very much centred on how well an organization relates to a community. (By the way,  here we are beginning to cross the line between internal and external church life a little).  I take it as self-evident that to build a congregation you must connect with the community out of which you would hope to draw your new members.

Let us reflect briefly on some of the buzz words used in official documents regarding community engagement that have an incredible relevance to how the church engages with the community within which it is set.  Here are some of the buzz words and you can probably make the connections yourself. 

Community consultation. Secular agencies sometimes take surveys just to find out what particular community needs are out there. Sometimes the impact of such things can be quite positive because people are being given a sense that they are being listened to. If you have a church which wishes to connect with the community then one of the best means is a community survey. To give you an example, when we were preparing to plant a church in Norfolk we took 200 questionnaires into the area and asked a whole range of questions about community needs and what sort of church they would like to see in the area. It was a marvelous point of contact and we not only discovered things about the area but we also made our presence known. 

Community involvement.  Let me share a story from Belfast. Every year on St Patrick’s Day there is an orgy of drunkenness in the so-called Holy Land area of south Belfast. The streets after St Patrick’s Day are extensively littered with rubbish. On one of the recent years students from Queen’s CU were part of a massive clear-up.  Another local church, City Church, gave little student packs to every student living in the area. Even more pertinently, they gave shelter to one hundred Romanians who had been victims of racist attacks. They recognized need and responded to it. I am only scratching the surface here, but there are community needs everywhere that innovative and creative churches can respond to.

Community collaboration.  In some ways the best ministry is not just serving the community but joining with, collaborating with the community in projects which are of service to that body of people. What good and wholesome community initiatives are in place which teams from churches can simply join and support? Even more radically, what church projects for the community can one invite the members of the community to play a part in? A parish in Carrickfergus did a community pantomime which drew in many outsiders.
 

What examples can you share of positive engagement with the community?

Liturgy – Symbol Theory

The final area of practical theology we will look at today is liturgy, the worship life of the church, and we will touch on it in relationship to something known as ‘symbol theory’.  Togive you a sense of where we are going on this rather esoteric and mysterious line of thought -  let me offer you an anchor.

Symbol theory, as it relates to liturgical worship,  is about developing a richer sacramentality which allows for the centrality of the tactile, the kinesthetic (bodily movement) and the visual senses in worship.  It encourages individuals to not see worship as an entirely cognitive or mental activity to the exclusion of the body and the emotions.

Don Saliers accessed from presbyterianhymnal.org

The implications of symbol theory for Protestant worship are embodied in the work of a theologian called Don Saliers.  He wants to see all the senses included in worship and believes that these can mediate knowledge of God. In other words, God can use our imaginations as we engage our senses in worship.  For example, take the symbolic action of the anointing with oil of someone who is sick. The oil symbolizes God’s healing grace … its application symbolizes the care of the Christian community … and in the very action the symbol somehow connects us to the reality.  Go to a 24/7 prayer location and you may discover objects and images that symbolize something about God and – in engaging with them – a spiritual encounter is possible.

 

On an entirely different plane,  a liturgical action(movement) can also be powerful symbol of status which says something about ‘power’ in the church. Let me give a radical illustration from Marcia McPhee. She is one of many feminist theologians who see great relevance for the application of symbol theory in worship.  She says,

When one person stands while all others kneel or sit, when only a few bless, touch, anoint, serve while all others are passive recipients, our physical language is not emancipatory or empowering or indicative of the radical equality of our baptism. Space must be arranged so that level only accommodates visibility, not speak of hierarchy. Garments must speak of office and role, not status and rank. Careful attention must be paid to the way in which language and symbol does communicate powerfully and what messages are sent in those expressions. It is not enough to speak of a liturgy which sides with the oppressed (Power) but this must be embodied in the liturgy itself.

So even horizontal symbolic actions can make powerful statements and have a strong impact on the worship experience say some feminist theologians.  But how might we see the relevance of symbol theory amongst our own right-brained emerging generation?  Even in the Protestant north people are beginning to appreciate worship that involves touch, sight, feel – and that somehow these activities bring them into encounter with God. That is why walking the labyrinthe,  prayer stations and the like are making such an impact.

I want to close by simply offering some material which I think would be of great value in terms of these different pastoral disciplines.  For All Age worship and All Age talks I’d suggest a number of books which have a high percentage of truly relevant talks.
 

Religious Education and Pedagogy

Michael Botting – 50 Talks for All Age services

Peter Graystone and Eileen Turner: A Church for All Ages: A Practical Approach to All Age Worship (Paperback)

Chris Chesterton – 77 Talks for 21^st Century Kids

Chris Chesterton and Stephen Ward – 77 Talks for Cyberspace Kids

Steve Maltz – 77 Talks for Bored-Again Teenagers

For Pastoral Care and Psychology

Eugene Kennedy – On Becoming a Counsellor: a basic guide for non-professional counsellors

Gary R Collins – Christian counselling: a complete guide

Roger F Hurding – Roots and Shoots: a guide to counselling and psychotherapy

Homiletics and Rhetoric

Aristotle – The Art of Rhetoric

Haddon Robinson, Bill Hybels, Stuart Briscoe – Mastering Contemporary Preaching

Evangelism & Social Justice

Charles Spurgeon accessed from anthonysvajda.com

                 

In this post we focus on the theme of evangelism and its relationship to social justice.  Take a moment to consider how you might define the term ‘evangelism’? 

Below are some of the best known definitions.

 ‘Evangelism is one beggar telling another beggar where to get bread.’

C.H. Spurgeon (19^th century preacher and evangelist)

That definition is accredited to the great Baptist preacher C.H. Spurgeon and it is the one used by Nicky Gumble on the Alpha course.  Its great advantage is its lack of arrogance and the way it places the evangelist on the same level as the one being ministered to.

Here is another definition of evangelism,

‘Evangelization will always contain ... a clear proclamation that, in Jesus Christ, the Son of God made man, who died and rose from the dead, salvation is offered to all men, as a gift of God’s grace and mercy.’

The same source also states, with regard to witness by actions or deeds,

‘Nevertheless, this always remains insufficient, because even the finest witness will prove ineffective in the long run if it is not explained, justified – what Peter called always having ‘your answer ready for people who ask you the reason for the hope that you all have’ – and made explicit by a clear and unequivocal proclamation of the Lord Jesus. The Good News proclaimed by the witness of life sooner or later has to be proclaimed by the word of life.’

Pope Paul VI, Evangelization in the Modern World (Evangelii Nuntiandi)

That was the official voice of the Roman Catholic Church in a 1960’s encyclical, Evangelii Nuntiandi (Evangelization in the Modern World) penned by Pope Paul VI. 

Finally, here is a definition from an impeccable Anglican source. Some would regard this as the most complete definition of evangelism ever penned.

‘To evangelize is so to present Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit, that men shall come to put their trust in God through Him, to accept Him as their Saviour, and serve Him as their King in the fellowship of the church.’ 

(Archbishop William Temple)

This quotation emanates from a Church of England Report which is over 70 years old and is still one of the most radical and exciting statements about mission ever written. The title of the Report was ‘Towards the Conversion of England’ and parts of it can still be found on-line.  Let us hear a sample of its teaching.  On the need for everyone to witness to their faith, it states,

‘We cannot exaggerate the importance of breaking down this traditional English reserve which produces a Church ‘of silent saints’.
 

(I would suggest that it is not just an English problem but that it’s present throughout the Communion and, indeed, present in most of our traditional denominations)
 

‘The Christian obligation of spoken witness does not require from all the duty of addressing public audiences: still less of button-holing comparitive strangers. It does demand being able to give a reason for the faith that is in us, when asked by a friend; and of praying that such openings shall be given and used by us.’

On the matter of that controversial notion of conversion, it says among other things,

81 ‘We cannot expect to get far with evangelism until three facts are faced. First, the vast majority of English people need to be converted to Christianity. Secondly, a large number of Church people also require to be converted, in the sense of their possessing that personal knowledge of Christ which can be ours only by the dedication of the whole self, whatever the cost. Thirdly, such personal knowledge of Christ is the only satisfactory basis for testimony to others.’

We need to think seriously about the idea of conversion because, as Richard Peace, the Professor of Evangelism and Spiritual Formation at Fuller Theological Seminary tells us, one’s view of conversion shapes and determines one’s view of evangelism.  Peace, in a recent article, looked in some detail at the concept of ‘conversion’ in five major Christian traditions: the evangelical, the Pentecostal, what he terms mainline or mainstream Protestantism (perhaps meaning those expressions of Protestantism which definitely are not ‘Evangelical’ in outlook), Roman Catholic and Orthodox. Having established the parameters of his study (all the classical branches of Christianity which were essentially Trinitarian in outlook), he looked at them through the grid of what Scot McKnight termed, the three main orientations towards ‘conversion’ (that is, the three main ways in which conversion is understood as a concept).

These were as socialization, as the effects of liturgical acts,  and finally as personal decision.’ Returning again to the five main religious traditions, McKnight himself suggests that each one of them identifies with only one of the concepts of conversion. Thus ‘Evangelicals worry about Roman Catholic conversions; Roman Catholics are uneasy with evangelical conversion; mainline denominations are uncomfortable with both; on the rebound, evangelicals and Roman Catholics lift their eyebrows at mainline Christianity…. These groups squabble and feud,’ claims McKnight.

To lay a foundation for what I am later going to say about evangelism I want us to consider briefly these three orientations towards ‘conversion.’  What is fascinating from an Anglican perspective, by the way,  is that all three orientations are actually found under the same Anglican umbrella.  Different churchmanships actually identify with different orientations. 

Conversion as Socialization.
 

Accessed at picclick.com

We begin with conversion as socialization.  This is the notion that Christianity is far more a matter of nurture than of decision. Thus the key decision is the one made on the behalf of individuals when parents bring their infant children for baptism. The decision that is later required of these baptized children, according to McKnight’s view of things, has more to do with continuing alignment with the community than with following Jesus per se.

The main aspects of post-baptism nurture would thus be Sunday School instruction (for children), cathechism and confirmation (for teens), and active participation in church leadership (for adults). In this context many would be uncomfortable with the language of ‘becoming a Christian’ but more naturally talk about simply being a Christian.  The language of ‘conversion’ might indeed be viewed as a ‘power word’ denoting a claim to being something that others are not. It certainly would be an indelicate word and one not identified with ‘middle of the road’ churchmanship.

The general outcome of such a perspective on conversion is that the concept is quite far removed  from the centre of one’s ecclesial vision. Thus in churches that have a socialization view of conversion, or what we might even call ‘conversion by osmosis’, there is a danger that faith remains extrinsic, linked to the outward life of the community, but not necessarily focused enough on personal

response to Jesus. One might want to say that where faith in this context is genuinely nominal, the goal should be to help individuals attain a more definite and individualised faith. How that might be done will be explored when we look at evangelism more concretely.

Conversion Through Liturgical Acts

Accessed from douglawrence.files.wordpress.com

The second model that McKnight explores is that of conversion through liturgical acts and here he has in mind Roman Catholics, Orthodox and certain high Anglicans.  Essentially, he is referring to a sacramentalist view of conversion where the work is seen to be done in the individual through the power of sacramental grace, given particularly in baptism and nurtured subsequently through penance and the eucharist.

Interestingly, though, Professor Peace notes that a lot of Roman Catholic reflection is caught between the experience of St Augustine and the fact of infant baptism.  In other words, the tension of whether we view conversion as an experience, or as a grace mediated by the church. For Augustine, conversion came in a moment when he heard a voice telling him to pick up the New Testament and read. As he did, ‘there was infused in my heart something like the light of full certainty and all the gloom of doubt vanished away.’ 

If one reads the Catholic literature on the subject there is a considerable ambivalence going on with regard to the issue of conversion. Major thinkers such as Rahner and Lonergan are of the view that there is a problem if the subjective (experiential) element of conversion is removed or muted from one’s understanding of what conversion is about.  Rahner,  in fact,  encouraged Catholics to give up their suspicion of ‘the conversion phenomenon’ and embrace the whole idea of conscious conversion. (See Hudson’s article, ‘Catholic View of Conversion’) 

Indeed, Catholic church history is littered with conversion stories whether it be St Francis of Assissi, Ignatius of Loyola, or some other Catholic luminary who moved from a state of nominal faith to a passionate concern for the things of Christ.

Professor Peace, commenting on this liturgical view of conversion, suggests that it is in danger of being an empty ritual when the sacraments are approached without faith or engagement.  Indeed, even within Catholicism, there is a growing body of thought which recognises that people can be sacramentalised without having been effectively evangelised. Thus the publication of the radical pastoral letter by the French bishops back in 1970 entitled France Pagan.

Turning briefly to the Orthodox church,  one might say that, if anything, it is more tied to this liturgical view of conversion than is the Roman Catholic church.  Read some of the Orthodox theologians such as Ware,  Schmemann,  Archbishop Paul of Finland, and it is very clear that salvation is above all sacramental and ecclesial in the Orthodox worldview. The liturgy itself is both evangelistic and transformational. 

Conversion through Personal Decision
 

Theophany on the Road to Damascus accessed at arthuride.blogspot.com

This leads us to our third orientation towards conversion, and that is ‘conversion through personal decision.’  Here we cannot help but think of the evangelical tradition because conversion is absolutely central to that tradition, both in how people identify themselves and in the way ministry is exercised. Actually, we might lump in Pentecostals with evangelicals because they have roughly the same starting point.

In the evangelical world, conversion is the defining emphasis. In the more Fundamentalist expressions of evangelicalism one cannot even be a Christian unless one has been converted – and the more like the Damascus Road event one’s conversion is – the better.

For all its drawbacks,  though,  (and I’m afraid we need to address those drawbacks in just a moment) the emphasis on conversion through personal decision has been fruitful in helping many people make heartfelt responses to Christ.  In our own tradition, such luminaries as Archbishop Justin Welby, Archbishop George Carey,  Archbishop John Sentamu, Archbishop Donald Coggan,  Archbishop Stuart Blanche, Bishop Tom Wright,  Bishop Michael Nazir Ali, Bishop David Shepherd, Bishop James Jones and countless other bishops and priests have come to faith through personal decision. Evangelicals do not feel as comfortable in telling you that well known Anglican ‘heretics’ (and I use the word advisedly) such as atheist priest, Don Cupitt, are also from the evangelical stable and underwent conversion experiences. 

I have to own up at this point and let you know what you already know – that I come from that tradition myself and I know that, for all its deficiencies, it helped me to find personal faith and I will be forever grateful to evangelicals for that.  Another great benefit of this approach to conversion is that it offers a clear articulation of the gospel message and a way of framing that message that allows lay people to be able to share their faith with friends or acquaintances. These are tremendously helpful things for the church’s mission  – particularly, if this is increasingly a mission to an unchurched populace for whom Jesus is becoming a vague figure of history.

But there are significant shortcomings to this approach.  1. Without proper catechesis and a proper context, it can reduce ‘becoming a Christian’ to saying a short prayer and accepting a particular view of the atonement which one is told  ensures a place in heaven no matter what behaviour is engaged in subsequent to conversion. Can we say that this is what the New Testament teaches? The reality of that simplistic approach is that huge numbers who pray that prayer actually fall away. The Billy Graham organisation has discovered that there is a direct correlation between those who were brought to crusades through Christian friends and who were already connected to a church and those whose conversions proved to be solid. What I am suggesting is that a too simplistic conversionist approach can make shallow converts and maybe even inoculate people to the faith because they conclude, ‘I’ve tried that and it doesn’t work.’

A second problem is that the conversionist approach can leave people with an immobilised spirituality. It stops almost at the point at which it begins.  People often have a glorious conversion experience but spend the rest of their spiritual lives trying to feed off an experience that was meant, in the true scheme of things, to flower into something beautiful and redolent of Christ. 

Conversion in Biblical Terms
 



Accessed at graceonlinelibrary.org

Before we look specifically at evangelism I want to explain what conversion is in biblical terms and then look at how that relates to what form our evangelism might take.

 

Conversion in the New Testament

Conversion in the New Testament is expressed through the word epistrophe and means turning around – that is, reversing direction and going the opposite way.  One turns from the way of sin to the way of Jesus.

The other key New Testament term – and one that you will be no doubt familiar with – is metanoia or repentance. This word also contains the idea of turning, but it actually focuses on the inner cognitive decision to make a break with the past. Now here is a vital additional point. Metanoia must be combined with pistis –with faith in order to bring about epistrophe, conversion.

We see this idea – which is the classic New Testament understanding of conversion – perfectly encapsulated in the words recorded in Acts 26:20 which are Paul’s description, conveyed to King Agrippa, of what he preached to Jews and Gentiles. Here Paul says to both that ‘they should repent and turn to God and do deeds consistent with repentance.’

Thus Christian conversion is characterised by a decision (repentance) based on understanding (awareness, consciousness, conviction) to turn around from a life of sin (darkness, disobedience, waywardness) to the way of Jesus (light, holiness, God), with a resultant new way of living in the Kingdom of God.

The most famous example of conversion in the New Testament is Paul’s dramatic turn around on the road to Damascus. This experience is so central to the New Testament (where it is related three times in the Book of Acts and referred to by Paul in four major texts) that it has become for many the paradigm of true conversion.

I would suggest that although this paradigm fits many lives, it is not the only means of conversion.  There are countless inspiring Christians both inside and outside the evangelical tradition who most definitely could not pointto the day and hour that they submitted their lives to Jesus.  Indeed, many will talk of growing up in a family where Jesus was loved and the most natural thing in the world was for them to love Him too.

Outside of that tradition, there are many Christians who would not use evangelical terminology at all, but have an orientation towards God that could not be summed up in any other way but that of a ‘converted mentality.’  Indeed, the real proof of conversion, I would suggest, is in the reality of a life and not just the memory of an experience. J.I. Packer once put it like this,  ‘convertedness as a condition matters more than conversion as an experience.’

Conversion is about where one ends up.  Does a person love our Lord Jesus Christ? Have they turned away from a life orientated around themselves to a life in which they are unreservedly devoted to God? Do they bear the fruit of the Spirit?  If such is the case, one must say that they are converted. This state of convertedness may have been the result of a crisis experience or it may have come about through their childhood upbringing orit may have happened at an anonymous moment during a journey towards a deeper and more profound faith. The important issue is that the reality of conversion has been experienced and this does not require that it fit a certain evangelical mould. 

Actualising Conversion

How do we go about enabling conversion in our own ministry?  The starting point must be having a clear idea of what evangelism is. Today I am going to offer a definition of the nature of evangelism that is borrowed from the Lausanne Covenant. This is a document that came out of a major Conference on Evangelism (Lausanne) and it is cited by the late Anglican theologian John Stott in his book, Christian Mission in the Modern World.  The great value of this statement is that it is comprehensive,  true to the biblical material,  and aims at sensitivity.

To evangelize is to spread the good news that Jesus died for our sins and was raised from the dead according to the Scriptures, and that as the reigning Lord he now offers the forgiveness of sins and the liberating gift of the Spirit to all who repent and believe. Our Christian presence in the world is indispensable to evangelism, and so is that kind of dialogue whose purpose is to listen sensitively in order to understand. But evangelism itself is the proclamation of the historic, biblical Christ as Saviour and Lord, with a view to persuading people to come to him personally and so be reconciled to God. In issuing the gospel invitation we have no liberty to conceal the cost of discipleship. Jesus still calls all who would follow him to deny themselves, take up their cross, and identify themselves with his new community. The results of evangelism include obedience to Christ, incorporation into his church and responsible service in the world.’ (Paragraph 4 of the Lausanne Covenant)

The Gospel and Sin

It is impossible to proclaim the message of the gospel without reference to Jesus’ death for our sins. I am of the view that theologians such as Karl Barth and Emil Brunner were absolutely accurate when they suggested that Christ’s death is essentially substitutionary.  However, it is also a proclamation about Christ’s Lordship and the invitation to repent of sin and receive or submit to Christ as Saviour and Lord. It is important to avoid clichés when proclaiming that message and to read the sermons of preachers who know how to present the old, old story with freshness, vibrancy and life.  Timothy Keller, Bill Hybels, Vaughn Roberts, and Nicky Gumbel are examples of contemporary communicators who have a winsomeness about them and who exhibit a redeemed humanity.

Pointers to effective evangelism.

Before we touch on evangelism’s relationship to social justice, I want to alert you to some key concepts which I hope will develop your thinking on evangelism.

Firstly, evangelism is as much to do with sowing as reaping.  The process of anyone becoming a fully devoted follower of Christ is precisely that – a process. It is rarely an overwhelming experience out of the blue without antecedents or background. The missiologist Engel is very helpful in this regard in that he has developed a scale which plots where people might be in terms of their responsiveness to the Christian faith.  The scale is 1-10 and someone who is at level 1 is an individual who disbelieves totally in God’s existence and views the church’s dogmas as a play for power. Moreover, they will have never met anyone identified with the church whom they have admired or liked.  For someone to call on a person at that stage in the faith journey to commit their life to Christ is seriously wrong-headed.

However, when an individual is at 7 or 8 on the Engel scale things will look very different. There is already acceptance of the basic truths of the faith and no innate predisposition against the church. Moreover, they are potentially ready to commit their lives to Christ.  It is my suspicion that increasingly fewer and fewer people will be that high up the scale and that evangelism which simply  aims to ‘reap’ converts in may find itself outdated and irrelevant. In the future Ireland, North and South, we may find an increasing number of 2’s, 3’s and 4’s on Engel’s evangelism scale.

Sowing before Reaping

The answer to the changing evangelistic climate is for the church to engage in ‘sowing’ activities. The church’s ministry to people at a low point on the Engel’s scale is essentially to demonstrate three things. 1. God is good. 2. Christians are nice. 3. The Bible speaks meaningfully to the issues and concerns that trouble them.  Sowing is developing church activities and outreach programmes that help communicate God’s reality. A well organised, low pressure Alpha course can very speedily move people up that scale.  So can a meaningful outreach that touches their physical or concrete needs. 



Brian McLaren accessed at thepublicqueue.com

Brian McLaren in his helpful little book More Ready Than You Realise (sub-titled Evangelism as Dance in the Postmodern Matrix) highlights key aspects of evangelism which he believes should be part of our own personal way of sharing our faith or of the culture of the church which we seek to develop.





 

The Relational Factor. Get outside holy huddles and develop genuine friendships with those who are outside the boundaries of the church.  And be nice to them, enquire after them, find out about their lives. As McLaren says, ‘Count conversations and not just conversions.

The Narrative Factor.  Don’t just share your faith as a series of propositions or formulas. Tell your story but listen to their story as well.

The Communal Factor.  Expect conversion to normally occur in the context of authentic Christian community and not just as a result of information being communicated.

‘In the context of imperfect but vibrant Christian community (even just two or three of you!), the message of Christ will come alive in a way that a disembodied  booklet or lecture never could convey. And once your community begins to function as such a portal, a process will be set in motion that will not always be easy, but will be exciting and worthwhile because every new person who comes in will make your community even more ready to welcome the next.’

The Journey Factor.  See disciple-making as a wholistic process and unending journey, not just a conversion event.

The Holy Spirit Factor. Realise that God is already at work outside the church in the minds and hearts of many people. Paul was told in a vision about a Gentile town he was about to visit, ‘I have many people in this place.’

The Learning Factor. We will learn lessons through evangelism. Peter learnt through Cornelius how ethno-centric and narrow he was. We may learn similar lessons.

The Missional Factor.  See evangelism as recruiting people for God’s mission on earth, not just for heaven. True conversion should be reflected in concern for others and God’s world, not simply an ‘I’m alright Jack’ mentality.

End Notes

I wish to end by talking about one particular way in which we can live missionally for the Kingdom right now.  This is expressed in the linkage between evangelism and social action. John Stott, in Christian Mission in the Modern World, outlined what he thought were two inappropriate ways in which these have been brought together in the church’s ministry.  Firstly, social action as a means to evangelism.  In its most blatant form this makes social action the sugar on the pill, the bait on the hook, to bring folks to Christ.  Here conversion is the price of the assistance being offered by the church.  This cannot be the basis for our service in the world, argues Stott. 

Secondly, social action as evangelism.  This is a lived out witness and service intended to draw people to Christ. Stott’s point is that while this is good and right to a certain extent, if it is simply done to produce an effect, it still falls short of the impartial, unconditional love of God. And it is the unconditional love of God that the church wishes to show: a love that is there even when there is not a response, a love that cares for justice and peoples’ rights, whatever their reaction is to our beliefs.

The true relationship between the two, according to Stott, is social action as a partner of evangelism.  It is thus a godly response to need … a breaking heart for the pain that others are feeling and undergoing, and a striving for justice on the behalf of those who have been denied it. One way this is happening increasingly in the church’s ministry is through advocacy, both in terms of the mission field abroad but also closer to home where injustice and suffering is encountered.

Advocasy

What is advocacy in a nutshell? Tear Fund, who have produced excellent material on advocacy and do tremendous work on the mission field, define it as this:

‘Seeking with, and on behalf of, the poor to address underlying causes of poverty, bring justice and support good development through influencing the policies and practices of the powerful.  Tearfund views advocacy as part of its mission to bring good news to the poor, motivated by the compassion of Christ.’

Among activities relating to advocacy are the following:

- prayer for God to intervene

- modelling an alternative that can influence others

- seeking social justice through influencing those in power

- bringing peace and reconciliation

- prophetic role in speaking out against injustice

- confronting the unseen powers

In terms of the home front – work for ethnic minorities,  helping people access rights,  supporting the vulnerable – are all means of living out our obedience to Christ. This is not done out of some manipulative evangelistic agenda but from hearts that share something of God’s heart for the poor. When that more altruistic approach is really visible  - the irony is that evangelism happens.

End with ‘Is he like Joe?’