In order for the Bible to be coherent, we really do need to have some insight into their world. It’s not that someone needs to understand their ancient setting in order to understand what the Bible is teaching, but many pieces of the full Biblical puzzle will remain missing until you start to dive into their world and thought. Which makes things much more messy and complicated than many conservatives are comfortable with.

The more I’ve thought about this simple statement—The Bible is a historical document—the more I’ve come to realize how simultaneously helpful and frustrating this reality is. On the one hand, it has tremendous explanatory power when thinking through how to read the Bible, but it is that exact same explanatory power that makes the Bible’s placement in history frustrating to both sides of the ideological spectrum.
In the conservative environment I was raised in, I was taught a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible. What you see is what you get. The “plain” reading is the most faithful reading and is all you really need. It may or may not be helpful to have some understanding of the culture at the time it was written, but it doesn’t do any good to try and get at the world behind the text because frankly, it doesn’t matter. Exactly what you read is exactly what happened, take it or leave it.
The issue here is that this isn’t how the Bible is written. The biblical authors wrote the Bible from their unique, individual perspectives, employing common and complex literary styles, and responding to the cultures around them. Before you think this is me falling off the liberal slope, this is exactly what the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy says.
Article VIII
We affirm that God in His work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared.
We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.
This isn’t a liberal view. This is within the view of biblical inerrancy. The Bible was written using various genres of writing, literary devices, and was aware of the world around it.
Read More
Related Posts:

Samford University defended its stance on the matter in a letter sent to students and shared with faculty and staff. Vice President of Student Affairs Philip Kimrey noted that “the university has a responsibility to formally partner with ministry organizations that share our beliefs.”

A campus minister at Samford University turned away Presbyterian Church (USA) and Episcopal Church college chaplains that asked to be included in a recent campus ministry fair because the two denominations have stances supporting same-sex marriage, according to the founder of SAFE Samford, an LGBTQ rights group.
Brit Blalock, who founded SAFE Samford in 2011 (Students, Alumni and Faculty for Equality), said that Madison Vaughn, ministry coordinator for the Ukirk campus ministry representing the Presbyterian Church (USA), had tried to reserve a table at the Church & Ministry Expo event held on Aug. 31 on campus.
Blalock said that the Presbyterian Church (USA) and Episcopal Church college chaplains had taken part in previous ministry fairs at Samford with no problems.
“It’s always been come one, come all,” said Blalock, a 2008 graduate of Samford University.
Vaughn was told she would not be given display space at the event and later contacted the Rev. Emily Collette, a chaplain at Trinity Commons, a similar campus ministry organization affiliated with the U.S. Episcopal Church. Collette had reserved a table at the event and agreed to share space with Vaughn, said Blalock, who spoke to Vaughn.
After Vaughn shared plans to attend the event on social media, Collette received a call from Samford University Campus Pastor Bobby Gatlin “uninviting” her to the event, Blalock said.
“He was explicit in saying that the reason was her denomination’s affirmative stance on LGBTQ people and did not mention any policies she was in violation of,” Blalock said.
The Rev. Joe Genau, pastor of Edgewood Presbyterian Church in Homewood and supervising pastor of Ukirk Campus Ministry, confirmed that Ukirk was not allowed at the event.
Read More
Related Posts:

If our desire in mission is to bring glory to God, what we do and how we do it must be God-glorifying. Mission as listening has lots of useful things to teach us–but God is not glorified if we only listen and never proclaim the gospel. Similarly, mission as growth has lots of useful things to teach us–but God is not glorified if we make growth an ultimate thing, or if we pursue growth in ungodly ways. People who are engaging in mission in a way that glorifies God will be growing in godliness. Let me be clear what I mean by this. I’m saying that the way we proclaim the gospel should simultaneously grow us more like Christ. The way we do mission should grow our characters in godliness.

My wife Rachel and I recently visited some CMS missionaries in South-East Asia. We met the pastor of their church–a wonderful, godly man who had just returned from a mission trip himself. He had been working in western Kenya, helping equip churches to address some very practical issues.
So, we were visiting Australian missionaries in South-East Asia–who go to a church where their pastor is involved in mission in sub-Saharan Africa. That kind of thing is entirely normal in 21st century mission and shouldn’t surprise us at all. Mission has been ‘from everywhere to everywhere’ for at least half a century.
As we talked with the CMS missionaries we were visiting, we found that they loved their church and their pastor. We also discovered that some other missionaries in the area tended to avoid local churches. They preferred to operate separately because they felt local churches slowed them down. Their goal was rapid gospel growth.
This experience in South-East Asia illustrates two significant themes of 21st century mission: listening to the voice of churches in places like South-East Asia or Kenya; and the desire to see rapid growth.
Mission as Listening
‘World Christianity’ is the in vogue term for the majority of the world’s Christians – that is, those in Africa, Asia and Latin America. It’s a movement seeking to give voice to theologians and missiologists in non-Western, or at least non-Anglo, contexts.
Consider the frustration of Chilean theologian Gonzalo Arroyo who, when commenting on American theology professors, asked: “Why is it that when you speak of my theology you call it ‘Latin American Theology’, but when you speak of your theology you call it ‘theology’”? A significant proponent of world Christianity was Andrew Walls, a British missiologist who undertook an important re-examination of mission history. His research enables us to tell a more complete, more accurate story of 19th and 20th century Protestant mission. Walls shows that the massive growth of Christianity in the past 200 years has typically followed a pattern: Western missionaries arrived and their ministry usually resulted in a very small number of local people becoming Christians. The explosive growth of a church typically came through the ministries of those local Christians, not the missionaries.
It was the evangelism of people like Samuel Ajayi Crowther, the first Nigerian Anglican bishop, that led to great gospel growth. And yet, in 19th and early 20th century writings, the focus tended to be only on white missionaries. History ignored the contribution of world Christians.
All this has led to great interest in recovering a more accurate sense of our history. We are wonderfully recovering the stories of great saints like Apolo Kivebulaya, Angelina Noble, Samuel Crowther, Betsey Stockton and Pandita Ramabai, and learning from the missiologists and theologians of world Christianity.
In the 21st century, we have the joy of worshipping the Lord Jesus alongside brothers and sisters from many cultures and countries. We have the rich privilege of reading the Bible with different cultural perspectives. There are many wonderful things about world Christianity.
But there are also areas for concern. While it is wonderful to record history accurately, it doesn’t help if we simply repeat past mistakes. Just as it wasn’t wise to airbrush out non-Anglo people, it is not wise today to airbrush out Anglo mission work and give the impression that growth has come entirely from the national church.
A great theme within world Christianity has been the appeal to listen. To listen to the theologies and missiologies being written in the Global South. We absolutely need to do that. But in the hands of some this has been taken a step further, saying that Anglo Western churches should listen and also stop speaking. Some missiologists urge the West to take the road of humility and silence. Humility–yes, absolutely. Silence–surely not. To say that Western mission should be silent is clearly not a road we want to travel.
In a similar vein, the world Christianity narrative sometimes argues that mission is not about sending. We’re told that sending is a neo-colonial narrative. But mission in the New Testament cannot be separated from the concept of sending.
Mission as Growth
Of course, if we are gospel people, we long to see others come to know the Lord Jesus. The vision of CMS is a world that knows Jesus. That vision has an expectation of growth and transformation built into it. We want to reach gospel-poor peoples for Christ. Again, that imagines growth.
But there is a bigger story here. In contemporary missiology, we can trace ‘mission as growth’ back to American missionary and missiologist, Donald McGavran. He argued that while many things were included under the umbrella of mission, one thing was more fundamental and important than everything else: the growth of the church. He developed a whole set of strategies based on sociological argument and observation.
For example, McGavran argued that mission should focus on people or people groups who are responsive to the gospel, and not focus on those who are not. We can trace a clear line of thought from the Church Growth Movement in the 1970s and ’80s, to church-planting movements in the ’90s and 2000s, to disciple-making movements today.
A definition of the latter says, ‘Disciple making movements spread the gospel by making disciples who learn to obey the word of God and quickly make other disciples, who then repeat the process’.
Read More
Related Posts: