The Messy Nature of Humanity and Church

The theological manuals written by those responsible for the mission of the people of God in the world must be subject to review by the reality of the presence and work of the Spirit through those engaged in the ‘frontline’ mission and ministry.[1]

--Ray S. Anderson

Reflective Practitioner

During the spring and summer of 2011 data for this study was assembled on alternative missional churches from the “‘frontline’ mission and ministry” as a reflective practitioner. The alternative missional churches allege they are the result of the emergence of a new era that engages different ways of being and doing church through contextualization. Their focus is to missionally and contextually engage with their cultures and communities through an exercise of various innovative and culturally relevant expressions. Their practices and strategies reflect the rhetoric of Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch in the book The Shaping of Things to Come[2] and the general reality of alternative missional churches represented in this research. Engaging in this research as an interested participant the goal reflected in the research is from a hermeneutic of suspicion.[3] The goal is to understand the reality of what is actually happening amid the alternative missional ecclesia for the potential of exposing unintentional Positive Deviance process and approach.

Location, Location, Location

The location chosen for the research is purposefully limited within the Metro area of Portland. The limited location allows for a snap-shot view of a specific region and its cultural dynamics. The research method is focused on a phenomenological study of the representative ecclesia in order to draw out the dynamics of each ecclesia’s practices and strategies amid their cultural environment. Each of the participating ecclesia was generously open to the research process. This section reflects on the research design and method, as well as my personal participation as a reflective practitioner.

Structure of the Study

This study is fashioned in such a manner that it reflects, primarily, the essential desires of learning firsthand about alternative missional ecclesia amid marginalized cultures and secondly to engage qualitative research and analysis. The approach of learning through a participant-observer location allows for firsthand engagement of the subjects. This reflects a postmodern preference of learning from the local expressions instead of engaging metanarratives and grand theories. The primary objective is to learn, from the embedded local and particular expressions of the alternative missional ecclesia, about their contextualization process, as well as their specific innovative practices and strategies.  

The study of the imaginative nature within each subject ecclesial expressions is to create a local and particular present-day perspective, in other words to investigate the reality of unintentional positive deviance practices and strategies. Hans Küng recommends, “. . . to think of any church as set apart from error and sin would be an ‘idealizing misconception’ which makes it ‘an unreal, distant ideal surrounded by a false halo, rather than a real historical church.’”[4] It is in the unpacking of the practices and strategies of the alternative missional ecclesia that the reality of the need for an empowering contextualization with theological praxis is revealed in reality. The messy nature of humanity and church planting is not hidden from sight, but is openly engaged as part of the growth process. Moving beyond dwelling in the world of theory and ideals the focus of a local study, such as this one, allows the ability to evaluate contextualization amid the marginalized and reveal their practices and strategies in real time.  

The study is aimed at learning not just what are the practices and strategies that bring about contextualization of the Gospel, but the how and why of the practices and strategies used to accomplish this goal. By tapping the practices and strategies the intent is to be able to learn about the motivation, mission and innovation of the practitioners. Thereby, allowing them to become the inspiration for other ministries and to invite others to become the next wave of practitioners, to learn similar and unique processes that will empower contextualization with theological praxis.

---

[1] Ray S. Anderson, Ministry on the Fireline: A Practical Theology for an Empowered Church (Fuller Seminary Press, 1998), 16.

[2] Frost and Hirsch, The Shaping of Things to Come.

[3] The concept of a ‘hermeneutic of suspicion’ is used by liberation theologians in order to question ideologies and subconscious desires that maintain the status quo.  Juan Luis Segundo, Liberation of Theology (Wipf and Stock Pub., 2002), 7–9.

[4] Hans Küng, The Church (Image Books, 1976), 131.

God is a Missionary

Theological Praxis

            The ontology of the Positive Deviance Approach suggests it is relevant to the study of church forms and contexts for the 21^st century and beyond. Here the question must be asked if there is any theological premise for the praxis of the Positive Deviance Approach in the ecclesial context. The ontological nature of Positive Deviance develops naturally out of the theology of the missio Dei, the mission of God. The theological basis of the missio Dei is defined by the initiative and innovation of God. God is a missionary. The practices and strategies as represented in the missio Dei, suggest the missio Dei is the life giving source for the meaning and purpose of the church, Van Sanders writes,

When kept in the context of the Scriptures, missio Dei correctly emphasizes that God is the initiator of His mission to redeem through the Church a special people for Himself from all of the peoples (τα εθνη) of the world. He sent His Son for this purpose and He sends the Church into the world with the message of the gospel for the same purpose. The perspective of missio Dei as the deriving source of the meaning and purpose of the church flows out of the nature of God.[1]

The initiative for the missional movement comes from God, embodied in Jesus Christ and passed onto the church through the empowering of the Holy Spirit. The church is therefore an incarnational community of Christ-followers participating in the missional endeavor as part of God’s design. The practices and strategies of the church in mission reflect the same practices and strategies of the Positive Deviance Approach. John Hoffmeyer, associate Professor of Systematic Theology, writes,

In the course of the twentieth century, missiology increasingly made missio Dei its foundational term. According to this development, “mission” is not just something the church does; mission is God’s own activity. The mission of the church is properly understood as participation in God’s mission.[2]

The theological basis of the Positive Deviance approach as praxis is found within the doctrine of missio Dei. David J. Bosch writes that the initiative and innovation of the Trinity is witnessed in the missio Dei,

During the past half a century or so there has been a subtle but nevertheless decisive shift toward understanding mission as God’s mission. . . . Mission was understood as being derived from the very nature of God. It was thus put in the context of the doctrine of the Trinity, not of ecclesiology or soteriology. The classical doctrine on the missio Dei as God the Father sending the Son, and God the Father and the Son sending the Spirit was expanded to include yet another “movement”: The Father, Son and the Holy Spirit sending the church into the world. As far as missionary thinking was concerned, this linking with the doctrine of the Trinity constituted an important innovation . . . . Our mission has not life of its own: only in the hands of the sending God can it truly be called mission. Not least since the missionary initiative comes from God alone … Mission is thereby seen as a movement from God to the world; the church is viewed as an instrument for that mission. There is church because there is mission, not vice versa. To participate in mission is to participate in the movement of God’s love toward people, since God is a fountain of sending love.[3]

Bosch collectively engages the Trinity within the initiative and innovation of God in the doctrine of the missio Dei. This shows the initiative and innovation within the relationship of the Trinity reflects what may be considered the Positive Deviance Approach. Innovation is part of Merton’s analysis of the modes of anomie and here show a reflection the work of the Trinity through the incarnation. Specifically, Merton’s conclusion demonstrates that innovation is congruent with the theological praxis of the missio Dei. Merton’s mode of innovation is defined as: participants accept approved goals, but pursue those goals through other means.[4] Innovation plays a major role in the Positive Deviance Approach. The practices and strategies of Positive Deviants are not limited by culturally imposed norms. Some may argue there is no room for innovation within the nature of an immutable God because innovation would require change in the character of God. The initiative of God by means of the incarnation provides room to consider the possibility of the openness of God in relationship with his creation. The implication is that the incarnation is the ultimate divine expression of the Positive Deviance Approach.

            Considering the implication of the incarnation as the ultimate divine expression of the Positive Deviance Approach, out of the semiotics of Positive Deviance emerges a Christological question that is embedded in the practices and strategies of Jesus. The question challenges the prevailing Christological method which is firmly placed within a modernist analytical methodology as propositional theology. Anderson writes, “. . . it would be fair to say that there is no formal Christology in the New Testament, though there are Christological statements.”[5] Anderson goes on to write, “. . . the Christology of the New Testament is descriptive rather than analytical; it is embedded in narrative and proclamation rather than codified in creedal formulas.”[6] The conclusion is Jesus, by means of the incarnation, determines all Christology as described in the narrative of the New Testament. Flemming writes,

The incarnation of Jesus serves as a key paradigm for a contextualized mission and theology. The New Testament declares that the eternal Word of God was enfleshed in Jesus of Nazareth (Jn1:14). Through his incarnation, Jesus explained or ‘exegeted’ (exēgēsato) the Father to us. . . . he embraced the human context in all of its ‘scandalous particularities.’[7]

The Christology of the New Testament presents Jesus’ practices and strategies were inherently revealed within the Positive Deviance Approach. This may be a bit repetitive, but reflection upon the incarnation is critical to theological praxis. As the enfleshed Word of God Jesus fully identified with humanity and specifically within Judaic society. Flemming writes, “He was thoroughly immersed in his Jewish culture; He participated in its celebrations and traditions; he spoke Aramaic with a Galilean accent; he had distinctive physical features and personality traits.”[8] The event of Jesus’ incarnation reflects the Positive Deviance Approach of changing culture from within the culture. Flemming asserts, “Jesus became one with the weak and the marginalized of his society. As a humble village artisan from Galilee, he lived outside the mainstream of religious, administrative and economic power.”[9] Charles and Marguerite Kraft perceive the incarnation as complete in every respect. They write, “God in Jesus became so much a part of a specific human context that many never even recognized that he had come from somewhere else.”[10] Missiologist C. Rene Padilla states it clearly, “It may be said that God has contextualized himself in Jesus Christ.”[11] The Christology of the New Testament is grounded in God’s practice and strategy of identifying with humanity in the incarnation.

Jesus’ theology of praxis was context-specific. Flemming writes, “The incarnation of Jesus makes contextualization not just a possibility but an obligation. It establishes a paradigm for mediating God’s redeeming presence in the world today.”[12] Flemming continues and makes an important observation that confirms the praxis of Positive Deviance in the incarnation of changing culture from within the culture. He writes, “Jesus’ incarnation, then, in its fullest dimensions points the way to both a radical identification with each culture in all of its specificity and at the same time to a conversion of cultures from within.”[13] Here the how of the praxis is revealed as not just an outsider adaptation to a culture through observing what is evident in a culture. Identification is the embodiment of the incarnation.

To this point this paper has attempted to show the existence and basis of a theology for the praxis of Positive Deviance as demonstrated in the practices and strategies of Jesus, the early church and the descriptive Christology of the narrative in the New Testament. Though the Positive Deviance Approach appears simplistic it is in actuality very complex. What emerges from the gathered material points toward a theological praxis of Positive Deviance in relationship to the initiative of God in the work of Jesus Christ and the church. The original initiator and practitioner of Positive Deviance are indicated as God in the practices and strategies of the Trinity in rendering the holistic redemption of humanity.

Jesus’ deviant practices and strategies engaged the ethnocentrism that was created from the marginalization within the Judaic culture. Through his practices and strategies Jesus offered a counter-intuitive agenda for the kingdom of God. Wright in his own words comments on Jesus’ agenda,

He was telling his hearers to give up their agendas and to trust him for his way of being Israel, his way of bringing the kingdom, his kingdom agenda. . . . Jesus was offering a counter agenda an utterly risky way of being Israel, the way of turning the other check and going the second mile, the way of losing your life to gain it. This was the kingdom-invitation he was issuing.[14]

The practices and strategies of Jesus are the basis for the theological praxis of the Positive Deviance Approach as witnessed in the New Testament. Jesus as the initiator and exemplar of the new kingdom’s practices and strategies led to Jesus’ practices and strategies becoming the praxis of the early church. The trajectory of the Positive Deviance practices and strategies of Jesus were engaged in the background of the early church that eventually led to the communities’ adoption of the radical kingdom of God as Jesus initiated it. The approach to solving the deep seated issue of the ethnocentrism of Judaism became a community driven practice and strategy that resulted in the inclusion of the Hellenists and eventually the Gentiles, thereby, moving the church into a truly multicultural community. The problem solving engaged by the early church reflects the initiative of God directed by the Holy Spirit and seen in the theological trajectory within the narrative of the Acts of the Apostles. These activities reflect the Positive Deviance Approach.

Conclusion

The results were that the early Christian church and community were successful in the adoption of the practices and strategies of Jesus as a Positive Deviance force, setting the church on a theological trajectory for cultural contextualization. The results produce a better understanding of the history and doctrine of the missio Dei. The theological trajectory has implications of morphing the missio Dei into the mission of Christ, the missio Christi, and church as mission. The missio Christi maybe best described as the history and doctrine of the mission of Jesus Christ engaged throughout the history of the church and in contemporary times. The ideology of the missio Christi focuses upon the mission of Jesus Christ of Nazareth as always contemporarily present throughout the whole of the narrative of both the Hebrew and Christian Testaments and church history. The emphasis is upon the active presence of Christ within the church and in pagan cultures and societies, the ubiquity of Christ as the second person of the Trinity. The theological praxis of Positive Deviance is reflected in the words of Flemming, he writes, “Through the presence of the Spirit and the ministry of the church, Christ must be enfleshed in every contemporary human culture and context. To be true to the nature of the gospel itself, we must enable it ‘to enter the blood stream of the people.’”[15] The theology and praxis of Positive Deviance is sourced from the life giving blood of a living and risen Jesus, the Christ, and transfused into “the blood stream of people.”

            In conclusion, the theological praxis of the Positive Deviance Approach presents a paradigm shift for the modernist institutional church in order to reach the marginalized within their respective cultures. The efforts of Positive Deviants in cultural contexts provide the best opportunity to connect with a broader pluralistic society such as exists in Portland, Oregon. It is important to remember that Positive Deviance according to the definition is delineated as a functional approach to define, determine, discover and design an appropriate ecclesial construct within any cultural context. The sociological basis of positive deviance as a practice within the cultural context has implications and application for the development of the ecclesia amid marginalized. Since positive deviance works within a culture to identify the practices and strategies that bring about the accepted goals of the church, a process of training practitioners should be developed and engaged. Understanding the praxis of positive deviance comes out of the theology of the missio Dei and is expressed in the missio Christi. Through the initiative of God by the Holy Spirit the practitioner of Positive Deviance is able to engage the process of challenging and changing ecclesial forms. The functionality of positive deviance in each context will produce an incarnational and missional community that engages the immediate context according to the unique construct of the culture as evidenced in the Acts of the Apostles.

            A major component of positive deviance is the semiotic practice of learning to read the signs that reveal the practices and strategies of the positive deviants in new forms of ecclesial context. If the abilities of the positive deviants are discernable and their practices and strategies are reproducible within their context then it is conceivable the church may flourish in even broader contexts amid the pluralism within a global society. Learning from the practitioners of the Positive Deviance Approach amid alternative missional ecclesia has the potential of empowering contextualization with theological praxis. Studying the practitioner is necessary and requires a research method that will take into consideration more than facts, but considers the non-measurable intuitive intelligence of the practitioner. The research method that should bring out facts and intuitive intelligence is examined in the next section of this paper.

---

[1] Van Sanders, “The Mission of God and the Local Church,” John M. Bailey, Pursuing the Mission or God in Church Planting (North American Mission Board, SBC, 2006), 24.

[2] John F. Hoffmeyer, “The Missional Trinity,” Dialog: A Journal of Theology 40, no. 2 (June 2001): 108.

[3] Bosch, 390

[4] Merton, 193-209.

[5] Anderson, An Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches, 44; C. Norman Kraus, Jesus Christ Our Lord: Christology from a Disciple’s Perspective (Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2004), 82.

[6] Anderson, An Emergent Theology for Emerging Churches, 44.

[7] Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 20.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid., 20–21.

[10] Charles H. Kraft and Marguerite G. Kraft, Christianity in Culture: A Study in Dynamic Biblical Theologizing in Cross Cultural Perspective (Orbis Books, 2005), 175.

[11] C. René Padilla, Mission Between The Times: Essays On The Kingdom (W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985), 83.

[12] Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 21.

[13] Ibid., 22–23.

[14] Wright, The Challenge of Jesus, 44.

[15] Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 21–22.