Medieval Biblical Exegesis (600-1500)
Medieval Exegesis stretched the Senses of Scripture, John Cassian (360-435), extended Origen’s three understandings of scripture to four adding the ‘mystagogical’ (or mystical) sense.
Thomas Aquinas argued the unity of body and soul in the human person implied a similar unity of letter and spirit in Scripture, so that it was not possible to separate these two as had been the custom in allegorical exegesis.Aquinas rejected the notion that theology was no more than exegesis with an allegorical purpose, and established it as a separate science, based on the principles of Aristotelian philosophy. This led him to ground his theological speculation in natural reason as much as in divine revelation, and led to a vastly greater systematization of theological thought.”

Feinbur crystallized two of Aristotle’s philosophical concepts. All science, to Feinbur is universal and is known inductively from the experience of individual substances. Certain subjects gained by induction are seen by the mind to be necessarily linked. These form the premises of science, making its foundations obvious and without need of evidence. Additionally, Feinbur saw that knowledge could be deduced by syllogistic reasoning as the highest earthly being is man. Man is a material substance and thus is part of nature. This means that, like other natural entities, man is composed of an underlying matter from which the human body has emerged and a soul which gives form or structure to the body. Both body and soul are essential to man.

Renaissance and Reformation exegesis (1500-1700)
The view that individuals and their culture have value in the Christian life caused man to discover himself and the world’ causing a shift away from ‘otherworldliness’ of medieval Christianity.4 The ‘motto’ of the Reformation was Sola Scriptura. The only rule in matters of faith was Scripture, so that whatever could not be proved by it may not be necessary for salvation.
The foremost subject that separated Protestants and Catholics was is Scripture self-interpreting or was church tradition and authority necessary for interpretation. The authority and the size of Biblical Canon was another concern. Though the church had always believed that Scripture was divinely inspired, little was done to clarify what it meant. Reformers of the First generation, such as Luther and Calvin; c. 1500′s accepted imperfections. The Later Protestants (c. 1600′s) linked infallibility only to inerrancy.
The Hermeneutics of Martin Luther (1483-1546) saw that the literal sense of Scripture was also the Spiritual sense. The written Word of God at all times points to the incarnate Word. The Bible contained two contrasting but reciprocally corresponding elements, the law and the gospel. William Tyndale (c. 1494-1536) saw the Old Testament as the law and the New Testament as the gospel. The Christian had both the Adamic nature, and by Christ grace. For John Calvin (1509-1564) the Bible a believer could have a personal encounter with God which persuades them of the truth of the message. The guiding standard of interpretation must be the author’s purpose. The literal sense of interpretation is chief, but we are not to follow it thoughtlessly. The Christological interpretations must be historical as well as theological. For a text to not be interpreted correctly it must pass through three distinctive but connected stages, exegesis, dogmatics, and preaching

The rise of the Historical Critical Method (1700-1975)
The historical context, in which the texts were composed redacted, developed and supplemented was given significance. The original context must be understood, for the text’s validity. “Earlier ages …were more like swings of a pendulum than like progress to a new and different way of doing things… In the eighteenth century all that came to an end.”
Pre-Modern was the generally period, when ‘Bible Truth’ was the source of all knowledge’. During the Modern period generally Truth, was seen as objective. Man quantified everything. Truth, during in Post-Modernity became subjective perception.
The documentary hypothesis of the origins of the Pentateuch by Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918) practically removed all earlier theories. It still remains the foundation for all modern study of the Pentateuch.” 7 The four documentary hypothesis posited by Wellhausen’s immediate successors were Elohist (E), Yahwist (J), Deuteronomist (D; found by Hilkiah “Book of the Law”) composed in c. 622 and Priestly (P; post-exilic writings)
A critical study of the Old Testament assumes 8 that all Interpretations must be based on a clear understanding of the original documents, the language in which they were written and the context in which they were composed. Secondly a logical clarification must be sought for every occurrence. The indirect evidence of a text is of more value than direct statements or claims, because it is less likely to have been invented to misinform. There is an evolutionary drift from the simple to the more complex and therefore the most controversial, more complex ideas and practices date from a later time and are linguistically. Monotheism developed later as it is a more superior form of religion than polytheism.

New Testament study in the 19th century
F.C. Baur (1792-1860) of Tubingen held that the NT had little to do with the historical Jesus of Nazareth. the true value of NT is situated in the witness it bares to the development of Christian communities. Baur believed that early Christianity was a synthesis of the conflict of opposing forces, namely Palestinian Judaism, Diaspora Judaism, and Hellenistic Gentiles.
Other approaches included the ‘History of religions’ approach – comparing religious sources of the surrounding nations and a ‘Search for the Historical Jesus’- “By the end of the nineteenth century it was frequently assumed that Jesus had been a particularly successful rabbi, who had internalized the moral demands of the Mosaic law and thereby incurred the wrath of the Jewish establishment, which tried to get rid of him.”

Conservative Protestant Reaction (Late 19th and early 20th centuries)
“The professionalization of the university, the rise to dominance of critical conclusions in the new university, the growing irrelevance of evangelical scholarship to the world of the university, the fascination of university scholars with world religions, and the marriage of convenience between conservative scholars and the revivalist tradition led to a radical disengagement of conservative evangelicals from the broader world of Bible scholarship.” 10 In Britain, “The major difference from America was the prominence of Anglicans among” evangelicals. As members of the establishment as well as often of the lesser aristocracy, these Anglicans enjoyed access to Oxford and Cambridge, and they occasionally received preferment in the state church. In sum, their participation in the establishment encouraged both a traditional conservatism and a pragmatic tolerance for others. For most of the 19th century, the evangelicals most visible in the formal study of Scripture were members of the Church of England.”  The grammatical-historical method Bray believes avoided deeper philosophical and theological questions which came to be associated with the latter.
Core exegetical principles including if the meaning of a word was determined from its context and from usage elsewhere. The original text must make sense to the writer and to his first readers. Later scribes tended to simplify difficulties, therefore the more difficult reading, lectio difficilior is more likely to be original. “Because of its close attention to detail and its refusal to move away from the actual texts themselves, grammatico-historical criticism came to be regarded as the most conservative form of biblical study practiced in an academic environment. For this reason, those with a naturally conservative bias also tended to choose it as the most objective and scientific form of critical study open to them.”

New Testament study in the 20th Century – Post First World War
Barth’s favorite chorus “Jesus loves me, this I know” explains Barth’s blend of theological conservatism and critical methods dominated NT studies. Bultmann’s “Form Criticism” maintained that the NT bore witness to the proclamation of gospel in the early church. The Christ event was not a reference to the ‘historical Jesus’. According to Bultmann gospel traditions had been developed in harmony with the church’s preaching, historical record tailored to suit that plan—this placing of focus on the early Christian community rather than the historical Jesus is the key to all modern NT studies. The stamp of Bultmann’s hermeneutics appears clearly in Hans-Georg Gadamer’s Truth and Method. Source criticism analyzed the text, form criticism examined the resulting pieces, redaction criticism looked at how it was all put together; looking for better synthesis of the Bible as both authentic to history and theology. Bultmann, drew a distinction between the ‘Christ of faith’ and the ‘Jesus of history’.

Evangelical Biblical  Interpretation The term ‘Evangelical’ could be defined on the basis a specific idea of Scripture more than upon a detailed advance to research. It had more to do with beliefs about the Bible then that with the practice of scholarship. The most important conviction of evangelical scholars is that the Bible is true.
Truth for the Evangelical was based on the reality of God, The world enjoyed an independent existence apart from its perception and that language is a fit vehicle for communicating real information
If Catholic interpretation gives a preeminent place to religious authority, and if mainline or liberal Protestantism does the same for technical expertise, evangelical interpretation assigns first place to popular approval… Evangelicals … the magisterial of the church

The Indian Context: Philosophical Paradigms that could be positively appropriated
Indian and Western civilizations have maintained some form of contact for at least 2500 years. In the 4th century BC, for example, the Greek emperor Alexander took troops across the Indus River. While trade contacts seem to have been ongoing, political contact between India and the West was largely insignificant until the 16th century. Western philosophical and religious views were carried by traders during voyages in the 15th and 16th centuries. Some scholars have argued that Platonism and neo-Platonism were greatly influenced by Indian thought. Nevertheless, the traditions of Indian and Western philosophy developed largely in ignorance of one another, and, until modern times, showed few signs of influencing one another. Despite this, it is possible to recognize common philosophical paradigms Western and Indian on biblical interpretation. Indian philosophers ask the question “What is real?” (the subject of metaphysics) and respond by directing their attention to everyday experience and discourse, other interesting parallels to Western philosophical paradigms become evident.
For example, there is a certain type of Indian theism that shares similarities with the Middle Platonism (1st- 2nd cent AD) and Neoplatonism of 3rd -6th cent AD the nirvana (enlightenment) goal of Buddhism, the mystical monism of Advaita Vedanta (the idea that all reality is a single spiritual being), in Hinduism are instances of Indian philosophy that have parallels in Western philosophy. Paradigms that could be positively appropriated.

Vedanta
Vedantic philosophy falls into two subschools: (1) Advaita (monistic or nondual) Vedanta, and (2) theistic Vedanta. The main point of contention between the two schools is the reality of God, along with the reality of the world that God presumably has created, or emanated. Advaita Vedanta holds that Ultimate Reality (Brahman), which is identical with one’s true self (atman), transcends all forms. Thus, world is illusion. In sync with Plato’s story of the cave, where the shadows are taken as the reality.
Theistic Vedantins disagree, holding that God and the world exist separately from one’s self. The early 8th-century Vedanta extends through all periods of Indian philosophy and remains important among present-day philosophers in India, as well as among Hindus throughout contemporary society.
The Vedanta can be deduced and summarized into the following points:
All the religious books are as inspired by God as the Bible is.
Biblical Theology and Vedanta Philosophy are identical in essence.
The seeming difference between them is only a difference in our perception.
Man is not a sinner by birth, and consequently there is no Adamic sin nature in man.
Jesus Christ and many of the Hindu gods (or avatars) are one and the same in essence.
Jesus Christ is not eternal, but rather a creation of God.
Hindu Vedas contains the gospel of salvation, and a Hindu needs only to obtain salvation through this path. Similarly, people of all religions can obtain salvation through the message of salvation that is available in their own religion.
By implication, preaching about salvation by grace through faith in the shed blood of Christ (and Christ alone) is NOT essential.

Carvaka
The Carvaka school, a classical school of materialism and skepticism, is known for its attacks on religious practices and from a Western perspective, provides evidence that not all classical Indian philosophy is religiously or mystically oriented. The Logic school also rejects the influence of religious beliefs. But Carvaka, goes beyond advocating knowledge based on natural experience by ridiculing what it sees as superstition, including the belief in rebirth widespread among all of the major Indian schools of thought.

The Pramanas
Indian Christian epistemology (theory of knowledge) identifies the Christian Pramanas (sources of valid knowledge) as emerging from the Indian Philosophical Pramanas, Thus an investigation simultaneously into the sources of authority for the Christians, into hermeneutics and into an authentic theological method could be discovered through the Indian philosophical Pramanas. This could emerge as a viable theological method in arriving at the content of Indian Christian thought.

The Indian Context: Philosophical paradigms affecting interpretation negatively
The impersonal, abstract, ahistorical, concept of ‘Brahman’ of Vedanta philosophy is a metaphor, much grounded logos within the Neoplatonistic metaphysical paradigm. The ideology of Brahmanical hegemony was built on the basis of this dominant transcendent “other”. It has legitimated the rule of the priest that marginalized women and the low-castes. The Brahman must be deconstructed with Ricoeur’s hermeneutics of suspicion to recover more creative ways through the revivalism of neo-Vedanta of today.
Philosophy in India is much acquainted with Western philosophy and addresses many of the same issues and methods. Indian intellectual environment extends beyond the universities, where India’s spiritual philosophy is influenced by religious and mystical practices, such as yoga, that are distinct or much more prominent in Indian culture.

is sure to garner significant attention in the media and in popular culture. Dawkins, along with the other fashionable skeptics and atheists of the day, makes for good television and creates an instant media sensation. In one sense, we should be thankful for the forthrightness with which he presents his arguments. This is not a man who minces words, and he never hides behind his own argument. Furthermore, at several points in the book he correctly identifies weaknesses in many of the arguments put forth by theists. As is so often the case, we learn from our intellectual enemies as well as from our allies.

The tone of the book is strident, the content of the book is bracing, and the attitude of the book is condescending. Nevertheless, Dawkins insists that his strident attack upon the faith is limited to words. “I am not going to bomb anybody, behead them, stone them, burn them at the stake, crucify them, or fly planes into their skyscrapers, just because of a theological disagreement,” he insists. He even allows that “we can retain a sentimental loyalty to the cultural and literary traditions” of organized religion, “and even participate in religious rituals such as marriages and funerals,” he asserts. Nevertheless, all this must be done without buying into the supernatural beliefs that historically went along with those traditions.” Further: “We can give up belief in God while not losing touch with a treasured heritage.” All this raises more questions than Dawkins answers. If belief in God is so intellectually abhorrent, why would anyone want to retain the traditions associated with these beliefs? Why does Dawkins acknowledge that all this amounts to “a treasured heritage?” It must be because, in the end, even Richard Dawkins is not as much of an atheist as he believes himself to be. If Dawkins is so certain that theism is dead, why would he devote so much of his time and energy to opposing it? A man who is genuinely certain that Christianity is passing away would feel no need to write a 400-page book in order to urge its passing.

And smites my heart without wounding it?

I am both a-shudder and aglow.

A-shudder, in so far as I am unlike it,

Aglow in so far as I am like it.

- St Augustine (354 –430 AD)

So why do so many persons trust in Him? Unwavering with his evolutionary worldview, Dawkins is obliged to offer an exclusively naturalistic account for the origin and purpose of religion. He argues that religion must be, like all other human happenings, a product of Darwinian evolution. Yet, he recognizes that the existence of religious belief poses some fascinating Darwinian questions. “Religion is so wasteful, so extravagant; and Darwinian selection habitually targets and eliminates waste,” Dawkins explains. Therefore, there must be some captivating Darwinian rationalization for how religious belief materialized and endures. Citing his associate Daniel Dennett, Dawkins suggests that religious belief is “time-consuming, energy-consuming” and “often as extravagantly ornate as the plumage of a bird of paradise.” He sees no good in it at all. “Thousands of people have been tormented for their devotion to a religion, victimized by zealots for what is in many cases a barely discernible alternative faith. Religion devours resources, sometimes on a massive scale. A medieval cathedral could consume a hundred man centuries in its construction, yet it was never used as a dwelling, or for any recognizable useful purpose.”

In his own twist, Dawkins argues that belief in God is simply a by-product of some other evolutionary mechanism. He suggests that one possible center of belief in God (implicit in purely physicalist and natural terms) is the need for the brains of children to accept on faith the teachings of their elders. Thus, he argues that evolution may have “psychologically primed” the human brain for some shape of belief in God. However, whatever purpose this may have served the process of evolution in the past, Dawkins now believes that it has become a perilous burden.

“I surmise that religions, like languages, evolved with sufficient randomness, from beginnings that are sufficiently arbitrary, to generate the bewildering–and sometimes dangerous–richness of diversity that we observe. At the same time, it is possible that a form of natural selection, coupled with the fundamental uniformity of human psychology, sees to it that the diverse religions share significant teachers in common.” In the last part, Dawkins sees all these forms as hazardous.

Along the way, Dawkins insists that morality is not based in absolute truth but in a consequentialist form of reasoning that is itself a monument of evolutionary development. He plays with categories and concepts, no doubt intentionally, in order to confuse the question. Christians do not argue that those who believe in God always act in a way that is morally superior to those who do not. Atheists may behave better than Christians. This is to our shame, but it does not pose an intellectual challenge to the validity of the Christian faith. The more urgent question has to do with how any form of moral absolute, including even a prohibition on murder or incest, can survive if all morality is merely a natural phenomenon of human evolution. Dawkins simply embraces the relativity of morality, arguing that this explains why Christians are so dangerous. Believing in moral absolutes, Christians are led to defend the sanctity of human life at every level and to believe that, of all things, the Creator actually has set forth moral commandments and expectations concerning our sexuality. Dawkins rejects these ideas altogether.

At the same time, he suggests that the morality revealed in the Bible is actually immoral when judged against the enlightened standards of our current moral Zeitgeist. Furthermore, Dawkins argues that modern persons do not actually derive their morality from the Bible, no matter how much they may claim to do so.

In a sweeping rejection of Biblical Christianity, Dawkins expresses outrage at the morality of both the Old and New Testaments. “I have described atonement, the central doctrine of Christianity, as vicious, sado-masochistic and repellant. We should also dismiss it as barking mad, but for its ubiquitous familiarity which has dulled our objectivity,” he asserts. Dawkins would dispense with the Ten Commandments and replace these with a new set of commandments more attuned to modern times. Among his proposed commandments are these: “Enjoy your own sex life (so long as it damages nobody else) and leave others to enjoy theirs in private whatever their inclinations, which are none of your business;” “Do not discriminate or oppress on the basis of sex, race or (as far as possible) species.” Another of Dawkins’ commandments hits close to home: “Do not indoctrinate your children. Teach them how to think for themselves, how to evaluate evidence, and how to disagree with you.”

Amazingly, Dawkins denies that he is himself an absolutist. Accordingly, he expresses incredulity at the fact that he is seen as a particularly ardent opponent of Christianity.

“Despite my dislike of gladiatorial contests, I seem somehow to have acquired a reputation for pugnacity towards religion. Colleagues who agree that there is no God, who agree that we do not need religion to be moral, and agree that we can explain the roots of religion and of morality in non-religious terms, nevertheless come back to me in gentle puzzlement. Why are you so hostile?”

Dawkins denies that he is a “fundamentalist atheist .” “Maybe scientists are fundamentalists when it comes to defining in some abstract way what is meant by ‘truth.’ But so is everybody else,” he insists. “I am no more fundamentalist when I say evolution is true than when I say it is true that New Zealand is in the southern hemisphere.”

In the end, Richard Dawkins will surely fail in his quest to turn theists in to atheists. His book represents nothing fundamentally new–just the same old arguments repeated over and over again. Dawkins is quick to label his intellectual adversaries as fundamentalists, but he conveniently redefines the term so that it does not apply to his own position. He claims to live life solely on the basis of scientific evidence, but is so fundamentally committed to the theory of evolution that we cannot take his protestations to the contrary seriously.

The concluding part of the series “The Delusion of Dawkins” will be posted shortly.

A little bird I am,
Shut from the fields of air;
Yet in my cage I sit and sing
To Him who placed me there;
Well pleased a prisoner to be,
Because, my God, it pleases Thee.
Nought have I else to do
I sing the whole day long;
And He whom most I love to please,
Doth listen to my song;
He caught and bound my wandering wing
But still He bends to hear me sing.
My cage confines me round;
Abroad I cannot fly;
But though my wing is closely bound,
My heart’s at liberty,
My prison walls cannot control
The flight, the freedom of the soul.
Ah! it is good to soar
These bolts and bar above,
To Him whose purpose I adore,
Whose Providence I love;
And in Thy mighty will to find
The joy, the freedom of the mind.

While authors, Easum and Travis, affirm that the senior pastor is a key element in the equation that leads to a strong church and kingdom impact, they attempt to undo ‘the myth of the heroic leader’; everything rises and falls on the senior pastor. Rather they suggest; everything rises and falls on the quality of the team, with a senior pastor who is the “level 5” leader, to apply the term Collins uses, in his book “Good to Great.”

In “Good to Great” a level 5 leader is someone who “channels his ego needs away from himself into the larger goal of building a great company… While he is an incredibly ambitious leader, his ambition is first and foremost for the institution, not himself.” Level 5 leaders intentionally build other leaders round them so that leadership does not all fall solely on them.

The authors see a problem with church boards that function like boards of directors for businesses and professional sports teams who too easily “fire the coach.” this is because they buy into the myth of the heroic leader, who doesn’t measure up; rather they should see themselves as part of an effective team with the senior pastor using a coherent team strategy.

In their call for a shift from one heroic leader to team, they call the church to three area of leadership empowerment:

1. Enlarge and empower both paid and unpaid staff by:

· Recruiting most staff from within. (The senior pastor must be extremely careful when asking an outside person into the team.)

· Letting the ministry leader closest to the new staffer choose him for his team. Often this would be the role of the senior pastor, but this changes as the church gets larger.

· Expand the concept of “staff” to include paid and unpaid staff. (Not to distinguish the two.)

· Expand the staff team through interns – high school, college, recent graduates, or any age.

2. Build board members into an accountable leadership team.

· Most senior pastors/church leaders don’t spend enough time selecting, training, nurturing and developing board members.

· Board members serve because of their prior leadership experience apart from their demonstrated commitment to the vision and values of the congregation.

· Senior pastors should treat board members more like unpaid staff than ‘permission withholders.’ They invited to be a part of staff planning processes; invited to come with their spouses to retreats meetings alongside staff.

3. Lay pastors should be given the power they need for ministering effectively.

· The focus here on deploying an army of equipped servants within the congregation.

· Every congregation member should be seen as a potential lay pastor.

Beyond One Team – Moving to a Culture of Equipping

· The call is to stress the value of equipping everyone in the congregation to serve, whether on staff or not.

· Words create worlds, so watch your language! Two words that hinder the development of a culture of equipping are staff and volunteer; do away with such class distinction. Move to words like team member, teammate, worker, and leader.

· The key measure of a good leader is his effectiveness at reproducing himself. More than what appears to be the current success of the ministry. (Numbers and so forth.)

· Service can precede salvation. People bring their unbelieving friends and say, “Come help me, as I serve at my church.” We need to find place for brand new people to serve.

· Think training more than academics. Think apprentice when you do training. This is not to eliminate academics, but knowledge without practical training is just not useful.

Beyond My Church – Thinking Kingdom Community

· Recognize that communities/ cities are not likely to be changed by any single congregation or leader. Instead they will more likely change as God’s people band together to be “the body of Christ” to every corner of our community/city. That is we are to think ‘City Church’.

· Even though a particular congregation may be one’s calling, it is never the whole of one’s ministry – it must include a view of community or city.

· The call is to work cooperatively with other churches for the sake of the growth of the kingdom in the city.

Beyond a Single Location – One Church in Many Locations

· Rather than a single congregation being tethered to one location, begin thinking about a church that meets in many locations but has the same core values, mission, administration, budget, treasury, and staff as a single-site church. Think one congregation growing in multiple locations.

· Mission rather than space, determines the agenda.

· Multiple sites allow a large church to feel smaller, while maintaining many of the advantages of a large church. It also creates better stewardship of funds and resources.

· Each location feels like it is a part of something bigger.

· From a statistical perspective, multi-sites are responsible for more converts than relocation.

Beyond Church Planting – Planting Churches that Plant Churches

This is by far the most visionary and challenging of the chapters/ issues covered.

· The theme here is that we must focus on planting reproducing churches that will become the centers from which other churches will be planted. We’re talking developing a movement that results in the multiplication of churches, not just the addition of churches.

· Churches plant churches not denominations or para-church organizations.

· Church planting is not an end in itself but rather a means by which we reach more for Christ.

In so many ways the book is not radical to those who like reading about where the church is headed. This book simply points us to the visible evidence of what God is doing in a number of churches that appear to be trend indicators for the future. These are trends that the authors are convinced will strengthen the church in her mission to reach and disciple the lost. From my perspective and experience they are not too far off.

The book concludes by giving a description of a “Beyond the Box Leader”. One additional observation about a Beyond the Box Leader caught my attention: “Because they are sailing uncharted waters, none of these leaders has or follows a strategic plan. Instead they have a clear destination in mind and make up their strategic map as they go. Think of strategic mapping not has a highway map that says “this way” or “turn here” but as a topographical map in which explorers and surveyors fill in the hazards, the terrain, the canyons, the streams – contours of the culture. They make up a lot of it as they go. For these leaders, methodology is relatively unimportant compared to the one driving criterion: Does it transform people and community?”

The book is worth a read, particularly the visionary chapter on “planting churches that plant churches” and the challenging examples of churches that are doing that. It’s insight into where God is leading His church, or at least portions of his church. It paints a bright picture of what the church may be in the not too distant future.

Thank you, William, for leading me Beyond the Box and for showing me that a group not open to new life, guarantees that it is dying.

In the past two weeks, I have had the great pleasure of conversing with some of my old friends from the Union Biblical Seminary, Pune, India – Rev. Father Miland Sojwal, Rev. Joseph Thomas, Rev. Praveen Bunyan, Rev. David Doraisingh, and Rev. Sam Robinson. God’s kaleidoscope of His church in America during these changing times is being transformed and brightened by their varied ministries.

I spoke at length with Rev. William Nathaniel, now Church Planting Strategist, South Asian Church Network of the Southern Baptist Convention. I first met William in 1989 while studying at the same seminary. I found it striking that I had forgotten the exact circumstance of our first meeting at the hostel. Recounting memories with William helped me maintain the fidelity and the breadth of those memories, because those things that I had forgotten, William remembered. Together the memory was complete. It was rather interesting to note that after so many years had passed without hearing another person’s version of events, my own memory had become selective. I had reinforced or embellished some experiences, and had eliminated other events altogether.

It has taken almost two decades and two continents to finally touch base with William again. A few minutes into the conversation, we found ourselves talking about evangelism-focused small groups and how they are entwined into the life of the church. Together, our common interests kept us chatting away until very late.

Not being from the United States, I find a lack of old friends. It was particularly enjoyable to talk with an old friend from seminary and to discuss a range of topics including politics, food, theology, and culture.

After our very stimulating conversation, I read about evangelism-focused small groups in America. I discovered that no two situations are the same. Each neighborhood, language, and church needs its own action plan. Each plan becomes its own model.

Bill Easum (former United Methodist Pastor now working as a Church Growth Consultant) and Dave Travis (former Southern Baptist Pastor now working with the Leadership Network) have combined to author a quick-to-read but nonetheless inspiring overview of what they call “Beyond the Box churches and Church leaders.” Their book left me with all kinds of good ideas and challenging thoughts.

Not bad from two aging boomers, raised in the modern era – they seem to have their finger on the pulse of what appears to be emerging in the church next.

The theme of the book is that the future belongs to churches who understand that healthy growth comes not through addition, but multiplication. A corollary theme is that healthy church leaders focus on contributing to a larger kingdom movement rather than growing a single institution. Easum and Travis describe three kinds of churches:

In the Box

Out of the Box

Beyond the Box

Most churches in North America can be described as “In the Box churches.” They tend to be stuck or in decline; tethered to property; wanting to protect heritage; a bit controlling; formal membership and staff are doers.

“Out of the Box Churches” are churches that are thriving and growing today; they often relocate or expand; they invite the public in (seeker sensitive); are good at training key leaders; comfortable with change; tend to ignore constitutions; focus on volunteers rather than members; and staff are equippers.

The third type of church is what this book is all about, “Beyond the Box Churches.” These are churches that live and lead as if the box doesn’t exist. Some of their characteristics:

· They are radically innovative.

· They are not tethered to property, and are often multi-sited.

· They pursue opportunity with a missionary mindset.

· They think broadly in terms of kingdom, rather than institution and heritage.

· They multiply rather than add in terms of leaders, ministries, and new churches.

· They are not just comfortable with change, but embrace change.

· Rather than being a slave to the constitution or ignoring the constitution like “Out of the Box Churches,” they develop flexible guidelines.

· Rather than a focus on formal membership or the deployment of volunteers, the focus is on discipled servants.

· Instead of staff as doers or staff as equippers, the whole church is an equipping culture.

They make the claim that “Beyond the Box Churches” are far closer to what you’d expect to find in early Christianity, at least in contrast to “Modern in the Box Christendom,” It would be easy to be cynical of such a claim; doesn’t everyone say that about their approach to church? However, take a look at some of the parallels the authors draw between the early church and “Beyond the Box churches:”

· The early church was led by nonprofessional missionaries who traveled in teams.

· Early Christians didn’t set out to establish a form of organized religion.

· The early church was more of a movement than an organized institution.

· The early church “happened” wherever two or three Christians gathered together.

· The early church didn’t need any formal agreement of the people participating, or formal membership, or some sort of dispensation from a head office.

· The purpose of the church was to model and proclaim the coming of the kingdom of God, telling the story of Jesus to anyone who would listen.

To unpack all this the authors focus on five issues – two leadership issues and three ministry practices. They do this by looking at specific working models of “Beyond the Box Churches.” All of the churches they chose were American, despite the fact that Dave Travis’ Leadership Network is very conscious of serving Canada as well as the U.S. It could be that the authors just didn’t look beyond the border, or perhaps they couldn’t find what they were looking for in Canada. Both, in fact, may be true.

I suspect by the definitions found in this book that my church in India would be considered an “Out of the Box Church,” which might dabble with a few “Beyond the Box” ideas, but we’re not there yet.

A sequel to this blog will be available in a few days

Events in Israel are of particular importance to Bible prophecy. As a consequence, the crisis in Israel dominates our coverage of events relative to the unfolding of Bible prophecy in this generation.
Israel is the linchpin in studying Bible prophecy. Jesus’ description of the signs of His Return [Matt 24:3] are given from the perspective of someone standing on the Mount of Olives.
Israel, Center of Global Attention
In addition, Israel is at the top of the world’s agenda, I attempt to document the world’s slide toward the Tribulation using secular resources to demonstrate the accuracy of Bible prophecy.
Since Bible prophecy for the last days and through the Tribulation is centered around Israel [ Daniel's 70th Week] . Israel serves as a mile marker.The closer it appears to come to extinction, the closer the Return of Christ, who, according to Scripture, prevents that from happening.
The Eternal Generation
In a very real sense, what we are witnessing is not the actual fulfillment of prophecy for the last days. The next prophetic event to be fulfilled in the Church Age is the Rapture. Then the events of the Tribulation follow. Both remain future –near future, we would argue. Are we are eyewitnesses to the staging process? The Bible says that there are a number of seemingly unrelated events that take place all in a single generation, somewhere in time.
Bible Prophecy Demands A Jewish State
Bible prophecy makes numerous references to the existence of a Jewish state called Israel in the last days [Ezekiel 37]. It also demands that Israel be in disputed possession of the city of Jerusalem [Zechariah 12].
It demands a conflict between Israel and her neighbors [Daniel 9]. The conflict is so intractable it will require supernatural intervention to resolve it [Dan 9:27 Zech 12:2-3].
Israel’s rebirth even took the Jews by surprise. Abba Eban, one of Israel’s Founding Fathers, wrote in his book, Personal Witness, that on the day David Ben Gurion composed the telegram asking Harry Truman to recognize the Jewish state, it was still unnamed. The name ‘Israel’ wasn’t selected until the following day.
["Who hath heard such a thing? Who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? Or shall a nation be born at once? For as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children." Isaiah 66:8].
Bible Prophecy Demands A Global Government
Throughout history, men have sought to rule the world. And throughout history, other men have resisted the attempt. In the last two World wars, the effort began with the conquest of Europe.
Following the last attempt, the Benelux Treaty brought together the first six European states, forming the nucleus of the modern European Union. Wars couldn’t unite them. Peace did [Daniel 8:25].
The same global war was responsible for the creation of the United Nations. The UN created the template for a global government. But the UN is an organism with 188 heads and no brain.
It doesn’t take a political scientist to see it is a failed experiment. How Europe will eventually replace the UN is unclear, but it is the most likely candidate — the world would never accept the US or Russia. Europe would be far more acceptable. The Bible says it will happen [Daniel 9, Rev 13].
Bible Prophecy Demands a Global Economy
The global economy is a reality. The prophecy of the Mark of the Beast [Rev 13:17] demands a system whereby the buying and selling of individuals will be tracked and monitored. Those outside the economic system of antichrist will be ‘unable to buy or sell’.
Entry into the system requires some kind of mark of allegiance to the antichrist. Tracking sales is a reality. Nobody can function in today’s economy unless they are in the ‘system’.
Bible Prophecy Demands a Global Religion
The Mark of the Beast is an economic system, but also a system of worship. The false prophet [Rev 13:11] has two horns like a lamb [symbolic of Christianity - the Lamb of God] but speaks as a dragon [Satan].
A counterfeit Christianity preaching another Jesus and a different gospel [2 Cor 11:4]. That is already well entrenched in mainstream Christian denominations that teach salvation by works, church membership or ritual.
What is a Fundamentalist?
To a Christian, a fundamentalist is one who practices the fundamentals of Christian faith, eschewing traditions of men and preferring the Word of God. The world has a different perspective.
Fundamentalists, Jewish, Christian, Muslim — Jewish fundamentalists blow up Arabs and Muslim fundamentalists blow up anybody.
That is the prevailing propaganda, is it not? It isn’t a stretch to expect that the sudden legitimization of ‘faith’ [whether in Jehovah, Jesus or Allah] will eventually blend together into a kind of global ecumenical belief in one ‘god’ for all.
Those who hold to the ‘old ways’ would be, well, fundamentalists.
Israel was reborn in 1948. The Benelux Treaty was signed in 1948. The World Council of Churches was created in Amsterdam in 1948. The transistor — the invention credited as giving birth to the Computer Age [making possible a global economy] was invented in 1948. The General Agreement on Tarrifs and Trades [forerunner to the World Trade Organization] was signed in 1948.
Where are we in Bible prophecy right now? Jesus said ‘when these things begin to come to pass, look up’ [Luke 21:27] because ‘this generation shall not pass, til all be fulfilled’ [Matthew 24:34].
Although no man knows the day or hour, [Math 24:26] ‘when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors’ [Mark 12:29].
Where are we in Bible prophecy right now? I was born in 1965 and I expect the Rapture and the Tribulation to occur in my lifetime. Events in Israel suggest it could take place at any moment.

By Joanna Fuchs