1st Journal for Effective Small Groups (Summer, 2018)

Day 1 (May 20^th, 2018) – Searching for Self-Identity

A friend told me that he felt lost. He didn’t know who he really was and why he was even alive. He is not the first person to tell me that and I believe he won’t be the last one. “Who am I?” This question has resonated with and been searched for by people since the beginning of human history. It seems that, to have a successful small group, we will need to address this question first.  Everyone in the small group brings his or her version of self-identity to the group. If we are not careful, we will inevitably run into inter-personal conflict and the small group may turn into a battle field for competing interests.

Our identity defines who we are and what we do. If everyone in the small group identifies himself or herself as the redeemed son and daughter in Christ, then we know we are all God’s heir, equipped to do all “good works”[1]. I think that would be a good starting point for an effective small group.

Day 2 (May 22^nd, 2018) - What Does It Mean By "In Christ"?

Last night, as I concluded our Bible study, I wondered if I was running my small group using my own strength and was just calling in God’s help only if I ran into troubles? As I was reading Bridges’ “True Community”, this question popped into my mind - what does it really mean by "in Christ"? Bridges suggests that this “in Christ” experience is the "abide in Me" experience described in John 15:5[2]. This “abide in” attitude allows us to put ourselves on a total dependence on Him and allows Him to enable us to do what He wants us to do. Bridges further explains that this “abide in” experience empowers Paul to say, “I can do all this through him who gives me strength.”[3]

Day 3 (May 24^th, 2018) – Life Equation  

If life is the sum of A's and a's[4], then when we multiply the sum with a "d" (for death), it results in a zero. If life is just a sum of what we do at different stages and platforms, then when death is occurred, everything is in vain. When I put my trust in the Lord, I realized that a capital H was added to my life equation, which made my life complete, as shown below:

 When we have Christ, we have this eternal home in us and we are in this eternal home. When we die, we are assured to be in H (for Heaven) - the only thing left in the life equation when d occurs. “What is in your life equation?” I asked in my senior youth class.

Day 4 (May 24^th, 2018) - My Blessing and Words to Graduates

We had a Senior Night banquet to send off high school graduates. I encouraged A to find four things in his life – First, find your own dream and pursue it. A dream gives us a reason, a motivation to move on and it fuels us to go a long way even when we are facing difficulties. Second, find wisdom. Wisdom will help us make better decisions. Third, find the truth. Without truth, wisdom means nothing; without truth, our dream is just a deception. What is the “truth”? A asked. I replied, “who is the person who said, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life?’” I told A to find this person. The fourth thing I suggested A to find is his soul mate. “Two is better than one.”[5] A lifelong soul mate will help us sustain our dreams, refine our wisdom and stay in the truth.

Day 5 (May 25^th, 2018) - God's Symbol to Me

One of the class assignments today is to find a symbol to represent God in my own understanding. This is an intriguing concept since I’ve been studying and learning about God for all my life, but I’ve never actually used a symbol or an icon to represent God. 

I came out with a symbol which looks like a Yin and Yang in a circle. Yin and Yang are two distinct individuals who/which govern two distinct domains. Although independent, they are in a perfect union. The circle defines the third element in this perfect amalgamation which gives their unity. I thought it may be another way of looking at the triune God from the perspective of Asian culture.

Day 6 (May 26^th, 2018) - What Symbol Represents Me

Another exercise today is to use a symbol to represent me. This thought-provoking idea links back perfectly to my earlier journal about self-identity. I used a dragon. 

In Western culture, dragons may be viewed as evil creatures that a prince must slaughter before he can rescue his princess. In the Far East, dragons are a symbol of power, good fortune, and blessing[6]. In ancient China, only emperors could use that symbol. In Acts 1:8, “but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be My witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” As believers, we also received the Holy Spirit, who gave us the power we need to be His witnesses to the whole world. Like dragons, we are proclaiming God’s good news to people, so that they can also live in a God-empowered, renewed, and abundant life. That is “Powered by Jesus”.

Day 7 (May 27^th, 2018) - What Symbol Represents What God Has Done To Me

Another inspiring assignment today – “how to represent what God has done to me?”, I stumbled. I know God has been faithful to me, I know I have received eternal life, I know I am a different person now, but what symbol can represent all that God has done to me? It took me a while and I decided to use an opened eye with a new plant on top. 

God helped me see Him as the truth and as the source of life through Jesus. What other symbols can be a better symbol than an opened eye. God has enlightened me. On top of this opened eye, I placed a new plant. A new plant represents a new life, just like what Paul said in Ephesians 2:5, “So he gave us new life because of what Christ has done.”

Day 8 (May 28^th, 2018) – Small Group Is Messy

 “You think your small group is messy? congratulations, that means you have created an environment that allows the ‘mess’ to be surfaced,”[7] said Zempel. Over the past 17 years, my wife and I have hosted and lead many small groups and I have seen many messes in our small groups. Family disputes, mental breakdowns, extra-marital affairs, family tragedies, and countless inter-personal arguments and conflicts over leadership styles, directions and visions.  

Sometimes I wondered if our small groups were failing or I had done something terribly wrong in leading them. After I read Zempel’s book, I started to realize that God used these messy issues to demonstrate how much we needed to depend on His grace and power. Through countless prayers and confessions, I can witness how we have grown to be more like Christ as a group. If the environment is right, God always comes in and shows His power of cleansing. As Zempel says, “there is no perfect Christian, but there is a perfect God.”

Day 9 (May 29^th, 2018) - Reflection on "Authentic" Small Group Leaders

Do small group leaders need to learn personal communication skills to be “successful”? It seems that more and more churches are starting to bring in contemporary training programs on personal communication skills, including an emphasis on Emotional Quotient (EQ) enhancement, which now ranks among the most important qualifications to be successful in the business world. Can a person’s EQ be trained? Do our small group leaders really need a high EQ in today’s church to be “successful”? 

It feels like we are trying to "engineer" our small group leaders. I felt a little unease on the idea of giving our small group leaders some cookie-cutter personal and management training. I am convinced that Paul would not have passed our training to be a small group leader. Paul had a bad reputation about his temper. He pointed his finger directly toward Peter when Peter walked away from eating with Gentiles. Paul even broke up with his teammate Barnabas over Mark. Today, behaviors like Paul’s will certainly be discouraged or even being disciplined at many churches. It seems that we have developed a certain church “etiquette”, with which leaders were selected. This probably can explain why many churches are in favor of using only the leaders who have gone through their own training programs.

Day 10 (May 30^th, 2018) - When We Share, We Learn

Bridges made a good point, "As we share our thoughts with others, we learn because we are forced to organize and develop our ideas."[8] I heard people saying, “teaching is the best way to learn”, but I never thought of sharing is also a good way to learn. 

Sharing makes small groups more interesting, more interactive, and more personal. Regardless of how much we know about the Bible, a share of thought in a small group may often open a door of truth which may lead someone to a deeper relationship with God. Where can I find these “thoughts”? Bridges suggests reading, studying, and memorizing Scripture together. Zempel suggests journaling. I think the best sharing is from a person’s real-life experience. Where he traveled, people he met, things he encountered, and how he applied his knowledge of Word in dealing with his daily life. Do we have our life stories to share? Sometimes we will need to go out of our comfort zones to experience and live out our life stories.

---

[1] 2 Timothy 3:17

[2] Bridges, Jerry, “True Community” (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2012), 29-31.

[3] Philippians 4:13

[4] A’s = Identity, Purpose, Intimacy, Authority; a’s = at birth, at school, at work, at home.

[5] Ecclesiastes 4:9-12

[6] Dragons cause the heaven to rain

[7] Zempel, Heather, “Community is Messy” (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2012), 40. Paraphased.

[8] Bridges, Jerry, “True Community” (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2012), 64

Reflection on "Who Needs Theology?"

I admire visionary leaders who point out promising goals and outline steps to reach those goals. However, without a clear definition of what the goal is or lacking a compelling reason to pursue that goal, a visionary leader may fail to lead people to reach what is promised. I would argue that a "good theology" is what a visionary leader needs to give people a clear definition and a compelling reason to pursue the goal. 

What is a good theology? Grenz and Olson defined it as "reflecting on and articulating the God-centered life and beliefs that Christians share as followers of Jesus Christ, and it is done in order that God may be glorified in all Christians are and do.”[1] With this definition, I would suggest that a good theology is like a GPS-enabled life book which gives Christians a clear definition of what a God-centered life is and a tool to help Christians live a God-centered life with specific answers to "what's", "how's" and "why's".    

Reflection on "Theology as a Necessity"

So why we need theology? A good theology grounds a God-centered life, and a God-centered life brings glory to God[2], which gives the necessity of a good theology. Grenz called this God-centered life "discipleship", which is "allowing Christ to be Lord of the core convictions - the belief structure, the worldview - that govern not only thoughts but also entire lives."[3] A good theology roots in God’s words (biblical theology), so we can "discover and destroy the wrong faith or myth regarding to incorrect convictions."[4]  

A good theology helps us reflect on and articulate what it means by living out a life of discipleship. I found similar claims in 1 Peter 3:15, "but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence." Peter not only pointed out the importance of a Godly living, he also challenged us to be ready "to make a defense" when an opportunity presents itself. A good theology helps us get ready to give defenses of what we believe.

Why theology? not every theology. As Grenz warned, bad theologies could be very dry and pointless. I heard people debating on the needs to pray before a mid-night snack. They concluded that we prayed only for hot meals, eating ice creams doesn't require a prayer. Grenz changed my view about the necessity of doing theology. We do good theologies to help us "know the truth not merely so that we might think properly, but so that we might live properly."[5]

What kind of Theology?

Grenz argued that everyone is a theologian, but not everyone is a good theologian; Everyone is doing theology, but not every theology is the same. Grenz helped me see five kinds of theologies based on their different levels of reflection - folk theology, lay theology, ministerial theology, professional theology, and academic theology. The least reflected theology is folk theology, which is "unreflective beliefs based on blind faith in a tradition of some kind"[6]. On the other side of spectrum lays the academic theology, which Grenz argued that it is "disconnected from the church and has little to do with concrete Christian living." However, all Christians who seek to grow in their faith need lay, ministerial, and professional theology, as Grenz suggested. Knowing what level of reflection I am in now helps me apply different theology's tasks and tools as discussed below. 

Theology's Tasks, Tools, and Traditions

I like Grenz's classification of theology's tools and tasks, it helps me understand theologian's works. First, Grenz identified two major theology's tasks: critical and construction tasks. Critical task includes two activities: examining and evaluating Christian beliefs, and second, categorizing valid Christian beliefs as dogma, doctrine, or opinion.[7] With the help of this classification, I know which theology's task I am engaging in now and what tools are available to me when conducting specific theology's activities. 

For example, I once heard of a youth pastor teaching students "let Jesus be your co-pilot". With a concern in mind, I questioned the validity of this teaching. Although I was doing the theology's critical task, I didn't know where to get the tools and tactics needed for this task. Grenz gave me three major sources and norms as theology's tools - the biblical message, the theological heritage of the church, and the thought-forms of contemporary culture. Grenz also suggested his tactics. He asked us to start answering the "Why?" questions. Why did this youth pastor teach his students "Jesus is my co-pilot"? if this is what he truly believes, then I would want to know what biblical bases he has (tool #1 - biblical theology) and whether there were similar teachings on this "co-pilot" belief (tool #2 - historical theology). I would also examine it carefully to see whether this teaching was a contemporary version of Gnosticism or a part of the "New Age" movement (tool #3 - relevancy).    

     

Grenz also helped me engage in theology's second task - constructive task. He defined construction task as the development of "unified models of diverse biblical teachings and the application of those models relevantly to contemporary culture."[8] He argued that the goal of the construction task of theology is to "articulate our foundational beliefs about God and the world for the sake of living as Christians in our contemporary context."[9] Grenz's tools for the construction task include three practices of systematic theology - developing of a synoptic vision of the biblical message, the theological heritage of the church, and contemporary culture.[10] He argued that a synoptic vision is the key, which he defined as "holistic perspective that attempts to draw into coherence the otherwise blooming, buzzing confusion of data."[11] He suggested a tactic to develop this synoptic vision by using an "integrative motif" that will "forms a hub that stands at the center and holds together the spokes of the wheel of the theology."[12]   

To apply Grenz's tools and tactics to examine the teaching of "Jesus is my co-pilot", I will need to clearly articulate the relationship between God, Jesus, and me. I would develop a synoptic vision similar to this - "God's grace mission is to restore our sonship through Jesus' work on earth", where I would use "God's mission" as my "integrative motif" to tie the rest of theologies together (God's grace, restoration, sonship, and Jesus' work). Once my synoptic theology is formed, I would attempt to revise the teaching to "Jesus is my pilot" as a contemporary equivalence to say " Jesus is my Lord."

One of Grenz's construction tools is to use traditions or historical theology as a source to assist in theology's tasks. He categorized traditions into five camps: the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, Protestants, Liberal (or “Modernist”) theology and mediating theologies.[13] Grenz suggested that most of the dogmatic and doctrinal theologies were developed in the first seven centuries in the first two camps and the corruption of the Roman Catholic Church gave birth to the third camp - the Protestant. Grenze argued that "all three major branches of Christian theology and church life discussed so far agree on certain basics."[14]

 

I would tentatively agree with Grenz's assertion that all three major branches are still biblical and Christian on the very core and fundamental level, since they are still "God-centric" beliefs. On the other hand, most of the contemporary liberal (or modernist) theologies are man-centered, characterized in viewing God as optional at the best or even obstructive at the worst. 

Although I appreciated Grenz's illustration of Christian traditions, he didn't address the impacts of western Christian traditions (traditional teachings) on other parts of the world. I can see the places for a modernized Hinduism (everyone is God), Daoism (God is Dao), and folk religions (spirits are Gods) in our post-modern setting where the spirituality is taking a whole different meaning and perspective. I would argue that we need more "tools" in Grenz's "traditions" category at least to include the Christian reflections on eastern religions and schools of thoughts from other parts of the world. We also need to study how Christianity interacted with eastern religions in history as part of the historical theology, especially the historical reviews in western Christian Church's dealing with contextualization (e.g. Nestorianism in 7th century China, Heavenly Kingdom of Peace rebellion in 1860's China, and the Eastern Lighting cult in China and U.S.). Without this level of reflection, I believe Grenz's argument in traditions will fall in the danger of "perversion" as discussed in the lecture "the need for community".[15]  

Summary

Grenz encourages me to construct theology in context, which I believe we should include views and voices from a more diverse source. As Grenz pointed out, we want to balance our theology between being faithful to the biblical message and being relevant to contemporary. I would suggest that we add more tools, tactics and experiences from other Christian sources from other parts of the world when doing historical theology. I like what Grenz concluded about a good theology which helps me to “become steadfast in faith and more sure of what I believe.”[16] and I was also convinced from the lecture that doing theology is also finite which requires constant revision and always needs to be contextualized.

---

[1] Grenz, Stanley J. and Roger E. Olson, Who Needs Theology? An Invitation to the Study of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 49

[2] l Cor. 10:31

[3] Grenz, Stanley J. and Roger E. Olson, Who Needs Theology? An Invitation to the Study of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 48 (paraphrased).

[4] Ibid., 41.

[5] Ibid., 43.

[6] Grenz, Stanley J. and Roger E. Olson, Who Needs Theology? An Invitation to the Study of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 27.

[7] Ibid., 80.

[8] Grenz, Stanley J. and Roger E. Olson, Who Needs Theology? An Invitation to the Study of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 98.

[9] Ibid., 80.

[10] Blaising's definition of systematic theology is also stressing on the importance of contemporary philosophical and cultural environment. (lecture, module 3, Theology Methods)

[11] Ibid., 147.

[12] Ibid., 146.

[13] Grenz, Stanley J. and Roger E. Olson, Who Needs Theology? An Invitation to the Study of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 83-86.

[14] Ibid., 84.

[15] Lecture, Module 5, Role of Culture.

[16] Grenz, Stanley J. and Roger E. Olson, Who Needs Theology? An Invitation to the Study of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 42.

Culture, Postmodernism, and Ministerial Response

What is culture? what is the role culture plays in developing a theological method in the post-modern world? How do we contextualize a new ministry/theology in a postmodern society? These are three questions this paper is trying to respond.

What is Culture?

Some people understand culture as the sum of attitudes, customs, and beliefs that distinguish one group of people from another, but I like what Robert Lewis said, "culture is the shared software of our minds."[1] Indeed, a shared software that causes a group of people operating in the same way and producing the same results in a fairly predictable way. Without too much difficulty, we can identify a Chinese American from a Caucasian American by observing what they eat, how they interact with their elders, and how they educate their children, even they're all speaking the same language. Similarly, we can probably tell the differences between Christians from different denominations based on how they run their churches. We are what we believe, and thus, if a group of people behave and think similarly, they are probably running on the same "shared software".

Culture, Theology and Theological Methods in Modernism

What is the role culture plays in developing theological methods? The answer lies in our understanding of how Christian theology, culture, and theological methods are related to each other. To my knowledge, theology is an understanding of who God is and our relationship with Him. Culture is the manifestation of the theology that we believe. Theological methods are the tasks and tools that we developed for us to better understand the underlying theology and to articulate what we believe to other people. With this understanding, I would argue that theology gives birth to culture, which, in turn, defines how theological methods are developing. In order to develop an effective theological method in our post-modern world, we will need to incorporate the understanding of the culture and the underlying theology. Since the culture is highly contextualized, our theological methods are also contextualized, but our central theology may remain in the high ground controlling the meta-narrative.

Borrowing Lewis' analogy, if culture is a shared software, I would argue that its central processing unit (CPU) is theology. A shared software (culture) may have many copies (sub-cultures), but they all share only one CPU. Therefore, to make this shared software work in a different environment, I will need to use a different local setting, but my central CPU is still the same. Which means when I am sharing Gospel with people from different cultural backgrounds, I will need to switch my local settings to open up a more effective communication channel while my central theology remains in the driver's seat. However, if my central theology is faulty, then my theological methods will be distorted, no matter how much efforts I put in to contextualize my methods.

A Case Study

To further illustrate the relationship between theology, culture, and theological methods, I would argue that the overseas ministries supported by western churches in the past three hundred years may have largely failed, not because of their western-centered theological methods, but because of their faulty theologies.   

What happened? While millions of people converted into Christianity, billions of people also developed a hostile view toward western missionaries and called them "cultural imperialists"[2]. To some extent, this name is probably not far from the truth. Even today in many Asian countries, we can still see churches built in western styles, congregations sing in western hymns, believers using western names, and traditional customs and festivals were discouraged. Gospel was "sold" as a western product at a price of losing one's own culture, which, in turn, also depriving of one's own identity. No wonder Christian believers in many Asian countries were viewed as traitors by their own countryman and even rejected by their own families. Christianity was largely viewed as American's religion and God was viewed as white people's God.

That sounds bad, right? yes, but it's not the worst. I would argue that these western missionaries also brought in a "shared software" designed by and from the influences of modernism happened in most of western countries in the last three centuries, where science and technology were valued and rationalism was encouraged. The bigger problem was, underneath this "shared software", a theology they all shared which may have been "flawed". 

According to their "modernism" theology (which may have been influenced by the Reformation), God were best understood by studying and understanding from the Bible, and the Bible only. This theology created three issues in their overseas ministries. 

First, in order to educate new believers to read and understand the Bible, schools needed to be built, teachers needed to be trained, and teaching materials needed to be developed. Churches did a great job helping these developing countries improved their educational systems, but what the schools taught were mainly science and technologies, as well as western version of moral and social standards. All these new "standards" were so foreign to most of people in these countries. On the one hand, it created an environment easier for western missionaries to teach locals their western version of Gospel, but on the other hand, it may have lost the opportunity to use a more native and natural way to share Gospel and may have forced a faulty theology onto the new believers. We can see these two issues unfolded in the next section.

The second issue of a faulty theology is that we lost a great opportunity to witness the Gospel using a cultural narrative that is more familiar with the locals. Apostle Paul never forced a Jewish doctrine or tradition on Greek believers, instead he introduced the Gospel using the Greek culture and language[3] that were more natural to the locals. Paul's Mars Hill sermon was the epic example of bridging the gap between worshiping an unknown god and worshiping the Creator God. If the western missionaries were to use the concept from Chinese Daoism as the bridge to explain this "Word (Dao) became flesh and made his dwelling among us", then the entire Daoism can become more complete and can be understood by Chinese people in light of John 1:14. A Gospel door may have been opened for Chinese people to accept the creator God that their ancestors had been searching and longing for.   

The third issue is that a faulty theology can destroy a local culture. Western missionaries brought in new doctrines and practices which created unnecessary bondage and even caused chaos. The problem was that many doctrines were explained in western analogies and Christian livings were gauged by western standards. For example, being a Christian means that you will need to listen to God and not listen to your unbelieving parents, which created a huge issue in a culture that respects parents more than anything else. History witnessed its impact. Hundreds and thousands of Chinese Christians accepted this "shared software" and started to believe that their own Chinese culture was nothing but a pair of old and ragged shoes that needed to be discarded, which may have directly or indirectly caused more than a hundred year of chaos and turmoil in China throughout most of 20th century.

Contextualize a New Theology in Post-Modernism

Can this history be avoided? For most of western missionaries, they had received the best educations, best theological training, and equipped with the most powerful technologies that the world could offer, but their understandings of God, their personal convictions, and their theological methods were largely molded under the influences of the modern rationalism (epistemology precedes metaphysics), which became powerless when faced a society that valued more on a meta-physical world than physical world. Forcing an already "spiritual" man to become "rational" and then teaching him become a new "Bible" man in a western cultural setting is totally counter-productive.  

So, what should we do differently in this post-modern world? A world that most people no longer believe the authority of science and technology, a world where people start to recognize the possible existence of spiritual elements. From a theological "critical task" point of view, I would argue that we need to carefully re-examine our traditional "rationalist" theology and develop a new theology that allows us to understand God's revelation from a non-rationalist point of view. 

I am not suggesting an "irrational" theology, I am simply saying that God is bigger than the God of reasoning. Most of people living in Asian have no trouble accepting a world full of the power of deity, it's the people in the West who need to "unlearn" what they have been taught and start worshiping God in "spirit and truth" as Jesus pointed out to the Samaritan woman recorded in John 4:24. Once we, as evangelical Christians in the West, start to develop a new theology that allows our God jump out of the text in the Bible and become a living Spirit dwelling among us, then we can start our first theological "constructive task" to learn and understand the cultures of other people who are still worshiping false gods. Sometimes, we may need to "borrow" their worldview in order to explain Gospel more effectively to them. 

The second constructive task is to review the historical accounts and see how the ancient saints were ministering their overseas ministries in a contextualized sense. A suggested area of interest would be the Nestorians in 7th century China. Their churches were built in a traditional "temple" style and their texts were not shy from using traditional Chinese philosophy (e.g. they invented the name of God in Chinese 天主, literally, "Lord of Heaven").

Summary

Unfortunately, the most difficult constructive task in theological methods may reside in the 21st century America. Churches had hard time sharing the Gospel, especially to younger generations, because American people already enjoyed the "gospels" from the fruits of science and technology. The Gospel of a crucified Jesus is not popular, because Americans wanted a Jesus who can make them successful. Success is worshiped and the rich are honored, which is sadly the theology in our post-modern society. American people don't need God, because they already had a God - themselves. Our "shared software" in this post-modern America is "Be all you can be" - worshiping success more than anything else. Even churches are run by successful professionals. We need a new theology that we can reestablish churches which can "preach the Gospel to the poor, to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised." (Luke 4:18)

---

[1] Lewis, Robert and Wayne Cordeiro, The Culture Shift: Transforming Your Church from the Inside Out (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2005), 12.

[2] Moreau, A. Scott, Gary R. Corwin and Gary B. McGee, Introducing World Missions: A Biblical, Historical, and Practical Survey  (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004), 20.

[3] 1 Corinthians 9:20-22