Category: Bible and Mission

In the much disputed creation – evolution debate the word myth is usually attributed to the Genesis account of creation by one particular side. In using the words myth or mythological, for the creation narrative naturally communicates that it belongs in the realm of misconception, fairy tale and fantasy.  This understanding of myth has been perpetuated due to the fact that most great stories about gods or creation are in the guise of great epic stories based in an unscientific and non-rational age.  On account of this perception (especially in the Western world) it has enabled them to then become massive cinematographic blockbusters, such as Thor, Clash of the Titans and Evan Almighty to name but a few, providing viewing pleasure of millions of people. But what is mythology? John Walton in The Lost World of Genesis One writes,

Mythology by its nature seeks to explain how the world works and how it came to work that way, and therefore includes a culture’s “theory of origins”.  We sometimes label certain literature as “myth” because we do not believe that we the world works that way.  The label is a way of holding it at arm’s length so as to clarify that we do not share that belief – particularly as it refers to involvement and activities of the god’s…. Their “mythology” expressed their beliefs concerning what made the world what it was; it expressed their theories of origins and how their world worked.

By definition, our modern mythology is represented by science – our own theories of origins and operations. Science provides what is generally viewed as the consensus concerning what the world is, how it works and how it came to be.  Today, science makes no room for deity (though neither does it disprove deity), in contrast to the ancient explanations, which are filled with deity.

So how is this relevant missionally? What do we do with these two great mythologies?  Firstly, we must recognise that each culture and people group has their own interpretation of the origins of the cosmos, whether this is in the local pub, university or the other side of the world. Secondly, we should endeavour to find affirmations, similarities and critiques, between world views with the aim of finding a model that enables authentically contextualised missional engagement.

What do you think?

Mission After Christendom by David Smith is a fantastic book that highlights some key challenges facing the modern missionary movement in an ever increasing globalised world.  He seeks to address each challenge using astutely discerned biblical passages as a model to motivate the Church to engage missionally with its surrounding culture effectively.

Looking at the challenge of pluralisation, he uses the narrative found in Acts 10-11 of Peter and Cornelius.   The following is an abstract from his book.

The literary structure of the first two scenes is similar; in both the prayer of the central character leads on to a vision, which is then followed by a special divine revelation.  However, there is also a contrast between Cornelius, who is open, responsive and obedient to the divine word, and Peter, whose reaction is characterised by confusion, resistance and rebellion.  The contrast is striking and disturbing; the man without the Bible is humbly obedient to the light given to him, while the one with all the privileges, who in this case has actually walked with the incarnate Word of God, resists further light and will not budge from an inherited theological position.

It is important to consider carefully the nature of the obstacles that initially prevented Peter from following the call of the missionary Christ.  He has a vision in which a sheet comes down from heaven containing both clean and unclean animals, which he is then commanded to ‘Kill and eat’.  His reaction is a very strong one, something like the ringing statement: ‘Never Lord! For not once in my life have I ever eaten anything unclean’ (10:14). Peter has always understood dietary behaviour to reflect the divine will since it was based on what seemed to be special revelation.  The dietary laws were not a merely human construction designed to provide ethnic distinctiveness to the Jewish people, but were an expression of holiness.  It is this perspective which explains the strength of Peter’s reaction and his seeming irreverence in resisting the voice from heaven.  He is, we might say, arguing for God against God.  Peter’s resistance to the divine command is long and vigorous, so that even after the instruction has been issued and declined three times he is still left ‘wondering about the meaning of the vision’ (10:17).

What is in fact happening here is that the apostle is making the painful discovery that things he has always regarded as unchanging absolutes were in fact, in the light of Jesus Christ, culturally relative. In a missionary context the church will always find itself involved in the struggle to distinguish biblical absolutes from culturally conditioned beliefs as practices.  The great Puritan preacher Richard Sibbes once accused his contemporaries of ‘making more sins than God has made’ and long-established theological traditions are always in danger of limiting Christian freedom by an unwarranted expansion of beliefs and practices classified as absolutes.  Put another way, mission involves the discovery that our faith and theology have been conditioned by culture to a far greater extent that we had ever realised.  Cultural conditioning is not something that happens only to other people, we too carry cultural baggage which needs to be declared ‘excess’ and left behind when we seek to share Christ with others.

It is incredibly difficult to perceive our own cultural baggage, especially as we are immersed within our own culture.  How can we take a step back and survey what are timeless unchanging truths and what is culturally relative baggage and in need of being left behind?