House to House A Case for Missional Attractional Families
By: Luke Dalach
[email protected]
Fuller Theological Seminary School Of Intercultural Studies MT-520 Biblical Foundations of Mission Professor Mark Hopkins Summer 2007
Table of Contents Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………...
2
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………...
3
God’s Mission to Redeem the World………………………………………………………. 4 Family (or Household) Structures in Old Testament Culture………………………………
7
Teaching Children in Mission- Deut. 6:4-6………………………………………………...
9
Attracting Aliens in Mission - Lev. 19:33-44………………………………………………
11
Summary - Households in Mission in the Old Testament………………………………….
12
Family (or Household) Structure in New Testament Culture………………………………
12
Use of Houses in Mission – Acts 18………………………………………………………..
14
Missional Place of Family Witness -1 Peter 2:133:12……………………………………...
16
Summary - Households in Mission in the New Testament………………………………… Implications – Attractional Families Ministry and Family “Defrag”…………………………………………………………. Focus Mission to Households………………………………………………………….. Too Much for Two
18 19 21
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………….. 22 Works Cited………………………………………………………………………………
23
2
Introduction As someone in full-time ministry who also has a full-time family, one of the first questions that ask when I meet others in ministry is “how do you balance ministry and family?” Sometimes it starts a good discussion and sometimes it’s very obvious that I have asked a question that should not have been asked. Most of the time, I leave the conversation with a sinking sensation. There does not seem to be any easy answers and there are more and more families that are the casualties of ministers who aren’t even trying to answer the questions. The pull of ministry and family, mostly in separate directions, is the source of great stress. Often, I feel like my life is fragmented and I wonder if I am a fake or have turned into a professional Christian because I don’t have time to minister to my neighbors. I don’t think that it’s just people in ministry who feel torn. I know it’s also felt from those in the professional marketplace. Even so, I am left asking myself several questions. “How does my family intersect with ministry?” “Should my family intersect with ministry?” “How do I balance family and ministry responsibilities and why does life feel so segmented?” “Is there anything in the biblical story that would shed light on these questions?” A study of the scriptures and biblical culture does indeed shed interesting light on these questions and has changed the way that I read scriptures, not just through the eyes of an individual, but of someone living in a family (or more biblically, a household.) Families are key to God’s mission in the world. Households throughout biblical history have joined in God’s mission primarily by embodying God’s presence and character to attract outsiders to God. In order to see this, I will briefly describe God’s mission to redeem his creation. Then I will explore both the culture of family and several biblical texts in the Old and New Testaments on how
3
families intersect with God’s mission. Then I will discuss ramifications on my life and family in mission.
God’s Mission to Redeem the World God’s mission to redeem the world began with God as trinity, Father, Son and Spirit, creating the world and humanity out of his desire to share his glory with others. Before the world began, God existed in three persons, relating among the trinity. God desired to have others enter into his glory through relationship (as seen in John 18:20-26). God created an unformed heavens and earth, formed life on earth out of chaos, planted a garden among a mostly unformed earth, and created a man and woman to rule the earth and to make the rest of the earth like the garden. The mandate to the man and woman, who were made in God’s image, was to “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.” (Genesis 1:28). Humanity, in relationship with the creator God, was to continue God’s creation works as they moved into the whole earth. But the man and woman did not stay in relationship with God, the creator. They choose to rebel against God and his purpose for humanity and to join in uncreation. “They thrust God from the center of their existence, enthroned themselves, and began to use this world to further their own ends.” (Glasser 40). As a result, humanity, who had enjoyed relationship with God and his blessing, found themselves away from the close presence of God, dealing with God’s curses upon working the ground, reproduction, relationships, and on an inevitable course to physical death. “The rest of the Bible unfolds the manner in which God, while not condoning the rebellious pride of men and women nor leaving their sin unpunished, will seek the objective God had in view for them from the beginning” (Glasser 43).
4
After Genesis chapter three, the scriptures record the history of a fallen mankind under curse and not blessing. Humanity is characterized by murder, death, wickedness, destruction, confusion and a general disregard of God’s mandate. All looks bleak for humanity with no hope of God’s blessing and a return to relationship with God. God initiated relationship with humanity in Genesis 12 with the call to Abram to leave his father’s household to go to Canaan. Thus began the coming of God’s blessing again in the world and of relationship between God and people. The story of the Old Testament then moves to trace the people of God through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob’s lineage. Through Abraham’s promised descendants, God’s blessing will come to the nations and earth. The people of Israel are enslaved in Egypt, but are liberated to fulfill God’s promise to them to bless all nations of the earth. “’You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself. Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.” (Exodus 19:4-6) Israel was to be a kingdom of priests, a place where the Presence of God dwelt on earth. (Van Engen, 45) Israel was to be the location of God’s blessing to all the nations. The nations were to be drawn to this very different people to learn of the knowledge of Yahweh, the creator of the heavens and earth. In missiological terms, their mission was centrifugal. (Van Engen 32). The blessings of God would flow to the nations by attracting others from the outside to the center, where the Presence of God dwelt. But Israel again and again failed their mission. Even from the beginning, prophecies made of someone who would ultimately bring God’s blessings to the whole world by overcoming the evil one. (Genesis 3:15) This someone was the Messiah, the descendent of David who would bring God’s Kingdom in fullness and
5
restore all of creation and humanity to relationship with God. What Israel, the servant of Yahweh, failed to accomplish in bringing the blessings to the nations, the Messiah, the Servant of Yahweh, would accomplish. Israel, finally exiled because of their failure to be in relationship and to obey Yahweh, began to look in hope for the one they called the Messiah. The New Testament begins with a clear pronouncement that Jesus was the Messiah, come to bring the Kingdom of God and the blessings promised to Abraham to all the earth. Jesus was the one who would finally restore creation to its original place. With his death and resurrection, Jesus inaugurated the Kingdom of God and sent out his disciples to be the people of God to bring God’s blessings to the nations. Thus, the people of God are sent into centripetal mission. (Van Engen 32.) They are not attracting others to the Presence of God as much as they are going out to proclaim that the Kingdom of God has come and that one day Jesus, the Messiah will return to judge the world. We might call this explosional mission, since the direction of the mission is from the center out, instead of from the outside in. (I keep working on a better term with my physics-loving friends and students). We have just covered the whole scope of mission history in two pages and haven’t done justice to it. But the question that remains for us in this exploration is, Where does family fit into God’s mission in the world? One might expect that families would take on the same type of mission, attractional or explosional, as the time in which they exist in mission history. But I suggest that the family unit, or household, has throughout biblical history joined in God’s mission primarily by being an attractional, centrifugal place of God’s Presence among the nations.
6
Family (or Household) Structures in Old Testament Culture Before we examine the scriptures to understand the role of families in Gods mission in the Old Testament, we must discuss the culture of family for the ancient Jewish people. For those living in 21st century Western culture, the definition of “family” is completely foreign to that of a twelfth or sixth century B.C. Israelite. Fortunately for our study purposes, the nature of the family structure in ancient Israel remained fairly constant throughout the story of the Old Testament. One of the best glimpses into the structure of Israelite families is found in the book of Joshua in the midst of a battle scene. The Israelites were embarrassingly defeated at Ai because an Israelite took Jerichoan plunder that Yahweh said was to be totally destroyed. Yahweh told Joshua to find the guilty person. “16Early the next morning Joshua had Israel come forward by tribes, and Judah was taken. 17 The clans of Judah came forward, and he took the Zerahites. He had the clan of the Zerahites come forward by families, and Zimri was taken. 18 Joshua had his family come forward man by man, and Achan son of Carmi, the son of Zimri, the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, was taken.” (Joshua 7:14-18) The most basic structure of an Israelite family was the “family,” or household. Joshua 7:14-18 (cf Judges 17-18) has become the locus clasicus for understanding the used of the Hebrew words for family: šēbet (“tribe”), mišpāhâ (“clan”), and bayit (“house; or better, bêt-’āb, “father’s house”). With the help of ethnographic studies and archaeological research, these terms, especially the last two, can be understood as “kinship group” and “family household,” respectively. In a more objective way, the “kinship group” can be understood as a small village, and the “family household” as the family compound or family unit, which lived in a ‘pillared house’.” (Hess, 35) This family household included the male head of the family household, a wife or more rarely, wives, children, wives’ of the adult-child sons, grandchildren, possibly grandchildren’s wives’ and great-grandchildren, servants and any resident aliens living nearby or with them. Exodus shows this clearly in the command to Sabbath: “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.... On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your 7
manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. (Exodus 20:8-10, italics mine). This household would live in a housing unit made of several rooms, with one nuclear family per room. If nuclear families lived in separate housing, their houses were very close together. (Campbell 40) The command in Genesis 2:24 to “leave father and mother” is not referring to physical “leaving,” but to emotional “leaving” and a change in primary responsibility. (Hess, 18). This household family was the basic unit of Hebrew society and is what they would imagine when talking about “family.” When the scriptures refer to children in the laws, they are mostly talking about adult children in a household. “Contrary to modern assumptions, the Fourth Commandment of the Decalogue…is intended for adults, not children (Osiek 166). Leviticus 27 shows the life-stages for ancient Israelites. Life stages are measure by age: one month to five years, five years to twenty years, and twenty to sixty. At twenty years old, a boy was able to fight in battle. Job, which is admittedly presumably is dated pre-Israel, includes a picture of adult children partying together while their father, the head of the household, sacrifices to God to cover his adultchildren’s sins. (Job 1:5). His adult children are under the spiritual authority and responsibly of their father. The Jewish laws are specifically setup to maintain the physical and economic integrity of the Hebrew household. It is clear the Yahweh desired the prosperity of the family household. For example, in the Decalogue, three of the ten commands have direct implication on the household. The command against adultery maintains the stability of the leadership of the household and maintains emotional stability and security. The command to honor one’s parents (again, given to adult children), maintains the authority structure of the household and commands care for the elderly. Economic stability is commanded by denouncing even the coveting of anything in a
8
neighbor’s household. (Wright 2004, 341). In addition to these three, I would add that the command to Sabbath would also maintain the social/emotional/economic stability of the family. The year of Jublilee, which Israel never observed, was also to be a strong household-stabilizing force. Every seven years, all debts were to be canceled and all Israelites who were sold into slavery to pay debts were to return to their households. “It was this social unit, the extended family, that the jubilee aimed to protect and periodically to restore if necessary.” (Wright 2006, 297). We now have pictures into several aspects of the ancient Hebrew family, which is quite foreign to modern readers. How, though, is this family structure included in God’s mission to redeem all peoples of the earth? Although, there are not many explicit teachings in the Old Testament on how the family relates to God’s mission, two key sections in the Torah give keys to our exploration into scripture and culture. We will now examine how children and aliens helped Hebrew families participate attractionally in God’s mission.
Teaching Children in Mission- Deut. 6:4-6 The Shema, in Deut. 6:4-6, which is key to Israel’s self-identity, sheds light on the role of the household in God’s mission. Mostly basically, Israel’s identity starts with Yahweh’s identity: “The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is Israel’s God and he is one God, in contrast to the many gods in Egypt or the Canaanites. There is one creator of heaven and earth who rules over all and Yahweh is his name. Israel’s response is to be one of total love and commitment. We have already see that they are a people set apart by God, different than the nations around them because they have the Presence of Yahweh in their midst. This is based on the identity of Israel’s God. The Hebrews are to be priests of one true God to the world. (Exodus 19:5-6).
9
From the Shema, Israel’s first responsibility is to keep the commands of Yahweh, which point to his character and result in true and prosperous life in this world. Their second responsibility is to pass on this knowledge of Yahweh and his commands to others, specifically their children. They are to “impress them” upon their children, talk about them at home and on the road, and even leave physical reminders on their bodies and on their houses. The point is clear: Israelites are to pass on the knowledge of Yahweh and his commands starting first with their household. If Israel’s role as a nation in God’s mission is primarily centrifugal or attactional, then we would expect the household to be the basic building block of this attractional mission. This is indeed what we see in this passage, for without the next generation of a “kingdom of priests” who pass on the knowledge of Yahweh to the nations? The book of Deuteronomy is written for primarily an audience of parents. While other books of law are judicial in nature, Deuteronomy has all of Israel, specifically households, in mind. “This is why we find, alongside the commands to obey the law, the insistence upon its teaching and instruction. (4:1, 5, 9, 10, 14, 39; 5:1, 31: 6:1, 7-10; 11:1820)…They [parents] must teach their children in the ways and word of the Lord. There is no other book in the Bible that makes instruction to children and youth so central to the message as does Deuteronomy (4:9; 6:7, 2-25; 11:19; 31:13, etc.)” (Hess, 42-43). The head of the household actually plays the part of a priest first to his family in teaching them the ways of Yahweh. We see this teaching in practice in the book of Proverbs. Twentythree times, a son, or child, is said to be the audience of the teachings. (1:8, 10, 15; 2:1; 3:1, 11, 21; 4:10, 20; 5:1, 20: 6:1, 3, 20; 7:1; 19:27; 23:15, 19, 26; 24:13, 21; 27:11; 31:2). The foundation for God’s mission to the nations is the instruction of children in the household. But the teaching of children is just one way God’ mission to the nation’s intersects with Old Testament households. 10
Attracting Aliens in Mission - Lev. 19:33-44 The second way that households of the Old Testament act as attractional model of mission is in the way that outsiders were to be treated. Israel constantly had foreigners in the land. Many ancient trade routes connecting Egypt, Asia and Europe passed through Israel. Israel often found itself on the path of Egyptian armies and armies from Mesopotamia. “Palestine, as the bridge between the great civilizations of Egypt and Mesopotamia, was in contact with both cultures. (van Houten 24) Many travelers and merchant had to pass through Israel. Some stayed for various reasons. In short, Israel was placed by God directly in the middle of the great world civilizations of the Old Testament times, a very good strategy for an attractional model of mission. Israel was not to be a kingdom of priests with no contact with the surrounding nations. In the Torah, Yahweh is clear about how Israel is to treat outsiders. Leviticus nineteen is one of many examples of this. This chapter is placed in a larger section dealing with practical holiness in all of life and is specifically dealing with Hebrew social life. “When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.” (Lev. 19:33-44). The alien is put in the same category as the poor, orphan and widows (19:9-10). They are all people who might be oppressed by the powerful. Israel is to be starkly different from other nations in their treatment of aliens. In fact, they are to be given the same treatment as native-born Israelites. Because Israel had experience as aliens, they were to treat others with respect and include them in their household blessings. We already have seen in Exodus 20:8-10 that aliens were included in a household structure. Some might actually live in a family unit compound. Others might be farming the land of a land-owning household. In either case, the alien is included in the household and is to be
11
taught the knowledge and commands of Yahweh. “Assemble the people—men, women and children, and the aliens living in your towns—so they can listen and learn to fear the LORD your God and follow carefully all the words of this law.” (Deut. 31:12.) The household was to be a place of refuge and security for those who were from other nations. In addition to regular hospitality shown to strangers, Hebrew households were to treat aliens as members of their family and include them in religious, economic and social life.
Summary - Households in Mission in the Old Testament Households in the Old Testament look very different than families in modern Western culture. One household would include many people, as few as fifteen to twenty and as many as fifty or sixty. Not only would the household include extended family of a male head, but servants, hired laborers and aliens. The households participated in God’s mission to the nations mainly through centrifugal or attractional ministry. Children were taught the knowledge of Yahweh and his commands to continue the kingdom of priests to the next generation. Aliens were also taught this same knowledge and those from foreign countries exposed to Yahweh, the maker of heaven and earth. “Israel would then become a visible example to the nations of the nearness of God and of wise and just social structures” (Wright 2006, 227) Now that we have explored households in mission in the Old Testament, we must turn to explore New Testament households. We will find, maybe surprisingly, that households function in much the same way, as publicly attractional places of the knowledge of God.
Family (or Household) Structure in New Testament Culture Family structures in the New Testament period are actually much the same as Old Testament households, even in Greek and Roman families (Osiek 42). Households would be led by a male head, the paterfamilias, and would include the extended family and servants. “While 12
housing construction varied throughout various regions of the Mediterranean, there is evidence that extended Jewish families often lived close to one another” (Campell, 232). While not going much deeper into the workings of Roman and Greek families, it is helpful to note the construction of first century housing. Housing in urban areas was in the several forms: one or two rooms connected to a shop, an apartment-style building called an insula, or a small to very large household multi-unit house. In Capernaum, archaelogists uncovered “small one- and two-room buildings [that] were built into an enclosure wall surrounding a central courtyard. In these structures, probably extended families groupies lived within the same enclosure.” (Osiek, 14). Larger houses of the wealthy might include many rooms including several dining rooms, a kitchen, a bathroom, and many bedrooms all built around a courtyard. Roman style houses were built with no privacy and were in fact designed so that one could see through the entire house from front to back. (Osiek, 24). Houses had no doors and only the very wealthy could hire a doorkeeper. Privacy was not a value and people, including strangers and the poor, would be free to enter houses. “Access was much more fluid than modern persons typically allow, more analogous to modern businesses where customers enter and leaven than to modern Western homes.” (Osiek, 25). Housing in insulae was much more cramped. Entire households lived in one or two rooms and shared a bathroom and kitchen with the other residents of the insula if their insula those amenities at all. Some insulae had a courtyard or a public meeting room on the ground level. There was no privacy in the insulae. “It is also possible but not likely that in the case of meetings held in a domus [house], the neighbors may not have known what was taking place. But certainly in the case of meetings held in an insula, there could have been no question of secrecy, for everyone in the building must have known everyone else’s business.” (Osiek, 34).
13
Taking a look into the structure and housing of first century households helps us to understand how families related and functioned during this time. This will help us see that families in the New Testament engaged in God’s mission to the nations primarily through attractional mission. Just as in the Old Testament, there are no lengthy passages dealing directly with households in mission. But, we will look at several glimpses of them in the scriptures.
Use of Houses in Mission – Acts 18 Throughout the New Testament, houses are referenced many, many times. Fourteen times, Jesus was said to be with his disciples in houses. Six times, he was in the houses of Pharisees, rulers and other wealthy, influential people. Jesus’ ministry method was highly connected with houses, and thus with family households, as Jesus made houses the target of his disciple’s ministry trips. (Matthew 10, Mark 6, Luke 9, and Luke 10.) Post-crucifixion, we see the apostles meeting together in a house awaiting the Holy Spirit and the new group of converts meeting from house to house. The apostles continued Jesus’ ministry style of preaching in public in order to be welcomed into houses, as did Paul. (Acts 5, 20). Also, those opposed to the gospel went from house to house in their destruction of the church and doctrine. (Acts 8:3, 1 Timothy 5:13, Titus 1:11, 2 Timothy 3:6). Acts 18 records Paul’s missionary journey and his lengthy stay at Corinth and then this trip to Ephesus. Three households are referenced here that should be examined. The first house we see is the house of Titius Justus, or Gaius Titius Justus. (Porter). After Paul is rejected by the Jews in the synagogue, he goes next door to Titius Justus’s house to continue preaching the gospel. Nothing more is said of Titius Justus’ household or family, but the church in Corinth met in his house. (Romans 16:23). Another family is mentioned, the family of Crispus. The synagogue ruler apparently followed Paul to Titius Justus’ house to continue
14
hearing the message of the Kingdom. He believed the message and his whole household was baptized. “According to Roman patria potestas , the oldest living male ( paterfamilias )— whether father, grandfather or great-grandfather—controlled all the other members of the family, regardless of age or political importance. Only the paterfamilias was recognized as a full person in the eyes of Roman law and society. As such, he held the power of life and death over other family members and assumed accountability for their behavior. They in turn could not even possess property in their own right, nor were they free to make their own choices in matters of religion.” (Hawthorne 396). We now see the main reason Jesus and the apostles made the household their target for ministry. The head of the household had the power of religion over the family. Although it was possible for members of the household to worship other gods than the household gods, this caused great tension in the families and was against Roman customs. (Osiek, 184). The third household we see in this passage is the household of Priscilla and Aquila. Paul lived with Priscilla and Aquila as they worked together for a time as tentmakers. Presumably, sometime during their relationship, they believed in Jesus as the Messiah. Some time later, when in Ephesus, Priscilla and Aquila welcome Apollos into their home and “explained the way of God more accurately.” (Acts 18:26) Priscilla and Aquila typify a Jewish household in that they take in strangers to offer hospitality as they did with Paul, and use their house to teach others about the knowledge of God. Strangely enough nothing is said about their household. It seems that this couple did not have children and servants that one would expect from people of wealth, although this is admittedly an assumption. From his passage, we see two key things related to households in mission. First, households are the New Testament target of ministry. It is clear that a major thrust of New Testament mission action is directed at households. Households were the foundation of the society and to convert a paterfamilias is to have great influence on the many people of that 15
household and neighboring households. Second, households continue the Old Testament pattern of being a place where the knowledge of God is taught. That New Testament believers met together in houses was no new thing. Each household, Greek and Roman ones, had gods to which they would worship on the regular basis. The gathering of Christians in houses of believers was only an extension of the already present structure of households.
Missional Place of Family Witness -1 Peter 2:13-3:12 The second place that we see households participating in an attractional mission is in First Peter chapter two. This section is one of the three family codes recorded in the New Testament. (cf. Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3) Family codes were common among teachers and philosophers in first century culture and they taught how members of the household were to relate to one another. The recipients of his letter were believers, Jews and Gentiles, all over Asia Minor. Peter’s basic theme is that the Christians should strive to live holy lives in the midst of suffering as a witness to onlookers. Peter reminds Christians of the people of God’s mission to be a “kingdom of priests, God’s holy nation…This is so you can show others the goodness of God…” (2:9). The family code in 2:13-3:12 address members of the household: slaves, wives, husbands and everyone else. This code was to be followed for the sake of mission. All members of the household are to respect the authority of the government and by doing so they will “silence those who make foolish accusations against you.” (2:15). Wives are told to accept the authority of their husband so that “they will be won over by watching [their] pure, godly behavior” (3:1-2). These Christians are to follow customary roles of family structure and do it in a godly way, even if that means suffering. Their suffering in a holy way would result in outsiders asking them whey they
16
are acting in this way. Peter later says, “And if you are asked about your Christian hope, always be ready to explain it.” (3:15b). Another family code expands on this view that the family is to be an attractional force in God’s mission to the nations. Ephesians 5, again written to include members of the household, says that the central relationship of the household, of the relationship between the head of the household and his wife, is to be an “illustration of the way Christ and the church are one.” (Eph. 5:32. The New Testament scriptures teach that the godly witness of a household, as well as the relationships within a household (if a Christian is in an unbelieving household), are to teach the on-looking world about the knowledge of God and draw them to Jesus.
Summary - Households in Mission in the New Testament We have seen that the household structures in the New Testament are quite the same as in the Old Testament. Houses were frequently used in the ministry of Jesus and the early church. Following Jesus in the relationships of a household was of extreme importance to the mission of God to the nations. Israel was to be a light to the nations and most of the main traveling routes of that time brought people through Israel. In the same way, Christian witness in the household would be seen by neighbors, travelers receiving hospitality and others who would have public access to Christian gatherings and worship in Christian households. Attractional mission was never isolated mission. While the household is seen primarily in attractional mission, it does seem that it also does connect with explosional, centripetal mission. Households were the bases from which many missionaries worked. And even the strategy of having a missionally attractional household in a place with no witness to the gospel is quite explosional. However, from our studies, we can see that families in and of themselves throughout biblical history joined in God’s mission primarily
17
by embodying God’s presence and character to attract outsiders to God. Now we must explore how this understanding of families in mission affects life in the twenty-first century.
Implications – Attractional Families There are several implications for my life and ministry arising from this study on families in God’s mission, but I want to first briefly discuss one preliminary question: Are the cultural practices of the Old and New Testament people of God authoritative? We are commanded to gather together with other believers. But because the New Testament believers met in houses, should we? We are commanded to teach our own children the knowledge of God. Because Old Testament families were the main source of education, are we also commanded to home school? I don’t believe that culture can be said to be authoritative. However, using wisdom, we should carefully weigh our own cultural practices to make sure they 1) are within the bounds of divine revelation, 2) are helpful for their desired ends, and 3) do not harm the witness of the gospel or make the knowledge of God unreasonably inaccessible to the world. (Could this be the reason Paul both states that there is no “slave or free, male or female,” and then writes the household codes?) Let us now explore implications for life and ministry. Ministry and Family “Defrag” The first implication of this study is that I need to take steps to merge the paths of my ministry and my household. When my computer’s hard drive is too fragmented and pieces of information are scattered all over, I run a program called defrag, or defragmentation. Might I need a similar program for life? Sometimes ministry can feel like a job in which I go to campus (to minister) and then come home. Early on in our married life, our house was the place of much ministry, but with the coming of children, things have gotten more difficult and complex. I think this is for various reasons. 18
Instead of including my household in mission, I have a more individualistic centripetal mindset. That is, I view myself going to the campus as a missionary to bring the good news of the Kingdom separate from my household. This is not the ministry philosophy of the New Testament or Old Testament for one who has a family. I have taken on the ministry of Paul, who was single, instead of Peter, who was married. During this study, I realized that maybe a main reason that Peter did not travel throughout the Mediterranean as Paul did is that to do so would be to violate the commands of God to care for his family. Although Jesus did teach that following him was more important that family allegiances, he still cared for his mother on the cross. (John 19:26). I am still processing the implications of this perspective, as I realize it would have far-reaching implications for the way I would structure ministry and mission. I have always enjoyed the fact that our house has been close to the campus at which we served. This next year, however, I am serving at a campus that is forty minutes away. This will just be for one year, but I am not excited about the impossibility of intersecting family and ministry. Even though I don’t think that we have learned how to cross ministry and family well, I still think this is important in order to live out God’s mission on campus as an attractional family. A first step in becoming an attractionally missional family is to live at the place I primarily minister. Focus Mission to Households A second implication of this study is that families should still be the primary target of ministry, even in the USA, and Christian families should be the primary means of witness. Even though neighborhoods in much of America are known for being unfriendly and have little social connection, they might still be the best place to focus mission energy. “We must insist on a pastoral action that focuses all of its energies in such a way that the home becomes both the
19
subject and the object of evangelization, humanization and liberation.” (Hess, 33) Even with the breakdown of families, households are still the “home base” for most people. Targeting households might not be as effective as it is in other places in the world where households are still intact, but it might be the last strand that ties, although loosely, anyone together in the US. Related to this, I believe we must remember that an attractional family or ministry must be public and must have regular and easy “on-ramps” by which outsiders can enter. An attractional family must find ways to connect with other families and get out of the house. Israel, while attractional, was not isolated. The household churches in the first century were more than likely not held in private. Most present-day Christian gatherings are. Could churches refocus themselves and provide the resources and training to bring the church to the neighborhood? Maybe the recent trend of organic, simple churches might be a good fit for families to participate attractionally in God’s mission. It might even be possible to take the ministry experience of the “seeker-sensitive” movement and apply it to meeting the needs of households within neighborhoods. In addition to teaching others about Jesus and the scriptures, could Christian houses be places of neighborhood social activities and education on life issues, much the way that “seeker-driven” churches program their meetings? This would allow the church to be public while meeting needs of people. On campus, a household might look differently. It might be a floor of a dorm or a fraternity house. College students redefine their concept of family when they are put in the faux reality of university life. Those that minister on campuses have long known that student groupings must be the target of mission. However, often I have seen college ministries lose this focus and become a gathering of Christians, isolated from the university culture. They claim to
20
be “attractional,” but in all honestly are actually “isolational.” College ministry must always keep the bringing of the gospel to targeted groups of students in the forefront of all ministries. Too Much for Two Lastly, I need to stop believing the lie that we can raise our children and at the same time take part in God’s mission on our own. Honestly, deep down I believe that we (my wife and I), by ourselves, should be able to do a great job of raising our children, caring for their emotional, physical and spiritual needs, while maintaining a great relationship with each other, cultivating friendships, relating with neighbors and other not-yet-Christians in “regular life,” and growing a ministry. Asking others to help, for some reason, is close to giving up and admitting defeat. No other culture in the world or throughout history has run a household with only two adults. Also, Linda and I have been practicing some parenting styles that are more in line with styles from other cultures throughout history. I wonder if the parenting styles of Western culture have been born out of necessity: one can’t parent as the rest of the world does without the people-power that the rest of the world has. For us, we need to find ways to rely on others, seeing that most of the world throughout most of time has also done so. In addition or in replacement of relying on family members, might the church, in community, be a place to raise children together? Jesus offers a re-definition of the household when he called those that do the will of the father his “brother and sister and mother.” (Matthew 12:46). The rest of the New Testament relies on the imagery of the people of God as God’s household, with Jesus as the head. In fact, referring to other believers is almost the only time that the language of family is used in the New Testament. This kind of thinking would assume that the church is a working community, which I have not always found as the case. Close relationships are hard to come by and it would honestly
21
be inauthentic to me to call others at church “father,” or “brother.” We are in the process now of finding and praying for closer Christian community.
Conclusion At the outset of this study, I assumed that families participated in God’s mission in the same way as the people of God at the time in which they were found. I guessed that families in the Old Testament joined God’s mission to the nations through “attractional ministry” and in New Testament families through “explosional ministry”. But after examining the biblical texts and studying the cultures in which families existed, I had to change perspectives. Instead, I found that throughout biblical history, families, or most specifically, households, have participated in God’s mission to the nations primarily by attracting outsiders to the character and presence of God in their midst. In my own ministry context, both as a family residing in the United States and as a campus minister, I have found that Christians tend to call their ministry “attractional” when in fact, it is “isolational.” I know that is the pull I feel when thinking about ministry on campus and with my family. That the family in scripture is primarily attractional in essence has several farreaching implications for ministry, some of which I have yet to have processed. But fundamentally, at this stage in my life, I need to shift from an explosional view of ministry to an attractional one, being very careful to not become isolational (which is the natural pull from attractional). While this shift might seem like it would pull people with families out of centripetal ministry, is it possible that a this kind of shift would result in a more ground-up effective ministry to our culture?
22
Works Cited
Campbell, Ken M. Marriage and Family in the Biblical World. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003 Glasser, Arthur F., and Charles E. Van Engen. Announcing the Kingdom: The Story of God's Mission in the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003. Hawthorne, G. F., Martin, R. P., & Reid, D. G. 1993. Dictionary of Paul and his letters . InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, Ill. Hess, Richard S. and Carroll R Daniel M .Family in the bible: Exploring Customs, Culture and Context. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003. Osiek, Carolyn and Balch, David L. Familes in the New Testament World: Households and house churches. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997. Porter, S. E., & Evans, C. A. 2000. Dictionary of New Testament background : A compendium of contemporary biblical scholarship (electronic ed.). InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, IL. Van Engen, Charles E. and Shawn B. Redford, “Syllabus and Class Notes” for MT520 Biblical Foundations of Mission, Pasadena: Fuller Theological Seminary, Summer 2007. von Houten, Christiana. The Alien in Israelite law. 1991. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press. Wright, Christopher J. H. Old Testament Ethics for the People of God. Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004. Wright, Christopher J. H. The Mission of God. Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006.
23
