I just finished a chapter in Lesslie Newbigin’s The Gospel in a Pluralist Society entitled, The Logic of "M" (you’ll have to fill in the blank).  In light of my post below, "are we having fun yet?" I think Newbigin’s position and statements regarding what we are all (as believers) called to is pretty insightful.

He basically is suggesting that the ultimate meaning in universal history is Christ.  He starts by suggesting that you cannot know or interpret the importance of a historical event unless you can see the end result of it.  In the case of history, we cannot determine the ultimate significance of a historical event without seeing the end result.  Since we (as finite human beings) cannot see very far into the future it makes it very difficult to capture and record meaningful events.  But with Christianity as shown in Biblical revelation, Newbigin poses, we can see the ultimate end which is the coming kingdom of God.  Because we know (to some limited extent) that we are taking part in a this meaningful story , we are witnesses to its reality.

Newbigin then goes on to show that the real logic of m work is not primarily tied to "saving individual souls from perdition" (although that’s part of it) but is instead tied to sharing this universally true story that we are all supposed to be a part of.  Here’s how he says it:

So the logic of [m] is this: the true meaning of the human story has been disclosed.  Because it is the truth, it must be shared universally.  It cannot be private opinion.  When we share it with all peoples, we give them the opportunity to know the truth about themselves, to know who they are because they know the true story of which their lives are a part.  Wherever the gospel is preached the question of the meaning of the human story–the universal story and the personal story of each human being–is posed.  Thereafter the situation can never be the same.  It can never revert to the old harmonies, the old securities, the old static or cyclical patterns of the past.  Now decisions have to be made for or against Christ, for Christ as the clue to history or for some other clue."

Now, one of the questions that normally jumps up after saying something like this is: Who are we to say that Christ is the right "clue to history" for all people for all times?  Isn’t this somewhat subjective?  Ah, but Newbigin addresses this question as well:

The Christian faith is itself an ultimate faith-commitment which can be validated only in its exercise.  As such it is open to the charge of subjectivity…Polyani’s answer to the charge of subjectivism is that while we hold our beliefs as personally committed subjects, we hold them with universal intent, and we express that intent by publishing them and inviting all people to consider and accept them.  To be willing so to publish them is the test of our real belief.  In this sense [m]s are the test of our faith. We believe that the truth about the human story has been discovered in the events which form the substance of the gospel.  We believe, therefore, that these events are the real clue to the story of every person, for every human life is part of the whole human story and cannot be understood apart from that story.  It follows that the test of our real belief is our readiness to share it with all peoples.

This stuff is so meaty and good, I could keep quoting ALL day!  But I’d like for this to actually be read (or skimmed) so I’ll stop.  I love this idea that we are "publishing our findings"; that we are putting ourselves out there as exhibits A and B; that we are proving the validity of what we claim by the way we are writing our own stories.  It’s so true.  You cannnot really understand the Christian life by looking in from the outside.  Paul says that it is impossible (for the natural man) to do so.  You have to jump in with both feet and swim around for a bit to see its truth.  Newbigin also goes to great lengths to show that "the Church is not so much the agent of the [m] as the locus of the [m]."  In other words we are the "where" in which the Spirit is moving, not necessarily the "how" if that makes sense.  God is the one who is doing this through us and it’s not up to us.  We’re just the vessels he is using to bring the kingdom here to earth (as it is in heavevn…)  Too cool.

Newbigin goes on to say that our motivation to do [m] is also tied to our hope in the coming kingdom and that it is an expression of our love.  But he says that both of these motivations only make sense if we believe that what we are saying is actually true.  If we don’t believe it is true than to persuade others to believe it is not "an act of love" at all.

Finally, Newbigin closes the chapter with these words regarding the Church and its function:  "…the Church’s mission began as a radioactive fallout from an explosion of joy.  When it is true to its nature, it is so to the end.  [M] is an acted out doxology.  That is its deepest secret.  Its purpose is that God may be glorified."

I guess this was challenging to me because it just shows me that if I am not living what I claim with "universal intent" and if I’m not "publishing my findings" than I’m actually just dishing out lipservice.  I think instead I’d really rather act out the doxology.  How ’bout you?