This book was published in 1989 but in my opinion it is extremely relevant to the discussion of the church today. In this work, Kraft shares his struggle to embrace a new worldview concerning miracles and a power ministry paradigm. He was skeptical at first but through cross-cultural missional experiences and classroom experiences with John Wimber as well as dialogue with Peter Wagner, Kraft overcame his reservations and has entered into Christianity with power.
I greatly appreciate this work. I too am often skeptical of much of Christianity that relies on power encounters. I struggle with actually believing that God desires to actually really heal people today. My western evangelical worldview has natural scientific explanations for things. I do not look for the spiritual reasons behind everyday occurances.
Further, I look to modern western solutions to my ills: when I am sick I go to the doctor, or take a drug; when I am emotionally troubled I see a psychologist. Prayer is often a last resort, when the other common sense remedies have failed to work.
Kraft points out that the western worldview is far different then the one of the Hebrews in Scripture. That doesn't make my worldview wrong but it does lead to some unique weaknesses.
As to the timeliness of this book, I kept feeling that this book is significant concerning the worldview shift that is occuring for many within our culture and in evangelicalism. The book autobiographically recounts much of Kraft's worldview transformation and then analyzes worldviews and transitions in worldviews from an anthropological standpoint (
Kraft is professor of anthropology and intercultural communication at
Fuller).
One of my favorite chapters in the book is called The "What We Think We Know" Problem. Here are some great quotes from this chapter (these appear especially relevant in light of the emerging church discussion):
"It is not so much what we don't know, but what we think we know that obstructs our vision", says Harvard theologian Krister Stendahl. This piece of wisdom has certainly described accurately quite a number of situations in human history. It also points ou the basic problem in a large number of conflicts that have taken place in the history of Christianity. Every time there is renewal, for example, the "what we think we know" problem arises. Typically, the traditionalists who think they know how God behaves become the opponents of the new things God wants to do...
The problem seems to be a human tendency to make rules for God. We learn certain things about how he works, arrive at the principles we think to be appropriate, and then impose those principles on those who seek to follow him as if God himself had endorsed them. We then virtually forbid him to work in any other way...
God simply refuses to be bound by "what we think we know," even if that knowledge is about him. For he knows the severe limitations of that knowledge. It is always constrained by our humanity and derived from our interpretations of but a small selection of God's acts. And all of those interpretations are influenced by our worldview, our experience, our predisposition, our sin, and all our other human limitations...
Our worldview paradigms of perspectives are precious to us. They are like our language, having been passed on to us by people in whom we have trusted over the years. So our first reaction is ordinarily to defend and protect them when they are challenged. This is especially true if we suspect that by changing a certain paradigm, we may run afoul of the opinions of our group. The potential of a loss of prestige is usually sufficient to keep us in line, especially if we are feeling socially insecure.
These thoughts really resonated with me as I continue to wrestle with the ongoing emerging church discussion. It causes me to wonder...how much of the controversy concerns truth, how much concerns the "what we think we know" problem, and how much concerns fear in changing a worldview?
