Missional Shift

In his book The Present Future, Reggie McNeal reveals and contrasts different ways leaders can think about the church and its ministry. McNeal reflects upon the different paradigms that pastors can have as they lead and conduct ministry in the church.

Being missional is a shift in thinking about the nature of the church. Once a missional understanding is adopted, the way we do church begins to change.

A missional church stresses:

  • community transformation over growing the church
  • turning members into missionaries over turning members into ministers
  • and recovering Christian mission over doing church better.

Traditional Conservative & Missional Values

One of the fundamental principles of being missional is contextualization.  In short, contextualization simply means to take into consideration the context where one lives and serves.

With all the noteriety that missional practitioners serving in clearly post-Christian areas have gained, it seems some, desiring to follow the example of these leaders, all too readily foresake the principle of contextualization. 

It is understandable to want to copy the methods and messages of Tim Keller or Mark Driscoll, among others.  No doubt there is much to be learned from these guys.  But the temptation to copy is really a trap that will lead most of us to ineffectiveness.  Those guys serve in New York and Seattle, respectively. What is needed to serve in those contexts is vastly different than what may be needed in Nashville, Birmingham, or small towns like where I live – Bristol, TN/VA.  Principles should be benchmarked and translated, not copied.  All effective ministry is local.

In the above video Tim Keller offers some helpful thoughts about advancing the gospel in different social contexts.

Unity, Liberty, & Charity

 

I was disappointed recently when I read an old post on the Aquila Report, You Will Hear Crickets.  The author, Anthony Bradley, is a professor of Ethics at Kings College in New York City, and apparently has some aversion to the missional church movement.

Bradley opens his article:

So I’m beginning to wonder if it’s “a wrap” on this whole “missional” movement splash, especially in terms of church planting? I can definitely see the wind being taken out of the sails for some. I’ve been particularly curious about crickets I hear when bringing up a few issues among missional Christians

He then lists four issues that he seems to believe puts a nail in the coffin of this movement.  He even appears to take delight in its reputed demise.

While I have come to understand concerns about some practices and practioners who wear the missional label, I have difficulty understanding why anyone is opposed to the missional movement.   Granted some within this movement, including some prominent faces, may have drifted toward heterodoxy, but Missional is a BIG umbrella.  If the errors of some, even many, gives reason to eschew the basic principles, maybe I should rethink being identified as Presbyterian.  The recent actions of the PCUSA have no doubt caused confusion and concern about what we Presbyterians believe and stand for. 

But I do not think I should stop being Presbyterian simply because some have strayed off course.  I would rather stand firm and not give over the label to those who no longer stand for the principles.  Likewise, I don’t think we need to throw out the baby with the bathwater in attempt to clean up the Missional label.  Rather, I think we should work to reform the movement, bringing all things into conformity with Scripture, all the while remembering the mantra coined by Marco Antonio de Dominis,  often attributed to Augustine, and popularize by Puritan Richard Baxter:

  • In Essential – UNITY
  • In non-Essentials – LIBERTY
  • In All Things – CHARITY

Art of Our Discontent

Trevin Wax asks these questions:

How do unbelievers know we are Christians?

  • By the fish symbols on our car?
  • By our bumper stickers?
  • By our voting patterns?
  • By our church attendance?

No. Jesus tells us that the outside world will know we are Christians by the way we love one another.  (John 13.34-35; 1 John 4.12)  When we submit to one another in love, we bolster our evangelistic witness by showing the world that love and authority don’t have to be separated.  God’s rule is life-giving.  He rules us for our good and for his glory, and the church reflects that loving rule.

(From Counterfeit Gospels, page 157)

But what about when that love runs cold?  What are faithful followers of Christ to do when we grate on one another or disappoint one another?  I am not talking about when we are in conflict, necessarily. I have in mind when we just seem to grow apart?

This is a pertinent question to ponder, because inevitably most will experience this in at least some relationships with others in our churches.  So how are we to respond? How can we most glorify God in these situations?

First, let me offer an illustration of a way not to respond.

Once, in a previous church I served, I participated in a discussion with a church member who had seemingly disappeared.  As we inquired about him, how was doing, and what he was up to, he informed us that he had been disappointed by some of the Elders in the church.  None of us had been aware that this had been the case, so we were filled with a mixture of emotions: sadness, disappointment, frustration, etc.  One man asked him why he had not made this known, why he had not followed the pattern of Matthew 18 to seek reconciliation and restoration of relationships.  His response: “Matthew 18 does not apply. None of you sinned against me.”

Somewhat perplexed, I inquired: “Had someone offended you because of sin would you have then followed Matthew 18?”  He assured us all that he most certainly would have done that.  And I believe him. He was (and is) a faithful man, zealous to be obedient to God.

I felt I had no choice. I had to point out the absurdity of this logic.  He was missing the whole spirit of the instructions for the process of reconciliation. True, Matthew 18 is a process that must be undertaken and which could culminate in some form of church discipline. But it is not discipline the Lord delights in.  Our Lord delights in heartfelt relationship.  What this man expressed was essentially that he would have shown more love and concern for his fellow Christians had any of us been guilty of offensive sins.  Absent that, he felt he had no responsibility to seek to restore these relationships.  In other words, he would have loved us more had we sinned against him than he did because we had not.

I suspect his dilemma is not uncommon.  In our disposable culture it seems relationships are among the easiest things to discard.  But as I posed at the beginning of this post, this is not the way things ought to be among those in Christ’s Church.  As J.I. Packer observes, in his doctrinal handbook Concise Theology:

“The task of the church is to make the invisible Kingdom visible through faithful Christian living and witness-bearing.”

I think Packer sums it up beautifully.  Our task is to embody the values and principles before a watching world. By doing so we become a living demonstration of the way things ought to be – and one day will be.  As we live this out, perhaps especially in relationship, we are counter-cultural – i.e. we present an alternative to the culture in which we live.

So how should we respond when we feel we have drifted apart from others in our church? How, practically, do we honor God with our relationships?

Continue reading

Living Together as the Church

The late theological statesman, Edmund Clowney observed:

“If we lack interest in the church we lack what was for Jesus a  consuming passion. Jesus loved the church and gave himself for it (Ephesians 5.25).”

Jesus’ love for his church is evident throughout the pages of the New Testament.  In Matthew 16.18 Jesus promises to build his church. In fact he promises to empower it and protect it to such a degree that even Hell itself can not stand against it.

In Ephesians we are told that we, the followers of Christ, are the Body of Christ. (Ephesians 5.30) And the way the world will know we are his people is through the way we relate to one another. (John 13.35)

OK. I know that there is little, if any, new ground being broken here so far. What I have written is widely understood and little debated by those who are followers of Christ.  But while these principles are widely known, lesser understood is how we can -and should – practically live out our life together as Christ’s Church.

The folks at 9 Marks have developed a wonderful little e-book that helps lay a solid foundation and offers wise instruction about life together.  It is titled: Living as a Church.  Originally a Sunday School curriculum, each chapter is only about 3-4 pages designed to spark conversation as well as instruction.

Below are the links to the various chapters. I commend them all, but they are also of value considered by subject of interest.

  1. Introduction: Unity- God’s Goal for the Church
  2. Church Membership: Context for Unity
  3. Preaching: The Foundation of Unity
  4. Corporate Prayer: God’s Power Creates Unity
  5. Church Government: Godly Authority Fostering Unity
  6. Fellowship: Building a Bond of Unity
  7. Discontentment: A Test of Unity
  8. Church Leadership: Submission for the Sake of Unity
  9. Church Discipline: Preseving God-honoring Unity
  10. Serving & Giving: Sacrifice for the Sake of Unity
  11. Worship: Praising God in Unity
  12. Corporate Evangelism: A Harvest of Unity

What Makes a Good Church?

Steve Erickson of Pointway Church in Baxter, Minnesota serves up some up beat thoughts to the question: What makes a good church?

“What makes a good church?

If all the…

…Lazy folks get up
…sleepy folks wake up
…Discouraged folks cheer up
…Gossiping folks shut up
…Dishonest folks fess up
…Estranged folks make up
…Depressed folks look up
…Disgusted folks sweeten up
…Lukewarm folks fire up
…Sanctified folks show up
…Leading folks live up
…Vowing folks pay up
…And all soldiering folks stand up.”

Organic Church

You will observe that I am not merely exhorting you “to go to church.” “Going to church” is in any case good. But what I am exhorting you to do is go to your own church – to give your presence and active religious participation to every stated meeting for worship of the institution as an institution. Thus you will do your part to give to the institution an organic religious life, and you will draw out from the organic religious life of the institution a support and inspiration for your own personal religious life which you can get nowhere else, and which you can cannot afford to miss – if, that is, you have a care to your religious quickening and growth. To be an active member of a living religious body is the condition of healthy religious functioning.

B.B. Warfield

Out-stretching the Outreach Dilemma

I have been spending some time thinking about how to revamp and ignite the outreach ministry of our church.  One of the frequent dilemmas for a church that desires to become more externally focused, more missional, is the balancing of service and PR.  There is nothing inherently wrong with advertising, but sometimes a sincere outreach can be perceived as a mere marketing strategy.  When this happens it sends a distorted message to both those outside the church and those who go out from the church.

John Stott, in his book Christian Mission in the Modern World, offers the following insights about this dilemma:

To sum up, we are sent to the world, like Jesus, to serve. For this is the natural expression of our love for our neighbors. We love. We go. We serve. And in this we have (or we should have) no ulterior motive. True, the gospel lacks visibility if we merely preach it, and lacks credibility if we who preach it are interested only in souls and have no concern about the welfare of people’s bodies, situations and communities.  Yet the reason for our acceptance of social responsibility is not primarily in order to give the gospel either a visibility or a credibility it would otherwise lack, but rather simple uncomplicated compassion. Love has no need to justify itself.  It merely expresses itself in service wherever it sees need.

Being a Transforming Presence

As followers of Jesus it is as imperative for us to fight every inclination toward dualism as it is to fight against legalism.  While legalism is widely recognized as relating wrongly to the Law, the error of dualism is not as widely acknowledged in our Evangelical circles.

Simply put, dualism is like split vision, seeing things only as either spiritual or secular.  All things are spiritual.

Walt Mueller reminds us that there are two kinds of dualism common in the church:

  1. Escape – When personal salvation is viewed as an escape from the world into the church, and that the world around us is then to be avoided.
  2. Segregated Spheres – Believing God is only concerned about the spiritual dimension of our lives, we dedicate our spiritual lives to the Lord, but then are shaped by the world in our professional and social lives.

Jacques Ellul offers this critique:

This dissociation of our life into two spheres: the one “spiritual” where we can be “perfect”; and the other material and unimportant, where we behave like other people; is one of the reasons why the Churches have so little influence on the world… All we can say is: That is the exact opposite of what Jesus Christ wills for us, and of that which he came to do.

Here are three teachings of Jesus that should remind us that God intends for his people to engage the culture around us.  We are not to avoid it. We are to attack it stealthily.

Matthew 5.13 – Salt of the Earth

Matthew 5.14 – Light of the World

Matthew 10.16 – Sheep among Wolves

The Presence of the Kingdom

Jacques Ellul offers a profound insight about how we, as Christians, are to adopt as a priority an Incarnational approach to ministry.   Incarnational  ministry literally means: In the flesh.  It means going where people are, and understanding their real situations, rather than primarily trying to draw them to us with various forms of entertainment and shallow promises.  The Incarnational approach allows us to infiltrate the cultures of the world, and the sub-cultures of our community, to become agents of transformation.

Reflect for a little while about what Ellul writes:

The will of the world is always a will to death, a will to suicide. We must not accept this suicide, and we must so act that it cannot take place. So we must know what is the actual form of the world’s will to suicide in order that we may oppose it, in order that we might know how, and in what direction, we ought to direct our efforts.

The world is neither capable of preserving itself, nor is it capable of finding remedies for its spiritual situation (which control the rest). It carries the weight of sin, it is the realm of Satan which leads it towards separation from God, and consequently towards death. That is all it is able to do.

Thus it is not for us to construct the City of God, to build up an “order of God” within this world, without taking any notice of its suicidal tendencies.  Our concern should be to place oursleves at the very point where this suicidal desire is most active, in the actual form it adopts, and to see how God’s will of preservation can act in this given situation.

If we want to avoid being completely abstract, we are then obliged to understand the depth, and the spiritual reality of the moral tendency of this world; It is to this that we ought to direct all our efforts, and not to the false problems which the world raises, or to an unfortunate application of an “order of God”  which has become abstract… Thus it is always by placing himself at this point of contact that the Christian can be truly “present” in the world, and can carry on effective social or political work, by the grace of God.

~ from The Presence of the Kingdom

Distinct, Not Separated

John Stott offers a reminder of the task and the tension we, as Christians, must continually navigate when he uses the phrase:

“spiritually distinct, but NOT socially segregated.”

And here is a quote expanding this perspective:

Your business and mine as Christian people is to be in the midst of this world and its affairs, and still remain true and loyal to God, and be kept from evil.  …The task of the Christian is to be right in the midst of this world and its affairs in order that he may do the work of evangelism, spreading the gospel and the Kingdom of God, while the whole time, keeping himself un-spotted from the world.

~Martyn Lloyd-Jones, from Safe in the World

Get the Gospel Right

If pressed for a quick summary of my philosophy of ministry, I would probably express it something like this:

  • Get the Gospel Right
  • Get the Gospel Out
  • Get the Gospel Out Right

Without a message there is no mission.

Unfortunately, it seems, many are so zealous to get about the mission that they make little time getting the message of the gospel right.  They do not stand amazed at what God has done for us in the person of Christ. Consequently, they are not being formed or transformed by the gospel.  They are more anxious about what they will do for God than excited by what God has done for us, and what he is doing in us, and what God has promised to do through us – if only we would root ourselves in the gospel.  And because some are neither formed or being transformed, they go out uninformed.

If we are not conscious of what God is doing in us, what do we think we have to offer those who are around us?

While no doubt knowledge without zeal is dead.  It is equally true that zeal without knowledge is deadly.

A Case for Institutional Church

No doubt an “Organic” church is much more appealing than an Institution.  Yet even Brian McLaren, in his book Church on the Other Side, recognizes that any church that includes more than a handful of people needs some level of organization, and the larger a church gets the more organization it requires.  While the notion of a purely “Organic” church seems nice, it is hardly realistic.  Those clamoring to remove all remnants of the church as an “institution” are not only kidding themselves, they do not seem to me to be thinking Biblically.

Jared Wilson, a missional practitioner and pastor, offers 10 Reasons for the Institutional Church:

  1. The New Testament presumes church governance
  2. The New Testament commands church discipline
  3. The New Testament designates insiders and outsiders in relation to the church
  4. The image of “the body” presumes unified order
  5. The New Testament churches had recognizable structures. The apostles sent their letters to somebody
  6. “Spirit-filled community or institutional organization” is a false dichotomy that presumes the Spirit is powerless against institution
  7. Logically speaking, there is no such thing as “no institution” except chaos or anarchy. Every community made up of people is institutional to some degree
  8. That institution is not eternal is not grounds for jettisoning it. Marriage isn’t eternal either.
  9. The subjection of kings and nations presumes institutional subjection to Christ and therefore that God works in, with, and through institutions.
  10. No one in 2,000 years has successfully cultivated an enduring institution-less expression of the local church

No Need to Reinvent the Church

Let me just say it straight, up front: I see no need to reinvent the church. What I do see is the need for God’s People to act more faithfully as Christ’s Church.

I like what Kevin DeYoung has to say in the Introduction to his book, The Good News We Almost Forgot:

No doubt the church in the West has many new things to learn. But for the most part, everything we need to learn is what we’ve already forgotten. The chief theological task now facing the Western church is not to reinvent or to be relevant but to remember. We must remember the old, old, story. We must remember the faith once delivered to the saints. We must remember the truths that spark reformation, revival, and regeneration.

So, again, despite the assertions of the Emergents and Seekers and cutting-edge tweekers, I see no need to reinvent the church. God is still at work, just as he has been at work through the ages.

We would, however, be wise to remember what the Reformers of the 16th Century pointed out:

The Church is constantly in need of reforming itself to become more conformed to Scripture.

To do this we  need to be aware of:

  • What God says in Scripture His Church is to be
  • What God has done through history to build His Church

But while I do not believe we need to reinvent the church, I do believe we must always contextualize the ministry of our congregations to be relevant to the cultures where we live; and to be relevant to any cultures in which we may minister.

Consider what missiologist Lesslie Newbigin observed:

If the gospel is to be understood… if it is to be received as something which communicates the Truth about the real human situation, if it is as we say “to make sense”, it has to be communicated in the language of those to whom it is addressed and it has to be clothed in symbols which are meaningful to them.  Those to whom it is addressed must be able to say: “Yes, I see.”

The desire for Relevance does not necessarily change or minimize the Truths of our Faith.  Instead it is an attempt to express and communicate the historic Biblical Truths in ways that are meaningful and applicable to contemporary and changing contexts.

In other words, we want to embrace and embody the historic Christian faith in ways that are relevant to the culture(s) in which we live & minister.

Just as a missionary going to a foreign country would be expected to adopt the language, dress, and appropriate customs & mannerisms of that culture, so we ought to be sensitive to our culture (and various sub-cultures). We use our freedom in Christ to adjust & adopt appropriate forms that will enable us to speak clearly to the people of the glory of Christ, and of the eternal truth of the gospel.

But while we must be contextual, we must be contextual without negating or neglecting  the foundations laid by our forefathers in the Faith.

This is what the LORD says: “Stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls. But you said, ‘We will not walk in it.’   – Jeremiah 6.16

Do not move an ancient boundary stone set up by your forefathers.   – Proverbs 22.28

Here are some practical principles:

  • I affirm God has worked through His church throughout history, and that the church is God’s primary mission agency.  Much wisdom has been gained through the ages, and we are wise to learn from those who have come before us.
  • Therefore we must be committed to doing ministry & theology, with intentional continuity with the Historic Christian Faith, under the authority of God’s Word.
  • At the same time, we must seek to be sensitive to our culture and contextualize our ministry accordingly. We must also be careful not to fall into the traps of syncretism or cultural accommodation, or any other practice that compromises the gospel of Jesus Christ.
  • Relevance also means that we should be sensitive to specific (sometimes unique) issues facing our contemporary culture(s), and the context in which we live and serve, and to speak prophetically to those issues in accordance with faithful Biblical theology.

In short, we are informed by the past, and we should be connected to our heritage, but we must be a living community of learners, willing to adapt and change in order to be both more faithful to Christ and more effective for the sake of His Kingdom.

And rather than reinventing, and becoming like the Emergents, we can adopt convergence.  Convergence means that we take the best practices and resources of the past and integrate them with contemporary expressions in the context of our community.

This is, in large part, what it means to be Missional. And being missional does not require reinventing, just a little recovering and a little sensitivity and a lot of application.