|
Sunday January 24, 2010 ~ 28 Comments
In September Brent Thomas, pastor of Church of the Cross in Peoria, AZ, took issue with a 9 Marks review of Jim Belcher's Book, Deep Church. Brent saw the review by Greg Gilbert as not only "snarky," but also unfair. In fact Gilbert's review actually received a response from Belcher himself on Trevin Wax's blog. There Belcher explained how Gilbert had somehow missed the point of his book. In his blog post Brent wondered if there was something of a growing rift within Reformed Evangelicalism related to the issue of the "missional church." Just last week Brent's suspicions seem to have been confirmed through another 9 Marks publication by Jonathan Leeman. Leeman's article, "Is the God of the Missional Gospel Too Small" is troubling in that he argues missional thinkers place a heavy emphasis on social justice that moves the church away from a proper emphasis on the gospel. Brent explained, Throughout his piece, Leeman equates "missional" with a focus primarily on "social justice." I don't know any Reformed, missional believers who make this equation, and I know many Reformed Evangelicals who would indeed call themselves "missional." Nowhere does he admit that he is speaking of a specific subset of the use of the word "missional" in the larger Reformed, Evangelical world. I just wish that Leeman had pointed out, just once, that he is, in fact, using the word in severely different ways than most people. I'm sure that conservative believers like Ed Stetzer, Mark Driscoll, and Tim Keller take issue with Leeman's equation of missional = focus primarily on social justice = new liberalism but nowhere does Leeman acknowledge that such conservative believers use the word "missional" in very, very different ways.
I share Brent's concern. Clearly there is a misunderstanding at some level. Either men like Leeman are not putting much effort into understanding missional thinkers, or some missional thinkers are not being clear enough. My guess is, guys like Leeman can try harder, and some missional thinkers could be more clear. Of course the truth is, there are different streams of missional thinkers, just as there are different streams of Presbyterians (or Baptists, or Calvinists, or charismatics). To say that one is missional doesn't necessarily imply anything other than a recognition that all believers and churches are sent by God on mission. Of course, we need to be clear about what that mission is. I have written on that extensively right here on the blog in my "Meanings of Missional" series. Yet Leeman seems to believe that "missional" necessitates some baggage. He argues that the missional emphasis leads to a social-justice emphasis which is the first step toward liberalism. He then attempts to connect "a small view of God," "an inconsequential view of Hell," "a de-emphasis on conversion," and a "reductionistic Biblical storyline" to the missional crowd. This is obviously not true of many of the well-known missional thinkers out there. Tim Keller is a well-known pastor/theologian who has been speaking and writing on the subject of the missional church for some time. He certainly doesn't fit the description given by Leeman. Tim not only preaches the reality of Hell, he teaches his church members why it matters, and gives advice on how to help non-Christians better understand the terrifying reality and appropriateness of Hell. As for me (my name tends to come up a fair bit when the subject of "missional" is tossed around), I believe in a big God, an eternal Hell, the need for the new birth, and that we need to be clear about priorities in the church. Although this particular dust-up is focused on the Reformed world, the issue is bigger than the Calvinist corner. Evangelicals have embraced all things missional-- sometimes as a genuine shift and sometimes as just updated jargon. But, there is much confusion and a need for clarity. A few of us have talked and we are going to try to forge something of a definition-- at least for how we use the term. As part of that, later this year, July 12-14, I'm partnering with a few others to launch a new conference called missionSHIFT that I believe will help us with the discussion. As a part of this conference, we are prayerful that a helpful statement can be forged on what it means to be missional. Several leaders in the missional church conversation (Keller, Hirsch, and others to be announced), who write about all-things missional, have already agreed to be Framers for the statement and some of the Framers will be at the conference for discussion and dialogue. The intention of "The Missional Manifesto" is to allow the Scriptures to guide our understanding and involvement in the mission of God as it applies to the whole of life and doctrine. The document will strive to show how "missional" intersects with truths about the gospel, the local church, evangelism, missions, social justice, and contextualization, among other things. The intent would be to say, "This is what we mean when we talk about being missional." It is not our intent (or within our ability) to say this is what everyone should think or say about the term. Words mean different things to different people (for example, "grace," "justice," and "gospel" all have different meanings to different groups). However, it is our hope that it will help us be clearer and more mission-shaped in our own thinking and practice. Finally, every Monday I will be blogging about all things missional. It is my hope that we can clear up some of the erroneous perceptions among conservative evangelicals and speak into the movement that does need a missional turn, but also a robust biblical theology. We need a gospel-centered, mission-focused church to be faithful to God's agenda in the world. More soon... Posted on January 24, 2010 at 5:15 PM ~ 28 Comments Tagged with: 28 CommentsLeave a comment |
  
  |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I continue to appreciate your ministry. Thank you for this Monday emphasis. I think it will be useful.
This is excellent. As someone who has thought through the missional & social justice movement I think this will be very beneficial. It will be great to have a definition for someone who is willing to argue over the "missional" label, even though it is just that, a label!
Thanks for what you are doing & if I can help as a humble servant let me know.
It seems that when we have nothing to fight and divide over, we come up with new reasons. It's no wonder that so many outsiders can't make sense of us!
Thank you for adding a clear voice to the discussion. Maybe your regular writing on the subject will keep the confusion from spreading like a virus.
Thanks, Ed for your always thoughtful contributions to His Church.
I get concerned that our missional orthopraxy itself misses the mark - whether social or evangelistic at its core.
God's agenda is Christ. The Church's agenda MUST be Christ: His Life made ours, His finished work, His indwelling Spirit, His continuing and mostly unpredictable/often immeasurable work in & through His Body. 'Seems that out of our love for Him and response to Him, we tend (I believe in our own flesh) to want to work for Him, instead of from Him - experiencing what He died and rose for us to know... Him! We often operate from a paradigm of achieving instead of receiving - which speaks more of us than Him. It is ultimately by His GRACE, not our efforts, that He is glorified.
When Christ is center - not even news ABOUT Him - but He Himself as a relational sufficiency for all things in life - evangelism and the spread of the gospel and and social justice (and everything else He does on the earth for us to know Him more by participating with Him) is the byproduct in perfect proportion.
After all, It was Jesus who said, "...I will build My Church." I think we've been trying to do His job ever since.
What if Jesus Christ HIMSELF is the mission (cf. Phil. 3:10)?
ridiculously graced...
-mike.
Thanks again, you (and people like Driscoll and Keller) are certainly helping me and others like me (Reformed SBC) think through missional issues. A question: will your conference be including people like DJ Chuang? He's certaily been a missional influence to the Asian community. Sadly, I've yet to find someone who is doing that for the Hispanic community. Know of anyone?
Thanks for this post. I could not agree more and wrote about it as well here. I'm looking forward to hearing more about the missionalSHIFT and "The Missional Manifesto"
This is one of the difficulties with names, labels, definitions, etc. Whoever is speaking at the moment uses whatever their perception is and it often does vary from how others see that same word or name or doctrine, so on and so on.
It is a good thing to clearly and noticeably state what "this" is and "that" is. That seems to be part of the motivation behind the historical confessions or creeds.
I think the issue may lie at a deeper level. We all tend to see the world from the place we are standing. And many of us would like to stand where we are for a while, we like it, we think it is good and we think it is right.
so... when something emerges... er.... (poor choice of word) when something appears in the discourse that is new or different we tend to interpret it as "not like me." Instead of seeing the new conversation as a potential growth opportunity to become more of what God created us for, we see it as a possible threat to where we are standing right now. In other words, if you are implying that I need to change then you are also implying that there is something wrong with me now.
That's hard for people to swallow, especially for groups of people that are excited about discovering the "right" thing. i.e. doctrinal purists, apologists, et al.
Humanity's need is for transformation, no matter where we stand. But as humans, we mostly process transformation as a need to move from wrong to right.
This begins to smell and feel like the old evangelism or discipleship debate. It's both and it's neither! They aren't really separated. God is true and consistent but God is not static. God is moving... not changing essence, but moving.
And if we stand in the same spot, we are actually getting further away.
We must develop a language and view that allows us to see God as eternally true and yet active. He is not only the "truth" but also the "way."
Missional, right now, seems to be the "life."
"Life" could thought of as missional(the way) based on and fueled by the realities we know to be "truth."
I'm not sophisticated enough to engage in this dialogue and don't really understand the debate between ministering to physical needs and proclaiming Jesus. To me, the answer is yes and yes. Though, I must conceded it also makes sense to me that it's hard to open your heart to Jesus when you're preoccupied squeezing your butt cheeks tight because you've gotten diarrhea from the contaminated water you've been drinking.
Let's love 'em, feed 'em, doctor 'em, and keep telling the story of Jesus. There's ultimately no healing or help apart from Him. Unfortunately, there's very little with Him in a gospel that knows the Four Spiritual Laws but forgets E.V. Hill's admonition that a "Hungry bellied baby can't get no Jesus."
Love Barry Watts' comment. Love the idea of the Missional Manifesto. But, please don't let critics down play the Christians role in pursuing social justice.
Frank,
We do want to hear from a broad group of voices. So, I am hopeful.
Good input from all of you... thanks.
Ed
After 20 years of at least trying to be pretty dang missional in various parts of Brazil, France and now Portugal(witnessing, baptizing, discipling into new churches that hopefully do the same and never stop planting new churches) I also relate to Barry Watts' comment. None of the places we've helped start new works and churches of any kind have excluded good works/social ministry as we build relationships through which we share the Gospel, baptizing all who accept the message. We also seek to live out among them and mentor/teach "...them to obey 'everything' I have commanded you" And He has been with us always. Love the Lord your God...Love your neighbor...as you "Go". The manual just ain't all that complicated. Getting people, including me, to live it out is another issue. What is being debated is what all is included and in what percentages in the "everything" Jesus commanded.
Ed,
Thank you for the report and the work going forward to define and clarify missional. This is not the first time that some Nine Marks articles have been snarky and inaccurate.
Paul's words to Corinth are needed by Nine Marks too: We know that “we all have knowledge.” Knowledge inflates with pride, but love builds up. If anyone thinks he knows anything, he does not yet know it as he ought to know it. But if anyone loves God, he is known by Him. 1 Cor 8:1-3 (HCSB)
Excellent comments here! The issue I have with equating "mission" with "social justice" is that too often, the world defines "social justice" as "revenge". Group A has wronged Group B, so Group A has to pay to the satisfaction of Group B. But can Group B ever really be satisfied? And who defines what is "just", anyway? To me, the Gospel IS social justice: if we walk in love, we don't get into injustices to begin with; if we forgive those who wrong us, concepts like revenge and recompense are replaced by reconciliation; if we place God above all else, we have a neutral arbiter with a set of absolute rules that are fair to all. One of the frustrations of ministering on Skid Row in Vancouver is that churches -- even those that declare themselves "missional" -- have a hard time seeing that area as a mission field. The worldly social justice activists have infiltrated the place, and the idea of simply preaching the Gospel, straight-no-chaser, with the message of love, hope, grace and second chances, seems inadequate. Yet that's the necessary -- and often missing --ingredient in any effort to transform lives.
I fully agree with Mike: when Jesus is the centre and the focus, everything else falls into place.
This is a truly helpful article. Very much appreciated. It cleared up some confusion i had about "missional."
This is a truly helpful article. Very much appreciated. It cleared up some confusion i had about "missional."
Ed-
Great post. I think it's time for this manifesto. It puts some pressure on those involved to produce something completely true, biblically dynamic, reflecting proper function and most of all unifying. So many pet doctrines and people wanting certain parts to be in all caps. It maybe harder than it should. It probably should be very simple. But when we get into ecclesiology it gets complicated.
I will certainly be in prayer and fasting for this. It's time!
I appreciate your blog greatly! It's a huge blessing to this planter that feels on a missional island at times.
Orion
Perhaps the 9 Marks guys could repackage themselves as 10 Marks (with something justice-related added to the list), and they wouldn't have to get so bothered about this.
Leeman makes one good point regarding the lack of preaching on the reality of hell. I am in the middle of the missional camp and this is often the case. Keller may preach on hell, but I believe this is rare, and the missional camp in general truly de-emphasizes this. I would be interested to know if Keller preaches against abortion or homosexuality at Redeemer. Would there be a mass exodus? The problem with boiling everything down to a generic "story of God" is that hell is often missed in the story. Yet Jesus spoke of it often. Instead being missional is having people handing out water bottles at porn expos saying Jesus Loves You and calling it ministry. God help us.
Joe- I think the missional camp needs to be held accountable to the reality and the responsibility to preach on hell and other issues. I don't think that no matter how much we preach on those things that it will be enough for some traditional evangelicals. Most of us in the missional camp are standing up and preaching on these things. However they aren't our primary focus and we don't feel the need to blast people with our stance on abortion or homosexuality every week. We have decided to preach the full council of God and not simply to advance our defense for Christiandom in America. We take seriously Paul's exhortation in 1 Cor 15 to deliver of first importance the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This is the good news of the gospel. Still we must preach on hell and our condemned nature to place us in this great story to see the awesome things that Jesus has done for us. There is nothing "generic" about the story of God. It is the story that he himself has given to us in the scriptures. The center point of that story is a bloody cross and an empty tomb. Not cultural and moral sin and the church running about with a finger in the face of every sinner condemning them to hell.
Still we need to be held accountable that we don't neglect standing for what is right morally and that we teach on every aspect of the Gospel. That is why many preachers use expository preaching to force us to encounter the harder texts with the lovely ones.
I think I've heard John Piper say "you should smell a scent of hell in every sermon". That seems strong to say but I am sure I agree with him and I know I have fallen short of that myself.
Any church calling itself missional and all they do is hand out bottled water and say "Jesus loves you" doesn't quite get what we are saying about missional or missional living. I don't know of any missional churches that do this and call it "missional". But I know tons of traditional churches that do.
Can't wait for this manifesto to help erase some of the confusion about missional churches and hopefully it will help us be more accountable as I think that's what your heart is Joe.?
Thanks,
Orion
Good discussion!
I'm not disagreeing with the "facts" of what most are saying. True - hell is a reality
True - apart from a saving relationship with Jesus, we are bound for that reality.
But do this...
Take "smell hell in every sermon" thing and apply it to all of Jesus' words and encounters with people.
It's not there.
If someone listens to us, are they more aware of what we are "for" or of what we are "against"
Again, whether Hell is a reality is not in question.
If Jesus is the model, then we have to be honest and say that He doesn't teach on it as much as some of us would prefer or expect of our fellow teachers.
The point of salvation is to be related to God not to avoid Hell. Am I incorrect to say that is what Jesus choose to focus on?
Not trying to make a statement about any of the great speakers from the past. Just trying to go back and ask, "what did Jesus deem most important to talk about?"
I pray that we don't let the term "missional" become the new "emergent" and treat it as a label or code word for something negative. I hope it remains an adjective to describe how we are joining God's mission of seeking to save that which is lost.
Orion commented... "However they aren't our primary focus and we don't feel the need to blast people with our stance on abortion or homosexuality every week."
I realize Keller is practically part of the trinity for many of us, I am just asking if he has ever preached on these issues in NYC. If not, why.
I'm just asking for preaching on it once a year. The missional camp, with few exceptions, has largely avoided the topics of abortion & homosexuality. The obvious reason is that we are desperate to not appear a part of the religious right. I'm just asking the question why do many of us avoid them. You don't think these issues have Gospel implications?
I believe because in our pursuit of gospel contextualization we fear a backlash from popular culture, and therefore pursue preaching on certain issues and avoid others (hell + the others above). Larrett gets to this point rightly I believe.
Maybe the pendulum will swing back where we are once again unfashionable.
Barry-
I realize it's only semantics but I said "a scent of hell" not "smell hell" which simply means that Joe or anyone else shouldn't have to wonder if they listened to enough of our sermons what our position on hell is. It doesn't mean every sermon has to highlight hell at some point.
Using your Jesus test I think it's worth consideration that more than any other figure in the bible Jesus spoke of hell. Regardless of how we see that I think we all can agree that if we were to follow Jesus around for more than a day we would know quite well what his position was. Jesus spoke a ton on the kingdom and just enough on hell that it was clear what the alternative was. That's all I'm saying we should consider if we are doing. But still it will not be enough to some folks liking. (there is an old argument on what Jesus spoke of more hell or heaven)
I'm always concerned about my own limited experience in the missional world. I can't help my naivite with who is doing what but the missional churches I'm around are all faithful to biblical teaching on hell.
I do fear Barry's fear that we are lumped into the more water downed side of emergent. That's why this Manifesto is important to me.
Every once in a while, I'll pull out a sermon on the theme, "There Is No Door #3" - that we are given but two choices: heaven and hell. But for the most part, I believe that people will surrender themselves and their lives to Christ because it's infinitely better than anything else - not because they want to avoid hell. (I came to Christ not to avoid hell but because I saw the better -- and only - way.) The people who come to my church on Skid Row have already heard a lot about hell, and that's what drove many of them away from church. I agree with those who say the occasional reminder of the consequences of rejecting Christ, but if we can't bring people to Christ with a message of love and mercy, grace, hope and blessing -- especially in this age when so many people are out there with enticing words like, "take care of you" and "one god - many paths" and so forth -- then we need to re-think how we're presenting that message. We can't fall back on the "negative inference" advertising that a hellfire-and-brimstone message can become. "Smell hell in every sermon"? Isn't it better that people should taste love, instead?
So true Drew. Love your comments about love, grace and hope being the message of Christ. I think your context matters with how you preach on hell. So that's worthy of consideration. Your specific environment makes us aware of that. Where people hear about hell plenty but what they don't hear about is the great sacrifice of Christ to show us grace and love and hope. A great encouragement Drew thank you!
To answer your question about whether it would be better to taste love in a sermon than smell a scent of hell, I would simply answer with Time Keller's own words from a recent article on The Resurgence, "Unless we come to grips with this terrible doctrine, we will never even begin to understand the depths of what Jesus did for us on the cross. His body was being destroyed in the worst possible way, but that was a flea bite compared to what was happening to his soul. When he cried out that his God had forsaken him, he was experiencing hell itself."
Check it out, it's a great article!
http://theresurgence.com/tim_keller_1997_preaching_hell_in_a_tolerant_age
This is what I mean by the scent of hell. (again not smells of hell) You cannot represent his love without some understanding of our current condition. In Kellers article, one lady said "I always thought hell told me about how angry God was with us, but I didn't know it also told me about how much he was willing to suffer and weep for us. I never knew how much hell told me about Jesus' love. It's very moving."
Finally Keller (and I since he is much smarter than I am) concludes his article with this,It is only because of the doctrine of judgment and hell that Jesus' proclamation of grace and love are so brilliant and astounding. We need to find the right way and motivations on how we talk about it.
Great conversation I enjoyed it!
God bless gentlemen!
Brother Ed,
Do you remember during a ride from the hotel to a conference in Jacksonville, Tennessee that you and I spoke about the use of the word Missional? It seems then that you were telling me that it had become so overused that it had lost its original definition. It appears that now some are trying to define it to fit their particular program. Of we have seen the same thing with the word Evangelical, haven't we. :)
Blessings,
Tim
Ed,
(am I the only female responding?)
I will truly and really hope that you mean what you say when you say "We do want to hear from a broad group of voices. So, I am hopeful."
Perhaps you would seek some non-white and/or female, perhaps from the margins folks?
Until all means all, it seems a little shortsighted and Kingdom short-shrift.
Tim,
I do indeed remember that conversation.
Maybe you were right. ;-)
But, I care less about words and more about helping our churches get focused on living out God's mission.
I am hoping this will help do that. We will see.
Ed
Hi Rachel,
I don't know if you are the only woman who responded, but I am glad you did.
Yes, as I mentioned in the post, we will be announcing some folks in the coming days and they include women and persons of color. They have already been asked and accepted. We just need to get our details together before we start announcing them.
Thanks for asking and not assuming. I appreciate that!
More soon...
Ed
It's interesting to me that so many of the "missional" folks get so worked up about a couple of 9Marks articles over the meaning of a word that isn't even in the bible. If you think your interpretation of the Bible is correct, who cares what they say? Just keep doing what you're doing. I can't help but think there is pride in the mix as self becomes intertwined with our belief systems, and I wonder if a deeper humility would respond in the same way. Case in point: Keller strikes me as a humble man. As far as I know, he has not yet publicly responded to the article.