Evangelistic Worship

March 24, 2014

Hymn Number

by Tim Keller

THE WORSHIP WARS

One of the basic features of church life in the U.S. today is the proliferation of worship and music forms.  This in turn has caused many severe conflicts both within individual congregations and whole denominations. Most books and articles about recent worship trends tend to fall into one of two broad categories.

  • “Contemporary Worship” (hereafter CW) advocates often make rather sweeping statements, such as “pipe organs and choirs will never reach people today.”
  • “Historic Worship” (hereafter HW) advocates often speak similarly about how incorrigibly corrupt popular music and culture is, and how they make contemporary worship completely unacceptable.

Contemporary Worship: Plugging In?

One CW advocate writes vividly that we must ‘plug in’ our worship in to three power sources: “the sound system, the Holy Spirit, and contemporary culture.”  But several problems attend the promotion of strictly contemporary worship.

First, some popular music does have severe limitations for worship. Critics of popular culture argue that much of it is the product of mass-produced commercial interests. As such, it is often marked by sentimentality, a lack of artistry, sameness, and individualism in a way that traditional folk art was not.

Second, when we ignore historic tradition we break our solidarity with Christians of the past. Part of the richness of our identity as Christians is that we are saved into a historic people. An unwillingness to consult tradition is not in keeping with either Christian humility or Christian community. Nor is it a thoughtful response to the post-modern rootlessness which now leads so many to seek connection to ancient ways and peoples.

Finally, any worship that is strictly contemporary will become ‘dated’ very, very quickly. Also, it will necessarily be gauged to a very narrow ‘market niche.’ When Peter Wagner says we should ‘plug in’ to contemporary culture, which contemporary culture does he mean? White, black, Latin, urban, suburban, ‘Boomer,’ or ‘GenX’ contemporary culture? Just ten years ago, Willow Creek’s contemporary services were considered to be ‘cutting edge.’ Today, most younger adults find them dated and ‘hokey.’

Hidden (but not well!) in the arguments of contemporary worship enthusiasts is the assumption that culture is basically neutral. Thus there is no reason why we cannot wholly adapt our worship to any particular cultural form. But worship that is not rooted in any particular historic tradition will often lack the critical distance to critique and avoid the excesses and distorted sinful elements of the particular surrounding, present culture. For example, how can we harness contemporary Western culture’s accessibility and frankness, but not its individualism and psychologizing of moral problems?

Historic Worship: Pulling Out?

HW advocates, on the other hand, are strictly ‘high culture’ promoters, who defend themselves from charges of elitism by arguing that modern pop music is inferior to traditional folk art.  But problems also attend the promotion of strictly traditional, historic worship.

First, HW advocates cannot really dodge the charge of cultural elitism. A realistic look at the Christian music arising from the grassroots folk cultures of Latin America, Africa, and Asia (not commercially produced pop music centers) reveals many of the characteristics of contemporary praise and worship music–simple and accessible tunes, driving beat, repetitive words, and emphasis on experience.   In the U.S., an emphasis on strictly high culture music and art will probably only appeal to college educated elites.

Second, any proponent of ‘historic’ worship will have to answer the question – ‘whose’ history? Much of what is called ‘traditional’ worship is rooted in northern European culture. While strict CW advocates bind worship too heavily to one present culture, strict HW advocates bind it too heavily to a past culture. Do we really believe that the 16th century Northern European approach to emotional expression and music (incarnate in the Reformation tradition) was completely Biblically informed and must be preserved?

Hidden (but not well!) in the arguments of traditional worship advocates is the assumption that certain historic forms are more pure, Biblical, and untainted by human cultural accretions. Those who argue against cultural relativism must also remember the essential relativity of all traditions. Just as it is a lack of humility to disdain tradition, it is also a lack of humility (and a blindness to the ‘noetic’ effects of sin) to elevate any particular tradition or culture’s way of doing worship. A refusal to adapt a tradition to new realities may come under Jesus’ condemnation of making our favorite human culture into an idol, equal to the Scripture in normativity (Mark 7.8-9)  While CW advocates do not seem to recognize the sin in all cultures, the HW advocates do not seem to recognize the amount of (common) grace in all cultures.

Bible, Tradition, and Culture

At this point, the reader will anticipate that I am about to unveil some grand ‘Third Way’ between two extremes. Indeed, many posit a third approach called “Blended” worship.  But it is not so simple as that. My major complaint is that both sides are equally simplistic in the process by which they shape their worship.

CW advocates consult a) the Bible and b) contemporary culture, while HW advocates consult a) the Bible and b) historic tradition. But we forge worship best when we consult a) the Bible, b) the cultural context of our community, and c) the historic tradition of our church. 10 The result of this more complex process will not be simply a single, third “middle way.” There are at least nine worship traditions in Protestantism alone. 11 That is why the book you are reading provides examples of culturally relevant worship that nonetheless deeply appreciates and reflects its historic tradition.

This more complex approach is extremely important to follow. The Bible simply does not give us enough details to shape an entire worship service. When the Bible calls us to sing God’s praises, we are not given the tunes nor the rhythm. We are not told how repetitive the lyrics are to be or not to be, nor how emotionally intense the singing should be. When we are commanded to do corporate prayer, we are not told whether those prayers should be written, unison prayers or extemporary prayers. 12 So to give any concrete form to our worship, we must “fill in the blanks” that the Bible leaves open. When we do so, we will have to draw on a) tradition, b) the needs, capacities and cultural sensibilities of our people, and c) our own personal preferences. Though we cannot avoid drawing on our own preferences, this should never be the driving force. (cf. Romans 15.1-3) Thus, if we fail to do the hard work of consulting both tradition and culture, we will – wittingly or unwittingly – just tailor music to please ourselves.

THE SEEKER-SENSITIVE WORSHIP MOVEMENT

Sally Morgenthaler’s interview with young pastors (Chris Seay, Mark Driscoll, Ron Johnson, Doug Pagitt, Clark Crebar) in Worship Leader (May/June 1998) “Authentic Worship in a Postmodern Culture” and Fernando Ortega’s interview in Prism in Nov/Dec 1997 are indications of some major cracks in the foundation of evangelical assumptions about what kind of services will reach ‘secular’ people.

The crisis (that is here? coming?) in the church growth movement due to the fact that the attack on seeker-sensitive worship is coming from inside, that is, from the pastors of fast growing ‘mega-churches’ (though the name and category is eschewed) filled with under-30’s. These pastors claim that the Willow Creek inspired services supposedly adapted for the unchurched were calibrated for a very narrow and transitory kind of unchurched person: namely, college educated, white, Baby Boomers, suburbanites. The increasingly multi-ethnic, less rational/word-oriented, urban oriented and more secular generations under the age of 35 are not the same kind of ‘unchurched’ people. The critique is that Willow Creek ‘over-adapted’ to the rational, a-historical ‘high modern’ world-view.

The younger pastors say that Willow Creek services do several things that alienate the seekers of their generations:

a) It removed transcendence from its services by utilizing light, happy music and tone, complete accessibility of voice, using dramatic sketches that create a nightclub or TV-show atmosphere. But their generations hunger for awe.

b) It ditched connection to history and tradition and went completely contemporary in all cultural references, from sermon illustrations to decoration to antiseptic ‘suburban mall/office building’ setting.But their generations hunger for rootedness, and love a pastiche of ancient and modern.

c) It emphasized polish and technical excellence and slick professionalism and management technique, while their generations hunger for authenticity and community rather than programs.

d) It emphasizes rationality and practical ‘how-to’ maps, while their generations hunger for narrative and the personal.

A SOLUTION: EVANGELISTIC WORSHIP

Two models, with problems

The most thoughtful members of the Seeker Friendly Service movement agree that the straight “seeker service” is not really worship, and therefore new believers are brought out of the seeker service into a weekly worship service for believers. The critics, on the other hand, generally see the worship service as the place for renewing and edifying believers who then go out into the world to do evangelism. The two models then, seem to be:

  • Seeker service (evangelism)  –> Worship service (edification)
  • Worship service (edification)  –> World (evangelism)

There are pragmatic problems with both models. The SFC model is financially very expensive, it is hard to assimilate new Christians out of seeker services into real worship services. And if the main worship service is very oriented toward seekers, the Christians often feel under-fed.  On the other hand the critics cannot avoid the charge that they are not proposing any alternative to the current evangelistically ineffective church. One critic is very typical when he writes: “”While we [the seeker-friendly church] try to entice the world to come to church to hear the Gospel, the New Testament proclaims a powerful church worshipping God going out into the world in order to reach the lost (cf. The book of Acts.) True revivals have historically proved…that a revived and healthy church reaches a dying and lost world through its own awakened people.”  This view says, “evangelism will take care of itself as long as we have great worship”. But the history of revivals also shows us innovations in outreach.

The Great Awakening was marked by two men who were remarkable innovators – George Whitefield in evangelism and John Wesley in organization. Many criticize seeker services because they are “not worship” and contain many elements of “entertainment”. Often they call us to look, instead at the revivals of the past. But they do not criticize George Whitefield for attracting huge crowds to his own “seeker programs”. He drew people into open air meetings with a kind of preaching that was unparalleled at the time in its popular appeal – his humor, his stories, his dramatically acted-out illustrations, and his astounding oratorical gifts drew tens of thousands.  At the time he was labeled an “entertainer”. His meetings were not worship nor did they replace worship, but they were certainly critical to the revival. They provided Christians with a remarkable place to do friendship evangelism. His meetings were all over the city on virtually every day of the week. Whitefield’s evangelism was enormously aggressive and passionate. His preaching was racy and popular yet pointed toward the transcendent and holy God. Yet his public meetings shared many of the characteristics (and criticisms) of seeker services today.

Whitefield and Wesley did not become instruments of revival by simply being great expository preachers and renewing historic worship.

My main problem with the two models, however, is theological. They both assume that worship cannot be highly evangelistic. I want to show that this is a false premise. Churches would do best to make their “main course” an evangelistic worship service, supplemented by both a) numerous, variegated, creative, even daily (but not weekly) seeker-focused events, and b) intense meetings for Bible study and corporate prayer for revival and renewal.

Theological basis

God commanded Israel to invite the nations to join in declaring his glory. Zion is to be the center of world-winning worship. (Isaiah 2.2-4; 56.6-8) “Let this be written for a future generation, that a people not yet created may praise the Lord…so the name of the Lord will be declared in Zion, and his praise in Jerusalem when the peoples and the kingdoms assemble to worship the Lord”. (Psalm 102.18) Psalm 105 is a direct command to believers engage in evangelistic worship. The Psalmist challenges them to “make known among the nations what he has done” (v.1.) How? “Sing to him, sing praise to him; tell of his wonderful acts” (v.2) Thus believers are continually told to sing and praise God before the unbelieving nations. (See also Psalm 47.1; 100.1-5.) God is to be praised before all the nations, and as he is praised by his people, the nations are summoned and called to join in song.

Peter tells a Gentile church, “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.” (1 Peter 2.9) This shows us that the church is challenged to the same witness that Israel was called to – evangelistic worship. A key difference: in the Old Testament, the center of world-winning worship was Mt. Zion, but now, wherever we worship Jesus in spirit and in truth (John 4.21-26) we have come to the heavenly Zion. (Hebrews 12.18-24) In other words, the risen Lord now sends his people out singing his praises in mission, calling the nations to join both saints and angels in heavenly doxology. Jesus himself stands in the midst of the redeemed and leads us in the singing of God’s praises (Hebrews 2.12), even as God stands over his redeemed and sings over us in joy. (Zephaniah 3.17)

Biblical cases

1 Corinthians 14.24-25

Paul is addressing the misuse of the gift of tongues. He complains that tongues speaking will cause unbelievers to say they are out of their minds (v.23.) He insists that the worship service must be comprehensible to them. He says that if an unbeliever ” or unlearned one” (an uninitiated inquirer) comes in, and worship is being done “unto edification” , “he will be convinced by all that he is a sinner and will be judged by all” (v.24.) Of what does this conviction consist? “The secrets of his heart will be laid bare” (v.25.) It may mean he realizes that the worshippers around him are finding in God what his heart had been secretly searching for, but in the wrong ways. It may mean the worship shows him how his heart works. The result: “so falling on his face, he will worship God, exclaiming, ‘God is really among you’” (v.25.)

Acts 2

When the Spirit falls on those in the upper room, a crowd gathers (v.5) because a) they are hearing the disciples praising God (“we hear them declaring the wonders of God” v.11), an d b) and also because this worship is “in our own tongues” (v.11.) As a result, they are first made very interested (“amazed and perplexed they asked one another, ‘what does this mean’” v.11), and later they are convicted deeply (“they were cut to the heart and said…’Brethren, what shall we do?’” v.37.)

Comparison

There are obvious differences between the two situations. 1 Corinthians 14 pictures conversion happening on the spot (which is certainly possible.) In Acts 2 the non-believers are shaken out of their indifference (v.12), but the actual conversions (v.37-41) occurred at the end of an “after meeting” in which Peter explained the gospel (v.14-36) and showed them how to individually receive Christ (v.38-39.) It is often pointed out that the tongues in the two situations are different. But students usually are looking so carefully at what the two passages teach about tongues and prophecy that they fail to note what they teach about worship and evangelism. We can learn this:

1. Non-believers are expected to be present in Christian worship. In Acts 2 it happens by word-of-mouth excitement. In 1 Corinthians 14 it is probably the result of personal invitation by Christian friends. But Paul in 14.23 expects both “unbelievers” and “the unlearned” (literally “a seeker”– “one who does not understand”) to be present in worship.

2. Non-believers must find the praise of Christians to be comprehensible. In Acts 2 it happens by miraculous divine intervention. In I Corinthians 14 it happens by human design and effort. But it cannot be missed that Paul directly tells a local congregation to adapt its worship because of the presence of unbelievers. It is a false dichotomy to insist that if we are seeking to please God we must not ask what the un-churched feel or think about our worship.

3. Non-believers can fall under conviction and be converted through comprehensible worship. In 1 Cor 14 it happens during the service, but in Acts 2 it is supplemented by “after meetings” and follow-up evangelism. God wants the world to overhear us worshipping him. God directs his people not to simply worship, but to sing his praises “before the nations.” We are not to simply communicate the gospel to them, but celebrate the gospel before them.

Three practical tasks

2. Getting unbelievers into worship.

The numbering is not a mistake. This task is actually comes second, but nearly everyone thinks it come first! It is natural to believe that they must get non-Christians into worship before they can begin “doxological evangelism”. But the reverse is the case. Non-Christians do not get invited into worship unless the worship is already evangelistic. The only way they will have non-Christians in attendance is through personal invitation by Christians. Just as in the Psalms, the “nations” must be directly asked to come. But the main stimulus to building bridges and invitation is the comprehensibility and quality of the worship experience.

Christians will instantly sense if a worship experience will be attractive to their non-Christian friends. They may find a particular service wonderfully edifying for them, and yet know that their non-believing neighbors would react negatively. Therefore, a vicious cycle persists. Pastors see only Christians present, so they lack incentive to make their worship comprehensible to outsiders. But since they fail to make the adaptations, Christians who are there (though perhaps edified themselves) do not think to bring their skeptical and non-Christian friends to church. They do not think they will be impressed. So no outsiders come. And so the pastors respond only to the Christian audience. And so on and on.  Therefore, the best way to get Christians to bring non-Christians is to worship as if there are dozens and hundreds of skeptical onlookers. And if you worship as if, eventually they will be there in reality.

1. Making worship comprehensible to unbelievers.

Our purpose is not to make the unbeliever “comfortable”. (In 1 Corinthians. 14.24-25 or Acts 2:12 and 37 – they are cut to the heart!) We aim to be intelligible to them. We must address their “heart secrets” (1 Corinthians 14.25) That means we must remember what it is like to not believe; we must remember what an unbelieving heart is like. How do we do that?

a) Worship and preaching in the “vernacular”. It is hard to overstate how ghetto-ized our preaching is. It is normal to make all kinds of statements that appear persuasive to us but are based upon all sorts of premises that the secular person does not hold. It is normal to make all sorts of references using terms and phrases that mean nothing outside or our Christian sub-group. So avoid unnecessary theological or evangelical sub-culture “jargon”, and explain carefully the basic theological concepts, such as confession of sin, praise, thanksgiving, and so on. In the preaching, showing continual willingness to address the questions that the unbelieving heart will ask. Speak respectfully and sympathetically to people who have difficulty with Christianity. As you write the sermon, imagine an particular skeptical non-Christian in the chair listening to you. Add the asides, the qualifiers, the extra explanations necessary. Listen to everything said in the worship service with the ears of someone who has doubts or troubles with belief.

b) Explain the service as you go along. Though there is danger of pastoral verbosity, learn to give 1 or 2 sentence, non-jargony explanations of each new part of the service. “When we confess our sins, we are not groveling in guilt, but dealing with our guilt. If you deny your sins you will never get free from them.”  It is good to begin worship services as the Black church often does, with a “devotional”– a brief talk that explains the meaning of worship. This way you continually instruct newcomers in worship.

c) Directly address and welcome them. Talk regularly to “those of you who aren’t sure you believe this, or who aren’t sure just what you believe.” Give them many asides, even expressing the language of their hearts. Articulate their objections to Christian living and belief better than they can do it themselves. Express sincere sympathy for their difficulties, even when challenging them severely for their selfishness and unbelief. Admonish with tears (literally or figuratively.) Always grant whatever degree of merit their objections have. It is extremely important that the unbeliever feel you understand them. “I’ve tried it before and it did not work.” “I don’t see how my life could be the result of the plan of a loving God.”  “Christianity is a straightjacket.” “It can’t be wrong if it feels so right.” “I could never keep it up.” “I don’t feel worthy; I am too bad.” “I just can’t believe.”

d) Quality aesthetics. The power of art draws people to behold it. Good art and its message enters the soul through the imagination and begins to appeal to the reason, for art makes ideas plausible. The quality of music and speech in worship will have a major impact on its evangelistic power. In many churches, the quality of the music is mediocre or poor, but it does not disturb the faithful. Why? Their faith makes the words of the hymn or the song meaningful despite its artistically poor expression, and further, they usually have a personal relationship with the music-presenter. But any outsider who comes in, who is not convinced of the truth and who does not have any relationship to the presenter, will be bored or irritated by the poor offering. In other words, excellent aesthetics includes outsiders, while mediocre or poor aesthetics exclude. The low level of artistic quality in many churches guarantees that only insiders will continue to come. For the non-Christian, the attraction of good art will have a major part in drawing them in.

e) Celebrate deeds of mercy and justice. We live in a time when public esteem of the church is plummeting. For many outsiders or inquirers, the deeds of the church will be far more important than words in gaining plausibility. The leaders of most towns see “word-only” churches as costs to their community, not a value. Effective churches will be so involved in deeds of mercy and justice that outsiders will say, “we cannot do without churches like this. This church is channeling so much value into our community through its services to people that if it went out of business, we’d have to raise everybody’s taxes.” Mercy deeds give the gospel words plausibility (Acts 4.32 followed by v.33.) Therefore, evangelistic worship services should highlight offerings for deed ministry and should celebrate through reports and testimonies and prayer what is being done. It is best that offerings for mercy ministry be separate, attached (as traditional) to the Lord’s Supper. This brings before the non-Christian the impact of the gospel on people’s hearts (it makes us generous) and the impact of lives poured out for the world.

f) Present the sacraments so as to make the gospel clear. Baptism, and especially adult baptism, should be made a much more significant event if worship is to be evangelistic. There may need to be opportunity for the baptized to offer personal testimony as well as assent to questions. The meaning of baptism should be made clear. A moving, joyous, personal charge to the baptized (and to all baptized Christians present) should be made. In addition, the Lord’s Supper can become a converting ordinance. If it is explained properly, the unbeliever will have a very specific and visible way to see the difference between walking with Christ and living for oneself. The Lord’s Supper will confront every individual with the question: “are you right with God today? now?” There is no more effective way to help a person to do a spiritual inventory. Many seekers in U.S. churches will only realize they are not Christians during the fencing of the table after an effective sermon on the meaning of the gospel. (See below for more on addressing unbelievers during communion.)

g) Preach grace. The one message that both believers and unbelievers need to hear is that salvation and adoption are by grace alone. A worship service that focuses too much and too often on educating Christians in the details of theology will simply bore or confuse the unbelievers present. For example, a sermon on abortion will generally assume the listener believes in the authority of the word and the authority of Jesus, and does not believe in individual moral autonomy. In other words, abortion is “doctrine D”, and it is based on “doctrines A, B, and C.” Therefore, people who don’t believe or understand doctrines ABC will find such a sermon un-convicting and even alienating. This does not mean we should not preach the whole counsel of God, but we must major on the “ABC’s” of the Christian faith.  If the response to this is “then Christians will be bored”, it shows a misunderstanding of the gospel. The gospel of free, gracious justification and adoption is not just the way we enter the kingdom, but also the way we grow into the likeness of Christ. Titus 2.11-13 tells us how it is the original, saving message of “grace alone” that consequently leads us to sanctified living: “For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. It teaches us to say ‘no’ to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in the present age, while we wait for the blessed hope – the appearing of our great God and savior Jesus Christ.” Many Christians are “defeated” and stagnant in their growth because they try to be holy for wrong motives. They say “no” to temptation by telling themselves “God will get me” or “people will find out” or “I’ll hate myself in the morning” or “it will hurt my self-esteem” or “it will hurt other people” or “it’s against the law – I’ll be caught” or “it’s against my principles” or “I will look bad”. Some or all of these may be true, but Titus tells us they are inadequate. Only the grace of God, the logic of the gospel will work. Titus says it “teaches” us, it argues with us.

Therefore, the one basic message that both Christians and unbelievers need to hear is the gospel of grace. It can then be applied to both groups, right on the spot and directly. Sermons which are basically moralistic will only be applicable to either Christians OR non-Christians. But Christo-centric preaching, preaching the gospel both grows believers and challenges non-believers. If the Sunday service and sermon aim primarily at evangelism, it will bore the saints. If they aim primarily at education, they’ll bore and confuse unbelievers. If they aim at praising the God who saves by grace they’ll both instruct insiders and challenge outsiders.

3. Leading to commitment

We have seen that unbelievers in worship actually “close with Christ” in two basic ways. Some may come to Christ during the service itself. (1 Corinthians 14.24-25) Others must be “followed up” very specifically.

a) During the service. One major way to invite people to receive Christ during the service is as the Lord’s Supper is distributed. We say: “if you are not in a saving relationship with God through Christ today, do NOT take the bread and the cup, but, as they come around, take Christ. Receive him in your heart as those around you receive the food. Then immediately afterwards, come up here and tell an officer or a pastor about what you’ve done, so we can get you ready to receive the Supper the next time as a child of God.” Another way to invite commitment during the service is to give people a time of silence after the sermon. A “prayer of belief” could be prayed by the pastor (or printed in the bulletin at that juncture in the order of worship) to help people reach out to Christ.  Sometimes it may be good to put a musical interlude or an offering after the sermon but before the final hymn. This affords people time to think and process what they have heard and offer themselves to God in prayer. If, however, the preacher ends his sermon, prays very briefly, and moves immediately into the final hymn, no time is given to people who are under conviction for offering up their hearts.

b) After meetings. Acts 2 seems to show us an “after meeting.” In v.12 and 13 we are told that some folks mocked upon hearing the apostles praise and preach, but others were disturbed and asked “what does this mean?” Then Peter very specifically explained the gospel, and, in response to a second question “what shall we do?” (v.37), explained very specifically how to become Christians. Historically, it has been found very effective to offer such meetings to unbelievers and seekers immediately after evangelistic worship. Convicted seekers have just come from being in the presence of God, and they are often most teachable and open. To seek to “get them into a small group” or even to merely return next Sunday is asking a lot of them. They may be also “amazed and perplexed” (Acts 2.12), and it is best to “strike while the iron is hot”. This is not to doubt that God is infallibly drawing his elect! That knowledge helps us to 16 relax as we do evangelism, knowing that conversions are not dependent on our eloquence. But the Westminster Confession tells us that God ordinarily works through secondary causes, normal social and psychological processes. Therefore, to invite people into a follow-up meeting immediately is usually more conducive to “conserving the fruit of the Word.”

After meetings may consist first of one or more persons who wait at the front of the auditorium to pray with and talk with any seekers who come forward to make inquiries right on the spot. A second after meeting can consist of a simple question-and-answer session with the preacher in some room near the main auditorium or even in the auditorium (after the postlude.) Third, after meetings should also consist of one or two classes or small group experiences targeted to specific questions non-Christians ask about the content, relevance, and credibility of the Christian faith. After meetings should be attended by skilled lay evangelists who can come alongside of newcomers and answer spiritual questions and provide guidance as to their next steps.

***

To download this paper in .pdf form, including footnotes: Click:  Evangelistic Worship-Keller

Western Theology

August 14, 2013

Flying W Ranch Wagon

There are two visions of life, two kinds of people. The first see life as a possession to be carefully guarded. They are called settlers. The second see life as a wild, fantastic, explosive gift. They are called pioneers. These two types give rise to two kinds of theology: Settler Theology and Pioneer Theology.

According Wes Seeliger in his book Western Theology, the first kind, Settler Theology, is an attempt to answer all the questions, define and housebreak some sort of Supreme Being, establish the status quo on golden tablets in cinemascope. Pioneer Theology is an attempt to talk about what it means to receive the strange gift of life. The Wild West is the setting for both theologies.

In Settler Theology, the church is the courthouse. It is the center of town life. The old stone structure dominates the town square. Its windows are small and this makes things dark inside. Within the courthouse walls, records are kept, taxes collected, trials held for the bad guys. The courthouse is the settler’s symbol of law, order, stability, and — most important — security. The mayor’s office is on the top floor. His eagle eye ferrets out the smallest details of town life.

In Pioneer Theology, the church is the covered wagon. It is a house on wheels, always on the move. The covered wagon is where the pioneers eat, sleep, fight, love, and die. It bears the marks of life and movement — it creaks, is scarred with arrows, bandaged with bailing wire. The covered wagon is always where the action is. It moves toward the future and doesn’t bother to glorify its own ruts. The old wagon isn’t comfortable, but the pioneers don’t mind. They are more into adventure than comfort.

In Settler Theology, God is the mayor. He is a sight to behold. Dressed like a dude from back East, he lounges in an over-stuffed chair in his courthouse office. He keeps the blinds drawn. No one sees him or knows him directly, but since there is order in the town, who can deny that he is there? The mayor is predictable and always on schedule. The settlers fear the mayor, but look to him to clear the payroll and keep things going. Peace and quiet are the mayor’s main concerns. That’s why he sends the sheriff to check on pioneers who ride into town.

In Pioneer Theology, God is the trail boss. He is rough and rugged, full of life. He chews tobacco, drinks straight whiskey. The trail boss lives, eats, sleeps, fights with his people. Their well-being is his concern. Without him the wagon wouldn’t move; living as a free man would be impossible. The trail boss often gets down in the mud with the pioneers to help push the wagon, which often gets stuck. He prods the pioneers when they get soft and want to turn back. His fist is an expression of his concern.

In Settler Theology, Jesus is the sheriff. He’s the guy who is sent by the mayor to enforce the rules. He wears a white hat, drinks milk, and outdraws the bad guys. The sheriff decides who is thrown into jail. There is a saying in town that goes: Those who believe that the mayor sent the sheriff, and follow the rules, they won’t stay in Boot Hill when it comes their time.

In Pioneer Theology, Jesus is the scout. He rides out ahead to find out which way the pioneers should go. He lives all the dangers of the trail. The scout suffers every hardship, is attacked by the Indians. Through his words and actions he reveals the true intentions of the trail boss. By looking at the scout, those on the trail learn what it means to be a pioneer.

In Settler Theology, the Holy Spirit is the saloon girl. Her job is to comfort the settlers. They come to her when they feel lonely, or when life gets dull or dangerous. She tickles them under the chin and makes everything okay again. The saloon girl squeals to the sheriff when someone starts disturbing the peace.

In Pioneer Theology, the Holy Spirit is the buffalo hunter. He rides along with the covered wagon and furnishes fresh meat for the pioneers. Without it they would die. The buffalo hunter is a strange character—sort of a wild man. The pioneers never can tell what he will do next. He scares the hell out of the settlers. He has a big, black gun that goes off like a cannon. He rides into town on Sunday to shake up the settlers. You see, every Sunday morning, the settlers have a little ice cream party in the courthouse. With his gun in hand the buffalo hunter sneaks up to one of the courthouse windows. He fires a tremendous blast that rattles the whole courthouse. Men jump out of their skin, women scream, dogs bark. Chuckling to himself, the buffalo hunter rides back to the wagon train shooting up the town as he goes.

In Settler Theology, the Christian is the settler. He fears the open, unknown frontier. His concern is to stay on good terms with the mayor and keep out of the sheriff’s way. “Safety first” is his motto. To him the courthouse is a symbol of security, peace, order, and happiness. He keeps his money in the bank. The banker is his best friend. The settler never misses an ice cream party.

In Pioneer Theology, the Christian is the pioneer. He is a man of daring, hungry for new life. He rides hard, knows how to use a gun when necessary. The pioneer feels sorry for the settlers and tries to tell them of the joy and fulfillment of life on the trail. He dies with his boots on.

In Settler Theology, the clergyman is the banker. Within his vault are locked the values of the town. He is a highly respected man. He has a gun, but keeps it hidden in his desk. He feels that he and the sheriff have a lot in common. After all, they both protect the bank.

In Pioneer Theology, the clergyman is the cook. He doesn’t furnish the meat. He just dishes up what the buffalo hunter provides. This is how he supports the movement of the wagon. He never confuses his job with that of the trail boss, scout, or buffalo hunter. He sees himself as just another pioneer who has learned to cook. The cook’s job is to help the pioneers pioneer.

In Settler Theology, faith is trusting in the safety of the town: obeying the laws, keeping your nose clean, believing the mayor is in the courthouse.

In Pioneer Theology, faith is the spirit of adventure. The readiness to move out. To risk everything on the trail. Faith is obedience to the restless voice of the trail boss.

In Settler Theology, sin is breaking one of the town’s ordinances.

In Pioneer Theology, sin is wanting to turn back.

In Settler Theology, salvation is living close to home and hanging around the courthouse.

In Pioneer Theology, salvation is being more afraid of sterile town life than of death on the trail. Salvation is joy at the thought of another day to push on into the unknown. It is trusting the trail boss and following his scout while living on the meat provided by the buffalo hunter.

The settlers and the pioneers portray in cowboy-movie language the people of the law and the people of the Spirit. In the time of the historical Jesus, the guardians of the ecclesiastical setup, the scribes and Pharisees and Sadducees, had ensconced themselves in the courthouse and enslaved themselves to the kw. This not only enhanced their prestige in society, it also gave them a sense of security. Man fears the responsibility of being free. It is often easier to let others make the decisions or to rely upon the letter of the law. Some men want to be slaves. After enslaving themselves to the letter of the law, such men always go on to deny freedom to others. They will not rest until they have imposed the same oppressive burdens upon others. Jesus described them this way: “They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them” (Matthew 23.4).

Jesus wanted to liberate His people from the law — from all laws. Under His Word we become free, people of the Spirit; and the fellowship of free people grows up, as in the New Testament, beyond all kinds of theological disagreement. Paul writes in Galatians 5.1, “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.” If we are not experiencing what Paul calls in Romans 8.21 “the glorious freedom of the children of God,” then we must acknowledge that His Word has not taken sovereign possession of us, that we are not fully under the sway of His Spirit.

***

This post was taken from Western Theology by Wes Seeliger, as summarized by Brennan Manning in his essay Freedom Under the Word.

Western Theology

I Was a Stranger

January 23, 2013

Hey, this Missional thing is nothing new!  Listen to what the old English Puritan, John Owen, wrote in the 17th Century:

God has work to do in this world; and to desert it because of its difficulties and entanglements, is to cast off His authority. It is not enough that we be just, that we be righteous, and walk with God in holiness; but we must also serve our generation, as David did before he fell asleep. God has a work to do; and not to help Him is to oppose Him.

Missional may be a relatively new term coined to challenge an apathetic or directionless church, but it is not new.  It is the living out our biblical mandate.  God has work to do in this world – and in this community.  If we are in Christ we are enlisted to be as seeds scattered wherever our Sovereign God determines to send us, to take root and bless our generation.  (See Jeremiah 29.4-7)

The refrain from an old song says: “Two out of three ain’t bad.”  But would this be true for a church, or a Christian, who incorporates 2 out of 3 of the core values: Gospel, Community, Mission?

Consider these thoughts, framed as a mathematical equation:

Gospel + Community – Mission

If we have a Gospel Community, without the mission or ‘sent’ aspect in our DNA, then we become a church that is all about ourselves.  We may love the gospel, and love that the good news has impacted our minds, and even desire to live that out with other people like us.  But living as ‘sent ones’ to our neighborhood seems too difficult.  When this happens a Christian ghetto surrounds the church, and an “us vs them” mentality is created.  This misses the entire point of the “go” in Christ’s great commission. (Matthew 28.17-21)

Such communities of believers are often very good at living as gospel families.  They take care of each other well: they provide for one anothers’ needs, and they draw very close to one another. But the lack of  engagement with the world, and and absence of multiplication,  is  vividly evident.  Sometimes such an inward focus is even worn as a badge of honor, since it may be believed by our isolation we are not being ‘polluted’ by the world.

Such communities usually have a heavy emphasis on bible studies, men’s groups, women’s group, children’s programs, etc.  The groups will usually have an “open invitation” to those on the outside. But because they don’t believe they are “sent” to their community, they rarely see disciples made of the un-churched people around them.   Numerical growth typically comes from like-minded people moving into their area, or through having children, or stealing the members from other churches that may offer fewer activities or which may be going through some turbulent times.  Rarely will they be faced with the general public pushing into the Kingdom, because they never engage general public with the gospel message outside the walls of their church building.

The overall goal is usually to prompt a great understanding of the Word and theology, but it is often intellectually gluttonous and missionally starved… because the reason for the Word and theology is to drive us to glorify God and show us our role in God’s redemptive drama.  If it’s not being used towards that end then it’s being misused.

Read the rest of this entry »

I began reading Paul Tripp’s Broken Down House earlier this week. I had read it before, or rather I should say I skimmed it before, but did not take the time to allow Tripp’s poignant insights to resonate in my soul.  I raced through it last time, getting the general gist, but not digesting much in the way of spiritual nourishment.  That’s a mistake I am carefully avoiding this time through.

In Broken Down House Tripp uses the analogy of a home in serious disrepair as a reflection of our life in this world.  In the video above he introduces the themes he writes about.

Francis Schaeffer said: “there are four things which are absolutely necessary if we as Christians are going to meet the need of our age and the overwhelming pressure we are increasingly facing.” These four things are two contents and two realities:

The First Content: Sound Doctrine 

The Second Content: Honest Answers to Honest Questions 

The First Reality: True Spirituality

The Second Reality: The Beauty of Human Relationships

Each link above will take you the substance of the respective  Contents and Realities. I am convinced they are worth consideration.  Why? Because I believe Schaeffer was right when he wrote:

[W]hen there are the two contents and the two realities, we will begin to see something profound happen in our generation.

One of the greater frustrations I have experienced in the church I serve has not come from the people within the church as much as it has from well intended (I presume) outsiders and fringe folks who espouse a missional approach. This is surprising because I want to embrace a missional approach. But much of the advice I repeatedly get is to make implementation without regard for the context of the culture in which our church is set, and without regard to the understanding of the people that have long been within the church.

The models that these well-intended Christians admire (and the models these folks have often reminded me are far different from what I have to-date effectively implemented) look a lot like those models I read about from cutting edge missional churches in Seattle, Dallas, and Metro Atlanta. They are excellent examples of missional thinking put in practice. And it is exciting to read about what God is doing in those cities. But I don’t live in any of those places. Nor, obviously, does anyone who regularly attends our church.   Nor do any of our neighbors that God has put us here to love.

So, in short, the reality is that much of the well intended criticism I receive is by those who desperately want to be missional, but whose advice is not really so much “missional” as it is the imposing of particular personal preferences on a people through practices and structures.  The irony is that their advice is just as much driven by their own personal preference as are the practices of the “Traditional Church” these folks rail against.

One of the primary marks of missional is to actually exegete the culture where you live and worship.  It requires an understanding of the real values, the faith shapers and influencers, and the idols that may offer peculiar obstacles to the gospel specific to ones own area.

The question is, then, how to determine what those factors may be in a particular community or region.

Read the rest of this entry »

I am not a fan of Diane Rehm, by any measure.  Not only do I find her views unpalatable, her voice grates my ears.  But as I was driving to an appointment today I clicked the NPR preset on my JEEP radio and in the matter of seconds had my attention arrested by the discussion between Rehm and her guest, New York Times columnist Ross Douthat.  Earlier this week Douthat released a book provocatively titled Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics.  This book was only on my “To Read” list – or at least, it was on the list to put on my list, but now it on my “Definite Read” list.

I have no doubt that there are areas of doctrinal difference that I have with Douthat, but as I listened to him make his points and respond to Rehm and some of her regulars, I could not help but nod in agreement.   Douthat offers some astute cultural observations that, being missional, I cannot ignore.

To listen to today’s interview click: Bad Religion

Previewing Ross Douthat’s new book, Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics,  which hit bookstore shelves yesterday, Tim Keller draws five observations about the causes of decline in the American Church.

As Keller notes:

In his second chapter, Douthat attributes the change to five major social catalysts that have gained steam since the 1960s…

Here are the five factors:

  1. First, the political polarization that has occurred between the Left and Right drew many churches into it (mainline Protestants toward the Left, evangelicals toward the Right). This has greatly weakened the church’s credibility in the broader culture, with many viewing churches as mere appendages and pawns of political parties.
  2. Second, the sexual revolution means that the Biblical sex ethic now looks unreasonable and perverse to millions of people, making Christianity appear implausible, unhealthy, and regressive.
  3. Third, the era of decolonization and Third World empowerment, together with the dawn of globalization, has given the impression that Christianity was imperialistically “western” and supportive of European civilization’s record of racism, colonialism, and anti-Semitism.
  4. The fourth factor has been the enormous growth in the kind of material prosperity and consumerism that always works against faith and undermines Christian community.
  5. The fifth factor is  that all the other four factors had their greatest initial impact on the more educated and affluent classes – the gatekeepers of the main culture-shaping institutions such as the media, the academy, the arts, the main foundations, and much of the government and business world.

I find these observations significant. As God’s missional people, it is important that Christians recognize not only the reality of the decline of our influence within our culture, but the specific contributing factors.  Simply wishing things were the way they used to be won’t accomplish anything.  It is akin to sticking our heads in the sand.  But when we discern what is going on in the world around us, a number of signs direct us toward ways we may address the causes,  both directly and indirectly.

Read Keller’s entire article: Redeemer City to City

Pay Attention!

April 18, 2012

In his book, Joy Unspeakable, Martyn Lloyd-Jones notes:

Pay attention!

I am certain that the world outside is not going to pay much attention to all the organized efforts of the Christian church.  The one thing she will pay attention to is a body of people filled with the spirit of rejoicing.  That is how Christianity conquered the ancient world. It was this amazing joy of these people.  Even when you threw them into prison, or even to death, it did not matter, they went on rejoicing; rejoicing in tribulations.

Perhaps we would be wise to recover this attitude.  It seems to me, many of our contemporaries spend too much energy griping about the world, and about lessened stature in the estimation of the culture.  But if we recover the joy that should be an inherent attribute of our faith,  perhaps we can regain our effectiveness as redeeming and preserving agents in this world.

Lost Art of Discipleship

March 27, 2012

Sometimes we need to face up to difficult questions. Michael Horton, in his book The Gospel Commission, asks some really tough ones that every church, every church leader, every church member needs to ask themselves:

Instead of reaching the lost, are we losing the reached? Or are those reared in our own churches being truly reached in the first place? Do they know what they believe and why they believe it? Are we making disciples even of our own members – our own children – much less the Nations?

I honestly wonder if making disciples is even really the goal of many Christians or churches.  Some are apathetic and/or complacent. Some seem to think taking the time to instruct people in sound doctrine (what we must believe about God and Man) somehow gets in the way with mission.  Some are so contented in their own activity and busyness for the Lord that they sense no need to spend time with the Lord. And many seem to be satisfied with sheer increase in numbers.

Perhaps the task of making disciples seems daunting.  But Jesus gave good news to those who are willing to reclaim this priority:

  • All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. …And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28.18, 20)
  • But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” (Acts 1.8)

He provides his authority, his power, and his presence to all who endeavor to make disciples.

I was not there, but I am now wishing I had been, at least for R.C. Sproul Jr.’s address.   The Layman Online reports that Sproul prophetically challenged those gathered for 2012 Ligonier National Conference “… about the true scandal of the evangelical mind.”

Developing his message from 1 Corinthians 1.18-31 Sproul briefly outlined the Christian faith, and emphasized the Unity of those within the faith.  He then contrasted the unity of Believers with the perspective of Christians “by those outside of the room – the Greek, the Gentile…” reminding his hearers that “the story [the Gospel] is a scandal. It is foolishness. It is a stumbling block.”

This is an important reminder.

As Sproul elaborated:  “Paul wasn’t just saying they don’t get it.  Paul says, ‘they don’t get you!’ They think you are foolish … They won’t take you seriously.” And those in the evangelical church perceive this distaste and displeasure.

So we see that the unbelievers around us don’t get us, and don’t appreciate the Gospel.  This should be no surprise. This is as God said it would be.  But here is where what Sproul said really begins to carry weight:

“What scandalizes me is that this truth scandalizes us … that we, who embrace this Gospel that is an offense to the world, are offended that they are offended by us!”

I think this is so true.  Despite the fact that we are told that we will be despised and rejected, we seem surprised.  We don’t like it.

“Evangelicals grouse and complain. They go on television to complain about how they are presented on television. We want to insist that Paul is wrong – and not just Paul, of course. This is the wisdom of the Holy Spirit here … The text says ‘this is how the world will see you.’”

The greater scandal is not that we are “scandalized” by the worlds rejection but how many seem to respond:

“Some Evangelicals not only fight back and argue against it, We insist on our rights and worse of all we begin to adapt. We begin to reshape ourselves and our story. We diminish the stumbling block and, to establish our credibility, we begin to rewrite the story.”

“If we are Emergent… We say it is just our story. You have your narrative. We have our narrative. All God’s children have their narrative … You don’t need to be scandalized. I just have a different story, and I’m not sure about my story. Will you let me into your cool club?”

“If we are Seeker-sensitive, then we take the story and remove the sharp edges of talking about sin and judgment and wrath because people don’t want to hear about that.”

I won’t go into much more detail. Instead let me encourage you to check out the whole story at The Layman Online. They have done an excellent job of chronicling Sproul’s message.  But I do want to share one more of Sproul’s observations, related to the laments listed above about some common responses:

“When we remember the Gospel – when we remember our own salvation – we remember the necessity of resting in His provision. In our sanctification, we are called to have our heart, mind and soul rest in His wisdom.”

And this is also true of our mission.

The primary aim of our mission is to extend the Gospel of the Kingdom. To do this we must faithfully proclaim the rich, deep, truth of the gospel in all it’s dimensions.  Our hope is that this message will impact many, many people.  BUT we must be clear, and we must regularly remind ourselves and one another, that we cannot make the hope of impacting many people the priority over faithful proclamation.

I am afraid many are inverting these priorities.  The measure of success, in such cases, is numbers of people at the expense if gospel fidelity.  So we embrace either the Seeker or Emergent approach Sproul mentioned above, or something of a similar ilk.   But when we are willing to accept a gospel that is not complete, or even necessarily accurate, we then are preaching a different Gospel than the one that is faithful to Christ.  Success may be apparent, but as Paul warned, if anyone is preaching a gospel different from the one the Apostles preached they are “perverting” the gospel. What they are preaching is “no gospel at all”.  (Galatians 1.6-9)

If what is preached is not faithful to Christ, then it follows that the mission cannot be of Christ.  We may want to offer it to him, but it is not his mission. Christ is the King. He dictates the message, the means, and the motive.

So if such mission, mission in the name of Christ but without the genuine message of Christ, is not really mission for Christ, then who is it for?  Us. For our own sense of importance; For our own apparent success in the eyes of those around us;  Perhaps even, we think and hope, so that God will be pleased with us.  But regardless of the motive, such motive for mission is not so much for God’s glory as it is for selfish ambition. (See Philippians 1.17, Philippians 2.3)

What Sproul suggests about our sanctification, that we must “rest in his provision”, must also be applied to our mission ambition. We must rest in his provision of pure gospel and gospel power.

“There is a first-rate commitment to a second-rate mission.” That is what Roger, a leader in global church planting, said as he looked at the rock climbers ascending a cliff in the Alps. Many of us called into ministry feel the same way. Rather than giving our lives to climbing a rock, building a business, or amassing a fortune, we are committed to what really matters; a first-rate mission – advancing the Gospel and the Church of Jesus Christ.

But what if we’re wrong?

Roger spent decades serving Christ by planting churches on four continents. But after reflecting on his labors for the kingdom of God, his confession surprised many of us. “I’ve given most of my energy to a second-rate mission as well,” he said. “Don’t get me wrong. Church planting is important. But someday that mission will end. My first calling is to live with God. That must be my first commitment.”

What Roger articulated was a temptation that many of us in ministry face. To put it simply, many church leaders unknowingly replace the transcendent vitality of a life with God for the ego satisfaction they derive from a life for God. Before exploring how this shift occurs in church leaders, let me take a step or two backwards and explain how I have seen this tendency within the Christian college students I’ve worked with in recent years.

Is impact everything?

The students I meet with often worry about what awaits them after graduation. This is a reasonable concern for any young adult, but for many of them the worry extends far beyond finding a job with benefits. They fixate, and some obsess, about “making a difference in the world.” They fear living lives of insignificance. They worry about not achieving the right things, or not enough of the right things. Behind all of this is the belief that their value is determined by what they achieve. I’ve learned that when a student asks me, “What should I do with my life?” what he or she really wants to know is, “How can I prove that I am valuable?”

When we come believe that our faith is primarily about what we can do for God in the world, it is like throwing gasoline on our fear of insignificance. The resulting fire may be presented to others as a godly ambition, a holy desire to see God’s mission advance–the kind of drive evident in the Apostle Paul’s life. But when these flames are fueled by fear they reveal none of the peace, joy, or love displayed by Paul and rooted in the Spirit. Instead the relentless drive to prove our worth can quickly become destructive.

Sometimes the people who fear insignificance the most are driven to accomplish the greatest things. As a result they are highly praised within Christian communities for their good works. This temporarily soothes their fear until the next goal can be achieved. But there is a dark side to this drivenness. Gordon MacDonald calls it “missionalism.” It is “the belief that the worth of one’s life is determined by the achievement of a grand objective.”

Read the rest of this entry »

The article below by World Harvest Mission‘s Josiah Bancroft is a tremendously insightful and clear explanation of the relationship of the gospel to culture.  Not only is this an important understanding for the mission field overseas, but Josiah explains why it is essential even within the local church in North America.

The video above is an interview with Josiah by Collin Hansen of The Gospel Coalition.

***

by Josiah Bancroft

How do you keep the gospel clear and focused on missional calling when so many competing forces, influences, and voices speak into your life, ministry, and church? I am learning that gospel clarity is tied in large part to how we understand our cross-cultural mission in very practical ways.

For example, I was picking up a large short-term team outside of Dublin to introduce them to our Irish partners and co-workers. When the jet-lagged U.S. visitors stumbled from the bus, one of the passengers asked to pray and gathered us around her. She thanked God for safe travel, for the opportunity to serve, and then prayed for “all our boys in harms way” and asked God to protect our troops from our enemies.

As soon as she said a tearful and happy amen and walked away, my Irish friends inundated me with questions: Who were “our boys”? Was the church supporting a national war? How were those “our” enemies that the U.S. troops were killing? Of course Ireland was neutral in the war, so their questions were reasonable and predictable. After all, they were Christians, not Americans.

Navigating culture and mission with gospel clarity doesn’t just happen, so how—practically—can we keep clear about the gospel while pursuing our cross-cultural missional calling? We all interpret the world as cultural beings. That’s how God has made us. And yet many American believers have struggled with the basic idea that they are part of a culture or a sub-culture. That is now changing.

With the rapid changes in U.S. culture during recent years, our churches are beginning to see U.S. culture more clearly. Our culture has changed so much and so quickly that the church sometimes struggles to engage. We are hard pressed to maintain the mental and spiritual clarity that can respond powerfully to a such pervasive cultural forces. So what can help us with our struggle? I’d like to make a few suggestions.

1. We Need Clear Kingdom Identity and Allegiance

As missional people we belong to the kingdom of God and live in the United States as strangers and aliens. Keeping my kingdom identity clear as a believer keeps me from identifying completely with this present age. God has given each of us a role in our culture, so we should embrace our lives and do well here. But this present time and place isn’t everything, and this age doesn’t fully define a believer. So while I work to bring all things under the rule of Christ in my life and mission, I do it as an outsider. Where I forget this missional identity, I can confuse my interests and culture with the kingdom of God. Then I lose my gospel clarity and muddle the message with my culture.

Practical Help: Keep the horizon of God’s larger global mission clearly in view even in local ministry work, so that all your concerns are kept in the right perspective for new kingdom people. Without this missional global horizon, local ministry easily appears so large to us that it obscures everything else.

2. We All Answered the Universal Call to Cross-cultural Missional Life

Since we are each part of God’s mission to reach the world, and because we live as strangers and aliens, therefore all of our ministry and mission is necessarily cross-cultural. All church planting is a cross-cultural exercise. All evangelism reaches across cultural boundaries, even in our own families and neighborhoods. The struggles between generations are in part cross-cultural conflicts, because the world has shifted so quickly and radically. Every attempt to reach out or serve in the church must recognize and communicate to our own culture with cross-cultural understanding and sensitivity. All ministry here is cross-cultural.

Practical Help: We need a steady flow of outsiders and missionaries who bring in tales of the kingdom moving and struggles to take the gospel into difficult places. What worked in Congo? What is God doing in Russia? How is the God moving in the Czech Republic? Hearing how culture works and is navigated practically in other places gives us new perspectives on what things belong to the kingdom and what belongs to the culture.

3. We Enter Other Cultures

As a missional people we are responsible to cross the cultural barriers with the gospel rather than wait and require those outside to come and understand. Actually that’s one of the big differences that came with the church in the first century. Everyone doesn’t have to become Jewish to have access to God. Today in the church we must learn the new languages, not the nations . . . remember Pentecost? We adapt rather than require others to “eat kosher.” We go, rather than having everyone come to us. When I bear the weight of reaching out to others, here or in foreign countries, I best imitate Christ who became like us in love and won us with great sacrifice. When the gospel is small in my life, when my flesh and home culture press in, then I am unwilling to change or sacrifice for others to bring them the gospel. Missions pushes me to clarify my commitment to the gospel and to Christ.

Practical Help: Get a larger heart for the world by spending time with others who love their enemies. That love is what motivated Christ to do the work of incarnation. Roll up your sleeves and find a place to sacrifice time, work, and money for the expansion of the kingdom in places you will never see as well as in your hometown. Turn every group in the church outward with a cross-cultural eye to be true missional communities.

4. We Go

We know the gospel is how we enter the kingdom. The gospel promises are also how we live daily before God in repentance and faith. And the gospel is the central message of the church as we go into the world. This might seem obvious, but it is so easy to mix cultural pieces into our speaking about Christ that we need to be clear. Paul tells Titus in his church planting and leadership to emphasize—even insist on—and confidently affirm the gospel as the life and message of the church (Titus 3:8).

Practical Help: Get involved in short-term missions and create a global missional team to find those in your fellowship who need to go. Join with cross-cultural workers who have more experience so that you can learn from them. The New Testament way requires us to listen to these cross-cultural workers. Of course the greatest was Christ. But Paul also qualifies, and as a cross-cultural missionary he was wonderfully equipped to lead churches and planting in various places without confusing his culture or Roman culture with the call of the kingdom. I would love for our churches to find his gospel clarity and passion renewing us all for global missions and partnership in new ways.

Perhaps there is another way to say all of this simply. The gospel always leads us believers to a global vision and a heart willing to sacrifice for a lost world. That’s what it means to follow our Savior. And learning to keep our vision clear, listening to others engaged in that same struggle, and feeding your heart with the gospel promises and the kingdom calling from Scripture are all essential to keep our missional calling centered on the gospel.

***

Both the article and the video first appeared on The Gospel Coalition blog.

With the following illustration, Alan Hirsch offers a different way of gauging a churches effectiveness:

In some farming communities, the farmers might build fences around their properties to keep their livestock in and the livestock of neighbor farms out.  This is a bounded set. But in rural communities where farms or ranches cover an enormous geographic area, fencing a property is out of the question. In our home of Australia, ranches (called Stations) are so vast that fences are superfluous. Under these conditions a farmer has to sink a bore and create a well, a precious water supply in the Outback.  It is assumed that livestock, though they will stray, will never roam too far from the well, lest they die.  That is centered set.  As long as there is a clean supply of water the livestock will remain close by.

The essential difference is between measuring Influence instead of simply membership and/or attendance.  The bounded-set, as Hirsch calls it, draws a clear line between those on the inside (i.e. members and regular attenders) and those outside.  The centered-set, on the other hand, measures how many people are in some relation to the ministry of the church and gauges the various relative distances from the center values.

Though I do not see these grids as being mutually exclusive, as if one must choose one or the other, I do find Hirsch to have provided a helpful distinction.

In our church, for instance, we have some precious members who do not regularly participate in any of the Life of the Church. They come occasionally to any number of things, including infrequently to the Sunday morning worship service. To assume we are having an active influence in their spiritual growth would be, at best, presumptuous. On the other hand, there are people who are not members of our church, nor even attenders, but who are being actively influenced through ministries of counseling, discipleship, mercy, etc.  While these folks are not part of the quantifiable membership, they are nevertheless beneficiaries of the mission of the church.   In many ways some of these folks are closer to our center-set than are some of the irregular members.

So again, as I think about it, I see both of these grids as being beneficial.  In fact, I would hope to see growth on both gauges.  We long to see our influence expand, and realize that many whom we influence will never become part of our congregation. Some are members of other churches, and therefore should stay there and bless the people in those churches.  But we also should be laboring, and praying, for those who are not part of a particular congregation to become connected to some expression of of the visible church – hopefully many with ours.

So, I don’t see that we need to make a choice between these two ways of measuring our congregations. I think we ought to use both. But, I guess, since relatively few are aware of Hirsch’s Ranch, we would be wise to spend our energies to cultivate and cast the importance of the centered-set.

Moralism Trap

December 9, 2011

To reach people in our day, the gospel will have to be distinguished from moralism, because moralism is what most people outside the church think Christianity is all about – rules and standards and behavior and cleaning yourself up.  Millions of people, both inside and outside the church, believe that the essential message of Christianity is: “If you behave, then you belong.”  From a human standpoint, that’s why most people reject Christianity.

~ Tullian Tchividjian, from Jesus + Nothing = Everything

 

 Although everyone outside the Church is a potential ministry focus, the Externally Focused  Church moves intentionally toward two groups:

  1. Those on the margins
  2. The City

- from Externally Focused Church 

These are important points to remember when designing an outreach strategy for the local church.  The first, people on the margins of society, probably needs no explanation.  The second, while in some ways obvious, may be helpful to explain, at least a little. 

The focus on the city does not necessarily mean our focus must be on the mega metropolitan areas throughout the country and around the world.  While no doubt those places are important, when you think of “city” think simply of “places where people gather”.  Externally Focused Churches work to benefit the common good more than create places to which Christians withdraw from others.  (Jeremiah 29.7)

Mission @ the Heart of God

September 1, 2011

There are the five parts of the Bible:

  • The God of the Old Testament is a missionary God, calling one family in order to bless all the families of the earth.
  • The Christ of the Gospels is a missionary Christ; he sent the church out to witness.
  • The Spirit of the Acts is a missionary Spirit; he drove the church out from Jerusalem to Rome.
  • The Church of the epistles is a missionary Church, a worldwide community with a worldwide vocation.
  • The end of the Revelation is a missionary End, a countless throng from every nation.

So I think we have to say the religion of the Bible is a missionary religion. The evidence is overwhelming and irrefutable.

Mission cannot be regarded as a regrettable lapse from tolerance or decency. Mission cannot be regarded as the hobby of a few fanatical eccentrics in the church. Mission lies at the heart of God and therefore at the very heart of the church. A church without mission is no longer a church. It is contradicting an essential part of its identity. The church is mission.

John R. W. Stott, from Authentic Christianity

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 87 other followers