Kevin DeYoung's Blog, page 158

Evangelical Consensus on the Mission of the Church?

This a helpful post from Greg Gilbert on how exactly the Cape Town Commitment (CTC) was or wasn't adopted at Lausanne last October.

The gist:

This is obviously a small point in this discussion, but it's worth pointing out that the CTC was never adopted by that gathering. Although neither Kevin nor I attended Lausanne, from what we've been told, there was no deliberation on it, no discussion, and no vote on the document; it was simply handed out near the end of the meeting.  This approach was a departure from the previous two Lausanne Congresses and their respective statements, the Lausanne Covenant and the Manila Manifesto.

The conclusion:

None of this is to say anything specific at this point about the content of the Cape Town Commitment, only about how it came to be.  I think the CTC's basic framing around "the language of covenant love," as Chris Wright has put it, is beautiful.  I'm sure I also speak for Kevin when I say that I've benefited greatly from Wright's works in the past; he taught me how to see Jesus in the Old Testament, and I often recommend his chapter on idolatry in The Mission of God.  The same is true of John Stott.  His Cross of Christ is knowledge and refreshment to the soul, and I regularly turn to his commentaries for help in my own preaching.  Both he and Wright are rightly esteemed among evangelicals, and I'm thankful to God for them and their work.  So please understand that I'm making a very narrow (but important) point here, having to do only with whether we should claim that the CTC represents a consensus of evangelicals.

Read the whole thing.

Monday Morning Humor

This new ad campaign has some nice commercials. The first one here is cute. The second is pretty funny.

Sample Prayer Service

Praying Through the Fruit of the Spirit

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. (Galatians 5:22-23)

Love

Hymn 479……………………………………………………………………….. I Will Sing of My Redeemer

Praise God for His Love to Us (large group)

Joy

A Prayer for Joy………………………………………………………… "Joy" from The Valley of Vision

Hymn 408…………………………………………………………………………….. Rejoice, the Lord is King

Peace

Scripture Reading……………………………………………………………………………. Philippians 4:4-7

Make Our Requests Known to God (small groups)

Patience

Confess the Sin of Impatience (small groups)

With our families
With our jobs
With our situation in life
With the church

Kindness and Goodness

Thank God for the Kindness and Goodness We See in His People (large group)

Faithfulness

A Prayer for Faithfulness…………………………………. [Led by a member of our congregation]

Gentleness

Scripture Reading………………………………………………………………………………….. Isaiah 42:1-7

Thank God for His Gentleness Toward Us (small group)

Self-Control

Ask God for Self-Control in Our Lives (small groups)

With our appetites
With our disciplines
With our emotions

Concluding Prayer………………………………………………………………………….. The Lord's Prayer

Missional Renaissance in Full Flower?

[image error]I don't want to belabor the points Greg and I try to make in What Is the Mission of the Church? But, well, I guess I want to belabor just one point. I want to expand on an example we reference in the book—an example of where we think missional thinking has gotten off track.

In his book Missional Renaissance, Reggie McNeal argues that the church needs to "change the scorecard" of what constitutes successful mission. I don't doubt that McNeal wants to see people come to Jesus and be built up in Christ. But the conclusion of the book paints a picture of missional renaissance in "full flower" that seems to be missing what is, in my opinion, the actual mission of the church.

I'll give you several paragraphs from the concluding chapter so you can get the full context:

I was treated to a window view into the missional renaissance just yesterday over Jones sodas at a booth in Panera Bread. Brad Smith was the one who pulled back the drape. He is the founder of the Souper Bowl of Caring (http://www.souperbowl.org). We had never met before, so he was detailing for me the remarkable story and impact of this charitable venture. Now in its twenty-first year, this movement last year raised $10 million for hunger relief and engaged 250,000 young people in volunteer service in their communities around the nation.

The Souper Bowl of Caring started out as a project in the youth ministry of Spring Valley Presbyterian Church in Columbia, South Carolina, where Brad served as youth pastor at the time. The idea was to capitalize on the biggest sporting event of the year, football's Super Bowl, to provide a service opportunity for teenagers. Kids collected donations to fight local hunger and poverty. Over the next few years, other churches in the area who heard about it quickly adopted it; then churches jumped on board from other regions of the country and other denominations. The Souper Bowl of Caring became a movement, involving over 14,000 groups of volunteers in 2008. Brad eventually left his church job to devote full-time efforts to shepherding its development. Players now include schools as well as churches, adults as well as teenagers, foundations and family charities, NFL team owners, and other social sector organizations. Brad's dream is that Super Bowl weekend will become the biggest weekend of charitable efforts and giving in the country each year.

This is the missional renaissance full flower. All elements are present (emphasis added). You have a movement that involves cross-domain collaboration for tackling a huge social issue. Not only do the efforts of the participants benefit others, but the participants themselves also grow by fulfilling their own fundamental needs as human beings to serve others. The Souper Bowl of Caring is led by a true kingdom-oriented leader who raises his own support and the money it takes to pay staff and cover programs and administrative costs. The goal is not to build an organization (the whole operation is run by a staff of six). The Souper Bowl office doesn't even collect the money it helps people raise. Decisions about where the money goes is left to the people who raise it and who are knowledgeable about local needs.

Community needs are being met. People are being developed. The leadership approach fosters the movement by empowering people and releasing passion and resources. And it all started with an idea from a spiritual leader who had an ache in his heart to alleviate suffering and a determination to help teenagers discover the benefits of serving. All three shifts of the missional movement are right there. If this story didn't exist, I'd have to make it up! Thankfully, it does exist, and the world is better for it. (177-78)

I imagine this charitable effort does a lot of good and helps a lot of people. But there is nothing in this description about Christ, the church, or the gospel. Again, please hear me, I'm not saying the effort is therefore bad or a waste of time. But McNeal is doing more than describing a good charitable effort. He argues that this is the example of what mission is all about. He ends the book this way:

Some of you reading this are ripe candidates for leading the missional church movement. You have a passion and a dream. That is a powerful combination when you serve as the King's representative and see his kingdom everywhere (emphasis added). Your impact may be across the street or around the world. You will create new worlds of human possibility and kingdom reality. Others from all sectors of the community will come alongside you to participate in what you see God doing. God will be pleased. People will be better off. Those are the two rewards you seek. It will be impossible to imagine the world as it was before you showed up.

Welcome to the missional renaissance! You have been sent by God. The world is glad you came. (181)

Honestly, if this is the missional renaissance, we could use a little more of the Dark Ages. Not less adorning the gospel, but more gospel. Not less kindness, but more Christ. This missional triumph includes no description of making disciples, baptizing people into churches, or teaching them to obey Jesus' commands. At the very least can't we agree that the Souper Bowl of Caring may not include "all elements" necessary for the Church to be about the mission of the Church?

Now maybe you don't think Reggie McNeal is influential (though he is from the SBC and has been very influential in my denomination [RCA]). Maybe he doesn't represent the best of missional thinking (though his book was endorsed by major players like Alan Hirsch). I am not for a moment claiming that everyone in the missional conversation is where McNeal is at. Certainly scholarly works would be more nuanced (if not outright disagreeing with McNeal's "scorecard"). All I'm trying to demonstrate is that the problems we address in the book do exist, and in our experience, often on the popular level where people are putting these ideas into practice. There are voices out there who believe we can create new kingdom realities, who suggest the mission of the church is to make people better off, who believe we are going to transform the world and the world will be glad we did.

Let's love people in our churches and in our neighborhoods in a hundred different ways. Let's partner with thousands of people to help alleviate suffering in the world. But let's not forget about the one thing that the church and only the church can and must do: proclaim Christ and him crucified. I don't expect everyone to agree with our book. But I hope everyone will recognize that the theological language concerning the mission of the church is not always careful, the kingdom descriptions can be King-less, the motivation is sometimes utopian, and the main thing is sometimes the one thing missing.

How to Have a Church Prayer Meeting

[image error]A little over a year ago our church began devoting one Sunday evening service a month exclusively to prayer. Honestly, I wasn't sure it would take. But a year into the switch I think our people are growing to appreciate the prayer service more and more. We don't get everyone to come back for prayer, but it's roughly the same size we get for our regular Sunday evening service (around 125 people, or about 1/4 the size of Sunday morning).

Here are seven things we've learned about having a church prayer meeting.

1. Pray. Don't make your "prayer meeting" a time for 5 hymns, a short message, sharing requests, and 10 minutes for prayer. Get down to business and pray.

2. Start on time and end on time. This may not be true for every culture, but in America punctuality helps. People know what to expect. We will pray together for one hour.

3. Plan. If you are praying with a few mature, seasoned prayer-ers, you may be able to get by with little preparation. But leading a churchwide prayer meeting takes, well, leadership. You have to think through what you are going to do. Recently I planned the prayer service around the fruit of the spirit. At other times we've prayed for different ministries in the church. We've used prayerbooks and lots of Scripture. We've borrowed from ancient patterns of prayer. We've even walked through the building to pray. The point is you can't wing it with 100 people. You have to prepare.

And once in the meeting, you have to lead there too. Direct people. Get the group back on track. Show your people that this is an important event that has warranted your attention, your passion, and your preparation. If you switch to a prayer meeting because the pastor is tired of preaching every Sunday evening, your people will be able to tell. Make the prayer meeting a priority and plan accordingly.

4. Use variety and break the evening up into smaller chunks. Our prayer services go by quickly because we do several things throughout the evening. We may sing a song (just one or two) as a prayer. We may use a form prayer. We may read a prayer responsively. We may have a time of silence. We may have someone lead in prayer from the front. We may break into small groups for prayer. We do a number of different things over the course of 60 minutes. Usually each piece lasts for 5-10 minutes.

5. Make sure your leaders are there. The prayer meeting won't fly if the pastor is not behind it. This doesn't mean the pastor has to be at every gathering for prayer. But if you want to start, prolong, or revive an official prayer meeting people need to see it matters to the pastors and elders. I usually lead our prayer meetings.

6. Keep the kids. I know that keeping kids in the church service, let alone a prayer service, can be challenging. We do have a nursery for infants and toddlers on Sunday night. But one of the best things about our prayer service is that many children are present. They sit in the small group circles (when we break up into groups) and often contribute with the adults. I can't tell you how pleased I am when one of my kids prays in our circle. I'm just as pleased that they are seeing prayer modeled by believers from outside their family and from every age group. They get to hear confessions, praises, and supplications just like everyone else. We are teaching our children to pray by having a prayer service. We are also demonstrating that prayer really matters.

7. Keep at it. Prayer is hard work. It is a gift, but also a skill to learn and grow in. Don't give up if it feels awkward at first or if people don't show. Be faithful and pray continually.

A PLAN for Giving Generously

P – Pray for a generous heart.  Make people a priority over prosperity.  Don't think: "How much do I have to give away in order to be obedient?"  Ask: "Give me opportunities to sow."

L – Lifestyle cap.  As we earn more, we should give more. If you are wealthier than you used to be, have you done more to increase your standard of living or your standard of giving?

A – Accountability.  Set goals and find someone you can trust who won't be threatened by talking frankly about finances. Sex and money–we don't talk about them nearly as much as Jesus did.

N – No less than a tithe. Whether the Old Testament requirement is a binding prescription or not, I find it hard to imagine that Western Christians who have seen the glory of God in the face of Christ and enjoy great prosperity, would want to give less than was required of the poorest Israelite.  Statistics consistently show that Protestants give less than 3% of their income to their churches. A tithe, for most churchgoers, would be a huge step in the right direction.

A Response to Ed Stetzer's Review of "What Is the Mission of the Church?"

Greg and I would like to respond to Ed Stetzer's thoughtful review of our book. It will be helpful to read his review along with our response. More importantly, we encourage you to read the book for yourself and not assume you have the book pegged apart from reading it.

*******

When we first began to write What Is the Mission of the Church? Making Sense of Social Justice, Shalom, and the Great Commission (WTS), we figured it would kick up some dust.  This question of what the church is sent into the world to accomplish is not only enormously complex, but it is also deeply felt.  People have strong emotions about it, and rightly so. We've already taken time to address the "nagging questions" posed by our friend Trevin Wax. We know that others have posted reviews of the book (sometimes multi-part, often critical). Unfortunately, we can't respond to every critique that may arise.

We think it is important, however, to post a substantive response to Ed Stetzer's lengthy review in the latest issue of Themelios.  Neither of us knows Stetzer well (though we have met him), but we've both read his materials and heard him speak over the years. We rejoice that we are on the same team, proclaiming the same gospel, loving the same Church. He is one of the good guys.

Areas of Agreement

We sincerely appreciate Stetzer's encouragement about the careful exegetical work we tried to do throughout the book.  We understand that he doesn't agree with all our conclusions.  But it's our conviction that a careful look at particular texts is one of the things most grievously missing in this conversation about mission.  Much of the conversation seems to float above exegesis, focusing on themes and trajectories of Scripture rather than the details of the actual text. So we are glad that Stetzer is affirming our call for more of that kind of work.

We also are glad that Stetzer perceived our heart for establishing a better footing for the church's life in the world.  Both of us love the church deeply.  Like Stetzer, we've given our lives to vocational ministry, and we are glad to be engaged with him in this work.  There's a lot at stake in this conversation, and it's good when brothers in Christ can engage in serious discussion about serious issues.

As a quick side-note, we also appreciate Stetzer's commendation of our chapter on the Gospel.  In particular, Stetzer cites the wide-angle/zoom lens we advocate in this book, and applauds the "development" that framework represents from Greg's What Is the Gospel? One minor quibble though: Greg actually published those ideas in the Together for the Gospel book from 2008 (published 2009), and before that in a series of blog posts at 9Marks—a good year-and-a-half before What Is the Gospel? was published.  In fact, though What Is the Gospel? focuses on the zoom lens, if you read it with the fuller picture in mind, you'll see all those ideas underlying that book, too. Stetzer implies that there has been some development or refinement or improvement in our explanation of the gospel—but in fact, we aren't saying anything here that we haven't already laid out.

Responses

Besides that, there are a few other things in Stetzer's review to which we wanted to respond as well. At times we disagree with his arguments. On other points we agree entirely and are not sure why Stetzer seems to think we don't.  And then, most importantly, we also wonder if Stetzer hasn't missed the main problem we're aiming at in the book.

Love and Good Deeds and the Mission of the Church

Stetzer's main criticism of What Is the Mission of the Church? is his contention that we "underplay" the importance of good works.  He says that we "equate 'making disciples' with evangelism," and that we "do not adequately acknowledge the role of love and good deeds in commending the gospel to unbelievers."  Then he makes a strong case that making disciples includes teaching everything Jesus commanded, that the life of disciples will issue in good deeds, and that good deeds extol and commend the gospel.

Conversations about whether something is "underplayed" or not emphasized enough—or acknowledged but not acknowledged adequately—are difficult conversations to have.  The fact is, we agree with most everything Stetzer says about how good deeds function in the Christian life and in the commendation of the gospel, and we say so repeatedly in the book.  For example, Stetzer says that we "underplay" the role of what he calls "secondary ministries" that are not immediately didactic and explicitly gospel-revealing.  But we have an entire section in Chapter 9 explaining how such mercy ministries can function to show God's love to the community and how they function to further the church's pursuit of its mission (see also our responses here and here to Trevin's nagging questions). In another place he says that we don't "adequately acknowledge" the role of love and good deeds in commending the gospel to unbelievers, but that's only after saying that we "acknowledge" in a whole section of the book that doing good works will help us win a hearing for the gospel among unbelievers.

We're not trying to be pedantic here. But it's not clear to us what might be the difference between acknowledging something and adequately acknowledging it.  The fact is, we agree with Stetzer that good works play a confirming and extoling role with reference to the gospel.  When Jesus says that the world should see our good deeds and glorify our Father in heaven (Matt. 5:16), or when Peter says we should watch our conduct so that the world may see our good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation (1 Peter 2:12), we understand the weight of what they are saying, and nothing we say should be understood as trying to avoid or de-emphasize this important biblical teaching.

Part of the problem, as we've mentioned before, is that many Christians do not distinguish between the church as organization and the church as organism (to use Bavinck's terminology). We tend to think that "church" is basically plural for Christians. But the church as an institution with ordained officers and a ministry of word and sacrament is not equivalent to the individual church members who scatter each week and fulfill their various callings and vocations. Christians may work for fair housing or for better public schools, just as non-Christians may work for the exact same things, but the Church bears the unique responsibility to preach Christ and him crucified. As Michael Horton points out in a recent blog we highly recommend: "If we can distinguish between the church as organization (place) and the church as organism (people), rather than setting them in opposition, then we can avoid the dangers both of ecclesial mission creep and of ignoring our worldly callings."

Evangelism and "Making Disciples" and "Teaching Everything"

Stetzer (and other critics) point out that the mission of the church includes disciple-making, and that disciple-making is done by "teaching them to obey everything Jesus commanded." We agree. But strangely, Stetzer says that we "equate 'making disciples' with evangelism."  That's simply not the case. We are as appalled as anyone by the mechanical decisionism that has marked many evangelical churches over the past few decades.   Over and over in the book, in fact, we say that the mission of the church is "proclaiming the gospel and making disciples."  At the end of the chapter on the Great Commission, we sum things up by saying that the task of the church is to win people to Christ and build them up in Christ (63).  We also say that the word "teaching" in Matthew 28 "makes clear that Jesus has more in mind than initial evangelism and response.  He wants obedient, mature disciples, not just immediate decisions" (46). We never suggest that disciple-making can be reduced to initial evangelism. We are surprised Stetzer charges us with an error we explicitly disavow.

However, we should probably say something here about the common idea that the church's work of "making disciples," that is, "teaching them to obey everything I commanded," necessarily means that the church itself, as an institution, must provide an example of or model all those things.  Sometimes, of course, that's true.  As the church loves one another and cares for one another, we are certainly modeling to one another what it means to love and care for others—our families, our neighbors, our co-workers, the needy, and others.  But sometimes the case is made that the command to "teach everything" implies that the church is to be "exampling everything."  So, the argument runs, if we want Christians to care for the poor, the church as a whole needs to care for the poor.  If we want Christians to feed the hungry, the church needs to feed the hungry in order to provide a model for its members.  But surely that's too easy a solution.  If you're talking about a clothes closet or a soup kitchen, that solution works just fine. It makes sense in that particular case.  But considered as a driving principle, the idea that the church "teaching" necessarily includes the church "exampling" just doesn't work.  You have to ask how far that goes.

For example, must the church, as an institution, be modeling to its members how to make good Christian films?  Must it be providing an example of how to do good Christian art?  How about good Christian cooking or marathon-running? We are not trying to be snarky with these questions. We believe there is a legitimate point to be raised. Must the church as an institution be actively engaged in politics so as to model what Christian civic engagement looks like? Doesn't it make more sense to say that the church as an institution is to teach Christians what Jesus commanded, and teach his disciples that they are to obey him in every area of their lives, rather than to say that it must provide an example or model obedience in every particular instance?

The Main Thing We Are Seeking to Correct

Put that aside, though.  On the larger point we agree with Stetzer whole-heartedly that love and good deeds play a crucial role in confirming, extolling, and promoting the gospel. We abhor cheap grace.  God forbid we should ever be guilty of giving it aid and comfort in any Christian's heart. As we state in the first chapter of our book, we do not want Christians to be indifferent toward suffering. We do not want Christians to think evangelism is the only thing that matters. We do not want Christians retreating into holy huddles. We do not want Christians "who risk their lives and sacrifice for the poor and the disadvantaged" to feel like their work only matters if it results in conversion (22). As we say again at the end of the book, "Any book that comes across as suggesting that loving our neighbors is somehow sub-Christian is a very poor book indeed" (231). We believe we are being misunderstood in this regard. Perhaps we were unclear. Perhaps some reviewers are assuming a position we don't espouse. Perhaps we are misreading our critics' critiques. In any event, please know that we believe in the indispensability of good deeds and the essential requirement to love our neighbors as ourselves.

But the point of What Is the Mission of the Church? was never to question whether love and good deeds are necessary for Christian obedience or even to question whether they confirm and extol the gospel we preach, and are therefore vitally connected to the mission of proclaiming the gospel and making disciples.  Clearly they are.  Good works of every kind—personal, social, economic, artistic, athletic, cultural—do that kind of work.  That's not in question for a moment.

The question we are addressing in the book is whether the mission of the church—the thing it is organized and sent into the world to do—is to do those good deeds to the end of making the world a better place.  Is it the church's mission to do city renewal, to do neighborhood revitalization, to eradicate poverty, to eliminate hunger, to raise the global standard of living?  Of course, we all want to see this happen. But should we always expect to see this happen? Is this why God gathers weak and weary sinners into churches? Is the presence of social problems in a community a sign that the church has been unfaithful to its mission? That's the direction this discussion of mission often runs. We've seen well-meaning evangelical Christians explain church planting initiatives with the language of pulling "the whole community together [to] make a measurable difference." The expressed desire is to be "agents in improving graduation rates, increasing literacy or lowering unemployment." They ask, "What if together we could provide tutoring in every school, support services for every fire station, or orientation for every immigrant?" (We're not making up these quotes.) Obviously, these are fine causes, ones Christians may pursue—and some will be called to pursue—out of love for others. But then again, is this the sort of work we see Jesus engaged in during his ministry? Is it the ministry we see pursued in the book of Acts? It sounds good to say mission is "both-and," that the church should do these things while still making the gospel central. But churches do not have infinite resources, people, or time. The church cannot do every good thing that could be done. There must be priorities. We argue that the church's priority—and the grid through which mission endeavors should be evaluated—is teaching others about Christ to the end that they may worship him now and forever.

Just to reiterate, our book is not about whether good deeds commend the preaching of the gospel, and whether therefore they are vitally important to the mission.  It's a question of whether it's the church's mission—its Christ-given orders—to improve the world and make it more livable.  That's what large numbers of evangelicals seem to think these days.  They talk as if Jesus expects them to improve housing options and sanitation in their cities.  They adopt church slogans that call their people to "Change the City and Change the World."  They publish brochures that say that their churches exist to make their cities livable for all people, that their Sunday morning services happen so that all people—Christian or not—can share their Christ-given gifts with the city, and they invite all people, regardless of faith, to join them in the great work of revitalizing the downtown area.  That's what too many young Christians today think the church is about. And therefore that's the main thing we are questioning in What Is the Mission of the Church? and pleading with people to reconsider.

Other Areas of Disagreement

That's the biggest issue we are trying to address and the biggest disagreement we have with Stetzer's review. But there are a number of smaller issues too.

Christopher Wright and Humanity and Creation

Stetzer takes issue with our critique of Christopher Wright, arguing that we "misread" Wright when we say that "Wright's view is that humanity derives our value from being a part of creation" (Stetzer's words). Wright may have written less than precisely on page 399 of his book, but he says quite clearly that "our own value as human beings begins from the fact that we ourselves are part of the whole creation that God already values and declares to be good. We will have more to say about human life in a moment, but the starting point is that we take our value from the creation of which we are part, not vice versa" [emphasis ours].  As he promises there, Wright does go on to affirm strongly that humanity has unique value in God's good creation.  But surely it's not illegitimate to raise concern about the idea that our value as human beings derives from the whole creation of which we are a part. Some Christians talk as if individual human redemption is a smaller subset of larger cosmic renewal, when in fact Scripture teaches that the whole creation longs to obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God (Rom. 8:21). Salvation is universal only because it is first personal.

Is it Our Job or Jesus' to Do What Adam Failed to Do?

We also disagree with Stetzer's charge that "creation for [DeYoung and Gilbert] does not serve as a theological starting place for understanding the telos for all of history."  The basis for that statement seems to be that we don't connect the creation mandate with the great commission.  In other words, "we do not consider" that "Jesus sends the church to accomplish what Adam, Noah, and Israel failed to do . . ." But it's not that we don't consider that connection, or "miss" it.  It's that we disagree with it.  We don't think the church is sent to accomplish what Adam failed to accomplish.  We think Jesus did that, and will do it fully and finally at the last day.  Fulfilling Adam's failed task is not our mission; it's the mission given and accomplished by Jesus.  We won't rehash that argument here; we detail it in chapter 8 of our book.

Distilling Theological Building Blocks and Clarifying Categories

At the end of his review, Stetzer dings us for doing missiology in the wrong way. He argues that missiology can't be done by "distilling theological building blocks," but is best served by "theological vision."  We're not sure what "distilling theological building blocks" means, but we assume it means something like "clarifying theological categories" (as Stetzer puts it). It's not clear to us how this is much different from Stetzer's desired approach: a "theological vision of how and why God sends his people into the world on mission for his glory and the good of people of the earth." This is precisely what we were trying to accomplish in the book. We believe, from our biblical-theological analysis, that God sends his people into the world to be ambassadors of reconciliation that the nations may be called out of darkness into his marvelous light. As a philosophy of missions, this may an incomplete theological vision for Stetzer, but it is a vision nonetheless.

Social Justice and Economics

At the beginning of his review Stetzer offers this assessment of our work: "Nearly every conclusion they draw is based on exegesis, except for their treatment of social justice, where after defining justice biblically, they depend on certain economic theories and the practical principle of 'moral proximity' to construct how we should think about this topic." We are thankful for his initial conclusion, but would like to quibble with a couple other points. For starters, we believe the principle of "moral proximity" is a biblical principle. According to the New Testament we must do good "especially" to the household of faith (Gal. 6:10). We have an even higher responsibility to care for members of our own household (1 Tim. 5:8). In the Old Testament it was never the case that God's people were equally responsible to meet the needs of everyone.

Regarding "certain economic theories" we do not mean to suggest that Christianity demands support for free market principles, let alone specific views on free trade coffee, socialized medicine, or international aid. In fact, that's just the point we were trying to make. Many missional Christians passionate about social justice assume that genuine Christian compassion means we ought to favor higher taxes on the rich, government engineered redistribution, and a general disdain for democratic capitalism. We merely wanted to suggest other alternatives that are not incompatible with Christian principles and care for the poor.

Can Ordinary Pastors Do Missiology?

At the risk of sounding defensive, we can't help but express our disappointment that Stetzer sounded so dismissive of our arguments at times; indeed, even dismissive of our right to make them. For example, Stetzer says that Chris Wright is "one of the few people that they cite, along with Stott and Lyons."  We're not sure whether he's talking there about that one particular chapter on the Bible's storyline or about our whole book.  If it's that chapter, we don't cite Stott in it at all.  If he's talking about the whole book, we don't want the impression to be left that we cite a total of three people in the entire thing. A quick check of the General Index shows that we cite dozens of writers, including David Bosch, Victor Hamilton, James Davison Hunter, Tim Keller, Andreas Kӧstenberger, Christopher Little, Reggie McNeal, Peter O'Brien, Eckhard Schnabel, David Sills. We reference many more in the footnotes.

One of the recurring themes in criticism of our book is that we don't really engage missional thinking. It's been suggested that we are insular, only talking with and listening to people who think just like us. We set up straw men, are ignorant of what missional Christians think, and may even demonize those who disagree with us. We readily admit it's possible we have misread the authors we cite. It's possible we may not have our pulse on the best of missional thinking. But we hope anyone who reads the book carefully will be able to see that we honestly try to interact with people like McNeal, Wright, Bosch, and Stott. We certainly read from many more and, contrary to the assumption of some, we have talked with many people who do not see things the way we do. It's also worth pointing out that we explicitly state in the introduction that we are not anti-missional, let alone are we trying to condemn what everyone means by the term missional. Our concern is not with a term, but with determining a biblical view of the church's mission.

If it turns out that we are tilting against windmills and no one believes the things we are arguing against, no one will be happier than the two of us. Whatever embarrassment may come from finding out that no holds the positions we combat will be overcome by delight in discovering that more people agree with us than we thought. But we do not think our concerns are phantom concerns. There are voices calling for the church to work for the redemption of creation, for the shalom of the world, and for the restoration of the cosmos, to the end that we may "[turn] back the hands of time to give the world a glimpse of what the world looked like before sin entered the picture" (The Next Christians, 59).

At times, especially toward the end, Stetzer suggests that we may be out of our depth in tackling this subject. He claims we are going against "the prevailing approach in evangelical missiology" and that "the truth is the reins of the missiological conversation and that task of mission will not be pulled back by the arguments in this book." He chides us elsewhere with the assertion that "reading a couple dozen books is simply not adequate (or appropriate) to prepare themselves to stand against the careful theological thinking that has contributed to the widening of our understanding of mission." In his final paragraph Stetzer concludes that our book "will not succeed at its task" because those inclined to like the book will be "the theologically minded who think deeply but engage weakly" and those on the other end of the spectrum "who could benefit from the book will not read it because the authors lack the background and engagement to make the case to the missional and missiological community."

We're not sure what to make of this last sentence (the final one of the review). We are both pastors, and both our churches meet right next to university campuses. We talk to real people—on both sides—for whom the matters in our book are seriously important. Perhaps our thinking on the mission of the church has been "not adequate," and perhaps it is even "not appropriate" for us to think that we as non-scholars are prepared to make a contribution to this discussion. But we would hope that kind of judgment would be handed down on the basis of showing our arguments from the Bible to be wrong, rather than on the basis of pointing out that we are pastors and not missiologists or by implying that we don't have street cred in missional circles. We pastor churches that engage in significant "missional" efforts in the community from supporting crisis pregnancy centers to providing ESL classes to working with the local Rescue Mission. While we may understand this work differently than some in the missional conversation and we may vet the opportunities through a different grid, our congregations also care about the poor and are devoted to good deeds as Scripture commands.

Conclusion

In the end, we want to thank Ed Stetzer again for honoring our work by providing a lengthy review of our arguments. We have learned from him in the past and we expect to benefit from his expertise for years to come. We actually agree with many of his critiques, because we think they do not fully describe our concerns or positions. Where we disagree on exegetical conclusions or theological distinctions we look forward to continuing to search the Scriptures together. Our hope is that our friends and foes, our sympathizers and those suspicious about us, our associations, or our missional credentials, will still give the book a careful reading and test everything against the pattern and prescriptions laid down in the word of God. We remain convinced that the Great Commission–with its call to proclamation and discple-making–is and must remain the task for which Jesus sends his church into the world.

Monday Morning Humor

One of the best scenes from The Cosby Show. The husbands have seceretly made a bet to see who can give their wives the most romantic gift for under $25. The wives find out about the bet are a committed to being unmoved and unimpressed with their gifts. Enjoy…

[The splice feature may not work on your mobile device, in which case skip ahead to 5:20.]

Avoiding Romanticized Views of the Early Church's Mission

The most comprehensive study on the history of the mission of the early church is Echkard Schnabel's magisterial two-volume work Early Christian Mission. At the outset, Schnabel warns against the typical approach among evangelicals which is "unconsidered, and sometimes naive or romanticized" (xxiii).

He explains:

Views that fail to take into account the historical and social conditions of life in the first century are potentially problematic. For example, the view that early Christians recognize the significance of "small groups" or of "house churches" fails to recognize the fact that outside of local synagogues Christians had no other option to meet in private homes whose largest rooms could accommodate about forty people.

Another example is the view, naive despite the notice in Acts 4:32, that the early Christians were a united group of activists, uniform in their theology and thick as thieves in their relationships, who were willing and eager to subordinate differences of opinion and behavior to the missionary mandate. This view fails to recognize, for example, that the conflict whose solution is recorded in Acts 15 evidently was not supported by all missionaries based in Jerusalem, or that Paul was willing to separate from missionary coworkers as a result of differences of opinion, or that churches recently established by Paul were visited by Jewish-Christian missionaries whose goal was to influence them theologically and institutionally.

Or note the romantic view that the organization of the early Christian missionary work among non-Jews corresponds, at least in general terms, to the foreign missions endeavors of one's denomination or missionary society. Before we can develop "lessons" for Christians today, we need to heed the facts as they present themselves in the New Testament. As far as mission and evangelism are concerned, this has not always happened. (xxiii-xxiv)

Pastors, students, interested laypeople–these two volumes are important reference works to have on your shelves.

One More Time on Good Works and the Mission of the Church

The final point in yesterday's blog is hugely important. Greg and I thought it was worth elaborating on. So we wrote the following:

******

Maybe it will head off a bit of confusion if we bang the drum a bit more on this crucial issue of good works and their relationship to the mission of the church. The question we are asking in WITMOTC is not whether good works—of whatever kind—flow from, grow from, and then confirm and affirm and adorn the gospel message. Clearly they do. The Bible says so over and over (as does our book we believe). And because they do, those flowing, growing, affirming, confirming, adorning good works are vitally connected to the church's mission of proclamation and disciple-making. They grow from a life regenerated by the Holy Spirit through the gospel we preach, and therefore they redound to the credit and glory and truth of that gospel.

But that's not the question we're asking, and we're certainly not answering that question in the negative. The question we're asking is whether our mission, as the church, is to do good deeds to the end of making the world a better place, to the end of making neighborhoods and cities and the world more livable. Is it our mission as the church—is it the thing Jesus sends us, as the church, into the world to accomplish—to eradicate social problems? This is an important questions because many Christians see the church's mission in just these terms. Pastors and movements and denominations are planting and leading churches with the explicit understanding that their mission—their marching order from King Jesus—is to partner with civic leaders, school teachers, police officers, and firefighters to make their cities more livable, to provide housing and tutoring and sanitation and support services and immigrant orientation and art galleries and photography studios. And they speak as if they think that by doing those things, they'll be building the Kingdom of God or wrapping their cities in God's shalom.

That's the kind of thinking we are addressing in WITMOTC, not the question of whether good works flow from and affirm and adorn the gospel.

We like the way Eckhard Schnabel puts it in his massive work Early Christian Mission. Schnabel argues that "expansive proclamation" is "the centrifugal dimension of mission" and "attractive presence" is the "centripetal dimension" (1:11). Our words ring out; our deeds draw people in. So the "elements of mission" include not only the ministry of the word but also "charity" and "ministry of grace." But this is not the same as saying missions is charity or that a missionary is anyone who serves others in good deeds. According to Schnabel, "missionaries" are "envoys sent by the risen Jesus Christ to proclaim the good news" (1:11-12). Just as important, he clarifies what mission is striving for. "The result of mission is conversion: people accept and adopt the message proclaimed by the missionaries, they are integrated into the new community of faith, and they start to practice a new way of life with new behavioral patterns" (1:12).

So again, the question we're asking is this: What is the purpose of the good works we do? Is it to confirm and affirm and adorn the message of the gospel? Yes! A thousand times yes! To demonstrate the love of God that we proclaim? Yes! To do all the things we stated in bold letters in chapter 9 of WITMOTC? Yes. To revitalize the downtown area so it's more livable for everybody and thereby make the West End more like the Kingdom? Not exactly.

The question is the theological purpose of good works, not whether they are important. This is not an issue of mere semantics. The purpose of our good works matters a great deal when churches have to determine what ministries to undertake, what missionaries to support, and what opportunities to encourage. Whether good deeds are a centripetal force drawing people to the proclamation of the gospel or whether they are an effort to revitalize urban centers because that's what the mission of the church is all about–this distinction will shape what we do with our finite time, finite people, and finite resources. Understanding that crucial point might help some readers zero in more clearly on our main point in the book.