As Bill Easum has said, “it’s futile trying to revitalize the church, or a denomination, without first changing the system.” So what might a new paradigm or “systems story” look like for the church today that would reverse decades of its decline in the West?
As we’ve discussed, the dominant model of church today is the same that has been in use for thousands of years previous; church as event-driven place, or a Sunday morning service. But perhaps a more Biblical paradigm of the church is one of an organic, living organism rather than a static, calcified institution. Never in Scripture is the church reduced to an attractional once-a-week service; rather, it is constantly described as an organic, subversive movement.
Examples of this organic paradigm abound in Scripture. For instance, in contrast to the cold edifice of the ancient Jewish temple, the temple of Jesus is made of “living stones”, I Peter tells us (2:5). We see Jesus repeatedly using organic and agricultural imagery in describing the Kingdom of God. In Matthew 13, for instance, Jesus uses metaphors of leaven, wheat, and seed to describe His church. We’re told in this passage that “the kingdom of God is like a mustard seed” (13:31). The mustard plant was the “smallest of all seeds” that was known for its invasive nature, most akin to a wild weed or crabgrass today that spreads rapidly with very little effort. In fact, it was against Jewish law to plant mustard in one’s garden as it would quickly spread and take over the entire garden due to its invasive nature. Jesus is telling us in this passage that His church is not an attractional institution, but a wild, invasive weed; “a subtle contagion” that spreads one life at a time. The church of God, Christ teaches us, should be a subversive movement that is able to readily disassemble itself and seep into the cracks and crevices of society, as difficult to stop as a mustard plant or crabgrass invading one’s garden. This stands in stark contrast to a static institution that is unable to reproduce itself without the aid of an attractional Sunday morning service.
Similarly, in Mark 4:26-29, Christ compares the kingdom to growing seed that grows “all by itself”, irrespective of the sower’s efforts. In this parable of growing seed, we see a man who sows seed, sleeps at night, and wakes in the morning completely unaware of how the seed grows. As Neil Cole says, this parable describes a farmer who is “clueless and sleeping on the job”, yet the work grows greater than in his wildest dreams. The message is clear: the work of Christ’s church grows independent of our strategies. The kingdom of God does not grow by carefully crafted ministries, state of the art buildings, or professional Sunday morning productions, but rather it spreads as an undercover people movement that spreads subversively from one life to another. The Jesus revolution is truly a living people movement; like ordinary leaven in ordinary bread (Matt. 13:13), it spreads in an organic fashion, all by itself, one life at a time.
Building on this idea of the church of God as an organic people movement, we’ll continue to explore what a new paradigm of the church might look like in our next post.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Saturday, March 26, 2011
A Call For A New Paradigm
In our last post, we proposed the idea that the dominant Sunday morning service model of the church is neither Biblical nor unbiblical, but rather abiblical. If “church as we know it” is just one of many viable models of “doing church,” what might new, alternative models look like?
Historically, radical innovation on the existing framework of the Sunday morning church model has been largely absent. To be sure, tremendous strides have been made in the last few decades in shedding the unnecessary traditions of the past as the “seeker sensitive” revolution has taken hold. However, even these advancements have left the existing Sunday morning service paradigm of the church intact. Though the surrounding culture has undergone dramatic change over two thousand years since the current model of church was instituted, the basic framework of the church’s meetings, such as the “worship set”, the sermon, and even the order of service, has been largely unaltered since.
Even the most progressive attempts at change in the church today focus on tweaking the existing structure: more cutting edge music, more relevant messages, and more attractive outreach events, to name a few. However, nearly all these attempts leave the underlying assumptions of the nature of church intact. Namely, this main underlying assumption is that church is not an organic people movement, but an institution, consisting of a weekly attractional Sunday morning service in a specially dedicated building conducted by paid religious professionals lasting 70-90 minutes. This institutional paradigm is almost completely fixed in most churches today, even in those that would consider themselves the most progressive.
This underlying assumption that church is an attractional institution is why true, lasting change is so hard to come by in today’s church. Unless this underlying belief is exchanged for a new one, a very limited amount of change will be possible. Though initially a church may attempt to change its way of doing business, these efforts generally produce only temporary change. After the novelty of these measures wear off, however, inertia takes over and the church tends to fall back into its previous state. This is true for any organization, church or business: lasting change cannot occur if the underlying assumptions and paradigm stay the same. More than any other, this institutional paradigm in the minds of many observers is the chief reason that the vast majority of Christian institutions throughout history are nearly incapable of significant growth and change. As Bill Easum says, “it’s futile trying to revitalize the church, or a denomination, without first changing the system.”
But what might a new paradigm for the church, a new “systems story”, look like for today’s church? We’ll continue this discussion in our next post.
Historically, radical innovation on the existing framework of the Sunday morning church model has been largely absent. To be sure, tremendous strides have been made in the last few decades in shedding the unnecessary traditions of the past as the “seeker sensitive” revolution has taken hold. However, even these advancements have left the existing Sunday morning service paradigm of the church intact. Though the surrounding culture has undergone dramatic change over two thousand years since the current model of church was instituted, the basic framework of the church’s meetings, such as the “worship set”, the sermon, and even the order of service, has been largely unaltered since.
Even the most progressive attempts at change in the church today focus on tweaking the existing structure: more cutting edge music, more relevant messages, and more attractive outreach events, to name a few. However, nearly all these attempts leave the underlying assumptions of the nature of church intact. Namely, this main underlying assumption is that church is not an organic people movement, but an institution, consisting of a weekly attractional Sunday morning service in a specially dedicated building conducted by paid religious professionals lasting 70-90 minutes. This institutional paradigm is almost completely fixed in most churches today, even in those that would consider themselves the most progressive.
This underlying assumption that church is an attractional institution is why true, lasting change is so hard to come by in today’s church. Unless this underlying belief is exchanged for a new one, a very limited amount of change will be possible. Though initially a church may attempt to change its way of doing business, these efforts generally produce only temporary change. After the novelty of these measures wear off, however, inertia takes over and the church tends to fall back into its previous state. This is true for any organization, church or business: lasting change cannot occur if the underlying assumptions and paradigm stay the same. More than any other, this institutional paradigm in the minds of many observers is the chief reason that the vast majority of Christian institutions throughout history are nearly incapable of significant growth and change. As Bill Easum says, “it’s futile trying to revitalize the church, or a denomination, without first changing the system.”
But what might a new paradigm for the church, a new “systems story”, look like for today’s church? We’ll continue this discussion in our next post.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Church As We Know It
It is said that “old habits die hard.” Nowhere is this old adage more true than in that strange Sunday morning subculture known as “church”. To this day, centuries old traditions dominate our churches, and to suggest any changes to these long standing paradigms remains anathema in the minds of many. Yet it is these longstanding traditions, or “church as we know it”, that pose the greatest obstacles to the church realizing its call of “making disciples of all nations” as Christ has called it to do.
What is a church? Line up ten believers and ask them this question, and chances are, you’ll get the patent theologically correct answer: “a church is any body of believers meeting in the name of Christ.” This answer is doubtless the correct one and the Biblical one, to which almost all of us would be in agreement. However, a completely different definition of church would be closer to our actual practice today: “church is an attractional event that meets once a week in a specially dedicated building, run by paid religious professionals, lasting 70-90 minutes in duration.” Perhaps that answer would be more in harmony with the attitudes and underlying paradigms at work in the vast majority of churches today.
Clearly, all of us realize that church is much more than a service once a week. Yet suggest any other template for a new church plant, and expect some confused looks from listeners. “How can a church be a church without a building? How can it be a viable community without a paid pastor? Certainly there must be a sermon of 30-40 minutes duration.” These are the objections, if not spoken, that would be common in the minds of many. It’s exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, for Christians today to conceive of church without the traditional Sunday morning service. Remove these dominant features of the Sunday morning service, take away the minister, remove the three-song worship set, and subtract the thimble and wafer known as communion, and many would cease to define the remains as church any longer.
The efforts of today’s church, in distinction to the New Testament model, revolve completely around the Sunday morning service. Think of the effort, time, and resources that is poured into a single hour service once a week. Given the tremendous importance that we place on this one weekly event, you would expect that Scripture would be chock full of references that guide us in how this event should be done. But curiously, there are none. When one looks at Scripture, one will search in vain for commands on how to pull off the important weekly event we commonly know as “church,” but hundreds on how we should live in community and honor God with our lives together. To quote William Law, a mentor of John Wesley: “it is very observable that there is not one command in all the Gospel for public worship; and perhaps it is a duty that is least insisted upon in Scripture of any other. The frequent attendance at it is never so much as mentioned in all the New Testament, whereas that religion or devotion which is to govern the ordinary actions of our life is be found in almost every verse of Scripture.” The focus of the New Testament church is not on a Sunday morning service, but in honoring God as we live in community with one another. To the early church, church was not a service meeting once a week, but an organic movement of “called out ones” demonstrating their faith in everyday, yet radical ways. The focus of the early church was on living together in community rather than Sunday morning processes.
It is clear that the Bible neither prescribes nor promotes the traditional model of the local church as we know it today. The current Sunday morning service of church so prevalent in the Western world is neither Biblical nor unbiblical, but rather abiblical. “Church as we know it” is just one interpretation that human beings have devised on how to live a godly life in community, and nowhere are we commanded that the dominant Sunday morning service paradigm is the only viable model for being the church together. As priests of the Lord, the church has freedom and latitude to use whatever means necessary, including modifying the basic blueprint of its meetings and structure if it means greater missional impact and greater growth in its members.
But would a new paradigm look like for today’s church? We will continue to explore this in our next post.
What is a church? Line up ten believers and ask them this question, and chances are, you’ll get the patent theologically correct answer: “a church is any body of believers meeting in the name of Christ.” This answer is doubtless the correct one and the Biblical one, to which almost all of us would be in agreement. However, a completely different definition of church would be closer to our actual practice today: “church is an attractional event that meets once a week in a specially dedicated building, run by paid religious professionals, lasting 70-90 minutes in duration.” Perhaps that answer would be more in harmony with the attitudes and underlying paradigms at work in the vast majority of churches today.
Clearly, all of us realize that church is much more than a service once a week. Yet suggest any other template for a new church plant, and expect some confused looks from listeners. “How can a church be a church without a building? How can it be a viable community without a paid pastor? Certainly there must be a sermon of 30-40 minutes duration.” These are the objections, if not spoken, that would be common in the minds of many. It’s exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, for Christians today to conceive of church without the traditional Sunday morning service. Remove these dominant features of the Sunday morning service, take away the minister, remove the three-song worship set, and subtract the thimble and wafer known as communion, and many would cease to define the remains as church any longer.
The efforts of today’s church, in distinction to the New Testament model, revolve completely around the Sunday morning service. Think of the effort, time, and resources that is poured into a single hour service once a week. Given the tremendous importance that we place on this one weekly event, you would expect that Scripture would be chock full of references that guide us in how this event should be done. But curiously, there are none. When one looks at Scripture, one will search in vain for commands on how to pull off the important weekly event we commonly know as “church,” but hundreds on how we should live in community and honor God with our lives together. To quote William Law, a mentor of John Wesley: “it is very observable that there is not one command in all the Gospel for public worship; and perhaps it is a duty that is least insisted upon in Scripture of any other. The frequent attendance at it is never so much as mentioned in all the New Testament, whereas that religion or devotion which is to govern the ordinary actions of our life is be found in almost every verse of Scripture.” The focus of the New Testament church is not on a Sunday morning service, but in honoring God as we live in community with one another. To the early church, church was not a service meeting once a week, but an organic movement of “called out ones” demonstrating their faith in everyday, yet radical ways. The focus of the early church was on living together in community rather than Sunday morning processes.
It is clear that the Bible neither prescribes nor promotes the traditional model of the local church as we know it today. The current Sunday morning service of church so prevalent in the Western world is neither Biblical nor unbiblical, but rather abiblical. “Church as we know it” is just one interpretation that human beings have devised on how to live a godly life in community, and nowhere are we commanded that the dominant Sunday morning service paradigm is the only viable model for being the church together. As priests of the Lord, the church has freedom and latitude to use whatever means necessary, including modifying the basic blueprint of its meetings and structure if it means greater missional impact and greater growth in its members.
But would a new paradigm look like for today’s church? We will continue to explore this in our next post.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Growth vs. Mission, Part 3
We've been exploring the supposed tension between discipleship and evangelism in our last few posts. Which should the church pursue first: outreach or growth? Should evangelism or discipleship be the church's focus? As we discussed, once we understand the call of Jesus as a call to intimate relationship with Himself rather than a mere change in our eternal address, we quickly find that the pursuit of discipleship and missional outreach is in fact one and the same.
What would be some of the practical results in our lives if we truly believed that discipleship and evangelism are one and the same? First, our message would take on the radical, dramatic nature that our Leader always intended it to be. As Jesus said, "those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples" (Luke 14:33). Rather than softpedaling the gospel, proclaiming such a radical call to discipleship conveys a far more difficult message; it's far easier to say a prayer to obtain "fire insurance" than to leave everything to follow Jesus! Though this call to discipleship might be radical and difficult for many to accept, it is at the same time a message that the world around us longs to hear. To paraphrase Shane Claiborne, our problem is not that we challenge people too much, but that we don't challenge them enough! The world will not beat down our door for legal or doctrinal requirements, but they will beat down our door if we demonstrate an earnest, intimate, and personal relationship with our God! This is what prompted the disciples, after witnessing Jesus' deep connection to the Father, to ask "Lord, teach us to pray" (Lk. 11:1). If we as Christians were to be known as people of love, depth, and intimate connection to God, we can expect nothing less than was the case with our Leader.
Second, our definition of what constitutes “the church” would undergo a radical shift. Traditionally, evangelism has been defined as the attempt to bring people across the line of faith in Jesus, or as coarse as it may sound, to “bring people into the club” of the church. Once they cross the line of faith, the next goal in the sequence becomes spiritual growth and discipleship in the ways of Jesus. Obviously, such thinking assumes a fenced or “bounded set” view of the church, where a clear line or fence exists between those inside the church and outside the church. Though this fenced definition of the church has validity to some extent (one is not truly part of the “Body of Christ” unless they actually have crossed that line of faith, for instance), it is only of value if we are concerned with the bare minimum requirements for salvation. And as we have discussed, Jesus calls human beings to loving relationship with Himself, an offer and challenge that transcends the bare minimum requirements of law.
However, once we understand the call of Jesus as the same call to radical discipleship for both those inside and outside the church, we will naturally exchange our traditional bounded set view of the church for one of a centered set, or movement towards the “well” of Jesus. In this centered set view of the church, a church community ceases to be defined as a people who have crossed a mere doctrinal boundary, but as a radical discipleship movement towards this center “well” of Jesus Himself. Under this model, all are welcome in the church who are moving towards the well of Jesus, irrespective of their distance from Him. Conversely, those who are moving away from the well (even if right next to the well originally!) can expect to be challenged and corrected in such a community. Most importantly, the centered set model removes the too-prevalent “us vs. them” mentality and allows the church to incarnate Jesus to a watching world while losing none of the Body of Christ’s identity in the process.
Thirdly, if we really believed discipleship and outreach were one and the same, we as Christians would quickly be liberated from the "pressure to evangelize." When “sharing our faith” is reduced to a persuasive sales pitch to “make a decision” for Jesus, such efforts naturally take the form of pressure to both ourselves and our listeners. Most of us know that feeling of anxiety rising in the pit of our stomach when spiritual topics arise in conversation in the workplace, for instance; in the traditional evangelism paradigm, a clever turn of the conversation towards the person of Jesus becomes the very essence of outreach! “All of the effort I have put into this relationship now comes down to this moment!”, we reason. When “putting in a word for Jesus” in hopes of a conversion becomes our focus in this way, we naturally will feel immense pressure and anxiety in that moment.
However, when we recognize Jesus calls mankind to discipleship rather than a mere decision, outreach and mission takes an entirely different, pressure-free form. Since Jesus calls us to make disciples rather than converts, I am now free to simply share the work of God in my own life, and can do so in a free, non-anxious, non-coercive manner. I can now share this work no less freely than I do with my believing friends or family, as I recognize the call of Jesus upon our lives as the same call He extends to those far from Him! As I see the work of God in every person around me, calling them to devotion to Himself, I can now affirm that wooing of the Spirit wherever it is encountered, helping those around me recognize the call of Jesus on that level of their deepest desires. When we exchange the evangelism paradigm for one of discipleship, sharing the legal requirements of salvation in every situation is no longer mandatory, and I am now free to exhibit with my life as well what devotion to Jesus looks like. Needless to say, such a pressure free approach naturally would produce a response to the gospel that coercive sales pitches cannot.
By His grace, may His church truly understand and accept His call to discipleship in this way, and seek to make disciples of all nations as our Leader has commanded!
What would be some of the practical results in our lives if we truly believed that discipleship and evangelism are one and the same? First, our message would take on the radical, dramatic nature that our Leader always intended it to be. As Jesus said, "those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples" (Luke 14:33). Rather than softpedaling the gospel, proclaiming such a radical call to discipleship conveys a far more difficult message; it's far easier to say a prayer to obtain "fire insurance" than to leave everything to follow Jesus! Though this call to discipleship might be radical and difficult for many to accept, it is at the same time a message that the world around us longs to hear. To paraphrase Shane Claiborne, our problem is not that we challenge people too much, but that we don't challenge them enough! The world will not beat down our door for legal or doctrinal requirements, but they will beat down our door if we demonstrate an earnest, intimate, and personal relationship with our God! This is what prompted the disciples, after witnessing Jesus' deep connection to the Father, to ask "Lord, teach us to pray" (Lk. 11:1). If we as Christians were to be known as people of love, depth, and intimate connection to God, we can expect nothing less than was the case with our Leader.
Second, our definition of what constitutes “the church” would undergo a radical shift. Traditionally, evangelism has been defined as the attempt to bring people across the line of faith in Jesus, or as coarse as it may sound, to “bring people into the club” of the church. Once they cross the line of faith, the next goal in the sequence becomes spiritual growth and discipleship in the ways of Jesus. Obviously, such thinking assumes a fenced or “bounded set” view of the church, where a clear line or fence exists between those inside the church and outside the church. Though this fenced definition of the church has validity to some extent (one is not truly part of the “Body of Christ” unless they actually have crossed that line of faith, for instance), it is only of value if we are concerned with the bare minimum requirements for salvation. And as we have discussed, Jesus calls human beings to loving relationship with Himself, an offer and challenge that transcends the bare minimum requirements of law.
However, once we understand the call of Jesus as the same call to radical discipleship for both those inside and outside the church, we will naturally exchange our traditional bounded set view of the church for one of a centered set, or movement towards the “well” of Jesus. In this centered set view of the church, a church community ceases to be defined as a people who have crossed a mere doctrinal boundary, but as a radical discipleship movement towards this center “well” of Jesus Himself. Under this model, all are welcome in the church who are moving towards the well of Jesus, irrespective of their distance from Him. Conversely, those who are moving away from the well (even if right next to the well originally!) can expect to be challenged and corrected in such a community. Most importantly, the centered set model removes the too-prevalent “us vs. them” mentality and allows the church to incarnate Jesus to a watching world while losing none of the Body of Christ’s identity in the process.
Thirdly, if we really believed discipleship and outreach were one and the same, we as Christians would quickly be liberated from the "pressure to evangelize." When “sharing our faith” is reduced to a persuasive sales pitch to “make a decision” for Jesus, such efforts naturally take the form of pressure to both ourselves and our listeners. Most of us know that feeling of anxiety rising in the pit of our stomach when spiritual topics arise in conversation in the workplace, for instance; in the traditional evangelism paradigm, a clever turn of the conversation towards the person of Jesus becomes the very essence of outreach! “All of the effort I have put into this relationship now comes down to this moment!”, we reason. When “putting in a word for Jesus” in hopes of a conversion becomes our focus in this way, we naturally will feel immense pressure and anxiety in that moment.
However, when we recognize Jesus calls mankind to discipleship rather than a mere decision, outreach and mission takes an entirely different, pressure-free form. Since Jesus calls us to make disciples rather than converts, I am now free to simply share the work of God in my own life, and can do so in a free, non-anxious, non-coercive manner. I can now share this work no less freely than I do with my believing friends or family, as I recognize the call of Jesus upon our lives as the same call He extends to those far from Him! As I see the work of God in every person around me, calling them to devotion to Himself, I can now affirm that wooing of the Spirit wherever it is encountered, helping those around me recognize the call of Jesus on that level of their deepest desires. When we exchange the evangelism paradigm for one of discipleship, sharing the legal requirements of salvation in every situation is no longer mandatory, and I am now free to exhibit with my life as well what devotion to Jesus looks like. Needless to say, such a pressure free approach naturally would produce a response to the gospel that coercive sales pitches cannot.
By His grace, may His church truly understand and accept His call to discipleship in this way, and seek to make disciples of all nations as our Leader has commanded!
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Growth vs. Mission- Part 2
So as we began to discuss in our last post: which should be the primary focus of the church: growth or evangelism? Is discipleship at odds with outreach...or should they in fact be one and the same? As Ed Waken says, "Discipleship is the new evangelism." Is this in fact correct?
I was in a discussion with a friend of mine recently that gave me a new insight into this question. Our discussion revolved around the age-old question, "who really is a Christian?" As we sought to answer this question, we came to Matthew 7, where Jesus says some of the most sobering words in all of Scripture: "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!" (Matt. 7:21,22). In this passage, Jesus' point is evident: Jesus cares little for religious and outward acts of obedience, but will have only one interest on the day of judgment: did we truly know Him? Obviously, such knowing is not a mere intellectual understanding or belief of things about Him; as James says, "the devils also believe [in such a sense], and tremble" (Jas. 2:19). Just because I know where my wife was born, her date of birth, and so on does not mean I truly know her; to know her on a personal level is a level of intimacy that far surpasses mere intellectual understanding. Thus, it's clear that Jesus' point is that He will care little on that day about our moral achievements, but will only be interested in the depth of our relationship with Him; did we know Him, and live in intimate, loving relationship with Him? As many have rightly said, Jesus came to offer us not religion, but relationship; an intimate relationship with the King of the Universe. Just as Paul counted his previous religious accomplishments as "rubbish... compared to "the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord" (Phil. 3:7), there is only one thing that matters to our Lord: that we learn to walk in a loving relationship with our Him our Friend and King. This love relationship is the ultimate goal and purpose of the redemption Christ purchased for us at the Cross.
After we discussed these ideas, we then asked the obvious next question: what does it look like to know and be in relationship with Jesus in this way? If those who are truly "in Christ" are only those who are truly in relationship with Him, how can we know if that is indeed us? Where is the dividing line between the "saved" and "unsaved"? Perhaps you have wrestled with this very question. If the only thing Jesus cares about is if we are in relationship with Him...then where do you draw the line between real believers and just pretenders? To religious and analytical minds like you and me, face it: we naturally want a dividing line less nebulous and ill-defined. At the end of the day, we really want to know who's in and who's out, don't we?
However, behind all these questions lies our real question: what is the bare, irreducible minimum for salvation? What is the least I must do to make it to Heaven when I die? If our only aim is to discover the minimum requirements for "knowing Jesus," then to quote Paul in a different context "we are of all men most miserable" (1 Cor. 15:19). In fact, one wonders if we can truly know Jesus personally at all while asking such questions, for pursuit of the bare minimum stands diametrically opposed to the concept of love itself. If I were to ask my wife, "what is the bare minimum I have to do to love you?", clearly that proves I do not understand love to begin with, does it not? Rather, if I truly love my wife, I will not need a checklist of requirements to relate to her properly. Similarly, instead of seeking to understand the bare minimum requirements for salvation, should we not rather be asking how a passionate, radical, and loving relationship with Jesus is truly pursued...as this is all Jesus desires for us anyway?
Sadly, the vast majority of what the church has traditionally called "evangelism" over the last few decades has revolved around this same preoccupation with these bare minimum legal requirements. Over the last few decades, we have reduced "believing in Jesus" to merely accepting doctrinal requirements rather than the passionate pursuit of a reckless Lover. In our obsession over winning "converts" to Jesus and seeing them resultingly cross over from death to life (at least in the sense of their eternal destiny, but when limited to this is a diminished understanding of eternal life!), we have come to implicitly view salvation as a end to itself, rather than the mere beginning of God's ultimate goal of a loving relationship with Him. Is it any wonder that with this "minimum requirement" view of salvation, being largely content to just get people over the "official" line of faith, that we've so longed proclaimed we find discipleship and outreach at odds?
So which should the church pursue first: outreach or growth? Evangelism or discipleship? If, as already discussed, mankind living in loving relationship with Himself is God's ultimate desire, should we not stress the call of Jesus to discipleship and loving devotion to Himself...rather than the calcified bare minimum requirements for salvation? Is getting people to confess Christ and say a prayer all it's cracked up to be? God has a far more glorious call to us than this "fire insurance" mentality! Maybe this is why Jesus said "go into all the world and make disciples" rather than "go into all the world and preach salvation," for His call to follow Himself is issued equally to both believer and unbeliever. Indeed, our salvation is found in our discipleship! When we understand salvation as this overarching call to discipleship, the supposed tension between discipleship and evangelism quickly vanish. In the light of Christ's call to relationship with Himself, we find that the pursuit of spiritual growth and missional outreach is in fact one and the same.
So with such theological conclusions in hand, how should they affect our walk with Jesus and our missional impact in the world? What implications does it have? We will discuss this further in our next post.
I was in a discussion with a friend of mine recently that gave me a new insight into this question. Our discussion revolved around the age-old question, "who really is a Christian?" As we sought to answer this question, we came to Matthew 7, where Jesus says some of the most sobering words in all of Scripture: "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!" (Matt. 7:21,22). In this passage, Jesus' point is evident: Jesus cares little for religious and outward acts of obedience, but will have only one interest on the day of judgment: did we truly know Him? Obviously, such knowing is not a mere intellectual understanding or belief of things about Him; as James says, "the devils also believe [in such a sense], and tremble" (Jas. 2:19). Just because I know where my wife was born, her date of birth, and so on does not mean I truly know her; to know her on a personal level is a level of intimacy that far surpasses mere intellectual understanding. Thus, it's clear that Jesus' point is that He will care little on that day about our moral achievements, but will only be interested in the depth of our relationship with Him; did we know Him, and live in intimate, loving relationship with Him? As many have rightly said, Jesus came to offer us not religion, but relationship; an intimate relationship with the King of the Universe. Just as Paul counted his previous religious accomplishments as "rubbish... compared to "the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord" (Phil. 3:7), there is only one thing that matters to our Lord: that we learn to walk in a loving relationship with our Him our Friend and King. This love relationship is the ultimate goal and purpose of the redemption Christ purchased for us at the Cross.
After we discussed these ideas, we then asked the obvious next question: what does it look like to know and be in relationship with Jesus in this way? If those who are truly "in Christ" are only those who are truly in relationship with Him, how can we know if that is indeed us? Where is the dividing line between the "saved" and "unsaved"? Perhaps you have wrestled with this very question. If the only thing Jesus cares about is if we are in relationship with Him...then where do you draw the line between real believers and just pretenders? To religious and analytical minds like you and me, face it: we naturally want a dividing line less nebulous and ill-defined. At the end of the day, we really want to know who's in and who's out, don't we?
However, behind all these questions lies our real question: what is the bare, irreducible minimum for salvation? What is the least I must do to make it to Heaven when I die? If our only aim is to discover the minimum requirements for "knowing Jesus," then to quote Paul in a different context "we are of all men most miserable" (1 Cor. 15:19). In fact, one wonders if we can truly know Jesus personally at all while asking such questions, for pursuit of the bare minimum stands diametrically opposed to the concept of love itself. If I were to ask my wife, "what is the bare minimum I have to do to love you?", clearly that proves I do not understand love to begin with, does it not? Rather, if I truly love my wife, I will not need a checklist of requirements to relate to her properly. Similarly, instead of seeking to understand the bare minimum requirements for salvation, should we not rather be asking how a passionate, radical, and loving relationship with Jesus is truly pursued...as this is all Jesus desires for us anyway?
Sadly, the vast majority of what the church has traditionally called "evangelism" over the last few decades has revolved around this same preoccupation with these bare minimum legal requirements. Over the last few decades, we have reduced "believing in Jesus" to merely accepting doctrinal requirements rather than the passionate pursuit of a reckless Lover. In our obsession over winning "converts" to Jesus and seeing them resultingly cross over from death to life (at least in the sense of their eternal destiny, but when limited to this is a diminished understanding of eternal life!), we have come to implicitly view salvation as a end to itself, rather than the mere beginning of God's ultimate goal of a loving relationship with Him. Is it any wonder that with this "minimum requirement" view of salvation, being largely content to just get people over the "official" line of faith, that we've so longed proclaimed we find discipleship and outreach at odds?
So which should the church pursue first: outreach or growth? Evangelism or discipleship? If, as already discussed, mankind living in loving relationship with Himself is God's ultimate desire, should we not stress the call of Jesus to discipleship and loving devotion to Himself...rather than the calcified bare minimum requirements for salvation? Is getting people to confess Christ and say a prayer all it's cracked up to be? God has a far more glorious call to us than this "fire insurance" mentality! Maybe this is why Jesus said "go into all the world and make disciples" rather than "go into all the world and preach salvation," for His call to follow Himself is issued equally to both believer and unbeliever. Indeed, our salvation is found in our discipleship! When we understand salvation as this overarching call to discipleship, the supposed tension between discipleship and evangelism quickly vanish. In the light of Christ's call to relationship with Himself, we find that the pursuit of spiritual growth and missional outreach is in fact one and the same.
So with such theological conclusions in hand, how should they affect our walk with Jesus and our missional impact in the world? What implications does it have? We will discuss this further in our next post.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Growth vs. Mission: Which Is It?
For years, many in the church have struggled to reconcile the apparent tension between discipleship and evangelism, or between growth and outreach. What is the primary mission of the church? Is it to reach those outside, or is it to build up those inside? Is church primarily for the unbeliever, or for the believer? Should mission flow out of community, or should community flow out of mission? Should it be growth, discipleship, or community taking center stage in our church, or should we strive first for evangelism, outreach, or mission?
The answers to such questions are not irrelevant theological points: rather, they are of critical and far-reaching importance, as the DNA and basic structure of nearly every church community flows out of their answers to these questions. In an attempt to resolve this tension, some churches make their primary aim to reach those outside the church. As those far from God are now brought into relationship with Him, they reason, community will naturally emerge in the pursuit of that common goal. Still others lean towards equipping and building up the believer in their meetings, assuming that if that goal is achieved, mission will naturally flow out of their lives during the week. Nearly all churches fall into one of these two camps to some degree, and they can often adhere to their position on this issue passionately; witness the deep objections many believers have over the "seeker service" pioneered by Willow Creek, for example. Even many church splits over seemingly trivial issues, such as updating to a "contemporary worship service" for example, are at their core splits over this same fundamental question: who is this church really for? Is it for those outside or inside? Should we alter our structure for the sake of those outside our community, or should we focus on keeping the insiders happy? Deep down, most Christians can't believe you can do both, and they tend to pick one side or the other. It is this supposed contradiction between discipleship/growth and evangelism/outreach that fuels much of the divisions in today's church.
So which should take precedence, you ask? Evangelism or discipleship? Though both approaches have their validity and solid Biblical footing, picking either side in this debate betrays a fundamentally flawed logic: that community, discipleship, and spiritual growth is naturally at odds with outreach, mission, and evangelism, and that one cannot be pursued simultaneously along with the other. But is it possible that discipleship and evangelism can not only be done together, but in fact should be and are one and the same?
We will explore this idea further in our next post.
The answers to such questions are not irrelevant theological points: rather, they are of critical and far-reaching importance, as the DNA and basic structure of nearly every church community flows out of their answers to these questions. In an attempt to resolve this tension, some churches make their primary aim to reach those outside the church. As those far from God are now brought into relationship with Him, they reason, community will naturally emerge in the pursuit of that common goal. Still others lean towards equipping and building up the believer in their meetings, assuming that if that goal is achieved, mission will naturally flow out of their lives during the week. Nearly all churches fall into one of these two camps to some degree, and they can often adhere to their position on this issue passionately; witness the deep objections many believers have over the "seeker service" pioneered by Willow Creek, for example. Even many church splits over seemingly trivial issues, such as updating to a "contemporary worship service" for example, are at their core splits over this same fundamental question: who is this church really for? Is it for those outside or inside? Should we alter our structure for the sake of those outside our community, or should we focus on keeping the insiders happy? Deep down, most Christians can't believe you can do both, and they tend to pick one side or the other. It is this supposed contradiction between discipleship/growth and evangelism/outreach that fuels much of the divisions in today's church.
So which should take precedence, you ask? Evangelism or discipleship? Though both approaches have their validity and solid Biblical footing, picking either side in this debate betrays a fundamentally flawed logic: that community, discipleship, and spiritual growth is naturally at odds with outreach, mission, and evangelism, and that one cannot be pursued simultaneously along with the other. But is it possible that discipleship and evangelism can not only be done together, but in fact should be and are one and the same?
We will explore this idea further in our next post.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Spiritual Schizophrenia...And Its Cure
All Christians have experienced what we can call "spiritual schizophrenia" on a regular basis. We find in ourselves two voices, two natures; one the old, selfish way of living that the Bible calls "old nature" or "the flesh," and the other that longs to please God and live in a manner that pleases Him, what the Bible calls the "new nature." These two natures fight and war with one another on a daily basis, and we struggle and strive to live by this new nature rather than the old. And this struggle never seems to end, does it? We long more than anything else to "get it right," learning to finally live by this new nature and live a life pleasing to Him after all He's done for us. And if we can't do this...well, He won't be pleased with us, and our relationship with Him will suffer, we're told. And after years of this struggle and pressure to please God...well, I just get tired. Don't you? I can't seem to even remember all the things God asks me to do, much less do them. Once I feel I am getting a handle on my materialism, for instance, my pride seems to be a problem. I try really, really hard to be more humble (can you really try to be humble? Seems like an oxymoron, but I digress...), but as soon as I improve there, I realize I need to be more patient with my kids. So I work on that...only to find I am not sharing my faith like I should. And on and on it goes. If you are a follower of Jesus, I'm sure you can relate. In fact, the apostle Paul did so himself; this very struggle is the topic of Romans 7. As Paul writes in a parallel passage in Galatians 5, "For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want" (Gal. 5:17). Over the centuries, this frustration and struggle produced by these two warring natures has been experienced by all followers of Jesus.
But as Paul says in the very next verse in Galatians, "if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law." Could it be that in Christ, God makes no demands on His children whatsoever, and we are hence "free from law"? Could it be that all of our striving and struggling, in light of this new "law of the Spirit of life" ushered in by Christ's work, is all in vain? Paul goes on in this passge to describe for us the "fruit of the Spirit" that can only be produced by "walking in the spirit": love, joy, peace, self control, to name but a few. These attributes and fruits of a "holy life" are exactly that: attributes and fruits, none of which can be produced by our efforts, struggle, or striving. Just as a tree cannot "try" to produce fruit, neither can we.
Further, these attributes become meaningless and vain if they are sought in themselves as ethical ideals or to meet an obligation to God; any righteousness produced by our striving (and there indeed can be some!) is in fact "righteousness by law" rather than "the righteousness of Christ by faith" (Phil. 3:9) that God really desires for His children. Hence, these true fruits of the Spirit can only be descriptions of what real life looks like, and by definition are not prescriptions for how we get life. In fact...might the entire New Testament , and all the ethical "commands" of Jesus and Paul be descriptive of life in God rather than prescriptive commands? Come to think of it, maybe His grace really is all we need! And as long as we continue to misunderstand His grace and fail to recognize that we are already righteous in Christ, mistakingly thinking that God still has demands and expectations of us...we'll continue our ceaseless efforts to “earn” God’s favor and gain points on our scorecard with a God who's no longer keeping score. As Paul writes, "it is [only] God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure" (Phil 2:13)." At the moment we try to get on that treadmill of "getting it right", it becomes a self-righteous effort to accomplish what Christ already accomplished for us at the Cross; at best, this results in a righteousness far from the righteousness that Christ has in mind for us.
So what, then, does such effortless, yet fruitful Christian living look like? How is achieved? Simply asking the question demonstrates our ingrained religious thinking, as we again seek a five point sermon, flowchart, or “cookie-cutter” formula that will release us to Spirit-led living. Just as our forefathers under the law, we would much rather run to a formula, prescription, method, or a human mediator instead of seeking God for ourselves. No man can teach another how to personally know and experience God under the New Covenant (Heb. 8:12), but we are promised that He will freely reveal Himself to anyone who is willing to truly seek Him (Jn 7:17, Heb. 11:6) And as we experience and learn to live in this unconditional, agenda-less Love of the Father, we will increasingly find that through no effort of our own, the fruit of a holy life begins to be produced. This transformation cannot be found through religion, rule keeping, or principles, but only through a personal encounter with Love in the depths of our being. Truly, such a glimpse of His glory with the eyes of faith will make us like Him (1 John 3:2) in a way that religion cannot. Oh, that we would learn to enter that rest that is found in God Himself, and find Him transforming us in the innermost parts through that encounter! May God guide us in this quest, and tangibly demonstrate to us that His grace is truly enough!
But as Paul says in the very next verse in Galatians, "if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law." Could it be that in Christ, God makes no demands on His children whatsoever, and we are hence "free from law"? Could it be that all of our striving and struggling, in light of this new "law of the Spirit of life" ushered in by Christ's work, is all in vain? Paul goes on in this passge to describe for us the "fruit of the Spirit" that can only be produced by "walking in the spirit": love, joy, peace, self control, to name but a few. These attributes and fruits of a "holy life" are exactly that: attributes and fruits, none of which can be produced by our efforts, struggle, or striving. Just as a tree cannot "try" to produce fruit, neither can we.
Further, these attributes become meaningless and vain if they are sought in themselves as ethical ideals or to meet an obligation to God; any righteousness produced by our striving (and there indeed can be some!) is in fact "righteousness by law" rather than "the righteousness of Christ by faith" (Phil. 3:9) that God really desires for His children. Hence, these true fruits of the Spirit can only be descriptions of what real life looks like, and by definition are not prescriptions for how we get life. In fact...might the entire New Testament , and all the ethical "commands" of Jesus and Paul be descriptive of life in God rather than prescriptive commands? Come to think of it, maybe His grace really is all we need! And as long as we continue to misunderstand His grace and fail to recognize that we are already righteous in Christ, mistakingly thinking that God still has demands and expectations of us...we'll continue our ceaseless efforts to “earn” God’s favor and gain points on our scorecard with a God who's no longer keeping score. As Paul writes, "it is [only] God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure" (Phil 2:13)." At the moment we try to get on that treadmill of "getting it right", it becomes a self-righteous effort to accomplish what Christ already accomplished for us at the Cross; at best, this results in a righteousness far from the righteousness that Christ has in mind for us.
So what, then, does such effortless, yet fruitful Christian living look like? How is achieved? Simply asking the question demonstrates our ingrained religious thinking, as we again seek a five point sermon, flowchart, or “cookie-cutter” formula that will release us to Spirit-led living. Just as our forefathers under the law, we would much rather run to a formula, prescription, method, or a human mediator instead of seeking God for ourselves. No man can teach another how to personally know and experience God under the New Covenant (Heb. 8:12), but we are promised that He will freely reveal Himself to anyone who is willing to truly seek Him (Jn 7:17, Heb. 11:6) And as we experience and learn to live in this unconditional, agenda-less Love of the Father, we will increasingly find that through no effort of our own, the fruit of a holy life begins to be produced. This transformation cannot be found through religion, rule keeping, or principles, but only through a personal encounter with Love in the depths of our being. Truly, such a glimpse of His glory with the eyes of faith will make us like Him (1 John 3:2) in a way that religion cannot. Oh, that we would learn to enter that rest that is found in God Himself, and find Him transforming us in the innermost parts through that encounter! May God guide us in this quest, and tangibly demonstrate to us that His grace is truly enough!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)