I recently found myself in a bit of controversy. Let me briefly give you a bit of the back-story in case you don’t know. Back in September, 2009, Greg Gilbert published a very unfavorable review of Jim Belcher’s book Deep Church. I took issue with Gilbert’s review and also wondered if there was in fact a growing divide surrounding the idea of “missional” among the larger, Evangelical, Reformed World.
Then, almost as if on cue, to add fire to my suspicions, my friend Jonathan Leeman (and I really mean that, I do consider him a friend!) published the piece: “Is The God Of The Missional Gospel Too Small?” I wrote a response to Jonathan called: “A Growing Divide? 9 Marks and “Missional.” This piece was picked up on Twitter by Matt Chandler and even found Ed Stetzer weighing in, saying “I share Brent’s concern.”
Apparently I struck a nerve. I was amazed at the number of people who said that they shared my concerns. Many in the Missional camp feel rebuffed by those in more traditional corners, while those in the traditional corners sing a chorus saying that there is no clear “missional position” to disagree with in the first place. As Stetzer says: “My guess is, guys like Leeman can try harder, and some missional thinkers could be more clear.”
I have thought a lot about why that post received so much attention. On the one hand, there is a growing group of young, conservative, mostly-Reformed evangelicals rallying around “missional” and on the other, there is equal and growing concern in many Reformed camps surrounding this move. So much concern, in fact, that Jonathan Leeman, for 9 Marks Ministries, would wonder aloud if “missional” isn’t in fact another inroad for liberalism.
How is it that we can find ourselves in the middle of such an obvious disconnect? How is it that we can have conservative men like Tim Keller, Ed Stetzer, Mark Driscoll, Matt Chandler and others adopt a concept that 9 Marks worries opens the door to liberalism?
One of the concerns leveled against “missional” is that it is a junk-drawer word. You know that drawer in your house where you throw everything that doesn’t have its own place? Many people say that this is “missional,” everyone means something different by the word, so what good is it? I have even shared these sentiments, because that’s what I was told. But the more I really began to dig around, the more I began to wonder if there wasn’t in fact much more of a consensus surrounding missional than critics like to admit.
At its root, “missional” is concerned with the Missio Dei, the mission of God. God is on a mission to restore all things to Himself through the person and work of Jesus Christ. In the pursuit of this mission, the Father sends the Son, the Father and the Son send the Spirit and God sends the church. Matthew 28:18-20, John 20:21, and a host of other verses clearly teach that Believers are not only God’s called people, they are also His sent people.
Practically, this means that, while there are some people that God calls to go to the “foreign” mission field, most of us are already missionaries in our immediate context. Missions is the work of contextualization, studying a culture and penetrating it with the Gospel, transforming it from within in culturally appropriate and biblically faithful ways. In this sense, every believer is called to be “missional,” to live “on mission” in the context in which God has already placed him/her. It is a reorientation of the life of the church around mission.
What’s surprising to me is that many of the missional critics would actually agree with this presentation and even say that they try to live this way. Why then the dust-up? As far as I can tell, many of the missional critics of are concerned, not so much with the theology of their otherwise like-minded brothers, but those emergenters (I chose this term because “emergent” and “emerging” are not always the same stream of thought and those identified with “Emergent” are typically more liberal in their theology) who also use the word “missional.” The problem seems to be that many conservative and more liberal folks are both using the word missional, and in fact, mean very similar things if not the same thing. But their theology is so different in other areas that conservative missional critics then insist that the word itself is either unclear at best or just plain bad because liberal people are using the word too. In other words, I wonder if it’s not a case of guilt by association. Emergenters use the word, therefore it must be fuzzy or bad or both because much of their theology is fuzzy or bad or both.
This seems to me a reason why Greg Gilbert so off-handedly dismissed Belcher’s book. Though Belcher took great pains to identify the different strands of emerging thought, Gilbert lumped it all in with Brian McLaren, said there can be no dialogue with folks like McLaren and promptly threw the poor little baby out with the bathwater. I wonder if that’s not something like what’s happened in the missional conversation as well. The term is not actually as fuzzy as some would like to make it out to be (although it is probably a bit more fuzzy than it ought to be) but that there is such a wide swath of people using the term that it is just simply easier to libel the term itself as unusable, or worse, as the beginning spores of the mold of liberalism?
Pastor Thomas,
Please allow me to share with you my thoughts on the whole Missional and Emergenters movements. A little backdrop about myself if I may. I attended a traditional Reformed Baptist Church many years ago until the leadership of the church started going down the path with such men as Mark Driscoll, Tim Keller, and John Frame. Sadly it led to a large church split. So suffice to say I am aware of the teachings of such movements. Where am I today I am a uber-traditionalist or what I like to call Classical Theology. Due to the issues at the Reformed Baptist Church it led me into deeper theological studies that led me into Reformed “Covenanter” very old school theology. So I am on the other side of the Missional and Emergenters movements.
There are in my own view so many issues in the Missional movement that I am not even sure where to begin. Let me try to hit some of the most important areas.
1. Culture. The Missional movement seems bend on adopting the culture around us for the sake evangelizing. Even though people are saved in such contexts the ends do not justify the means. All culture is nothing more then religion externalized, whether that culture is Christian or Heathen. We are called to bring the gospel to all nations and to teach them all things I have commanded you. In other words we are to transform the culture around us to a Christian culture and a Covenanted Nation. We are not to adopt the Heathen Culture around us. We are even called not to like the things of the world. I believe there are no neutralities in culture. There is either a Heathen Culture or a Christian culture and that will depend on the religion that is influencing the nation. Much in the Missional movement adopts worldly music into the church and in our lives, adopts the cultural standards of dress and modesty, changes and adds to God’s eternal unchangeable Covenantal Worship, adopts pragmatic and Armenian methods of Evangelism and much more all for the sake of a “Get out of hell free card”. We are not selling Fire Insurance, Evangelism though important is NOT the most important part of the Christians life. Evangelism is not the end but a means to the end. The end is Worship, which is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever. God calls worshipers out.
2. Worship is unchangeable and is rooted in God’s Holiness. The Missional movement has thrown out the Reformed Doctrine of worship which is the Doctrine of Scriptural Warrant or in Modern parlance The Regulative Principle of Worship. The Missional movement changes and adopts different patterns and elements of worship in order to draw in unbelievers. But I believe that God is angry when we change His worship. Only God can tell us what pleases Him. It is ALL about him and what pleases Him. It is not a social club but Worship of the one true God. Changing God’s Sabbath Day worship is a violation of the Second Commandment which is to bring to God only what He commands. Even the littlest change is displeasing. Nadab and his brother did not think that changing just one little aspect of how to bring and prepare fire would be so wrong but God consumed them where they stood for bringing strange fire which the Lord did not command. There is not only set elements of worship but there are fixed set of cycle patterns of worship and is Dialogical. All must be in conformity to what God has prescribed. As Reformed we do not just believe that worship and the church is some new plan of God’s that just got started in the New Testament. We believe the Church was born on Mount Sinai and that the Sabbath Day Worship has been the same since the beginning. Prayer, Singing Psalms, Reading the Word, Proclamation of the Word, and the Substance of the Sacraments are unchangeable in the Covenant of Grace. The Substance of the Sacraments remain the same but the external visual sign of them as changed. Only the Temple and all of it’s figures and anti-type shadows was temporary. But the Temple was not the Ordinary Sabbath Day worship which was the Synagogue. The Israelites were only required to go to the Temple a few times a year. Our worship is the continuation of the Sabbath Day worship of the Synagogue which is unchangeable. The New Covenant Church is a restoring or renewing of the Church on Mount Sinai. In fact in Hebrew the words New Covenant actually means Renewed Covenant. The Missional movement changes God’s eternal worship to draw people in and adopt the music patterns of the world. They add drama and loads of other elements along with a high visual effects which is contrary to the word of God. the only visuals God has given us is Baptism and the Eucharist. Of course the Missional movement is not alone but much of the church has gone the same road and adopted unbiblical elements such as drama, plays, man-made songs, etc, or even pre-figured temple elements such as musical instruments, choruses, etc,. So much can be said about this topic but I think I need to move on.
3. Unbiblical Evangelistic Methods. I believe that the Word of God does not give us a blank check to the methods of Evangelism. We must only Evangelize in the Methods God has given us by command or example in the Word of God. I also believe that different methods are given to certain people and not to others. For example, Matthew 28:18-20 is not given to every single person in the Church. Who is Christ speaking to here? He is speaking to the Apostles who are the elders and pastors of the Church. The Church is to sent out ordained elders to evangelize and plant churches. This passage can not be speaking to laymen because it also calls for teaching ALL I have commanded you and to Baptize. Are all called to teach, are all called the Baptize. Only Pastors are called to teach and only Pastors are called to Baptize. The Sacraments are given to the Pastors to dispense according to 1 Cor. 10. So Matthew 28:18-20 is not talking about laymen. But what are the requirements for laymen. Well there are a few. Christ calls us to be Light and Salt to the world. How we live our lives and how we speak to one another is evangelism to the world. Pray for the lost, Give to the needy. All of these are methods of evangelism that laymen are to do. In addition we are called to “give the reason for the faith within us” when asked. We are called to evangelize our children and teach them the faith.
All that I have said above is traditional Reformed understanding. But, so much more can be said, so much more can be added. There are many more areas that the Missional movement has gone away from classical Reformed theology. But I am pressed for time and needing to wrap this up. I believe those areas are the largest problems when it comes to Classical Reformed Theology and the Reformed Missional Movement. It is a wide gulf and I do not believe with the issues at stake can be rectified within the Reformed Communions. For me it is not some petty doctrinal issue that is secondary or tertiary that should not cause divisions but primary. How do we worship God? How do we reach lost souls? How are we to sanctify our lives and be Holy? How do we obey God? All of these areas are primary. For what is the whole duty of man, but to fear God, and obey His commandments.
Mikhael
Brent,
I am not as familiar with all the circles that you write about and run in. But, it seems like what is needed is a solid book by a solid Reformed theologian giving a solidly theological definition and biblical support for a missional understanding of the church. Rather than starting with examples of what people are doing to be “missional”, we need to start with the theology behind it.
Thankfully, Chris Wright has done that in “The Mission of God.” Have you read this? For me, it lays out a theology of mission to build upon.
Also, Michael Goheen’s next book should be very helpful in laying out a biblical basis for a missional ecclesiology.
I just think starting the conversation with these works rather than weak straw men back and forth would be a better way about it.
Chris
‘Emergenters’…nice. Did you coin that? it nicely sidesteps a lot of the crazines…
That long comment above illustrates my point. Why not deal with Wright and other’s biblical argumentation and make the Scriptures the baseline for the “Missional” discussion, rather than the “traditional Reformed understandings”.
Am I allowed to say that?
Chris,
My presupposition was that “traditional Reformed understandings” are correct and scriptural. Beside the fact that I used scripture references instead of confessional references which even by itself is not wrong since the Reformed confessions are based on scriptures and takes the scriptures into a systematic view. And please don’t use that old cliche “no confession but the bible” because everybody has a confession whether written or oral on what the bible teaches and what one confirms to be truth from the bible. I also believe Confessionalism to be both Biblical and necessary. That does not mean I believe confessions to be perfect or equal to the bible. In fact I take few exceptions to my confession the Westminster Confession though I will say that my exceptions are few (two) and relativity minor.
Brent,
I kinda like your picture…the bird on the cross is obviously a reference to the Holy Spirit and we all know how missional that is. And, the arrow points to the people and their need for a Savior. Bravo!
Mikhael wrote:
“Changing God’s Sabbath Day worship is a violation of the Second Commandment which is to bring to God only what He commands. Even the littlest change is displeasing.”
Why aren’t we meeting on Saturday’s anymore?
Why can’t 9marks make up it’s mind? http://www.9marks.org/CC/article/0,,PTID314526_CHID598016_CIID2264226,00.html
DJ,
Because the Lord’s Day is the Christian Sabbath now. The Sabbath command is moral law, but what day of the week it falls on is positive law. We mankind have no right to change either moral or positive laws. God can not change moral law because it is part of who he is or in other words it is part of His attributes. Since God is Holy and unchanging so to is the 613 moral law commandments which are summarized in the 10 Commandments and further summarized into 2 commandments. Summarization does not nullify the previous summarization nor does it nullify the complete moral law. Now positive law is not bound by God Holy being or His attributes but by the holy will. There is nothing inherently moral about what day of the week the sabbath falls on except by the choice God. God had from the beginning of the world to the resurrection chosen the seventh day of the week for the weekly Sabbath and from the resurrection to the second coming of Christ has chosen the first day of the week as the new Sabbath.
The Westminster Confession of Faith summarizes it perfectly with the following..
As it is of the law of nature that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in his Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto him: (a) which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week; and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, (b) which in Scripture is called the Lord’s day, (c) and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath. (d)
a. Exod 20:8, 10-11; Isa 56:2, 4, 6-7. • b. Gen 2:2-3; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:1-2. • c. Rev 1:10. • d. Exod 20:8, 10 with Mat 5:17-18.
This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts, about their worldly employments and recreations; (a) but also are taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy. (b)
a. Exod 20:8; 16:23, 25-26, 29-30; 31:15-17; Isa 58:13; Neh 13:15-22. • b. Isa 58:13; Mat 12:1-13.
Mikhael,
Thanks. I mean no offense by saying this, but your answer does not seem satisfactory to me. I find it confusing. I lean towards New Covenant Theology myself and believe that Christ is my Sabbath rest.
DJ,
Actually our final rest is in heaven through Jesus Christ. The Sabbath still pictures this for us. It is our anticipation of our final rest which is worship in heaven for all eternity through Jesus Christ.
The faithfulness of Moses and Jesus Christ is spoken of in the first six verses of the third chapter of Hebrews. Beginning in verse 7, Psalm 95 is quoted to document the failure of the first generation of Israel as a lesson to God’s people today. Disobedience because of unbelief was the main cause of their failure to enter the rest promised to them (verses 18-19).
The fourth chapter begins with an admonition to faith and obedience as a prerequisite for receiving the rest that is still available to God’s people. No one has yet entered that rest, and not because God hadn’t prepared it—for in fact, it was finished from the foundation of the world (Hebrews 4:3). That God rested on the seventh day from all His works indicates as much (verse 4).
Now we come to a controversial statement: “There remains therefore a rest for the people of God” (verse 9).
The Greek word translated “rest” in every other verse throughout Hebrews 3 and 4 is katapausis. But the word translated “rest” in Hebrews 4:9 is sabbatismos. This is the only New Testament occurrence of this word, and its meaning is fundamental to understanding this pivotal verse, which is the conclusion of everything previously said about “rest” beginning in Hebrews 3:7.
The Anchor Bible Dictionary states regarding the meaning of sabbatismos: “The words ’sabbath rest’ translate the [Greek] noun sabbatismos, a unique word in the NT. This term appears also in Plutarch . . . for sabbath observance, and in four post-canonical Christian writings . . . for ’sabbath celebration’” (p. 855).
“The experience of ’sabbath rest’ points to a present ‘rest’ (katapausis) reality in which those ‘who have believed are entering’ (4:3) and it points to a future ‘rest’ reality (4:11). Physical sabbath-keeping on the part of the new covenant believer as affirmed by ’sabbath rest’ epitomizes cessation from ‘works’ (4:10) in commemoration of God’s rest at creation (4:4 = Genesis 2:2) and manifests faith in the salvation provided by Christ.
“Hebrews 4:3-11 affirms that physical ’sabbath rest’ (sabbatismos) is the weekly outward manifestation of the inner experience of spiritual rest (katapausis) in which the final. Thus ’sabbath rest’ combines in itself creation-commemoration, salvation-experience, and eschaton [end-time]-anticipation as the community of faith moves forward toward the final consummation of total restoration and rest.
This spiritual rest begins now in this life in the weekly Sabbath Rest and reaches its consummation in the resurrection to eternal life at the return of Christ (Revelation 20:6). His return also signals the beginning of the millennial rest prophesied in the Old Testament.
The book of Hebrews cleverly weaves together three themes of rest—the rest promised to Israel (Christians) from enemies, the physical rest of the weekly Sabbath, and the spiritual rest through Christ. The conclusion is that Sabbath-keeping is still necessary for the people of God, the New Testament Church.
As Hebrews 4:10 affirms, we must all labor to enter the spiritual rest and continue to keep the weekly Sabbath out of obedience to God and because of what it portrays in His great master plan.