Re: Mark Driscoll

There are lots of people who want Mark Driscoll to fail and fall. I am not one of them. I love and respect Pastor Mark. His preaching helped saved my life. I have profited immensely from his ministry, especially in my early days of church planting and trying to figure out what missional ministry could look like among young adults. I do not know Mark personally. We have never exchanged so much as email messages. But we have mutual friends. He was kind enough to endorse my first book. During my time with the Docent Research Group, I did some editing work on a few of his book manuscripts. When I wrote the piece linked above, he was gracious enough to send a note of thanks and encouragement through his personal assistant. It touched me deeply. I want to repeat: I do not want Pastor Mark to fail and fall. I just want him to walk in step with the truth of the gospel.

I would “confront” him to his face if I could. Even though this is not a Matthew 18 situation, and Pastor Mark has not sinned against me personally, last week I tried to contact him privately through the two avenues available to me, but I received no response. I did not demand or even expect one. I know Pastor Mark is a very busy man, and since we do not really know each other, he has no obligation to me, and I don’t mean to suggest he does. He doesn’t. And if I’d had the opportunity to speak to him, as I requested, I would have done so respectfully and gently. I do hope what I’m writing right now will not be read as unkind or argumentative or ungraciously accusatory.   Continue at Jared Wilson

Everyday Christianity: A Faith Free From The Accidental Pharisaism of Missional, Radical, Crazy and Other Superlatives

Every day matters. This is the very simple message of what it means to be made in the image and likeness of God and to live one’s life to the glory of God. You don’t need to be “missional.” You don’t even need to be “radical” (especially since radical commonly means “very different from the norm”). 

In fact, the Bible does not encourage superlative adjectives to describe following Christ at all. Adjectival superlatives tend to create new forms of legalism whereby the work and person of Christ is no longer sufficient to be in right relationship with God. The norm is not enough. Although those promoting various adjectives have no intention of doing harm, hearers often embrace the adjective as the basis of genuine faith instead of the language of Scripture.

Young Christian adults are torn in a sea of modern adjectives that tend to become shame-filled and often debilitating burdens. Larry Osborne warns about five tribal communities that may be accidentally doing harm: 

(1) “Radical” Christians, 

(2) “Crazy” Christians, 

(3) “Missional” Christians, 

(4) “Gospel-Centered” Christians and 

(5) Revolutionary and Organic Christians. According to Osborne, each of these tribes has inadvertently created accidental pharisaism because if one does not live out one’s Christian life according to the norms and codes of their respective tribe one will be looked down upon. Moreover, for those within each tribe, it leaves them vulnerable to the arrogant narcissism that believes “our” tribe gets Christianity “right” while the others are substandard.   Continue at Anthony Bradley

The New Legalism: Missional, Radical, Narcissistic, and Shamed

Anthony Bradley, Associate Professor of Theology and Ethics at The King’s College in New York City, has an excellent article today over at the Acton Institute’s Power blog. He starts with an observation he made recently on Facebook and Twitter:

Being a “radical,” “missional,” Christian is slowly becoming the “new legalism.” We need more ordinary God and people lovers (Matt 22:36-40).

He goes on to explain his comment:

I continue to amazed by the number of youth and youth adults who are stressed and burnt out from the regularly shaming and feelings of inadequacy if they happen to not being doing something unique and special. Today’s Millennial generation is being fed the message that if they don’t do something extraordinary in this life they are wasting their gifts and potential. The sad result is that many young adults feel ashamed if they “settle” into ordinary jobs, get married early and start families, live in small towns, or as 1 Thess 4:11 says, “aspire to live quietly, and to mind [their] affairs, and to work with [their] hands.” For too many Millennials their greatest fear in this life is being an ordinary person with a non-glamorous job, living in the suburbs, and having nothing spectacular to boast about.

Dr. Bradley goes on to explain two major factors in how this happened:   Continue at Rachel Miller

All Dressed Up with Nothing To Say

We follow an incarnate Savior who ate with sinners and dialoged with intellectuals. The apostle Paul quotes Greek philosophers, Jude references non-canonical texts, and Proverbs gladly borrows wisdom from the Egyptians. As Augustine put it, "A person who is a good and true Christian should realize that truth belongs to his Lord, wherever it is found." What's more, the broader culture is not just a sphere from which to distill truths, but also a stage on which the gospel can be performed. We enter into the world as witnesses to Christ, taking every thought captive for his glory. We disciple nations and cultures; we stand before Caesar and witness for Christ.

I say all of this up front because I still very much believe in this calling. We are not only concerned with souls or individuals' internal lives. Christianity heralds a kingdom that right now presses against the gates of this world and will one day topple them. However, I can't help feeling like the shifting waters that carried me out of Christian isolationism have---for too many of the people who joined me in this exodus---overflowed the other bank.

Uncritically Missional

 

For example, I occasionally read "missional" publications, and for all their insistence on dialoging with culture, what I see mostly applauds it. I hear lectures about finding God in Sex and the City, horror movies, and mass-market hip-hop, but after having found God there no one seems to notice the sexual scars, splatter porn, and glorified thuggery. I try to have conversations about art or music or best-selling novels and discover that many Christian friends still cannot wrestle with them in a cruciform way. Put simply, we have lost our sense of cultural critique.

I understand that many of us are reacting to being told something that was once wrong is now okay. Teetotalers sometimes turn into drunks once they're allowed to have a pint or two. Many of us seem to have an angry little fundamentalist minister on our shoulders still chastising us for worldly pursuits, and we're doing everything possible to avoid considering he might be just a little bit right. The problem is, while a call for cultural engagement set us free from a moralistic avoidance mentality, cultural engagement has too easily been replaced by acculturation.

Put another way, Christians ought to be engaged with culture so we can challenge it, remake it, and---at times---bear prophetic witness against it. We, like our Savior, walk in the world as witnesses to a greater world to come. To be in it, but not of it. Instead, what started as putting on our suits to get in the door has turned into an attempt to blend into the crowd. We are all dressed up with nothing to say.  Continue at Eric Tonjes

The Mission of the Church: An Ecclesiological Question

We were pleased to host Christopher J.H. Wright at Southeastern Seminary last week as he delivered the annual Page Lectures. His theme for the lectures was “The Bible and the Mission of God,” which is an important and somewhat controversial topic among evangelicals. His two lectures were titled “Reading the Whole Bible for Mission: What Happens When We do?” and “God, Israel, and the Nations: The Old Testament and Christian Mission.” Both of his excellent lectures can be viewed on the multimedia page of the SEBTS website.

Wright is a prolific Old Testament scholar and missional theologian. He is the author of a couple of very important books on mission titled The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (IVP Academic, 2006) and The Mission of God’s People: A Biblical Theology of the Church’s Mission (Zondervan, 2010). In those books, Wright lays out a holistic understanding of mission that is rooted in the Bible’s grand narrative and that results in the final redemption of the cosmos. The church participates in God’s mission by proclaiming the good news of God’s salvation in Christ through word and deed in every sphere of life. In many ways, this view of mission is a continuation of the position advocated by John Stott in his classic book Christian Mission in the Modern World (IVP, 1975) and articulated by the Lausanne movement through the Lausanne Covenant (1974), Manila Manifesto (1989), and Cape Town Commitment (2011).  Keep Reading>>>

 

See Also: Mission Critical

The Ordinary Means of Growth

We are living in a confused and confusing time for confessional Christians (Christians who are anchored by a public and corporate theological commitment to be faithful to the Bible’s teaching on faith and practice as expounded by the great confessions of the Protestant Reformation). We are witnessing the final demise of theological liberalism, the rise of Pentecostalism, the beginnings of the so-called emerging church movement, the breakdown of evangelicalism, and an utter discombobulation about how the church is to conduct its life and ministry in an increasing “post-Christian” culture. All around us, in the name of reaching the culture with the Gospel, we see evangelical churches compromising (usually without intending to) in both message and methods.

It is not uncommon today to hear certain buzz-words and catch phrases that are meant to capture and articulate new (and presumably more culturally-attuned) approaches to ministry: “Purpose-driven,” “missional,” “contextualization,” “word and deed,” “ancient-future,” “emerging/emergent,” “peace and justice.” Now, to be sure, there are points, diagnoses, and emphases entailed in each of these terms and concepts that are helpful, true, and timely. Sadly, however, the philosophies of ministry often associated with this glossary are also often self-contrasted with the historic Christian view of how the church lives and ministers. That view is often called “the ordinary means of grace” view of ministry.

The fundamental assumption underlying these new approaches is that “everything has changed,” and so our methods must change. I would want to dispute both parts of that equation. Whatever the entailments of our present cultural moment, constituent human nature has not changed.  And thus the fundamental human problem has not changed. Neither has the Gospel solution to it. Nor have the effectiveness of God’s Gospel means. Furthermore, one of the things that has always marked faithful and effective Christian ministry in every era and area of the world is a confidence in God’s Word, both in the Gospel message and in Gospel means. Faith still comes by hearing.

In sum, there are basically three views of Gospel ministry. There are those who think that effective cultural engagement requires an updating of the message. There are those who think that effective ministry requires an updating of our methods. And there are those who think that effective ministry begins with a pre-commitment to God’s message and methods, set forth in His Word.  Keep Reading >>>

The Next Big Thing

The debate over the book on The Mission of the Church by Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert [here and here] over at the Gospel Coalition and beyond is fascinating, both for its content and because it is likely a premonition of battles to come.  I have not yet read the book but the debate has pushed it to the top of my reading list and the reviews - negative and positive - lead me to believe that as of this moment I am very much with the authors not their critics on the matter of the church.

The debate reflects a number of tensions within the broader "gospel centered" scene, not least that between pastor-exegetes and leader-sociologists.   Part of the problem is that the current revival in reformed theology is not actually a revival in Reformed theology. Adherence to five or, more frequently, four points of Calvinism is that which qualifies one as reformed these days and thus as part of the movement.  Yet such adherence leaves massive and important areas of theology and church life undecided. A movement built on such minimal agreement is a movement whose strength and unity depends to a large degree on sleight of hand or at least on pretending that much else can be filed under `Agree to differ.'

The Gospel Coalition represents this in a number of ways. Its constituency enjoys consensus on a few important areas but much else is left open: some high-profile adherents regard multi-site as the wave of the future, others regard it as of the Devil; some regard T D Jakes as a Christian brother and a leader, others are horrified by him and his theology.  I suspect there is also disagreement over the issue of cultural transformation.   Keep Reading >>>

Junk Food

We all know an exclusive diet of Big Macs isn’t just a bad idea—it’s more like suicide. But it’s even worse to gobble down the half-eaten burgers and cold rubbery fries you find under the back seat of your car. Repulsive, right? But Christians are doing the very same thing.

It wasn’t that long ago that Bill Hybels stood in front of his church—Willow Creek, one of the early pioneers of church growth theory—with his mea culpa. (I’d link to the video of Hybels saying, “We made a mistake,” but they’ve apparently pulled it from their website. But here’s a link to an early newsflash.) After decades of practicing church growth principles, Hybels said, “Some of the stuff that we have put millions of dollars into thinking it would really help our people grow and develop spiritually, when the data actually came back, it wasn't helping people that much.” Yeah, kinda like fast food.

Today’s church-growth gurus have repackaged the same church-growth theories in cool-sounding, ministry buzzwords like incarnational, missional, and attractional. After a few bites, it becomes apparent that it’s nothing more than half-eaten burgers and cold fries. And it’s not a meal that gets better with age.

One of the more distasteful aspects of the contemporary version of church growth is the franchising, the brand propagation. Cookie-cutter churches are popping up everywhere, powered by church-growth principles, launched with shrewd marketing strategies, legitimized by impressive stats, and stamped with the brand of the celebrity leader and his church franchise. In some cases, you’ll even find the evangelical version of a PlayPlace and a clown. It’s a pattern that works, established by corporate, coming to a church near you.   Keep Reading >>>

Church-Planting and Pulpit-Priority

If you have tuned in to church-planting chatter lately, you may have heard something along these lines: “We’re more about community, you’re about a Sunday event.” “We’re more about being missional, you’re more about a pulpit.” It’s an emphasis on community and/or mission, over preaching.

Similarly, I recently heard this advice: “If you are on your way to the Sunday gathering and see your neighbor painting his fence, forget the gathering, turn around, go home and get your paintbrush.”

Now, serving our neighbors for the gospel is faithful, no doubt. Painting your neighbors fence could be in-roads to sharing the only message that saves. 

Genuine biblical community is a non-negotiable for the local church.

Dangerous Dichotomies

Even so, among church-planting discussion, there seems to be a false distinction between “community” and “missional,” and the ministry of the pulpit. There is a temptation to consider the pulpit a less fashionable, or even an optional, accoutrement to real, church-planting ministry.    Keep Reading>>>

Church Planters and Missionolatry

I heard a pastor say recently: “If you know Jesus, I am sorry to break it to you: this church is not for you.” He continued by addressing those who came to know Jesus the previous week at the church: “Last week was the last week that [this church] existed for you.” Though maybe not to this degree, I think many of us fledgling-planters have erred on the side of an “its-all-about-mission” philosophy of ministry.

Certainly it is exciting when droves of souls are genuinely converted to Jesus Christ. No doubt, the church always needs a zeal for evangelism and I frequently see a lack thereof in myself, rooted in pride and laziness. Repentance is needed. Insofar as doxological zeal exists in church-planters, we ought to praise God.

However, grave consequences result among young church-planters and pastors who—even unknowingly—embrace an “all-about-mission,” “this-church-is-no-longer-for-you,” and “the-gospel-causes-us-to-look-up…not-in-to-ourselves-and-how-we’re-doing,” philosophy of ministry.

The error is that sanctification gets sacrificed on the altar of mission. It is an error I have made in my ministry, being so fixated on getting people in, I have neglected those who are already there.     Keep Reading>>>

The Incarnation Is About a Person, Not a Mission

For several weeks now, I’ve talked and corresponded with ministry leaders and pastors who are thinking hard about the mission of the church and evangelism. Our conversations have centered around the word incarnational, a common way for many to characterize their ministry today.

I suggest we abandon this usage and will make that case in this article. But I realize these church leaders are doing praiseworthy work in difficult places, places where many of us would hesitate to bring our families. And I want to let those who use the term speak for themselves so my response accounts for the best arguments for describing our ministry as incarnational.

From the Incarnation to Incarnational 

The fact that so many are attempting to work out the theological significance of God becoming man is, at first glance, noteworthy and encouraging. There is a refreshing lack of business/CEO talk in all of it. Alan Hirsch, author of several books including The Forgotten Ways and Untamed, wants to put the incarnation back into the imagination of the church’s mission. For Hirsch, incarnational gives us a more theologically rich vision than what sociological terms like contextualization and enculturation can provide. He says, “If missional means going out (being sent into the world), then incarnational means going deep down into the culture.” Hirsch elaborates: Keep Reading...

Missional Church or New Monasticism?

Some of us remember the Tears for Fears song, "Everybody Wants to Rule the World." Yet the mantra today is more about changing the world than ruling it. Lots of younger Christians are tired of spiritual consumerism and evangelism pitches about inviting Jesus into your heart so you can go to heaven when you die. There has to be more to Christianity than "soul-saving." Isn't there something in there about "the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting"? About a new creation? Don't we sing "Joy to the World," anticipating the blessings of Christ's kingdom extending "far as the curse is found"? 

Nevertheless, a legitimate question can be raised as to whether this newfound interest in creation redeemed is still guided by a paradigm that owes more to monasticism than to the world-affirming piety of the Reformation.

The New Monasticism

Medieval monasticism was divided between those who prized the contemplative life (spiritual ascent to heaven through private disciplines of the mind) and those who gave priority to the active life (spiritual ascent through good works, especially for the poor). Francis of Assisi—and the Franciscan Order named after him—emphasized the latter. 

First, today we see a revival of contemplative spirituality. It is a traditional evangelical emphasis on personal piety: discipleship as inner transformation through spiritual disciplines. Richard Foster's Celebration of Discipline (1979) introduced many evangelicals to the medieval mystics and contemplative writers. From The Divine Conspiracy (1998) to The Great Omission: Reclaiming Jesus' Essential Teachings on Discipleship (2006), Dallas Willard has repeated this call to discipleship: inner transformation through the spiritual disciplines. Keep Reading>>>

For the Cause of the Son of God - Missions or Missional

In Boer’s view, mission is not so much what Christ commanded the church to do as much as what the church spontaneously and naturally is.  While there is much to be said for the leading of the Holy Spirit and the fact that he does spontaneously and naturally lead the church in Christ’s ways, we need to recognize that Boer’s position comes dangerously close to separating law and revelation.  This same criticism has been levelled at cosmonomic philosophy by J. Douma and W. Nieboer. What happens then is that mission becomes whatever the church does rather than what Christ commanded the church to do.  One might argue that a dissonance here is unlikely or impossible since the church will always be naturally led by the Holy Spirit to follow Christ’s Word.  However, such a view is vulnerable to being labelled as an over-realized soteriology that does not adequately take into account the effects of sin.  For this reason, it is better to speak in the categories of purpose and laws.  God’s laws are the imperatives given in his Word; these include the Cultural Mandate and the Great Commission.  His Holy Spirit leads and empowers God’s redeemed people to obey these laws, if only in a small measure in this life.  God’s purposes are the reason why a given part of his creation exists, and while this can be distinguished from God’s laws, it cannot be separated.  Man exists in the first place to give glory to God; the same must be said for the church (Ephesians 1:11-12).  Yet clearly, as part of that grand purpose, the command for mission has also been given. Read it all HERE

Missional Misfires

Missional Misfire (3)

Missional Misfire (2)

Missional Misfire (1)

The Gospel and Social Action

D. A. Carson

Missional Church

Pyromaniac1
Pyromaniac2