Missionary Me and Missionary You
Last night a group of guys came over to my house for an impromptu get together. I love all of these guys dearly. I told them that I wanted to talk about discipleship and evangelism… so, that’s what we talked about most of the night.
At the end, we concluded that we needed start praying for one another and for other more fervently, and we needed to be more direct and reminded one another that we are all missionaries, sent by God to proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ wherever we happen to be. (I’m not saying this to detract from those missionaries who travel to other states or countries to proclaim the good news.)
We’re not talking about adding a new evangelism program or a new discipleship program. Instead, we also concluded that in order to evangelize and disciple people in the way that we think God wants us to will take a change of lifestyle for everyone. Intentionally discipling one another and others will require a new way of living, much like being family with one another has required a new way of living.
What if we didn’t invite them to church?
Okay… so, suppose that you meet someone. For whatever reason, this person is interested in your faith in Jesus Christ. Over the course of some time, the person decides that he or she also wants to follow Jesus Christ.
What next?
Modern wisdom says, “Invite them to your church.”
But, what if you didn’t invite them to church?
What if, instead, you continued meeting with the person, and helped that person learn to disciple others… building a new community of believers… perhaps around the new believer’s neighborhood, or workplace, or school, or whatever.
What if you also taught that new follower of Jesus Christ how to disciple others toward forming their own groups of believers?
This sounds normal to most “missionary” contexts, but it sounds weird in my context. Why?
Conduct toward outsiders
In a facebook response to my post “Like a Charging Rhino“, my friend Hutch pointed me to the following passage:
Conduct yourselves wisely toward outsiders, making the best use of the time. Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person. (Colossians 4:5-6 ESV)
Here is the same passage in the New Living Translation:
Live wisely among those who are not believers, and make the most of every opportunity. Let your conversation be gracious and attractive so that you will have the right response for everyone. (Colossians 4:5-6 NLT)
Neither translation sounds like a charging rhino to me.
Evangelicalism = Caffeine Free Diet Coke
David Fitch at “Reclaiming the Mission” has written a very thought provoking article called “The Caffeine Free Diet Coke: A Metaphor for Evangelicalism in our Day?” Borrowing a metaphor that author Slavoj Zizek used to describe capitalism, Fitch asks us to think about Caffeine Free Diet Coke:
Zizek narrates how coca-cola was originally concocted as a medicine (originally known as a nerve tonic, stimulant and headache remedy). It was eventually sweetened and its strange taste was made more palatable. Soon it became a popular drink during prohibition that still possessed those medicinal qualities (it was deemed “refreshing†as well as the perfect “temperance drinkâ€). Over time, however, its sugar was replaced with sweetner, its caffeine extracted, and so today we are left with Caffeine-Free Diet Coke: a drink that does not fulfil any of the concrete needs of a drink. The two reasons why anyone would drink anything: it quenches thirst/provides nutrition and it tastes good, have in Zizek’s words “been suspended.â€
Today, Coke has become a drink that does not quench thirst, does not provide any stimulant and whose strange taste is not particularly satisfying. Nonetheless, it is the most consumed beverage in the world. It plays on the mysterious enjoyment we get out of consuming it as something to enjoy in surplus after we have already quenched our thirst. We drink Coke because “Coke is “itâ€â€ not because it satisfies anything material. In essence, all that remains of what was once Coke is a pure semblance, an artificial promise of a substance which never materialized. In Zizek’s words, we ‘drink nothing in the guise of something …†It is “in effect merely an envelope of a void.â€(22-23).
While Zizek compares caffeine free diet coke to capitalism, Fitch suggests that this can also be a metaphor for modern evangelicalism:
Just as our society drinks Coke as an “it,†as something that makes us feel good but has little substantial value as a drink, so we practice these beliefs as something we add on to our lives – not as something we need to live. It is something we do as an extra to our already busy lives that makes us feel better. Evangelical church, as symbolized in many ways by the large consumer mega churches, has become an “add-on,†“a semblance†of something which once meant something real. It is a surplus enjoyment we enjoy after we have secured all of our immediate needs.
Interestingly, a friend and I recently compared the modern church to a meal that consists only of desserts. We skip the meat, vegetables, and bread because we really like the dessert. Sometimes I wonder if we still know what the meat, vegetables, and bread are for the church…
(By the way, Fitch admits – and I agree – that this metaphor is a generalization and does not reflect the lives of all followers of Jesus Christ.)
(HT: Len)
Duplicating what God Created
Over the last few days, I’ve had conversations with different people around the idea of “duplicating what God created.” We didn’t call it that, and never used those words, but that was the point of our discussions.
What do I mean?
Well, as humans, we tend to be methodical. When we see something that “works,” we tend to want to re-created it… duplicating the systems and processes that seemed to produce the result. Often, we get good results. This works well in the scientific fields. But, in sociological fields – i.e., where people are involved – usually the “duplicates” fall short of the original.
Why? Well, simply put, because people are involved, and people are different from place to place and time to time.
This works into our church life as well. Perhaps a group of believers get together, and they make a huge impact on their community. People study this group of believers, and produce a system with the same activities and programs and ministries and leadership structure, etc. But, they don’t get the same results.
Why not? Because the people involved are different. The context is different. The gifts and opportunities are different.
Perhaps this is why we do not see a clear picture of what the church “looked like” in Scripture. If God gave us a clear picture of what the church looked like in Jerusalem, then many would try to duplicate it. If we had a clear understanding of how the church met in Thessalonika, then others would try to create the same kind of meeting. This kind of duplication will not work, because the people involved (i.e. the church) is different.
So, instead of giving a clear picture of what our church meetings should “look like” or how leadership should be structured, or what ministries we should pursue, we’re given different types of information. Whatever we do should be in love. However we meet, we should edify one another. Wherever we go and whatever we do and whoever leads us, we do so as family.
If we take these kinds of “normative” principles with us, it will not matter (as much) what the church meeting ultimately looks like, or how the leaders operate, or what kinds of ministries we pursue. And, we will recognize that while our meetings, leadership, and ministries may look different than another group’s, our goals and purposes are the same.
We will only be concerned when we find love missing, or mutual edification lacking, or family identification nullified. Then we will seek to rectify the problems… not because of wrong activities.
While we will rejoice about how God works among a group of believers, we will not jump at the “next big thing” that comes along, trying to force another group of believers into a mold created by different people.
Instead, we will be comfortably uncomfortable allowing God to create what he wants to create, with the people that he brings together, using the gifts and talents and opportunities that he gives them. And, we will recognize that it’s okay (and even expected) that we don’t look like another group of believers or that God is working differently in and through us.
And, we will happily refuse to try to duplicate what God may be creating somewhere else or at a different time or among a different group of people. Instead, we will focus on loving, edifying, caring, making disciples, and evangelizing the world as God has given us gifts, talents, opportunities, ministries, and resources.
Planned or Spontaneous? Formal or Informal?
When we make disciples, should our time together be planned or spontaneous? Formal or informal?
Yes… both/and.
If we never get around to talking about Jesus as the Son of God, or his death, burial, and resurrection, then we are not making disciples of Jesus Christ.
But, if we never deal with people where they are – dealing with their current problems, issues, struggles, etc. – then we are not making disciples of Jesus Christ.
Yes, we can have a plan to help us disciple people toward maturity in Christ, but we should never ignore the issues they are dealing with at that time.
Yes, we can help people live through their struggles and pains, but we should never ignore the great truths that Scripture tells us about Jesus Christ.
Our discipleship should be planned and spontaneous… formal and informal.
Really really good news
This is from James at “Idle musings of a bookseller” in his post “The really good news“:
“What’s good news to us now isn’t just that He died for us, though that is good news. It isn’t just that He’s with us, though that is good news. It isn’t just that He’s in us, helping us, though that is good news. The really good news is that He is in us, living His life as us. He has joined His Spirit with our spirit. In the unseen and eternal, there’s Deity inside us. We are not that Deity, but we are containers of that Deity.”— The Rest of the Gospel: When the partial Gospel has worn you out, page 62
That is good news, isn’t it!
Of course, everything mentioned in that post is part of the gospel – the good news of Jesus Christ. And, that’s not all. The gospel includes much, much more than that.
Of course, to put together a picture of the gospel that includes all of the aspects mentioned in James’ post, you would have to put together several passages of Scripture. In other words, there is not one passage of Scripture that describes the gospel in minute detail. In fact, the authors of Scripture usually only present that aspect of the gospel that furthers their argument or that would encourage their readers in that particular context.
So, what does that say about us? When we talk about the gospel, it’s important that we know what we’re talking about, right? But, is it always important for us to spell out every aspect – every facet – every detail of the gospel?
I’ve seen some people criticize authors or bloggers or speakers because the gospel presented in their book, or blog post, or speech was not complete enough for the critic. Is this a valid criticism? Would the authors of Scripture live up to this same criticism? I don’t think so.
So, why do we require others to present the gospel in such a way that the authors of Scripture did not?
Thinking About Narrative
There’s a huge discussion… long-running discussion… about interpreting narrative passages of Scripture like the Book of Acts. The question is: are the stories in Acts normative for the church today? This is the old descriptive vs. prescriptive discussion.
Certainly, the narrative parts of Scripture, including the Book of Acts, are descriptive. For example, in the Book of Acts, Luke describes what happened during the years following the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The fact that Acts is meant to be descriptive is rarely questioned.
But, did Luke also intend for the Book of Acts to be prescriptive? In other words, was he describing normative aspects of church life in the years following Jesus’ resurrection.
So, in reality, the descriptive vs. prescriptive question is this: Is Acts (and other narrative passages) descriptive only, or is the Book of Acts descriptive AND prescriptive.
As I’ve been thinking about this question, another set of questions came to mind:
1) If Luke only intended the Book of Acts to be descriptive, what benefit would the book be for his readers?
2) If Luke intended the Book of Acts to be descriptive and prescriptive, what benefit would the book be for his readers?
A Puppet on a String
Arthur at “the voice of one crying out in suburbia” has written another excellent post called “Faith, religion, control, power, money.” His first sentence spells out his point:
There is ample evidence throughout history that when you have people with strong faith under the influence of people with control you get a combustible mix.
He continues by pointing to examples in history where people are led to do things that they would not normally do because of the way they are controlled by those in authority. Historically, the church has succumbed to this as well.
What’s the antidote? Well, Arthur spells that out in his conclusion:
The church of Jesus Christ has its genesis in the submission of Christ to the cross, of Him condescending to take on a tabernacle of flesh, of emptying Himself for the sake of poor, miserable sinners. It has for its example the God of the universe washing the feet of His disciples, of a King with no place to lay His head, of God coming in the flesh as a helpless infant born of a peasant. We as His people exhibit strength in our weakness, claim foolishness as our source of wisdom and find our greatest power in powerlessness. The greatest among us are not the scholars or the mighty orators but instead are the servants (Matthew 20:25-28). Everything about the church of Christ and the Gospel of Christ is counter-intuitive to the world and its love of control. There is no place for those who seek control or hunger for power in His church.
Thank you, Arthur, for reminding us that a kingdom citizen will always seek to submit him or herself, and never seek to control another person.
Missional Stew
Two years ago, as part of a synchroblog with 50 other bloggers, I wrote a post called “Missional Stew.” The purpose of the synchroblog was to flesh out a definition of the term “missional.” For my post, I simply threw in a few ingredients that I think are necessary for a true missional stew. What do you think?
—————————————————
Rick at “The Blind Beggar” suggested a synchroblog to discuss the definition of the term “missional” (see his post “Call for Missional Synchroblog“). To be honest, I don’t know how much I’ll be able to add to this discussion. I’ve only recently begun to consider the meaning and implications of being missional. However, I’m looking forward to reading the other posts, and I encourage my readers to read and consider what other people are saying about the term “missional”.
When I was growing up, the “regional” airport in a large city near us decided that it wanted to steal some of the air traffic away from ATL (Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport). Over several years, there were studies and consultants and budgets and votes. Eventually, the airport made a huge decision – they decided to change their name from “regional airport” to “international airport” – as if changing the name would change who they were.
I think many followers of Jesus Christ may be attempting to add “missional” to whatever they already doing. But, adding the label “missional” to their meetings and programs does not make them missional. So, what does “missional” mean?
Several bloggers will be posting and defending their definitions of the term “missional”. To be completely honest, I don’t know exactly what it means. Instead of offering my own definition of “missional”, I thought I would throw a few ingredients into the stew (so to speak). In other words, whatever “missional” means or how “missional” is applied to someone’s life, I think it should include these things (not a comprehensive list):
Gospel: “Missional” is dependent upon the Gospel – the good news of Jesus Christ. I’m not talking about a “gospel presentation”. I’m talking about living a life that is reconciled to God through the finished work of Jesus Christ and the continuing work of his Spirit. It means recognizing that just as God has reconciled us to himself, he desires to reconcile “all things” to himself.
Relationship: “Missional” is relational. I don’t see any other way around it. God includes his children in his mission toward other people. It is a relational mission – both relationship with God and relationship with one another and relationship to the world.
Intentionality: “Missional” requires intentionality. I do not see how someone can be accidentally missional. This does not mean that missional activities are always pre-planned – they can be spontaneous. But, spontaneous acts of mission can still be intentional.
Cost: “Missional” is costly. This does not mean that you are being missional by only giving money. However, it does mean that living a missional life will cost you money, time, and energy, among other things. It may even cost your reputation (especially among religious types).
Love: When I originally wrote this post a couple of weeks ago, I did not include “love” as an ingredient in my missional stew. Why? Because I thought “love” was obvious. However, after further thought, I think “love” needs to be a part of any definition of “missional” – both the love of God and the love of others – both the love of other believers and the love of those who are not followers of Jesus.
Like I said earlier, I’m looking forward to reading more posts that actually define the term “missional”. I hope that many of them include some of these ideas.