A Roundtable on What it Means to be "Missional"

The Mission of the Church from Ben Peays on Vimeo.

We are called to be communities of declaration and demonstration.  I know that Greg and Kevin would affirm this statement but after watching the video I am left with the sense that we have to choose which one we are going to emphasize more.  I am certainly open to correction on this, but I would like to humbly suggest that we always aspire to speak of these two realities in tandem and not prioritize or dichotomize them.  

If we separate these two by saying that one is primary and the other is somehow secondary (or even A and A1) we run the risk of diminishing the gospel.  If we fail to preach, no one gets saved and God is not glorified.  If we fail to live in light of our salvation our witness is crippled and God is not glorified (Matt. 5:16).  Our identity has implications.  We should emphasize how to have a Christian identity (declaration) and we should also emphasize the implications of that identity (demonstration).  

Ephesians 2:8, 9 and 10 is a great verse to support what I am talking about here.  In verses 8 and 9 we see Paul preaching the gospel to the church in Ephesus and then immediately flowing out of that declaration he outlines that God expects his people who are saved by grace through faith to live lives that demonstrate they recognize this salvation they have.

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

James 1:22-27 is another great example of holding these two ideas together in unity and not in tension.  It reads:

22 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. 23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. 24 For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. 25 But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing.  26 If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless. 27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

There is much to comment on here but these are my quick thoughts:

1.  If you do not demonstrate with your life that you understand the declared gospel you are committing self-deception. (v. 22)

2.  If you separate declaration and demonstration you are succumbing to spiritual Alzheimer's disease.  (v. 24)

3.  The kind of church that God accepts is one that practices true religion.  This is defined as the demonstration of understanding the Gospel through serving those who are voiceless, powerless, weak, broken, and fatherless.  Said simply, a church that God smiles upon is one that demonstrates its salvation through orphan and widow care.  The church does not have to pick between preaching the Gospel and doing orphan care.  They are both assumed as normative for the church.  Those who have the gospel preached to them, become saved through faith, will do orphan care.  If you deemphasize either you will be missing God's mission for the church.  

Much much more could be written by way of scriptural evidence but for the sake of brevity I'll refrain.  I would like to humbly submit that we do not dichotomize preaching and loving, or declaring and doing.  It seems that the whole thrust of scripture points to us holding these together, never to be separated.  If we fail to preach, we fail to be the church, if we fail to collectively live out the implications of this salvation, we also fail to be the church.

Kevin emphasizes the "old traditional" answer that the mission of the church is none other than the Great Commission of making disciples.  I would agree, but then don't we have to define what a disciple is?  A disciple is not just a person who only declares the Gospel.  The disciple that Jesus has in mind is one who is taught "to obey everything" that he commanded.  This certainly has a lifestyle demonstration in mind, does it not?

Kevin also says that in the NT there is very little interest in transformation or reforming communities but rather we are called to go out and make worshippers of Jesus.  But isn't this a false dichotomy?  Unless they choose to live in a hole, those who are transformed by the Gospel and made into worshippers of Jesus will transform that community in which they live.  Can we really say there is no connection between making worshippers and community transformation?

If what Kevin means (I'm not totally sure) is that the Bible has no view of community transformation if it is at the expense of the Gospel (ie. just loving people without declaring the truth) then I am in complete agreement with him.  But do not those who love Jesus and preach the Gospel also transform the places they live simply because of the fact that they are Christians?

Take for example a church in Denver, Colorado.  They have joined with many other churches in the city  to take in hundreds of children from the foster care system through Project127.  Over the course of the last few years their coalition has cut the foster care numbers in half in the state of Colorado.  They are on pace to eradicate the foster care system in that area due to taking James 1:27 seriously.  Can we really say that their belief in the Gospel and thus living in light of James 1:27 has had no impact on transforming that city? I would say that city has been radically transformed by Jesus lovers who live out their faith.  I'm sure the city leaders and social workers would agree as well.

Think also about how the loving deed of foster care provides a particularly unique means to evangelism. You can guarantee that all those Colorado children are going to hear the Gospel declared to them in a much more profound way since they saw it demonstarted through those families who adopted them.  Do we really want to say that the demonstration of the Gospel is not as important as is declaration?  Yes, no one ever gets saved through good deeds, but we should not diminish the role of deeds in how our declaration is received.  If our deeds are not to be emphasized then why not just stand on the street corner with a bullhorn?

Greg also mentions the early church and how they were only interested in declaration and not interested as much in demonstration.  I think it is well known that church history tells a different story, especially in terms of orphan care.  

Jedd Medefield writes well about the early church and their view of what it meant to be a community living out the implications of the gospel:

Unwanted infants in ancient Rome were often disposed of via the practice of “exposing.” Whether undesirable because it was malformed, female or simply inconvenient, the child would be left alone, outside the city walls, without defense before glaring sun, icy winds or roving animals.

In 374 AD, the Christian emperor Valentinian banned the practice. But for centuries prior, a marginalized group gained a reputation for rescuing these children: Christians. The early church was known, even among many who despised it, as a people who defended the orphan. Believers went outside the city to find infants abandoned there, taking them in, and often raising them as their own. This witness was one powerful factor in the vibrant life and growth of Christianity in its first 300 years, and at other high points in history as well. It can be that way again.

In the end (at least in the circles that I run in) I don't know any guys who are advocating for demonstrating the implications of the gospel at the expense of declaring the gospel.  I would never say that that is acceptable.  Based on the scriptures above (and plenty of other ones) I am simply encouraging all of us to emphasize both declaration and demonstration together as a unity and not one over the other.  They are different in scope and practice but never to be separated.  If we get either one out of balance we'll be missing the mark of what it means to do the mission of the church.