Considering the Mission of the Church

The book What is the Mission of the Church?: Making Sense of Social Justice, Shalom and the Great Commission by DeYoung and Gilbert has been on my list of books to read since it came out. The recent “controversy” regarding the book moved it up the list faster. It is really difficult to talk about this book without referencing at least some of what has gone on.

In the book, they noted that some people received early copies of the manuscript to elicit feedback. They were thankful for that, and included some people who would “push back”. In other words, they didn’t send it to people who would love all over it. This book is a contribution to a larger discussion on the topic of the mission of the church. So they read a number of books on the subject, drew upon their own experiences as pastors and studied the Scriptures (not necessarily in that order). They tried to do their homework. But no book is met with unanimous affirmation.

Ed Stetzer’s review, in particular, has received a great deal of attention. He affirms them in many ways, but also criticizes their views for being too narrow. As I read his review, I get the impression he wasn’t really listening.

“The mission of the church always must include making disciples, but the life of disciples will always produce work unique to its time and place, relating to the various needs and corruptions in the world around us. And such work is not only the fruit of discipleship, but is also, through modeling, part of the process of making disciples.” Ed Stetzer

I didn’t get the impression they would disagree with what he said. But he misses the point. That is the life of disciples, which they distinguish from the mission of the church. As disciples, we act justly and defend the rights of others. But he’s saying this to criticize their view of the mission of the church. The book is about what the Church is to invest it’s limited resources doing. And that, in their view, is to make disciples. Those disciples will do many things that they institutional church does not, and should not do. Let’s put it this way: John Newton was right to encourage Wilberforce to remain in politics and work for the abolition of slavery. And John Newton, who aided that cause with his personal testimony and records, was right not to establish a program of the church designed to work for the abolition of slavery. At least this is how I understand both the Scriptural testimony and the Westminster Confession of the topic of Civil Magistrate.

“Synods and councils are to handle, or conclude nothing, but that which is ecclesiastical: and are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or, by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate.” WCF, XXXI, iv

Some of his criticism toward them veers from the theological to the personal- that they essentially have no right to write such a book and  make the mistake of disagreeing with particular influential people including Christopher Wright (whose book I want to read, but have yet to overcome the stumbling block regarding the price). In this regard, I think he goes a bit far. But since I haven’t read Wright, I can’t tell if they misinterpret him.

“… this does not mean we are against cultural engagement. Our point is simply that we must understand these endeavors in the right theological categories and embrace them without sacrificing more explicit priorities.”

In my tribe, the PCA, this book finds itself in the midst of the Two Kingdom controversy. Though in the ARP, my former denomination, Daniel Wells draws the Christ and Culture debate into the picture as a way of understanding the disagreement. His premise is that the struggle between the transformationalist model and the 2 kingdom model espoused by people like Michael Horton is at work. Stetzer alludes to this in his review with his comments about Luther (forgetting that Luther developed Augustine’s views).

I’m not sure. I really like Keller’s Generous Justice. Perhaps I read that, or this book, wrongly since I didn’t notice such stark differences. I read Keller as dealing more with how disciples live than what the institutional church should be doing. And I’ve been no fan of the books on the issue put out by the Westminster West crowd.  Maybe I’m just one mixed up Cavman. But let’s address the book in question.

“If you are looking for a picture of the early church giving itself to creation care, plans for societal renewal, and strategies to serve the community in Jesus’ name, you won’t find them in Acts.”

They start the book in a good place- showing the confusion over the term mission (and therefore missional). Seemingly everyone is talking about mission but uses the term differently. They note, from Stott, that mission isn’t all the church does but all the church is sent to do. To make their case they spend some time building a biblical theology of mission. They attempt to show how some texts have been co-opted to say something they don’t say. I thought they handled the texts well, and kept them in context. The work of cosmic renewal is one that Christ does, not one we are called to do. We are commanded to bear witness to Christ’s work calling people to faith and repentance.

This doesn’t mean their work is perfect. For instance, when discussing the Exodus as a type for salvation they say it does not focus at all (emphasis theirs) political and economic aspects. I would point them to the Revelation which clearly uses the Exodus as a model and brings in the political and economic aspects via the Beast and the Whore.

They then spend time defining the gospel. They differentiate between the personal and cosmic aspects of the gospel. Christ restores sinners, and he will renew creation. We should tell people about both aspects of this great salvation. We err if we neglect either, but we err more if we neglect the personal at the expense of the cosmic (or better a fundamentalist than a liberal).

“The mission of the church is to go into the world and make disciples by declaring the gospel of Jesus Christ in the power of the Spirit and gathering these disciples into churches, that they might worship the Lord and obey his commands now and in eternity to the glory of God the Father.”

I found the chapters on Social Justice and Shalom helpful. Many toss these terms around, but don’t necessarily use them biblically. As disciples of Christ, we are to act justly. This much is unavoidable. Many err in applying individual responsibilities to the church. This happens with the personal ethic of the Sermon on the Mount quite often. The authors also spend time putting the Day of Jubilee into a proper perspective lest this be wrongly be used in the cause of “social justice” (it is not far fetched considering some of the ‘demands’ of the Occupy Wall Street Movement). They affirm the message of the prophets that religious observance is not all God wants from us. Without consistently acting justly, our profession of faith is a sham.

I thought of Keller’s analysis of conservatives and liberals regarding justice. The former focus on individuals and the latter on society (DeYoung and Gilbert talk about constrained and unconstrained views of social justice). DeYoung and Gilbert are probably political conservatives. Biblically they focus on individual justice- am I oppressing others? This does not rule out the involvement of Christians in trying to end injustice toward others (see Wilberforce above). Christians can and should give their resources to such things. The Church has a prophetic ministry as well, calling people to repentance (humbly as the WCF notes). But the church is not a PAC for either the left or the right (or the middle). A church may have programs that deal with such issues (DeYoung’s church does), but the main focus is the main thing- the gospel.

Their section on Jeremiah 29 could have used more work. It just didn’t seem clear enough to me. It needed to be fleshed out.

Another weakness I noted was that the cultural mandate was not connected to the image of God. I think they made some astute observations in recognizing shifts resulting from sin in the creation mandate (Noah wasn’t told to subdue and rule creation, but was told to be fruitful and multiply). However, Christ is restoring that image of God in us. Does that mean we are to pursue the creation mandate as redeemed people, or will we have to be glorified before we are able to pursue it? I think much of it awaits the latter. The Great Commission is what occupies the New Testament. They have this right, in my opinion.

They try to maintain the balance we all seem to lose. For instance, we are responsible for our actions as disciples of Jesus. We should take care of the creation, but recognize that only Christ can renew it. We act as responsible stewards, but recognize that people are more important than creation. Creation is the stage upon which we live. We alone bear God’s image in creation. It is here for us, we can enjoy it and use its resources. Additionally, we should be generous but recognize we can’t solve the problem of poverty (it’s causes are numerous and complex). In other words, we are not the saviors of the world- Jesus is.

Overall I found it to be a helpful book as I thought things through. In their chapter in Good Works, they spend time explaining the distinction between the church and individual Christians in terms of responsibility. This really should have been at the beginning. And more fully developed.

While it reflects a 2 kingdom model, I found it more helpful and positive than the books I’ve read from the Westminster West crowd. I’ve found their formulations frustrating. And even more limiting. This book keeps the focus on our witness to the gospel and the making of disciples. But it spends more time addressing how a Christian is to live in this world, not just the church.