What is a Missional Church?

Over the next several weeks, I will be blogging on the three distinctives (beyond our theology, polity, and values) that we want to characterize our church. The three distinctives are 1) A gospel community, 2) An authentic community, and 3) a missional community. I will not be taking these ideas in order, but will bounce between them but will start with what it means to be a missional community. However, before I give my thoughts on what each of these mean, let me direct you to some excellent resources on the topic.

While there are varying definitions of what it means to be missional, around Village Seven, we are using the word in the way it is defined in this paper by Dr. Tim Keller. Also, Desiring God Ministries (the ministry of John Piper) has posted this interview with Dr. Keller on what it means to be a missional church.

The following articles and MP3s do not all use the word "missional" but they touch on some of the themes of what it means to be missional. However, one should read the paper above by Tim Keller first before moving to these other articles.

Living a Magnetic Faith in a Post-Christian World by Denis Haack
Advancing the Gospel into the 21st Century by Tim Keller
The Gospel and the Poor by Tim Keller
Let the Nations be Glad by John Piper - In this MP3, Piper shows that a missional church must be concerned about missions.
What in the World is Missional Church? by Jonathan Leeman on the 9Marks site (Mark Dever's ministry) is a helpful critique of the missional movement.

The Church: A Gospel, Authentic, and Missional Community

The leadership of Village Seven is working on its strategic plan. While there are many practical steps that need to be determined in order to formulate this plan, there are some more foundational characteristics of the church that must always be kept in view.

First, the church must know and understand its mission. At Village Seven, our mission is to be a life giving church to Colorado Springs, the West, and the World. Beyond our mission, we have four core values—worship, teaching, nurture, reaching. Furthermore, in terms of theology, we are Reformed. In regard to church government, we are Presbyterian. Our mission, values, theology and polity all are components in making us who we are as a church.

Besides these, there are other important distinctives of who we desire to be as a church. These distinctives are 1) Gospel-based community, 2) an authentic community, and 3) a missional community. There is much overlap between these three. As people understand the gospel, they will become more authentic in their relationships, and more missional in their living. At the same time, as people live in community and live with a sense of mission, it will drive them back to the gospel. Therefore, in order to achieve one, we must aim at all three.

Gospel Community
We desire to be a community of God’s people that are living in line with the gospel. This means that we want to live based on the understanding that we are fully loved and accepted by God based on the finished work of Jesus Christ (Justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone). We always want to grow in our understanding of the gospel that reminds us that we are more sinful than we ever dared to imagine and in Christ, we are more loved than we ever dared to hope.

As a result of this understanding, we are completely secure because we know that nothing can separate us from the love of God. We can be honest about our sin in full repentance because we know God’s love for us is not based on our performance. We can embrace fellow sinners because we know that we, too, are broken and sinful. This understanding of the gospel enables us to be bold, yet humble, secure, yet vulnerable; repenting, yet joyful.

Authentic Community
Being a gospel-based community frees us up to be an authentic community. Instead of maintaining a façade of righteousness, we are free to be honest about our sin because our security is found in Christ’s righteousness, not our own. As an authentic community, we are learning to let down our masks. We want to be passionate in our pursuit of holiness, but honest about our sin. We want to be a community that lets other people in our lives, to see the dirt, hurt, and ugliness of sin so that we can minister to one other out of the gospel. So, we desire to be transparent with one another, to love one another, to bear one another’s burdens, to forgive one another—all because that is what Christ has done for us.

Missional Community
As a gospel-based community, we are passionate about continuing Jesus’ ministry of redemption. Therefore, we want to love our city and our world even as God so loved the world. Just as Christ gave Himself up for us, we desire to give ourselves up for the world, to join in His suffering to take his ministry of reconciliation to those in need. Therefore, we want to follow Christ’s pattern of ministering to the world in both word and deed. As the body of Christ, we desire to bring healing where sin has brought hurting. In the words of a great hymn, we want to join with Christ in making his blessings flow far as the curse is found.

Happy Birthday John Calvin

Friday, July 10, is John Calvin’s 500th birthday. Mentioning Calvin’s names draws mixed responses. People seem to either love him or hate him. Yet, any student of history and/or theology would agree that Calvin has had a profound impact on western civilization and the development of the church.

While it seems that most people have a strong opinion about Calvin, few know much about him. Some of this is due to the fact that he is not as dramatic a character as some of the other Reformers. Some good movies have been made about Martin Luther, particularly the relatively recent Luther, staring Joseph Fiennes and Peter Ustinov. John Knox’s life would make a good movie as well. However, a movie about Calvin would have little success selling tickets at the box office (or even a church). He was a pastor and a scholar, which is not the stuff of which movies are made.

Still, since Calvin played such an important role in the church and culture, learning about his life and influence would be worthwhile for most Christians. Recently, I read Robert Godfrey’s John Calvin: Pilgrim and Pastor. I found it very helpful and enjoyable. Also, it is relatively brief.
If you prefer listening to reading, Dr. Frank James has a good 4-part lecture called “The Calvin I Never Knew.” It is available from Reformed Theological Seminary on I-Tunes and is free.

While Calvin is probably most famous for his Institutes of the Christian Religion, which is a treasure trove of theology, what I have appreciated about Calvin over the years are his commentaries. His commentaries are still helpful and very relevant today. That is because he interacts seriously with the text in a pastoral way. While I love Luther’s commentary on Galatians, exegetically, Luther’s commentaries can’t touch Calvin’s. If a person is wrestling with the meaning of a biblical passage, Calvin is always a good source of help and clarity.

While I am sure Calvin would prefer that we not honor him (just as I am sure he would not like the term “Calvinist”), it is good for us to honor those who have gone before us, who have enriched our lives with their teaching and their sacrifice. John Calvin certainly has enriched mine.

Sunday Leftovers - More Thoughts on Genesis 4

For every Sunday’s sermon, I usually have about twice as much material as I have time to use. So, a lot of it ends up on the cutting room floor. Obviously, the stuff I delete are things that I do not believe are essential to the point of my sermon. My main point is that Abel was living by faith while Cain was living by works. Grace leads to joy. Works leads to bitterness. Joyless, self-righteous, angry, religious people show by their emotions a lack of confidence in the gospel. To understand why I believe this is what Genesis 4 is teaching, you can listen to the sermon here. Still, there are usually some interesting tidbits that I don’t have time to mention. Below are some quick hits on the leftovers.

1. Notice the parallels between Genesis 3 and Genesis 4. You have the sin, God’s inquiry, and then the pronouncement of judgment. One of the great differences is in how Cain responds to God’s inquiry. Adam shifts the blame. Cain is still downright defiant—even being sarcastic with God—“Am I the shepherd’s shepherd?” Sin has become harder and more brazen.
   
2. The curses of Genesis 3 become worse in Genesis 4. Since Cain rejected family by killing his brother, he will live in alienation from family. Since he spilled his brother’s blood onto the ground, he will live in alienation from the ground. The earth will no longer yield to his strength. Since he chose to alienate himself from God by killing one made in God’s image, he will be driven from the presence of God. Notice the food theme going on as well. Adam eats of the fruit. Then, in pronouncing the effects of the fall to Adam in Genesis 3, eating is mentioned five times. Adam sinned by eating. Now eating is going to require pain and toil. Then, in Genesis 4, Cain works the ground. Now, the ground will not produce food for him. Man is getting more and more alienated from the earth. Man was supposed to rule the earth, but now the earth will not yield to man’s strength.
   
3. In judgment, God gives you what you want. Here is part of the deceptiveness of sin. It lures you in, promises you freedom. As judgment, God lets you have it. Cain despises his family, so God drives him out from his family. Cain rejects God’s Word and promise. So, Cain is driven from God’s presence.
   
4. We see the shocking degradation of sin in Cain’s response. Even after God had confronted him, even after God has pronounced his judgment, Cain shows no repentance and no remorse. Instead of falling on his knees, pleading with God for mercy, he still clings to his self-righteousness by claiming God is unjust. He says, 13 Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is more than I can bear. He is complaining that God is treating him unjustly and still seems clueless as to how he treated his brother unjustly. It is all about Cain. His blindness is astounding, as it is with our sin.
   
5. Because Cain has rebelled against God, he is driven to restlessness. There is a whole sermon in this point. If I had time, I would love to explore the theme of Sabbath rest on the seventh day of creation and man’s restlessness apart from God.
   
6. This restlessness is rooted in our separation from God. As Augustine said, “Thou hast formed us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless till they find rest in Thee.” Calvin said, ““There is no peace for men, unless they acquiesce in the providence of God, and are persuaded that their lives are the objects of his care… they can only quietly enjoy any of God’s benefits so long as they regard themselves as placed in the world, on this condition, that they pas their lives under his government.”
   
7. God shows remarkable mercy on fallen mankind. Genesis 4 is not just a story of sin and saving grace, but also a story of sin and common grace. Cain and his posterity go on to build cities, develop marvelous technology, create art, and other cultural developments. Even the line of Cain makes beautiful culture. As Christians, we can celebrate this with our fellow man. We enjoy the technological developments of fallen mankind. As Steve Brown often says, he doesn’t care if the pilot is a Christian or not. All he wants to know is, can he fly this airplane? This is also why we can enjoy the beautiful creations of people who were not necessarily Christians. Both Beethoven and the Beatles produced great music. Neither Beethoven or any of the Beatles had what we would call an orthodox faith. Yet, we can celebrate the beauty of their work.
   
8. God also showed his mercy in the mark of Cain. The mark of Cain was not a sign of judgment, but of protection.

A Brave New World Meets 1984

On March 9, 2009, President Obama issued an executive order that allows for federal funding to be used in embryonic stem cell research. In doing so, President Obama and most of the media proclaimed this as a victory, not just for stem cell research advocates, but for science. Alice Park of Time magazine wrote, “The President's decision does much more than expand funding for stem-cell research. It heralds a shift in the government's view of science, ushering in an era that promises to defend science — and the pursuit of potentially useful treatments — against ideology” (Researchers Cheer Obama's Vote for Stem-Cell Science). The president himself said, “It is about ensuring that scientific data [are] never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.”

President Obama’s words are truly Orwellian. He has rephrased the vocabulary of the discussion over stem cell research so that the debate is not over the sanctity of human life, but over science. Many people (including many scientists) have long objected to embryonic stem cell research because they believe that a human embryo is in fact a human being. As a human being, it has human rights. One should not be able to dispose of a human being simply for the purpose of scientific experimentation. Most Americans are horrified by the evils of human experimentation, such as the Tuskegee Experiment, and do not wish to see that sort of thing continue, no matter how great the scientific gain.

However, with his remarks, President Obama has redefined the debate. According to the president, the debate is not over the sanctity of human life, but over science. So, if you oppose embryonic stem cell research, you are placing ideology over science, or, as he said, you are making decisions based on ideology and not facts. The not so subtle implication is that if you believe in the sanctity of human life, you are an anti-scientific, backwoods, Luddite rube.

In 1984, George Orwell dramatically demonstrates that, if one can control the language and define the vocabulary, one can always win the debate. Language is a powerful tool. If President Obama is successful in redefining the debate over human life in this way, then there will be no debate. No thinking American wants to be anti-science and anti-knowledge. No compassionate person wants to allow an ideology to interfere with scientific discovery if that scientific discovery can improve the lives of thousands, if not millions of people. Most people do not want medical advancements to be hindered by political ideologies. If the debate is framed in those terms, then there is no debate.

However, the President’s remarks—as well as those who support them—reveal a very clear, distinct political ideology. His remarks assume that the belief that a human embryo has human rights is an ideological position rooted in theology and that his belief that unborn babies are not humans is not an ideological position. That is, those who agree with him are non-ideological and those who disagree with him are trying to impose their ideology on scientific discovery.
As Christians, we must remember that nothing in this world is neutral—including science. When it comes to science, all human beings would agree that there are certain types of experimentation that are immoral no matter how much promise they hold. Testing on unwilling live human subjects or killing people for the purpose of scientific discovery is beyond the pale. Therefore, we must remain clear that we are not anti-science, but we are pro-life.

As a side note, in 1984, in the Foreward to his book, Amusing Ourselves to Death, Neil Postman argues that we as Americans have escaped Orwell’s horrors of Big Brother. Instead, Huxley’s A Brave New World has come about in our midst. Postman writes, “What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. . . . Orwell feared that truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared that truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared that we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared that we ould become a trivial culture. . . . In 1984, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure.”

My question to Postman is this: What if both Orwell and Huxley were right?

Sunday Leftovers Part 2 - Did Adam and Eve Die in the Garden?

One of the questions that often is asked is, why didn’t Adam and Eve fall over dead instantly after eating the fruit? After all, God said that, “for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:17). The Serpent said that they would not die. Yet, we read in Genesis 3 that they eat the forbidden fruit and live to tell about it. In fact, they lived for quite a long time. What gives?

Adam and Eve did die at the very moment they ate of the tree. First, they immediately began the physical process of death. If I were to put poison in your food, or if you were exposed to deadly levels of radiation, you would die, but it might not happen immediately. You can eat something fatal and yet the fatality might take time to occur. The process of death has begun, even though it is not yet complete.

Also, they are exiled from the Tree of Life. We read this at the end of the chapter in verses 22-24. Being cast out of the Garden and away from the tree of life was a death sentence. [A side point—through Christ, we are invited back to eat of the tree of life, cf. Revelation 2:7, 22:2]

Secondly, while they began the process of physical death, their spiritual death was instantaneous. Immediately, they are filled with guilt and shame. They begin to cover up. Immediately, they are alienated from God, who is their life, trying to hide from him in the Garden. Immediately, they reveal the corrupt nature of their now dead hearts as they try to blame others for their own sin. They are put in a position where they are not completely unable to make things right with God. They are now completely hopeless.

Just as Ephesians says that those without Christ are spiritually dead (Ephesians 2:1-5), Adam and Eve were now spiritually dead, even though they were still walking in the Garden.
As soon as they eat of the tree, the Serpent is exposed as a liar. He said the tree would give them freedom. He said that they would not die. Yet, by eating of the tree, they lost their freedom. They fell into bondage to sin, guilt, shame, and death. They lost their lives as they were exiled from the Garden. Instead of making their lives better, as the Serpent implied, sin has now brought them chaos, death, and cursing.

Whenever we follow Adam and Eve’s pattern of excuse-making and blame-shifting for our sin, we show that we, too, have been held captive by sin and death.

One final thought that I was unable to include in Sunday’s sermon. Another point that Genesis 3 should make clear to all of us is this: even at our best, we cannot fulfill the law’s demands. We desperately need a Savior. The Fall of Adam and Eve shows us that even if you had no sinful nature, even if you had never tasted evil, even if nothing bad had happened to you your entire life, even if you lived in an ideal environment, even if you had the ideal spouse, even if you had no needs at all, you still wouldn’t be able to keep the law’s demands. You would still need a Savior. If Adam couldn’t do it, then you can’t either. Therefore, we cannot save ourselves by our moral performance. We must abandon all efforts at self-justification and all attempts to prove ourselves worthy and throw ourselves completely on the mercy of Christ.

Sunday Leftovers Part 1 - Talking Animals

In every sermon I preach, I start off writing a manuscript that is about twice as long as I have time to preach. I then spend an hour or two editing it down to a more reasonable time frame (some might argue that I could spend a little more time editing). It is always a painful process leaving half of my sermon on the editing room floor. This has been particularly difficult in my current series. I am preaching through the book of Genesis. Even though I am planning on spending four weeks on Genesis 3, I still find that I do not have time to cover all that I want to say on this very important chapter.

Much could be (and has been) written on the historicity of the first three chapters of Genesis. I have already discussed the creation account in my earlier sermons. However, Genesis 3 strikes some as particularly problematic because it involves a talking animal. To some, the very presence of a talking serpent is a strong indication that this is a myth and not actual history. After all, every other story about a talking animal (with Balaam’s Ass being a notable exception) is myth or fiction. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that Eve does not seem at all surprised that this wild animal is talking to her. This certainly does not seem to be a normal reaction. After all, if you were in your backyard and a snake (or even a squirrel, or any other animal, for that matter), started talking to you, you probably would not continue on with a normal conversation. You would be startled.

Yet, the author of Genesis represents it as a true story. We have parables in other parts of the Bible. Parables are fictitious stories that are told to make a point. However, this story has all the literary markers of an historical account. It has none of the markers of a parable or myth. Furthermore, the New Testament refers to it as an historical story in both 2 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2. If this story is myth and not history, then Paul's arguments become baseless. So, the Bible clearly represents the story as a true account. That means you are left with the choice of accepting this story as history or rejecting the Bible as fully authoritative.

You might say, “This has to be fiction. It is contrary to reason an ordinary human experience for animals to talk. Yet, here you have a woman talking to a snake and she doesn’t seem to think anything of it.” While it is true that it is contrary to normal human experience, that does not necessarily mean that it is contrary to reason. There are a few possible, reasonable explanations.

First of all, C. S. Lewis, Randy Alcorn, and others argue that, while animals don’t talk today, they might have before the world fell into sin and might again in the new earth. The world we live in today is significantly different from the world of Adam and Eve. Right now, we see the world in its broken state. All of creation has been subjected to futility as a result of the Fall (Romans 8:18-24). Living in Colorado, we see the beauty of creation on a daily basis. Stepping out your front door and seeing the sun shine on Pikes Peak is a breathtaking experience. Yet, as glorious as creation is right now, we are only seeing a fallen, broken world. The world before the fall (and the world after the consummation of all things) is far more glorious. It is quite reasonable to believe that things in the created order will be significantly different than they are right now.

I will admit that I am not sure I buy the idea that animals could talk before the fall , or that animals on the New Earth will have the power of speech, but it is at least theoretically possible. Just because animals don’t talk now that does not mean that has always been the case.

Another more probable explanation is that the serpent is able to speak due to Satanic influence. Revelation 20 indicates that this is no ordinary Serpent. Either this animal is Satan posing as a Serpent or is a Serpent under Satanic influence. The fact that Satan, who has supernatural (but limited) powers could give a beast the power of speech is not inconsistent with the testimony of the Bible.

The reason Eve is not shocked by a talking serpent is because she is naïve. After all, she had not yet eaten of the tree of knowledge and, it is quite possible that he had not been around for all that long to know how the world worked. She did not have sufficient knowledge to know if this was normal.

What should have seemed inconsistent to Adam and Eve was not that this Serpent was talking, but that He was speaking against the Word of God. But, that is one of the points of this story. The abnormality that should have alarmed Adam and Eve is not a talking Serpent, but a creature who calls God a liar. Adam and Eve had enough revelation to know that this was not normal. They knew what God had said and they knew that this animal was speaking contrary to God's revelation. At this point, Adam should have pulled out his garden hoe and chopped the beast’s head off. However, Adam failed in his priestly duty—and here we are.