I am preaching through Genesis. I wrote the following as part of my introduction to this series. Much of this was adapted from He Gave Us Stories by Richard Pratt.
The Bible is one of the means of grace that God gives to His people so that they can grow in their knowledge and love of the Lord. It is not simply a book of information. Rather, it is the Book for life transformation. Since the Bible is thousands of years old, applying it to your life in the 21st century requires some understanding.
To understand how a passage of the Bible applies to your life, you must begin with the original meaning, then see how the rest of the Bible elaborates on it in biblical elaborations, and from there draw legitimate applications.
The original meaning is what the passage meant in the setting of its original writer and audience. The original meaning defines and guides the process of understanding and applying a passage of Scripture. It does not tell us everything about the passage, but it is the starting point.
To understand the original meaning of a book of the Bible, one must study the text itself (document), understand something of the writer, and know something of the original readers (audience). Without understanding of the writer, the document, and the audience, it is difficult to understand the true meaning of any text.
For example, let’s say you found the following note:
Bill,
Our evening together last night was simply wonderful--our most memorable ever. Moreover, you were terrific. I hope we can sneak away again for another evening like that one.
Sam
If Sam and Bill are tennis partners who won their match last night, the note takes on one meaning. If they lost their match, then it may be sarcasm. If Sam is short for Samantha, and they are married, it takes on another.
If you are to know the meaning of the note, then you must know something of the writer, the document, and the audience. You must also see how these three are related and interact.
The Document
Genesis is one portion of a larger book called The Pentateuch. The Pentateuch contains the first five books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). Together, these five form a single unit called the Pentateuch. Often times, Jews (including Jesus) referred to the Pentateuch as the Torah, the Law, or even the Book of Moses.
The Writer
No where in the Pentateuch does the author give his name. In that sense, it (including Genesis) is an anonymous book. However, from the outset, the ancient Jews regarded Moses as the author. There is no reason to doubt their testimony. Moses was a prophet of God, having been used by God to utter the infallible word. Historically, Christians have regarded Moses as the author as well. Jesus Himself, as well as the gospel writers, cite Moses as the author, which leaves no doubt that it was Moses who indeed wrote it (see Matthew 8:4; 19:7-8; 22:24; Mark 10:5; 12:19, 26; Luke 16:29; Luke 20:28; 24:27, 44, John 1:45; 7:19; 8:5).
Still, there are signs that a final editor other than Moses was involved in the final edition of Genesis and the other books of the Pentateuch. For example, Deuteronomy 34:10-12 records the death of Moses. Other signs of a post-Moses editor are a) Genesis 12:6, where it says that the Canaanites were in the land then (the Canaanites were still in the land at the time of Moses), b) the mention of Dan in Genesis 14:14 (Dan was not established until after the Exodus), and c) the reference to the kings of Israel in Genesis 36:31. Yet, even the final editing of the book was done under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which means that the text itself is fully inspired by God, and therefore both infallible and inerrant (without errors) as originally given.
Moses wrote these books during the time between the Exodus and the nation of Israel’s entrance into the Promise Land under Joshua.[1] That places the date of the writing of the Pentateuch during the 15th Century BC.
The Original Readers of Genesis
Moses wrote Genesis (and the rest of the Pentateuch), while Israel was wandering in the desert after leaving Egypt and before entering the Promise Land. That means the original audience of Genesis were the people preparing to enter conquer the land of Canaan.
These people had been slaves in the land of Egypt. They were preparing to go into a land that they had never seen and fight off enemies they had never met. They had never been to war. They had never encountered some of the challenges that were ahead of them.
This is important because Genesis must be read from their eyes first, before you can apply it to your own situation. Any history book has to be selective.[2] No book can record all of the events that occurred during a specific time period. Therefore the author selects what events he will include and how he will tell of these events based on what he believes is significant for his audience.
As you read Genesis, ask yourself, “How would this help the Israelites in the wilderness? What was God’s purpose in telling them this? How would this strengthen their faith?” Moses purpose in writing to them was to inspire faith in God as they faced the challenges of the exodus and the conquest.
Moses did not write Genesis in response to Charles Darwin. However, he may have written parts in response to Marduk, the Baals, and the Asherahs (pagan deities of his day).
Richard Pratt says the following about Genesis: “Moses wrote the book of Genesis to teach his readers that leaving Egypt and possessing Canaan was God’s design for Israel. The primeval acts of bringing creation from chaos to sabbath rest, recreating the fallen world through waters of judgment, choosing Shem’s descendants to dispossess Canaan, and defeating the city of Babel explained what God was doing or Israel in the exodus from Egypt. The lives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob anticipated Israel’s interest in their numerical expansion, possession of the Promised Land, and relationships with surrounding nations. The interaction among the tribal patriarchs in the Joseph story establish proper inter-tribal relations in Moses day and assured Israel of her destiny in Canaan.”[3]
More than that, the Pentateuch establishes God’s plan for redeeming the world by establishing His covenant relationship with Israel. All of this ultimately points to the Christ of the New Testament.
The Relevance of Genesis
If the original readers were so different from us, then how can Genesis have any relevance to us? This is the issue most people struggle with when reading the Bible, particularly Old Testament history.
While the specifics of your situation may be vastly different from that of God’s people in the wilderness, the real issues have not changed, and neither has God. The Israelites wondered how order could be brought to their world of chaos. They wondered why the world seemed so messed up. They wondered if life was out of control. We wonder the same things, and Genesis answers all these questions and more.
Notes
[1] Deuteronomy 34:10-12 records Moses’ death. So there obviously was another editor involved in the final edition. Still, for the most part it was written during the Exodus and prior to the conquest.
[2] “World War II is a matter of fact; telling the story of World War II is a matter of selection; understanding World War II – why it happened, who “won” it – is a matter of interpretation. Whenever anyone undertakes to write narrative history these three things are involved” (Alec Motyer, The Story of the Old Testament, p. 43.
[3] Pratt, p. 281.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Monday, August 10, 2009
The Importance of Confessionalism
One criticism that many people, especially those from non-denonimational backgrounds, levy against Presbyterians is that Presbyterians are confessional. That is, we have a doctrinal statement to which our ministers and other church officers must subscribe. Some charge that we have elevated a human document to the level of divine authority, putting it alongside Scripture, or even above Scripture. However, I would argue that doctrinal statements are not merely useful, but almost necessary in our pluralistic age. Dr. John Frame has written on this far more persuasively than I can. So, let me refer the reader to his paper, Introduction to the Reformed Faith.
Dr. Frame makes two arguments that are particularly helpful. First, he notes that, to say that one is a Christian or that one believes the Bible does not really say anything. "All sorts of people today claim to be Christians, and even Bible-believers, who are actually far from the kingdom of Christ. [Theological] Liberals, cultists, and new-age syncretists abound. When you visit a neighbor, inviting him to church, he has a right to know what you believe. If you tell him you are a Christian and believe the Bible, he has a right to ask the further question, "what do you (and your church) think the Bible teaches?" That is the question which creeds and confessions are designed to answer. A creed is simply a summary of an individual's or church's beliefs as to the teachings of Scripture. And there can be no objection, surely, to placing such a summary in writing for the convenience of members and inquirers."
His second argument, which is near the end of the paper is, in my opinion, equally compelling. Dr. Frame points out that a confession gives one the some helpful theological guard rails for engaging the culture from a biblical perspective. Dr. Frame notes, "Because the Reformed faith has, at its best, been critical of human traditions even within its own circles, the Reformed faith has the resources for effective contextualization. Contextualization is the attempt to present scriptural truth in terms understandable to cultures different from our own and different from the culture in which the Scriptures were written. Reformed preaching has been remarkably successful through history in the work of contextualization. Calvinism has profoundly affected cultures very different from the Swiss culture in which it began: Dutch, German, British, Hungarian, Korean. Calvinism had large followings in France and Italy until it was largely snuffed out there by force. It is, therefore, entirely Reformed, to say as I do in Doctrine of the Knowledge of God that theology is the application of scriptural truth to human situations. Progress in theology is the continual application of Scripture to new situations and contexts as they arise. It is not the mere repetition of doctrinal formulations worked out in past generations, as some "traditionalists" might suppose. Rather, the work of theology engages our creativity, without compromising the authority and sufficiency of Scripture." Here, Dr. Frame is talking about the Reformed faith in general, but I am fairly certain that he would apply this to confessionalism.
I realize that many confessional churches have fallen into dead orthodoxy. A confession alone cannot keep a church spiritually vital. However, safeguarding against false doctrine is critical to maintaining spiritual vitality. In this way, a confession can function as a guard rail to help keep the denomination on track.
I also realize that many confessional churches have drifted into liberalism. Yet, this could not happen without the confession being ignored, contradicted, or men being dishonest about their subscription to the confession. One of the ways that our denomination, the Presbyterian Church in America, is seeking to guard against this is by requiring men in church leadership to subscribe to the system of doctrine contained in our confessional standards. A man does not have to agree with every word (very few do), but he must agree with the system contained in them. So that all are honest in what they profess, each church officer is required to state every place he differs with the standards--even if he thinks it is a small difference. Then, the governing body (either the local session or the presbytery) determines if that difference is acceptable or not.
Having a confession helps as we seek to engage our culture with the gospel. There are many writers and thinkers who recognize the need to engage our post-modern culture. They recognize that this requires some changes on how the church engages the world around us. However, because they do not have a confessional anchor, they seem to throw out the baby with the bath water. One example of this is Brian McLaren's A New Kind of Christian. He seems to have a good analysis of the culture. However, as he moves to prescription in his book, he runs adrift, proposing that theological heresies like the openness of God, might be acceptable. Even Gordon McDonald, a man who has written a number of very helpful books, seems to run adrift in this cultural shift. In his book, Who Stole My Church?, he gives a good analysis of the cultural/generational shift facing many churches. Yet, as he opens the door for changes that may be legitimate, he leaves it open for changes that are unbiblical, like women in pastoral ministry. A confessional grid can help in matters like these by keeping the guard rails up so that the boundaries always stay visible.
A confession will not keep a church orthodox, it will not prevent it from falling into dead-orthodoxy. It is not a panecea. However, it is a very helpful tool and safeguard for the church when it is honored by those who are honest in their subscription to it.
Dr. Frame makes two arguments that are particularly helpful. First, he notes that, to say that one is a Christian or that one believes the Bible does not really say anything. "All sorts of people today claim to be Christians, and even Bible-believers, who are actually far from the kingdom of Christ. [Theological] Liberals, cultists, and new-age syncretists abound. When you visit a neighbor, inviting him to church, he has a right to know what you believe. If you tell him you are a Christian and believe the Bible, he has a right to ask the further question, "what do you (and your church) think the Bible teaches?" That is the question which creeds and confessions are designed to answer. A creed is simply a summary of an individual's or church's beliefs as to the teachings of Scripture. And there can be no objection, surely, to placing such a summary in writing for the convenience of members and inquirers."
His second argument, which is near the end of the paper is, in my opinion, equally compelling. Dr. Frame points out that a confession gives one the some helpful theological guard rails for engaging the culture from a biblical perspective. Dr. Frame notes, "Because the Reformed faith has, at its best, been critical of human traditions even within its own circles, the Reformed faith has the resources for effective contextualization. Contextualization is the attempt to present scriptural truth in terms understandable to cultures different from our own and different from the culture in which the Scriptures were written. Reformed preaching has been remarkably successful through history in the work of contextualization. Calvinism has profoundly affected cultures very different from the Swiss culture in which it began: Dutch, German, British, Hungarian, Korean. Calvinism had large followings in France and Italy until it was largely snuffed out there by force. It is, therefore, entirely Reformed, to say as I do in Doctrine of the Knowledge of God that theology is the application of scriptural truth to human situations. Progress in theology is the continual application of Scripture to new situations and contexts as they arise. It is not the mere repetition of doctrinal formulations worked out in past generations, as some "traditionalists" might suppose. Rather, the work of theology engages our creativity, without compromising the authority and sufficiency of Scripture." Here, Dr. Frame is talking about the Reformed faith in general, but I am fairly certain that he would apply this to confessionalism.
I realize that many confessional churches have fallen into dead orthodoxy. A confession alone cannot keep a church spiritually vital. However, safeguarding against false doctrine is critical to maintaining spiritual vitality. In this way, a confession can function as a guard rail to help keep the denomination on track.
I also realize that many confessional churches have drifted into liberalism. Yet, this could not happen without the confession being ignored, contradicted, or men being dishonest about their subscription to the confession. One of the ways that our denomination, the Presbyterian Church in America, is seeking to guard against this is by requiring men in church leadership to subscribe to the system of doctrine contained in our confessional standards. A man does not have to agree with every word (very few do), but he must agree with the system contained in them. So that all are honest in what they profess, each church officer is required to state every place he differs with the standards--even if he thinks it is a small difference. Then, the governing body (either the local session or the presbytery) determines if that difference is acceptable or not.
Having a confession helps as we seek to engage our culture with the gospel. There are many writers and thinkers who recognize the need to engage our post-modern culture. They recognize that this requires some changes on how the church engages the world around us. However, because they do not have a confessional anchor, they seem to throw out the baby with the bath water. One example of this is Brian McLaren's A New Kind of Christian. He seems to have a good analysis of the culture. However, as he moves to prescription in his book, he runs adrift, proposing that theological heresies like the openness of God, might be acceptable. Even Gordon McDonald, a man who has written a number of very helpful books, seems to run adrift in this cultural shift. In his book, Who Stole My Church?, he gives a good analysis of the cultural/generational shift facing many churches. Yet, as he opens the door for changes that may be legitimate, he leaves it open for changes that are unbiblical, like women in pastoral ministry. A confessional grid can help in matters like these by keeping the guard rails up so that the boundaries always stay visible.
A confession will not keep a church orthodox, it will not prevent it from falling into dead-orthodoxy. It is not a panecea. However, it is a very helpful tool and safeguard for the church when it is honored by those who are honest in their subscription to it.
Living Out the Gospel
I mentioned earlier that my desire is that our church be marked by three distinctives: Gospel Community, Authentic Community, and Missional Community. We have seen some of the problems with the word “missional,” and I will revisit this later. However, for the moment, I want to focus on what it means to be a gospel community. Before I get to that, I thought it might be helpful to explain why I believe this should be stated as a distinctive. To explain this, let me backtrack to our previous discussion.
In my last post, I mentioned that missional is a call to return to biblical, holistic ministry of both word and deed. I will admit that I am no church historian, but from what I have read, it seems that ever since the fundamentalist/modernist split, the evangelical church has neglected biblical deed ministry. Of course, there have been some marvelous exceptions to this. I would also argue that even during this time period, conservative, evangelical Christians did a tremendous amount of good for the poor around the world. For example, Christians were helping the starving people of Africa long before the celebrity culture got engaged. Yet, overall, the conservative church neglected deed ministry while the liberal church engaged in the social gospel.
D. A. Carson warns us against making statements like “The previous generation came down either on the social-transformation side or on the gospel-fidelity side, and we want to put together both.” Certainly, such a statement can be arrogant. At the same time, as the church is always reforming (semper reformanda), we should always be looking to correct what we are doing in light of Scripture.
Besides the neglect of ministry in deed (acts of justice, mercy, and compassion), something else seems to have been lost, or at least obscured, in the wake of the modernist controversy. That is the preaching of the gospel to believers (I will explain this later).
In a recent discussion, noted Christian author, Jerry Bridges, said, that if you trace Christian preaching and teaching all the way back to John Own, then through the 17th, 18th, 19th centuries stopping with B.B. Warfield, you will see that the preaching constantly emphasized the necessity of the gospel for Christians. Bridges goes on to note that at some point around Warfield (which is during the height of the modernist controversy in America in the early 20th century), this sort of preaching was clearly lost. He says that it does not begin to appear again until Richard Lovelace’s wonderful book, Dynamics of the Spiritual Life. (By the way, I found that Mr. Bridges made this same statement in a recent interview that you can read here.)
I will post more later on what it means to be a gospel community. However, there are already some wonderful articles on this on the net. Let me point you to two that I find very helpful:
Gospel Driven Sanctification by Jerry Bridges
The Centrality of the Gospel by Tim Keller
Here are a few books on the theme:
The Bookends of the Christian Life by Jerry Bridges
Holiness by Grace by Bryan Chapell
Transforming Grace by Jerry Bridges
The Prodigal God by Timothy Keller
The Gospel for Real Life by Jerry Bridges
TruFaced by Bill Thrall, Bruce McNicol, and John S Lynch
The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification by Walter Marshall (get the “modernized” version edited by Bruce McRae)
Dynamics of the Spiritual Life by Richard Lovelace
The Reign of Grace by Scotty Smith
In my last post, I mentioned that missional is a call to return to biblical, holistic ministry of both word and deed. I will admit that I am no church historian, but from what I have read, it seems that ever since the fundamentalist/modernist split, the evangelical church has neglected biblical deed ministry. Of course, there have been some marvelous exceptions to this. I would also argue that even during this time period, conservative, evangelical Christians did a tremendous amount of good for the poor around the world. For example, Christians were helping the starving people of Africa long before the celebrity culture got engaged. Yet, overall, the conservative church neglected deed ministry while the liberal church engaged in the social gospel.
D. A. Carson warns us against making statements like “The previous generation came down either on the social-transformation side or on the gospel-fidelity side, and we want to put together both.” Certainly, such a statement can be arrogant. At the same time, as the church is always reforming (semper reformanda), we should always be looking to correct what we are doing in light of Scripture.
Besides the neglect of ministry in deed (acts of justice, mercy, and compassion), something else seems to have been lost, or at least obscured, in the wake of the modernist controversy. That is the preaching of the gospel to believers (I will explain this later).
In a recent discussion, noted Christian author, Jerry Bridges, said, that if you trace Christian preaching and teaching all the way back to John Own, then through the 17th, 18th, 19th centuries stopping with B.B. Warfield, you will see that the preaching constantly emphasized the necessity of the gospel for Christians. Bridges goes on to note that at some point around Warfield (which is during the height of the modernist controversy in America in the early 20th century), this sort of preaching was clearly lost. He says that it does not begin to appear again until Richard Lovelace’s wonderful book, Dynamics of the Spiritual Life. (By the way, I found that Mr. Bridges made this same statement in a recent interview that you can read here.)
I will post more later on what it means to be a gospel community. However, there are already some wonderful articles on this on the net. Let me point you to two that I find very helpful:
Gospel Driven Sanctification by Jerry Bridges
The Centrality of the Gospel by Tim Keller
Here are a few books on the theme:
The Bookends of the Christian Life by Jerry Bridges
Holiness by Grace by Bryan Chapell
Transforming Grace by Jerry Bridges
The Prodigal God by Timothy Keller
The Gospel for Real Life by Jerry Bridges
TruFaced by Bill Thrall, Bruce McNicol, and John S Lynch
The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification by Walter Marshall (get the “modernized” version edited by Bruce McRae)
Dynamics of the Spiritual Life by Richard Lovelace
The Reign of Grace by Scotty Smith
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
The Importance of Missional
As I mentioned before, I am not about to die for a term. Certainly, the term missional has its problems. One of the most significant problems with the term is that it is trendy. Things that are trendy tend to be both trivial and temporary. Someone, I am not sure who, once said of fashion, that young people are obsessed with it and old people are bored with it. The same probably could be said with theological and church terms like “missional.” That is why Tullian Tchividjian, pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, adopted the term "missionary-minded." By that, he means that every Christian should have a missionary mindset as he lives out his life in his community.
Still, I believe the term missional communicates several things that are important to us in the evangelical and Reformed world. Whatever term one chooses to use, these are some of the important thoughts that need to be expressed:
1. It is a reminder that the church as a body, and Christians as individual members of this body, are on a mission. We are the “sent out” people of God. The Greek word for church, ecclesia, means called out. The idea is that we have been called out of the world as God’s beloved, chosen people. Yet, as the whole thrust of Scripture shows, God never calls you in unless He also sends you out. Jesus said, “So send I you.” We tend to live in our Christian ghetto, forgetting that we are to carry out the mission of Christ.
2. It is a wake up call to the reality that we are in a post-Christian culture. Christendom is over in the west. I don’t think the majority of Christians realize this. We need to view our own culture as the mission field. Certainly, the rest of the Christian world does. So, if you were going to send missionaries to America, to your state, and your city, what would you expect those missionaries to do? How would those missionaries seek to embody the gospel in such a way as to reach the people of your community for Christ and enfold them into the Church? Well, God has sent you and has sent your church. You and your church should be doing what missionaries do. Failure to take this seriously is to be unfaithful to the God who redeemed you.
3. Missional is a call to return to biblical, holistic ministry of both word and deed. The fundamentalist/modernist split resulted in two significant errors for us as conservative believers: 1) It resulted in moralistic/self-righteous preaching in the church. 2) It resulted in the loss of biblical deed ministry. The liberals engaged in the “social gospel.” Certainly, some in the missional movement seem more concern for feeding the poor than the salvation of souls. However, the proper response to this is not to go in the other ditch. If one traces the history of the church and the history of missions up until the 20th century, it seems obvious that the church has always been engaged in both word and deed ministry. Missional seeks a recovery of this.
Still, I believe the term missional communicates several things that are important to us in the evangelical and Reformed world. Whatever term one chooses to use, these are some of the important thoughts that need to be expressed:
1. It is a reminder that the church as a body, and Christians as individual members of this body, are on a mission. We are the “sent out” people of God. The Greek word for church, ecclesia, means called out. The idea is that we have been called out of the world as God’s beloved, chosen people. Yet, as the whole thrust of Scripture shows, God never calls you in unless He also sends you out. Jesus said, “So send I you.” We tend to live in our Christian ghetto, forgetting that we are to carry out the mission of Christ.
2. It is a wake up call to the reality that we are in a post-Christian culture. Christendom is over in the west. I don’t think the majority of Christians realize this. We need to view our own culture as the mission field. Certainly, the rest of the Christian world does. So, if you were going to send missionaries to America, to your state, and your city, what would you expect those missionaries to do? How would those missionaries seek to embody the gospel in such a way as to reach the people of your community for Christ and enfold them into the Church? Well, God has sent you and has sent your church. You and your church should be doing what missionaries do. Failure to take this seriously is to be unfaithful to the God who redeemed you.
3. Missional is a call to return to biblical, holistic ministry of both word and deed. The fundamentalist/modernist split resulted in two significant errors for us as conservative believers: 1) It resulted in moralistic/self-righteous preaching in the church. 2) It resulted in the loss of biblical deed ministry. The liberals engaged in the “social gospel.” Certainly, some in the missional movement seem more concern for feeding the poor than the salvation of souls. However, the proper response to this is not to go in the other ditch. If one traces the history of the church and the history of missions up until the 20th century, it seems obvious that the church has always been engaged in both word and deed ministry. Missional seeks a recovery of this.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
The Slippery-Ness of Missional
Terms and labels are slippery things. Don Carson, in his lecture, “What is Evangelicalism?” says of the term “Evangelical,” “There is a sense in which the topic really isn’t all that important. Labels come and labels go. And I am not quite ready to be crucified for a label.” I would say the same thing about the label “missional.” I am not about to die for a term. However, there are some important aspects of the concept of being missional that I believe are important for the church.
As I noted in my last post, the term “missional” is being used by a variety of people in a variety of ways. This has caused some to wonder if the term should be used at all. As I mentioned, Tullian Tchividjian, the new pastor at Coral Ride Presbyterian Church, has been heavily influenced by Tim Keller’s thoughts on the missional church. Yet, because of the variety of ways the term has been used, he has chosen to use the term “missionary minded” instead. My friend, Dr. Dominic Aquila, who is the President of our local seminary, New Geneva Theological Seminary, has written a rather severe critique of the term. Dr. Aquila’s primary concern stems from how the term has roots in the Gospel and Our Culture Network and how it has been used by liberal and neo-orthodox theologians. Certainly, with our history as Presbyterians, we should be concerned about Trojan horses bearing neo-orthodoxy.
However, not everyone who uses the term "missional" is liberal, neo-orthodox, or emergent. Many terms that are dear to us are slippery. Most people associate Presbyterianism with liberalism. Certainly, the overwhelming majority of Presbyterian churches in the United States are part of denominations that have a strong liberal and neo-orthodox bent. The large Presbyterian body is often in the newspaper for discussions about women as elders, ordaining homosexuals, even redefinitions of the Trinity. When I identify myself as a Presbyterian, I have to qualify the term in a way that is very different from the term’s meaning in popular usage. So, while many people believe that Presbyterian equals liberal. That is not the case. The same is true of missional.
We can say the same thing about the the term “evangelical.” In his lecture on the term, Dr. Carson demonstrates that the term means different things to different people and different things in different parts of the world. He mentions being in Columbia. There, the term refers to people who go door-to-door like Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses. He goes on to say, “If I lived in New York City with my dear friend, Tim Keller, I would never call myself an Evangelical, unless I were in a very friendly group because, by and large, in Manhattan evangelical means the Christianized version of the Taliban. It roughly means right-wing, stupid, ignorant, bomb-throwing people, and I don’t think of myself that way. So, I wouldn’t call myself an Evangelical there unless I had a lot of time to explain my position. . . . This is true of almost all labels. There are many, many contexts I would never call myself Reformed. In many parts of the deep South, Reformed basically means you don’t like evangelism. And I don’t think of myself like that, either.” Interestingly, Dr. Carson teaches at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and is known as a Reformed scholar.
There are many who wear the term "Evangelical" today that I would not call evangelical. There are even some who write for the leading evangelical magazine that I would hesitate to call evangelical. It seems that evangelical doesn't always mean evangelical any more. It also is apparent that evangelical means different things to different people.
So, all terms have baggage. One must be careful in using such labels that he defines the term and understands how they are being used in a particular context. Still, it is impossible to talk without labels. Labels provide a short-hand for explaining larger ideas. If I could not use the terms “reformed,” “Presbyterian,” or “evangelical,” then I would have hand them the Westminster Confession of faith, the PCA's Book of Church Order, and then add the following statement: "I believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture, that Scripture is infallible, inerrant, and our only infallible rule for what we are to believe and how we are to live. Furthermore, I believe that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Etc..." Frankly, it is much easier just to say that I am Evangelical, Reformed, and Presbyterian, even though all of those labels have problems.
So, do we need the label "missional?" That will be the subject of my next post.
As I noted in my last post, the term “missional” is being used by a variety of people in a variety of ways. This has caused some to wonder if the term should be used at all. As I mentioned, Tullian Tchividjian, the new pastor at Coral Ride Presbyterian Church, has been heavily influenced by Tim Keller’s thoughts on the missional church. Yet, because of the variety of ways the term has been used, he has chosen to use the term “missionary minded” instead. My friend, Dr. Dominic Aquila, who is the President of our local seminary, New Geneva Theological Seminary, has written a rather severe critique of the term. Dr. Aquila’s primary concern stems from how the term has roots in the Gospel and Our Culture Network and how it has been used by liberal and neo-orthodox theologians. Certainly, with our history as Presbyterians, we should be concerned about Trojan horses bearing neo-orthodoxy.
However, not everyone who uses the term "missional" is liberal, neo-orthodox, or emergent. Many terms that are dear to us are slippery. Most people associate Presbyterianism with liberalism. Certainly, the overwhelming majority of Presbyterian churches in the United States are part of denominations that have a strong liberal and neo-orthodox bent. The large Presbyterian body is often in the newspaper for discussions about women as elders, ordaining homosexuals, even redefinitions of the Trinity. When I identify myself as a Presbyterian, I have to qualify the term in a way that is very different from the term’s meaning in popular usage. So, while many people believe that Presbyterian equals liberal. That is not the case. The same is true of missional.
We can say the same thing about the the term “evangelical.” In his lecture on the term, Dr. Carson demonstrates that the term means different things to different people and different things in different parts of the world. He mentions being in Columbia. There, the term refers to people who go door-to-door like Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses. He goes on to say, “If I lived in New York City with my dear friend, Tim Keller, I would never call myself an Evangelical, unless I were in a very friendly group because, by and large, in Manhattan evangelical means the Christianized version of the Taliban. It roughly means right-wing, stupid, ignorant, bomb-throwing people, and I don’t think of myself that way. So, I wouldn’t call myself an Evangelical there unless I had a lot of time to explain my position. . . . This is true of almost all labels. There are many, many contexts I would never call myself Reformed. In many parts of the deep South, Reformed basically means you don’t like evangelism. And I don’t think of myself like that, either.” Interestingly, Dr. Carson teaches at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and is known as a Reformed scholar.
There are many who wear the term "Evangelical" today that I would not call evangelical. There are even some who write for the leading evangelical magazine that I would hesitate to call evangelical. It seems that evangelical doesn't always mean evangelical any more. It also is apparent that evangelical means different things to different people.
So, all terms have baggage. One must be careful in using such labels that he defines the term and understands how they are being used in a particular context. Still, it is impossible to talk without labels. Labels provide a short-hand for explaining larger ideas. If I could not use the terms “reformed,” “Presbyterian,” or “evangelical,” then I would have hand them the Westminster Confession of faith, the PCA's Book of Church Order, and then add the following statement: "I believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture, that Scripture is infallible, inerrant, and our only infallible rule for what we are to believe and how we are to live. Furthermore, I believe that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Etc..." Frankly, it is much easier just to say that I am Evangelical, Reformed, and Presbyterian, even though all of those labels have problems.
So, do we need the label "missional?" That will be the subject of my next post.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
History of the Term Missional
There is some debate over the history of the term “missional.” I first heard the concept, although not the term, when I went through the Inquirer’s Class at Perimeter Church (PCA) in 1983. In the class, Randy Pope makes the point that the church is supposed to be both a home to her people and a mission to her community. That is, the purpose of the church can be divided into two parts: 1) A home – this includes worship, nurture, edification, training, etc.. and 2) a mission – the church exists to announce the gospel to its community.
The first time I heard the term "missional" was in listening to and reading information on ministry from Tim Keller. I loved both its corrective to some of the problems I saw in the seeker-church movement as well as its emphasis on reaching the lost with the gospel.
According to an article in Christianity Today, the term “Missional Church” was first used in the book Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending Church in North America, edited by Darrell Gruder in 1998. However, D. A. Carson claims that Tim Keller coined the term “missional” in 1989 (he makes this claim in his lecture Keeping Up the Conversation).
However, it appears both are wrong, Ed Stetzer, who is a missiologist in residence at LifeWay (the publishing arm of the Southern Baptist Church. You can read his blog here) says that the first use of the word (at least in the way it is used today) occurred in a 1983 book by Francis Dubose called God Who Sends. Dubose was a professor at Golden Gate Baptist Seminary, a Southern Baptist Seminary which, according to Al Mohler, "trains clergy in the most conservative branch of a conservative church." Stetzer probably has done more research on the historical use of the term than anyone. He recently spoke at Dallas Theological Seminary’s conference on “Beyond the Church Doors: Developing a Missional Culture in Your Congregation.”
From Stetzer’s sketch of the history, the term was first used at a Southern Baptist Seminary, popularized further by The Gospel and Culture Network, and even further by Tim Keller, and has been used widely by such diverse groups as the Southern Baptist, a keynote address by Randy Pope at the PCA’s General Assembly, Dallas Theological Seminary, the emergent church, and Mark Driscoll and his Acts 29 Network. Furthermore, I as noted above, I have seen the term used positively by such conservative stalwarts as D. A. Carson, John Piper, and Tullian Tchividjian (the successor to James Kennedy at Coral Ridge Presbyterian, PCA, although Tullian prefers the term "missionary minded").
So, if the term is being used so widely by a variety of people in such varying contexts, some question if it is a helpful term. I will address that in a later post.
The first time I heard the term "missional" was in listening to and reading information on ministry from Tim Keller. I loved both its corrective to some of the problems I saw in the seeker-church movement as well as its emphasis on reaching the lost with the gospel.
According to an article in Christianity Today, the term “Missional Church” was first used in the book Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending Church in North America, edited by Darrell Gruder in 1998. However, D. A. Carson claims that Tim Keller coined the term “missional” in 1989 (he makes this claim in his lecture Keeping Up the Conversation).
However, it appears both are wrong, Ed Stetzer, who is a missiologist in residence at LifeWay (the publishing arm of the Southern Baptist Church. You can read his blog here) says that the first use of the word (at least in the way it is used today) occurred in a 1983 book by Francis Dubose called God Who Sends. Dubose was a professor at Golden Gate Baptist Seminary, a Southern Baptist Seminary which, according to Al Mohler, "trains clergy in the most conservative branch of a conservative church." Stetzer probably has done more research on the historical use of the term than anyone. He recently spoke at Dallas Theological Seminary’s conference on “Beyond the Church Doors: Developing a Missional Culture in Your Congregation.”
From Stetzer’s sketch of the history, the term was first used at a Southern Baptist Seminary, popularized further by The Gospel and Culture Network, and even further by Tim Keller, and has been used widely by such diverse groups as the Southern Baptist, a keynote address by Randy Pope at the PCA’s General Assembly, Dallas Theological Seminary, the emergent church, and Mark Driscoll and his Acts 29 Network. Furthermore, I as noted above, I have seen the term used positively by such conservative stalwarts as D. A. Carson, John Piper, and Tullian Tchividjian (the successor to James Kennedy at Coral Ridge Presbyterian, PCA, although Tullian prefers the term "missionary minded").
So, if the term is being used so widely by a variety of people in such varying contexts, some question if it is a helpful term. I will address that in a later post.
The Meaning of Missional
As some have pointed out, the term “missional” has been used by various people in different ways. The question is, at Village Seven, what do we mean by the term missional? Since I have been heavily influenced on this by Dr. Tim Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA), let me start by giving his five characteristics of a missional church:
1. Discourse in the vernacular. That is, we want to speak in common language, not in Christian jargon (more on this in a future post). Furthermore, it seeks to avoid “we-them” language that speaks disdainfully of unbelievers and those who differ from us.
2. Enter and retell the culture’s stories with the gospel. This means understanding the hopes, dreams, fears, and concerns of the people in our culture and then addressing these issues with Scripture and the gospel.
3. Theologically train lay people for public life and vocation. In our grand Calvinistic/Kuyperian tradition, we want to train people approach all of life from a biblical worldview and to engage the culture from this biblical worldview.
4. Create a Christian community that is counter-cultural and counter-intuitive. Because the gospel turns the world’s values-system on its head, we want a Christian community that demonstrates this. This shows itself in our love for neighbor, our concern for holiness, and our compassion for those who are hurting.
5. Practice Christian unity as much as possible on the local level. The church should display the unity for which Christ prays. That does not mean we obliterate theological distinctions. Rather, we maintain our distinctions but unite with other brothers and sisters over the cause of the gospel.
I heard one person say that the missional church where the Christians understand their calling to “go and be” rather than “come and see.” It is a church that understands that part of its calling is to be a mission to the community in which God has placed it.
The Missional Church is Different from a Seeker Church
It is important to note that a missional church and a seeker church are vastly different. In fact, many of those who call themselves “missional” are reacting to some of the trends they saw in the seeker-church movement. A seeker church attempts to attract non-Christians by putting on great programs. Usually, this involves having separate services for believers and unbelievers. According to Bill Hybels, these seeker services are modeled on programs like a Billy Graham Crusade. They seek to put on a great show with an evangelistic message.
In missional churches (at least those who use the term in the PCA), non-Christians are invited to come to worship services where the focus is truly worship. That is, it is not a presentation or show about Christianity, it is not an evangelistic meeting. Rather, it is an invitation to come and experience the Christian community and Christian worship from the inside. So, while missional churches work hard at making their services intelligible to non-Christians, they also work hard to keep the focus and liturgy set on the worship of God and not a presentation for unbelievers. Tim Keller addresses this issue further in this video from Desiring God.
The Missional Church is Different from the Emergent Church
For an excellent critique of the Emergent Church movement, listen to D. A. Carson’s lectures on The Gospel Coalition’s website. You can find it here. In this audio, you will notice that Dr. Carson quotes Keller’s use of the word “missional” favorably, but is critical of how emergents use the term. This is helpful because it shows an important distinction that missional, rightly defined, is good. However, like many other terms (e.g. Reformed and Evangelical), it can be used in ways that no evangelical (another slippery term) would want.
1. Discourse in the vernacular. That is, we want to speak in common language, not in Christian jargon (more on this in a future post). Furthermore, it seeks to avoid “we-them” language that speaks disdainfully of unbelievers and those who differ from us.
2. Enter and retell the culture’s stories with the gospel. This means understanding the hopes, dreams, fears, and concerns of the people in our culture and then addressing these issues with Scripture and the gospel.
3. Theologically train lay people for public life and vocation. In our grand Calvinistic/Kuyperian tradition, we want to train people approach all of life from a biblical worldview and to engage the culture from this biblical worldview.
4. Create a Christian community that is counter-cultural and counter-intuitive. Because the gospel turns the world’s values-system on its head, we want a Christian community that demonstrates this. This shows itself in our love for neighbor, our concern for holiness, and our compassion for those who are hurting.
5. Practice Christian unity as much as possible on the local level. The church should display the unity for which Christ prays. That does not mean we obliterate theological distinctions. Rather, we maintain our distinctions but unite with other brothers and sisters over the cause of the gospel.
I heard one person say that the missional church where the Christians understand their calling to “go and be” rather than “come and see.” It is a church that understands that part of its calling is to be a mission to the community in which God has placed it.
The Missional Church is Different from a Seeker Church
It is important to note that a missional church and a seeker church are vastly different. In fact, many of those who call themselves “missional” are reacting to some of the trends they saw in the seeker-church movement. A seeker church attempts to attract non-Christians by putting on great programs. Usually, this involves having separate services for believers and unbelievers. According to Bill Hybels, these seeker services are modeled on programs like a Billy Graham Crusade. They seek to put on a great show with an evangelistic message.
In missional churches (at least those who use the term in the PCA), non-Christians are invited to come to worship services where the focus is truly worship. That is, it is not a presentation or show about Christianity, it is not an evangelistic meeting. Rather, it is an invitation to come and experience the Christian community and Christian worship from the inside. So, while missional churches work hard at making their services intelligible to non-Christians, they also work hard to keep the focus and liturgy set on the worship of God and not a presentation for unbelievers. Tim Keller addresses this issue further in this video from Desiring God.
The Missional Church is Different from the Emergent Church
For an excellent critique of the Emergent Church movement, listen to D. A. Carson’s lectures on The Gospel Coalition’s website. You can find it here. In this audio, you will notice that Dr. Carson quotes Keller’s use of the word “missional” favorably, but is critical of how emergents use the term. This is helpful because it shows an important distinction that missional, rightly defined, is good. However, like many other terms (e.g. Reformed and Evangelical), it can be used in ways that no evangelical (another slippery term) would want.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
