The Church Community in Contemporary Culture: Evangelism & Engagement

By Kieran Beville

He who loves his dream of a community more than the Christian community itself becomes a destroyer of the latter, even though his personal intention may be ever so honest and earnest and sacrificial. 

— Deitrich Bonhoeffer [1]

There is a movement within the church that is disillusioned with the existing model and methods of traditional church practice. I am not just referring to a restless few who dislike conservative mainstream denominational churches. I am not just referring to people who want to move away from church buildings with pews, elevated pulpits, and stained-glass windows. The same attitude is adopted with regard to churches with more modern buildings and more contemporary styles of worship. I am referring to what is known as the missional church.

What is the church? What is its nature and purpose? What is its role in this world? What is its relationship to the wider community? What are its sacred and secular responsibilities? What is a Christian? What is the gospel? What is mission? What is evangelism? In our eagerness to engage with contemporary culture these questions tend to be neglected. But they come into focus if we try to unite in inter-church collaboration on evangelism. Without broad consensus, any such endeavor will be problematic. But we also need a clear understanding of the answers to these questions within our own church community.

Church communities are being drawn into the vortex of unhelpful and unhealthy alliances ostensibly for the sake of evangelism and engagement. These problematic partnerships lead to confusion and compromise. I am concerned that people with evangelistic antennae are picking up this signal on their radar and embarking on a route to nowhere. We need to rethink the mission paradigm in the light of emerging challenges. We need to keep mission central to church life. We need to be in tune with the rhythm of God’s heartbeat. But we need biblical perspectives on mission theology as a prerequisite to identifying the way forward. Why? Because there are new directions in mission and it is important to examine these new departures. I want to take the missional church (the most significant new direction in evangelism and engagement) as a case study and offer a critique of this emerging phenomenon by asking whether it is a menace or a catalyst.

My article will be more philosophical than methodological and I hope this will not disappoint. I cannot apologize for my approach because I believe good principles provide a foundation for further discussion about the direction we should take and as such is the correct starting place. Perhaps an evangelist or church planter could put flesh on these bones.

The important question to be addressed is whether or not God is at work in this recent phenomenon. Some will say it’s the new reality and we better get on board before the ship leaves shore. We cannot simply endorse something just because it is a reality; we must be more discerning and test the spirits. For this we will need some criteria for evaluating a work of the Holy Spirit.

Is the missional church a menace? It is perceived by some as a threat to the welfare of the church. Is it a dangerous development? It seems to me (as a father of three) that new life has a nuisance element to it inasmuch as it disrupts life as it has been heretofore. Certainly the missional church is a catalyst insofar as it is precipitating change. The question I want to address is: Is this change a good thing? It is a development which has implications not only for missiology but also for Christology and ecclesiology.

The “attractional” church is understood as a church with a building that is used for regular worship services, prayer meetings, Bible studies, Sunday school, youth group meetings, and a host of other programs and activities. It is argued that, in this postmodern culture, the attractional church is outmoded. It has been so named because of the idea that the church’s missional stance is futile. They see it as ineffective and unsuccessful because it is based on the hope that people will be attracted to our pews by our preaching and programs. It might be likened to lighthouses which were once manned and useful but have become irrelevant in a world where seafarers have sophisticated navigation technology based on global positioning systems.

The new movement in evangelism and engagement advocates what it calls “incarnational” communities. These communities are essentially mission-focused, seeker-centered alternatives to the attractional church model. The locus of mission is re-centered so that instead of expecting unchurched people to come to us, we are exhorted to go to them. Clearly there is much merit in taking such an approach. The exponents of this new way would advocate launching lifeboats rather than building lighthouses as a mission strategy.

So what? At first glance, this might sound like nothing more than a different way of fishing for souls. But it is not. This is not a movement that advocates a different way of doing church or merely an attempt to put mission at the center of church life. If we stay with the nautical analogy for a moment, they would say that doing church differently is like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. So they see existing attractional church models (our churches) as doomed structures and they are sounding the bell to abandon ship. But are they entering uncharted waters in crafts that will withstand the fury of the raging seas?

There is some concern that some people in this new movement do not have the theological competence to pilot these flimsy vessels. But some of its leaders have advanced theological training and are directors of global networks and are quite organized in their approach to the dissemination of this new thinking through publication, consultation, and training. One has to admire the energy of these radical activists. We can be defensive and rigid and reject this new order, but that would be as unwise as unquestioningly embracing it. What is needed is an honest, open-minded critique of this movement rather than a gut-feeling response rooted in a predisposed antipathy to anything perceived as novel or trendy.

Has the attractional church passed its “best before” date? According to the leading exponents of the missional movement it is time to shut our doors and walk away before the sun sets on the institutionalized church form.

God can work in surprising ways and unexpected places, as happened to some degree in the charismatic movement of the 1960s and 1970s, despite all of its problems in theology and practice. By and large, the evangelical community kept its distance because it was problematic and messy. I’m not saying Christians should have gotten involved then and I am not sure how we could be involved with some new directions in evangelism and engagement now. But we do need to think about the dynamics of our relationship with the missional church.

According to missional church literature, this movement is seeing people being converted, lives being changed, a searching of the Scriptures, and evidence of a new love for God and for one another. Some will say that surely this is to be welcomed and that God does not need our permission to act in unexpected ways. The argument might be offered that, sadly, the Christian establishment is often dragged reluctantly into acknowledging God’s work outside its own restricted circles.

Once Upon a Time

I once read a story about a lifeboat station on the Eastern Coast of the United States.

It had begun when some of the locals with sailing experience became concerned about the number of ships that got into trouble in their waters. So they clubbed together and bought a lifeboat. Then they built a boathouse to keep it in. Over the years many lives were saved and there were countless instances of remarkable bravery. Often when the men were out on a rescue, the women would gather at the boathouse, comforting one another as they waited anxiously for news of their husbands. They discovered they worried less if they kept busy, so they put up curtains on the boathouse windows and generally smartened the place up. They persuaded their husbands (when not out on rescues) to put in a little kitchen and some comfortable chairs. Over the years the boathouse became a much more comfortable place to wait. In fact it became so comfortable that the men and their wives used to meet there sometimes when there was no rescuing to be done. Sometimes they brought friends who had never been out in a lifeboat in their lives. Some of the friends moored their yachts nearby. Gradually the character of the lifeboat station changed. One day there was a furious storm and a ship got into trouble just a little way along the coast. The people were all very concerned but no one went out to help. Why? The lifeboat station had become a yacht club. [2]

Many people are now saying that our churches have ceased to be rescue stations for the lost and have become comfortable clubs for the saved.

In fairness to the missional church, which is seeking to create incarnational communities, it must be said that they are well-meaning, sincere, and hard-working, dedicated to achieving their goals. They rightly understand that there is a problem with regard to reaching the unchurched. They correctly understand that dwindling church attendance and declining numbers of church adherents is a perplexing trend. But because they are evangelists, they think that everything in the church should center on evangelism. I think all believers would want to place huge importance on evangelism, but in a balanced way. People with evangelistic antennae have a tendency to develop tunnel vision. The church needs people with these gifts, but some blinkered individuals who do not have a panoramic view of the church think that evangelism is all that really matters. I have no doubt that many zealous but theologically naïve individuals are attracted to emerging situations. But I believe the more discerning churches will pick and mix the best and most innovative approaches and this is to be encouraged.

What Is Church?

When it comes to understanding the missional church, it is important to examine the biblical basis for Christian community. We all agree that a church is not a building in which Christians meet for worship. Rather, the essence of the local church consists of a fellowship of believers who gather to worship God. If we do not understand the biblical basis for Christian community, we will be terribly confused about the nature of true fellowship. An obvious concern about the new directions in evangelism and engagement which need to be addressed is that fellowship with unbelievers is more a kind of camaraderie which does not constitute true unity of the Holy Spirit.

Many church leaders will agree with the missional church’s diagnosis concerning the condition of the attractional church in the twenty-first century, but it is their prognosis and prescription that causes some concern. It is important for every generation to find ways of communicating the gospel to its culture but there is a danger that in seeking to be relevant we cross a line that ought not to be crossed.

Seeker-centered or Seeker-sensitive?

An occupational hazard for evangelists and church planters is that they become seeker-centered (as distinct from seeker-sensitive) and cross the line between contextualization and syncretism. Contextualization is about finding ways of explaining and exhibiting the gospel that can be understood within a particular cultural context, without compromising the integrity of the message or the messenger. Syncretism occurs when the desire to be relevant transcends all other motives and both message and messenger become integrated into the prevailing cultural context. Syncretism occurs when Christians adapt, either consciously or unconsciously, to the prevailing worldview. It is the reshaping of Christian beliefs and practices so that they reflect those of the dominant culture. In this process, Christianity loses it distinctiveness. [3] Syncretism is frequently birthed from a yearning to make the gospel appear relevant. The church attempts to make its message attractive to outsiders and as these adaptations become regularly assimilated they become an integral part of the church’s life. When significant changes in worldview take place, the Christian community, swept along by the ebb and flow of cultural currents, begins to lose her moorings. [4]

There has been a significant paradigm shift best summarized by the word postmodernism. Some church people are wondering if it will come into the church. The reality is that it is well embedded in the church. Many churches have gone beyond the process of contextualizing the gospel in Western culture and have married themselves to these core values of society. One writer cautions: “While Christian witness must be savvy concerning the realities of the postmodern condition in order to make the historic Christian message understandable and pertinent to denizens of the contemporary world, this does not mean that we should become postmodernists in the process.” [5]

Radical Developments

There are many radical developments in how church is practiced today. We are going to see much more of this kind of thoroughgoing recalibration in the next decade. The orientation toward missional and incarnational communities is not merely a rediscovery of the values and vision of the ancient faith communities found in the book of Acts. We must be careful not to disregard centuries of subsequent church history (including the Reformation) as if they are entirely irrelevant; that would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater and is a calamitous thing to do. Has our failure to address mission in a holistic way partly contributed to new departures in evangelism and engagement? [6]

The missional church is not a counter-cultural movement; it is, in fact, the opposite. Certainly they react to the consumerist, materialistic, and therapeutic values of modernist churches that have developed too cozy a relationship with the prevailing cultural norms. There is a real danger that they will lose their distinct identity as Christians.

The missional church contends that traditional Christian identity is perceived as unattractive to seekers. It charges the church with creating self-serving institutions that are not connecting with community. It would say that the attractional church has merely created holy huddles which are no-go zones for unbelievers who do not feel they belong to these “clubs.” They say that we have retrenched into our private enclaves. The accusation that we live a kind of neo-monastic existence is nonsense and this myth needs to be dispelled. Most of our people are connected to the real world in one way or another.

Missional church people integrate themselves into various communities and sub-cultures and intentionally conceal their spiritual identities until they have built what they call “meaningful relationships.” I feel there is something inappropriate and dishonest in this kind of subterfuge. I think Christians are called to be conspicuous in this world, not chameleons who adapt to the surrounding environment. We should not be disingenuous about our intentions. Christians are to be in the world but not of the world. D. L. Moody said, “The ship is meant to be in the water but God help her when the water gets into the ship.” It is an obvious truth that states an important principle of Christian living.

The missional church claims to be involved in creating places of inclusive belonging where God’s kingdom can be experienced. This sounds good until what that actually means is spelled out. Certainly, Christians should be creating places of welcome but we should not adopt an end-justifies-the–means approach to winning souls. The church is the bride of Christ and should remain pure and uncompromised.

Some new directions in evangelism and engagement are manifestations of a myopic movement which appeals to the disaffected and trend-oriented. Any critique of their motives and methods is viewed with suspicion and deemed to be judgmental. They dismiss people who present a different theological perspective as those who “know too much, talk too much and judge too much.” [7] This is both unfair and unhelpful.

The missional church criticism of the attractional church is rooted in the observation that there are so few conversions. They say churches are “musty, fussy, clubby, judgmental, mean, punishing, ungenerous….” [8] It is an unfair generalization to have the faithful and fervent work of so many pastors, elders, deacons, and church members denigrated in this way. Yet we must examine ourselves to see if there is an element of truth in this.

However, I think the missional church tends to see growth in narrow terms as an increase in numbers. But growth in a church context is not just about people coming to faith but also about people growing to maturity as individuals and also growing together in unity and love as a community, and numerical growth may be part of this process.

Schismatic Squabble

Differences about how evangelism and engagement are to be conducted have the potential to give rise to schismatic squabbles. I don’t want to contribute to polemical debate, but new directions have potentially dangerous undercurrents and I think it would be negligent not to flag this. Our desire to engage with contemporary culture must have safeguards against being ensnared by it. Many who start out meaning well may otherwise end up watching Oprah, Larry King, or Dr. Phil for spiritual guidance.

What are we to make of pastors leaving churches to become baristas and bartenders in the belief that in so doing they will be more effective witnesses for Christ? I suggest that people who do this were never ideally suited to pastoral ministry. Rather, they were church planters and evangelists. I wish them well but hope their new mission outpost situations will stay connected to local church communities.

For the missional church, connecting with sojourners is paramount. They establish communities which permit anybody, irrespective of belief or behavior, to belong. It appears to have a disregard for doctrine and tradition and argues that we should set aside our apologetics and theology and include those outside the kingdom. Church communities must be places of benevolence and blessing; we must extend a warm and genuine welcome to all. However, the theological and biblical reality is that a person does not belong to Christ until and unless he has repented of his sin and confessed Christ as Savior. We should not pretend that people belong when, in fact, they do not. That would be deceptive and unwise. It is like allowing people to come to our homes and dine with us. We can have a great deal of interaction, but they are not members of our family.

Some new directions in mission tend to have an end-justifies-the-means approach to involving non-believers in church ministries. This has resulted in incidents such as stoned and drunk musicians playing at their gatherings and the unconverted teaching Bible stories to children. Boundaries are blurred and nobody in their communities is bothered by this.

Because society has lost interest in “organized Christendom,” there is a desire to offer it a radical alternative. An important question, therefore, is whether or not this alternative is authentic to the ideals of Scripture.

The missional church seems to have lost confidence in the efficacy of preaching to accomplish God’s purposes. Maybe they have been exposed to poor models of preaching; sadly, there is much of that about. I believe that preaching Christ in a postmodern culture is not only feasible but imperative. The missional church argues that people won’t change by listening to preaching. But I wonder why Jesus preached. Jesus was first and foremost a preacher. The Nazareth Manifesto identifies preaching as central to His ministry. If we want to model Him, we cannot dismiss preaching. Even by their own admission, the missional church says that “Christology determines missiology, and missiology determines ecclesiology.” [9] The whole notion of church is being systematically deconstructed and radically redefined.

To Boldly Go Where No Man Has Gone Before

The missional desire to spend time with the un-churched is admirable. They see themselves as pioneers who are taking risks in going where no man has gone before. For them, the fulfillment of the Great Commission to “go” is not merely about outreach evangelism programs; rather, it’s about living among and belonging. But we must love the found as well as the lost. To what extent (if any) have we contributed to the sense of disaffection which is giving rise to this movement by inserting extra-biblical proscriptions, written and unwritten (about issues like alcohol, smoking, styles of dress, etc.) as conditions of membership in constitutions and codes of conduct?

The balance between being a community which confronts the godless values of the cultural norms and being an inclusive community is difficult to achieve. The missional church is calling for a revolution in inclusive community in which the masses will want to participate. The distaste for present forms of church is evident in the words of Hugh Halter: “The typical message has been to be good, stop sinning, go to church, and wait for God to come back. Yuck. It’s too simple.” [10] Surely, it is right to stop sinning. Sin is grievously offensive to God and to cease sinning is an indication that the person has newness of life. This is what God wants and expects of converts. Is it not right to go to a place where like-minded people assemble to worship God as a community of believers? Did not the early church have an eschatological hope that radically altered how it lived?

The missional church believes that through benevolent action in the community, spiritual dialogue will ensue; they openly admit that they would prefer doing something useful (like sweeping up leaves in the community) on Sunday morning instead of going to church. They will randomly cancel their gatherings so that they can do something alternative to worship. But the kingdom of God is not about winning the Tidy Towns competition! Some churches have involved their youth in making a positive contribution to the community by clearing up litter. This kind of activity can be very positive and can open opportunities for conversations about how our faith motivates us to do good deeds. The problem is in conducting such benevolent acts as alternatives to church worship services. The missional church does not seem to care much if people attend their Sabbath gatherings. They encourage people to spend their Sunday mornings being with sojourners. Perhaps the missional church is attractive because one does not have to forsake much or believe much in order to belong to it.

The missional church talks about apprenticing disciples as more authentic than cognitive discipleship. But Jesus taught His disciples for three years and the Great Commission instructs us to “teach” all that Christ has taught. This is clearly part of the discipleship process. Maybe the discipleship process is best done through supervised hands-on experience supplemented with teaching.

In his trenchant analysis of the cultural corruption weakening the church’s thought and witness, David Wells argues that evangelicals have blurred the distinctions between Christ and culture, and have largely abandoned their traditional emphasis on divine transcendence in favor of an emphasis on divine immanence. In doing so, they have produced a faith in God that is of little consequence to those who believe. He says, “There is a profound sense in which the church has to be ‘otherworldly.’” [11]

Nobody is saying that everything in existing structures and the prevailing modus operandi is sacrosanct. We must be open to the idea of reviewing our structures to see if they hinder or help our goals. But all of this must be done in the light of Scripture. In this new movement, church becomes a discovery zone for participating sojourners where the desire to be relevant leads to convictions being diluted. We must be careful about how we proceed so that what is harmful can be rejected and what is helpful can be retained as we seek to advance in evangelism and engagement.

Evaluating Criteria

Are there any criteria that can be used to evaluate contemporary approaches to mission? What is a genuine work of the Holy Spirit? One would certainly hesitate to make unfair accusations or derive inappropriate conclusions about any activity which might be authentic. John MacArthur has presented material condensed, adapted, and excerpted from Jonathan Edwards’ “The Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God.” [12] This MacArthur/Edwards article identifies five distinguishing characteristics of the Holy Spirit’s work, based on an analysis of 1 John 4:1-8. These are helpful in determining whether or not emerging trends are a true work of God. MacArthur says that a genuine work of the Holy Spirit exalts the true Christ, opposes Satan’s interests, points people to the Scriptures, elevates truth, and results in love for God and others. Let us examine the new phenomenon in the light of this standard.

First, we must ask if the missional church upholds a scriptural view of Christ. Clearly, the doctrine of the incarnation must be affirmed. The missional church subscribes to this truth in asserting that Jesus is the Son of God. [13] The community of this new movement genuinely desires to lead people to Christ. Christ is revered (perhaps sentimentally) in this new movement.

Nevertheless, there is something imaginary about the Christ they extol. I have already asserted that Jesus was a preacher. The missional church makes a distinction between “Galilean Christians” and “Jerusalem Christians.” The Galilean Christians are those who interpret the Bible through the life of Jesus; the Jerusalem Christians are more doctrinal. This bias toward the Galilean way is quite subjective. They see Jerusalem people as idolaters of the Bible who have overly intellectualized spirituality. They have reduced the Bible to the Gospels and argue that if we only had the Gospels Christianity would look very different today. But we have the entire canon of Scripture because God wanted to reveal more than what is disclosed in the Gospels. Their tendency to ignore, reject, or devalue any Scripture that is not directly spoken by Jesus is potentially heretical.

Second, a distinguishing mark of a work of the Spirit of God is that it will oppose Satan’s interests. Satan desires that people remain in a sinful condition and succumb to the lusts of the flesh. The missional church is not entirely indifferent to sinfulness, but its attitude toward sin is lax. They claim to create an environment in which the conscience can become sensitive to the truth in relation to sin, but in the absence of preaching about the dreadfulness of sin, they have created an environment which is casual about sin.

A third mark that distinguishes a work of the Spirit of God is that it points people to the Scriptures. The missional church does not induce a high a regard for the whole counsel of God. As already mentioned, they tend to be red-letter people rather than biblical people; they put a higher value on the words of Christ than on the words of other authors of Scripture. This distorts revelation.

A fourth feature of a work of the Spirit of God is that it elevates truth. Certainly, the missional church makes people more aware of the central gospel truths. They may be effective in leading people to faith but fall short of leading them to maturity in Christ.

The fifth and final mark that distinguishes a work of the Spirit of God is that it results in love for God and others. The missional church loves the lost and it is to be highly commended for this. They profess to love God and I don’t doubt their sincerity in this regard. Nevertheless, the God they profess to love is eviscerated of much of the divine nature as a sin-loathing God.

The missional church is not heretical, but it is a movement which has potentially harmful effects. In spite of reservations about and objections to its “unorthodox” irregularities and potential hazards, it cannot be dismissed as a work of Satan. Must it, therefore, be embraced as a work of the Holy Spirit? From past experience (consider the history of revival movements), it is clear that the Spirit of God can work even in the midst of much that might be deemed problematic.

We should be very reluctant, therefore, to condemn a work in which the Holy Spirit might be involved and we should have a similar sense of hesitancy about contributing to the polarization of differing Christian communities. But we must test the spirits and, where we find deficiencies and dangers, we must be diligent in alerting others to the potential pitfalls.

The Way Forward

Everyone’s ideas about mission are shaped by their theology. Much has been written in recent years about mission, which focuses on methodological approaches to engaging contemporary culture. Many of these works boldly propose new ways of engaging with contemporary culture. We must be concerned about keeping mission central to church life and identifying a way forward in the labyrinthine complexity of postmodern society.

The trendy literature suggests that the attractional model of the church of Christendom is outmoded. It is an influential body of work which contends that what is needed now is a missional and incarnational Christian church. But these works tend to be primarily focused on how to engage in mission rather than putting in place a theological foundation which would underpin the missionary enterprise. What is needed is a biblical perspective on mission theology that informs and shapes our understanding, approaches, and methodologies in facing the unfinished task of “making disciples of all nations.” This will not only safeguard and strengthen mission but will also provide a means of evaluating trends which seek to influence future directions in mission activity.

Postmodernism presents a new frontier situation. We must have a missionary impulse to bear witness to the gospel. Certainly, we must adapt to the new environment but without compromising. We live with the tension of seeking ways of contextualizing the gospel without capitulating to culture. As the current cultural context is emerging, we are in uncharted waters and navigating our way will require experienced and savvy people at the helm.

Paradigm Shift

It is generally acknowledged now that a paradigm shift has taken place. This “cultural sea change” has contributed to significantly widening the gulf between church and culture. [14] This is not necessarily a bad thing, because the Western church has had too cozy a relationship with the prevailing culture. We now have to talk not about culture but cultures, because we live in what might be called a pluriverse rather than a universe. In this kaleidoscopic cultural context, we are all influenced by a variety of cultures in diet, dress, art, architecture, music, and the media. Secularization, cultural and religious pluralism, globalization, and advances in technology have all had an impact on the church’s role in society. It is not just city center churches that have this mélange of cultures but rural churches as well. It is in response to such challenges that new directions and departures in evangelism and engagement have emerged.

Navigating this emerging missiological landscape will involve experimenting with approaches to ministry that will challenge present understandings of what it means to be the church today. These challenges are new opportunities to engage in innovative forms of communication and dialogue. Should we consider this taking place in unconventional spaces, often referred to as the third place? This would mean inhabiting places outside church buildings that are also inhabited by non-Christians. The missional church thinks in terms of shared space rather than sacred space. They see our commitment to buildings as an absurd loyalty akin to the captain going down with the sinking ship. Evangelists and theologians must work together like architects and engineers in constructing a new order which is both attractive and safe.

Being Church Today

So, what does it mean to be the church today? It is about participating in a way of life. It means an understanding that we are the gathered community of God’s people. We gather around Christ and a body of divinity, indwelt by the Holy Spirit, united as blood-brothers. We can create all sorts of artificial communities, but the church is an organism, not an organization. It is a living, dynamic, and organic entity of the redeemed.

The missional church challenges believers to leave their private enclaves and comfort zones and infiltrate unorthodox and even profane places. But discernment is needed. Some will reject the call out of hand as an invitation to compromise which can only result in Christians being contaminated. Others will rush in “where angels fear to tread.”

When visiting a city, it is helpful to find the map that says “you are here,” accompanied by a big arrow pointing to the spot. We can navigate from there. With regard to evangelism and engagement, there is a sense in which the landscape does not change and the map does not change, but we need to know where we are and re-orientate the map so that we can head in the right direction.

Evangelism is not an elective element of the spiritual life. These new approaches to evangelism and engagement have far-reaching implications because they are not proposing prioritizing mission within existing church structures. It is not about churches giving more time to mission or conducting outreach more often. It is not about preaching more about mission or having more missionaries come and speak in the local church. It is not about more time being given to prayer for mission. It is, rather, a complete reorientation of the church, a reshaping of its life, a rediscovery of mission as the activity around which everything else is coordinated. [15]

Emerging Phenomenon

In the West, we are now living in what may be called the post-Christian era. Many people are no longer interested in what the church has to offer. Paradoxically, in postmodern culture, there is new openness to spirituality. In this situation, where the church in its present institutionalized form is perceived as irrelevant, growing numbers of Christians are engaging in more innovative missionary activity. But the stories gathered from these emergent church projects give rise to some concern about the future direction of mission. These spirited experiments are primarily motivated by a desire within the church to be more relevant to society in the twenty-first century. This relatively new movement is not comprised merely of armchair theorists; it is a radicalized and organized cohort of activists who are effectively disseminating their message, recruiting adherents, and replicating missional communities in Western society.

The missional church is an expression of the emerging church phenomenon. It deemphasizes what it perceives to be as divisive doctrine by emphasizing the primacy of relationship. This is characteristically postmodern. They also elevate God’s (almost indiscriminate) love for mankind over His essential holiness. By raising unity above truth, the missional church creates an atmosphere where peace is the summum bonum, that is, the supreme good from which all others are derived.

The missional church is essentially rooted in contemporary culture, and this fact may be the cause of its own demise. Philosophies that are driven by culture are inexorably destined to disappear in time. As Os Guinness warned, “He who marries the spirit of the age soon becomes a widower.” [16]

The greatest threats to the health of the church are liberalism on the one hand and legalism on the other. The avant-garde are the adventurers and innovators who pioneer new approaches and departures. They are more likely to gravitate to liberalism than legalism. The missional church mentality is compatible with this instinct. The rearguard, however, is comprised of those whose instinct is conservative and whose desire is to protect and preserve the status quo and as such they are more likely to gravitate to legalism. I think we all have a default mode in this regard.

Faith should not be inert and unchanging but dynamic and vibrant. Our experiences of life must inspire reflection, and our interaction with others who hold different views ought to stimulate honest appraisal and reappraisal of our own opinions and positions. Daniel Migliore says:

Theology must be critical reflection on the community’s faith and practice...not simply a reiteration of what has been or is currently believed and practiced by a community of faith. It is a quest for truth, and that presupposes that the proclamation and practice of the community of faith are always in need of examination and reform…. When this responsibility is neglected...the faith of the community is invariably threatened by shallowness, arrogance and ossification. [17]

Those with a risk-taking disposition want to face the white-water rapids in a canoe. Those with a conservative bias would prefer to take a trip in a barge on the canal. It is unlikely that those with a risk-taking disposition and those with a conservative bias will enjoy a journey together. In this sense, the disposition of the Reformers at the time of the Reformation was not conservative. This may be a surprise to those who revere the Reformers as establishment heroes. We must cherish a past that is not only connected to the present but also connected to the future.

At the outset, I asked if the missional church was a menace or a catalyst. I believe it is both. The words of Mr. Spock might be applied to the missional church: “It’s life, Jim, but not as we know it.”

Our theoretical presuppositions about mission and our theological rationale for mission should be determined by the Word of God.

We must allow Scripture to speak for itself as the missionary manual rather than impose our views upon it. Eric Wright says:

Nothing can be more important than to ensure that our missionary presuppositions reflect the principles of Scripture. This will not be true if theology is ignored, because theology brings us face to face with the principles, parameters and priorities that God has revealed. [18]

Mission must be a Christ-centered intentional process of communicating the gospel in word and deed. An informed, biblical missional view goes beyond the frequently quoted commissioning passages to a more comprehensive perspective from Genesis to Revelation. Nevertheless, the missionary mandate is about living out the Great Commission with the passion of the Great Commandment (to make disciples and love God and neighbor). Christ’s followers are to take the gospel to all peoples (nations and ethnic groups) irrespective of class, culture, or creed. This demands conviction, commitment, and courage in the face of the objections of pluralism and the hostility of anti-Christian fundamentalisms. Christians must avoid the pitfall of theological liberalism which perceives evangelism as proselytizing. Christians must also avoid the snare of religious legalism which is nurtured in separatist enclaves.

Our God is a missionary God. The Bible is a missionary book. The church is a missionary institution. Christ’s mandate is a missionary mandate. The Great Commandment (to love) is to be the regulating principle of all mission activity. Contemporary culture presents many opportunities for the entrance of the gospel. So each church must find ways of having meaningful interaction with those outside the church. But this must be done without capitulating to the prevailing culture.

The missional church may be overzealous in its approach and naïve in much of its activity, but it has led to some innovative ways of engaging with culture. However, its central problem is its overemphasis on pragmatism. A. W. Tozer identified this issue as far back as 1955 when he said, “Religious pragmatism is running wild among the orthodox. Truth is whatever works. If it gets results it is good.” [19] Eric Wright suggests that “the most pragmatic thing we can do in the long run is to teach what God has revealed, trust his revealed methods and try to apply them in dependence on the Holy Spirit.” [20]

Our involvement in the world comes about in a variety of natural and intentional ways. One of the most obvious is in the workplace (though, for pastors, this might be a problem because our world is inhabited by Christians). There are other areas where the Christian may come into contact with the world, such as sports, cultural pursuits, social activities, volunteering, educational programs, and politics.

Scripture refers to anyone involved in any form of government as “God’s servant” (Rom. 13:4). God has ordained the powers that be (Rom. 13:10). Clearly, the Christian individual may in good conscience be involved in politics. The Old Testament character Daniel walked with God and occupied a senior position in the Babylonian/Persian civil service. Another Old Testament character, Joseph, was directly involved in the government of Egypt. God’s people are not forbidden to be involved in society. Some Christians have spearheaded important social reform, such as William Wilberforce with the abolition of slavery.

There are many practical and positive ways in which we can let our light shine. Our good deeds give credibility to the gospel message which we proclaim. The Christian is to be concerned for good works as well as good words. If we are to model the Master, we must realize that He was compassionate and went about doing good (Acts 10:38).

But there is a difference between humanitarianism and Christian mission. We need to ensure that we engage in more than philanthropy. The essential difference is the gospel message of salvation. Christian mission ministers to the soul of humanity and its greatest need: that of a Savior. We must distinguish between the calling of the Christian citizen to engage in social and political action and the mandate of the church. Nevertheless, in certain contexts, the gospel has unavoidable political implications.

Jesus could have gained enormous popularity if He had been willing to respond to the people’s political agenda, but He resisted. We must do likewise by resisting such temptations and being alert to the danger of being used to further the world’s agenda, even when aspects of that agenda are good causes. History abounds with sad examples of the church being hijacked in this way. Para-church organizations that started out with an overtly Christian mission have drifted from their formative ideals and have become virtually secularized. Examples of this are the Salvation Army and the YMCA.

One of the major dangers facing the Christian church in contemporary culture is religious pluralism. The missionary frontier is the line which separates belief from unbelief. That means that it is also the line between false and true religion where cherished beliefs are challenged, contradicted, or even, when necessary, condemned. For example, the practice of sati in the Indian context was identified by William Carey as morally wrong.

It is important that the Bible should be respected in any shaping of things to come because it is the authoritative source of our understanding of evangelism and engagement. The church’s mission is about presenting the unique and universal claims of Jesus, and that runs counter to the pluralist agenda. The church’s mission is about calling people to repentance, faith, and community relationship. We are partners in this great work in progress. Consider the challenging words of the well-known hymn:

Facing a Task Unfinished [21]

Facing a task unfinished
That drives us to our knees;
A need that, undiminished
Rebukes our slothful ease;
We, who rejoice to know Thee,
Renew before Thy throne
The solemn pledge we owe Thee,
To go and make Thee known.

Where other lords beside Thee
Hold their unhindered sway;
Where forces that defied Thee
Defy Thee still today;
With none to heed their crying
For life, and love, and light,
Unnumbered souls are dying
And pass into the night.

We bear the torch that flaming
Fell from the hands of those
Who gave their lives proclaiming
That Jesus died and rose.
Ours is the same commission,
The same glad message ours;
Fired by the same ambition
To Thee we yield our powers.

O Father who sustained them,
O Spirit who inspired,
Savior, whose love constrained them
To toil with zeal untired;
From cowardice defend us,
From lethargy awake!
Forth on Thine errands send us
To labor for Thy sake.

Notes

1. Deitrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together: A Discussion of Christian Fellowship (San Francisco: HarperOne, 1954), 27.
2. Gary Benfold, “So that I can rebuild it,” Evangelical Magazine of Wales, May/June, 2004.
3. Gailyn Van Rheenen, “Modern and Postmodern Syncretism in Theology and Missions,” The Holy Spirit and Mission Dynamics, ed. C. Douglas McConnell (Pasadena: Wm. Carey, 1997), 173.
4. Van Rheenen, “Modern and Postmodern Syncretism,” 173.
5. Douglas Groothuis, “Facing the Challenge of Postmodernism,” To Everyone an Answer: A Case for the Christian Worldview, eds. Francis Beckwith, William Lane Craig, and J. P. Moreland (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2004), 253.
6. I have witnessed holistic models of mission working well in India and Eastern Europe, but I acknowledge the dangers inherent in this model whereby the gospel message of salvation can become subordinate to material concerns.
7. Hugh Halter and Matt Smay, The Tangible Kingdom (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008), xxii.
8. Halter and Smay, The Tangible Kingdom, 11.
9. Michael Frostl and Alan Hirsch, The Shaping of Things to Come (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 16.
10. Halter and Smay, The Tangible Kingdom, 74.
11. David F. Wells, God in the Wasteland: The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 41.
12. John MacArthur, Jr. “A True Work of the Spirit,” Grace to You broadcast. See also: http://www.biblebb.com/files/edwards/je-marksofhs.htm.
13. As far as I am aware, they believe in the sinless life, substitutionary death/atonement, resurrection, ascension, intercessory role, divinity, and second coming of Christ.
14. Graham Ward, “Introduction: ‘Where We Stand,’” in The Blackwell Companion to Postmodern Theology (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 2001), xv.
15. Ward, “Introduction: ‘Where We Stand,’” 45.
16. Os Guinness, Dining with the Devil (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993). Google References attributes this remark to W. R. Inge, the famed Dean of St. Paul’s Cathedral.
17. Daniel L. Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), xxi.
18. Eric E. Wright, A Practical Theology of Missions: Dispelling the Mystery; Recovering the Passion (Leominster, U.K.: DayOne, 2010), 10.
19. A. W. Tozer, The Root of the Righteous (Harrisburg, Pa.: Christian Publications, 1955), 8.
20. Eric E. Wright, A Practical Theology of Missions, 10.
21. Frank Houghton, Christian Hymns, ed. Paul E. G. Cook and Graham Harrison (Bryntirion, Bridgend: Evangelical Movement of Wales, 1977).