I guess it must be a slow time for Keith since he has decided to take the bull by the horns and bring up the topic of “missional”. This is really one of those topics where I don’t think that you can win even if losing were winning. We are bound to offend some set of people, and there are so many people who like being offensive that I say we should leave it to them. Nevertheless, times being what they are, I am going to jump into this pool.
Honestly, I don’t think that I have seen a clear statement on what it means to be “missional”. I did find this summary from Ed Stetzer’s book Breaking the Missional Code as quoted on Steve McCoy’s Reformissionary blog:
When we talk about missional churches we are not referring to a certain form, expression, model, type, or category of church. We are talking about a church that seeks to understand its context and come to express that understanding by contextualizing the gospel in its community. Over time the church becomes an indigenous expression of the gospel within that culture, eventually removing all extrabiblical barriers. The truest expression of this mission church is that is fully represents Christ in its context, maintaining biblical integrity so that gospel moves unhindered. (187-188)
Well, what exactly is that supposed to mean? At one level I completely understand the phrase “understanding its context” and at another level I don’t. In any given community you will have a range of generations, ethnic groups, etc. so whose context are you going to pick? I actually assume that we would have many things in common with “missional” churches in that we care about our neighborhood. But I think there would be differences as well. I don’t see a single context that we can pick and furthermore, I don’t think I need to think about that as my first priority. I am more inclined to pursue, as Mark Dever has said, faithfulness to the gospel and assume relevance to the context rather than to pursue relevance and assume the gospel.
A couple weeks ago I wrote a post about the church’s ministry in an urban setting. I haven’t pursued the topic because I have some hesitancy about over generalizing. Nevertheless, I am going to push ahead with the understanding that these are not necessarily “universals.”
After abandoning the center city in the 1960’s and 1970’s, urban planners have come to realize the vital importance of a healthy and vibrant urban center. Cities like Louisville have made many changes in the past 10-15 years to revitalize their centers. They are doing this to try to recapture the “soul” of the city that was lost in the urban to suburban shifts and then homogenized to nothing once it went to the ‘burbs. So, in our city we have a newly restored “front lawn”. We have a skate park, bar/entertainment district, arena (maybe), new museums, etc. (I wish that we could get a new public library like the new one in Seattle.) But of course there is no one taking measures to reintroduce the churches and congregations that once gave cities a large part of their soul. I would suggest that a primary reason to be involved in a city church, and for us to exist as we do at 3ABC, is to make space for Christianity in the cultural landscape of the city. I am not talking about taking over the city government, but I am suggesting that Christians live, work, and worship in the city so that the new “soul” of a city like Louisville is not just sports and entertainment. Those who come to these newly revitalized cities will want/need to see people living out their faith around them and be to them the aroma of life. In general I think that city churches can be the aroma of life better than suburban churches, but I will save that for another post.
Keith, you asked for specific examples of ministries that might be logical for 3ABC in view of our context. It is a good question. In response, I would say that first of all the church should be the church and should be hesitant about starting any specific “mercy” or other ministries. By that I mean, the church should be there to care for and equip the saints. The church is not primarily there to provide soup and clothes to our neighbors, although we should care about our neighbors. I think that we should care for our neighbors less as the “church” corporately and more as the church individually.
You mentioned how Will got folks together to go clean-up Central Park. Oddly enough, I think it is a good example of ways that we can reach out to people in our neighborhood. Will and others saw an opportunity to serve the community and to be evangelistic and then gave time to it. Individual members serving at the Crisis Pregnancy Center would be another way.
I think an important thing that we as a church should do in our worship and life together in the city is to avoid trying to use suburban approaches to our church life. An example of having a suburban outlook in church life might be to expect to find guaranteed parking for your SUV every time you come to church.
How contextualized should a church’s ministry be? Is this your question Bruce? Some pastors may try to profile the typical candidate for membership and then adjust their outreach to woo them. I am not sure I am going to change my dress, music, texture, etc in order to make them feel more confortable because being comfortable is what “downtown donny” values most. I hope to woo downtown donnie with the gospel. Of course, and probably now answering Bruce’s question, we should seek to know and meet the needs of the people around us.
Third Ave Baptist would provide a great ministry in Old Louisville by serving in soup kitchens, shelters, the crisis pregancy center, campus ministries, etc. These are just some examples. A great example is a member recently gathering troops to help a community wide cleanup of downtown donny’s park. Surely we would all agree to know the people and care for their needs. I am not sure I am willing to play Creed or Bon Jovi as the intro music to our service so they feel at home.
Bruce, since you live downtown, what ministries would you find most helpful to get involved with in order to know our context and meet particular needs? Our context is also largely populated by college students, maybe some “U of L Ulysses” would send us an email for how we could minister to our student neighbors better.
For the faithful five people who check the 3ABC blog, please know that the rapture has not occurred and you have not been left behind. Now that you’re past being scared, you could send me your list of top five current contenders for the Anti-Christ since it’s been a while since I’ve heard speculation on that topic. The scarcity of posts is due to the press of real work that has come upon some of our number. The show must go on however, and I am going to launch a new topic.
The topic I’d like to launch is: Should the ministry of our church be different because it is in a city? I was reminded of the question today when I heard a summary of the life and work of Jane Jacobs on NPR. She died recently but was well known for her activism for urban spaces — especially in NYC in the early 1960’s. She was also well known for her book The Death and Life of Great American Cities.
I live in the city and care about the city. I view living in the city as a form of incarnational ministry just as I did when I lived in Washington, DC for many years. I do not think that you have to live in the city to be a member of 3ABC. But I do think that it would be fruitful for us to talk about how our church could/should respond to its context. Is there one soul that would respond to my question? Would a member like to send me an email in response to the question?
Can you call God your Father if the church is not your mother? Yes and no. Of course one could be saved without being a member of a local church (as Greg said). One’s salvation is not dependent upon being baptized into membership by a local congregation. I think of the thief on the cross and the Ethopian eunich baptized by Philip.
Now for the YES. Jude commands his readers to contend for the gospel that was once for all entrusted to the saints. These saints should be a reference to all believers–the universal church. The apostles received the gospel and teaching from Christ and have now passed this on to the church in their writings. Whether one hears the words of Christ or reads them, they receive them because the church has delivered them. In this way all the saints that precede us, especially the apostles who have authoratitively proclaimed them in their writings, NURTURE beleivers as their mother. (Of course this is not the same as the RC interpretation of Mary representing the Mother Chruch as she becomes the mother of all beleivers through Jesus’ words to John (Jn 19:26-27). Exactly?!)
An example: I was converted by reading my Bible alone. First, I received the message of grace from the apostle Matthew. Second, I was handed the Bible from my grandfather–a saint who contended for the gospel. I realize I am indebted to all who have preceded me because they have been the ambassadors of Christ.
What does this mean for the church–CONTEND FOR THE FAITH!! Providing nurture to all the condemned sinners around you by proclaiming God’s truth with boldness. God’s grace is soveriegn, still, his plan has included us to be the ambassadors and messengers of grace.
Not a custard shop. Though I do like custard, too. But I digress.
Back to the matter at hand. I’m certainly not saying that we shouldn’t engage strangers with the Gospel, if the opportunity naturally presents itself. And I’m also not talking about people—like you say, Keith—who engage the Gospel of their own volition.
Maybe I’m just defining “cold-contact evangelism” more narrowly, in a way that does not include the two examples above. But I don’t want to say that it’s finally just a matter of, “Whatever you do, do it well.” Because I think there’s a whole class of very common evangelistic practices out there that simply cannot be done well. And the sad irony is, those are the very practices that many Christians feel guilty for not doing.
We could discuss for a long time which practices fall into that class, because, again, I don’t think there’s a hard line between appropriate and inappropriate. I just think it’s better to shy away from that line altogether (wherever it finally is), and do evangelism in the context of genuine relationship—whether that genuine relationship is formed over three minutes or three years.
One more quote from Packer. I think he gets it spot-on. If you read only one thing I’ve posted in this whole conversation, this should be it:
Personal evangelism needs normally to be founded on friendship. You are not usually justified in choosing the subject of conversation with another till you have already begun to give yourself to him in friendship and established a relationship with him in which he feels that you respect him, and are interested in him, and are treating him as a human being, and not just as some kind of ‘case’.
With some people, you may establish such a relationship in five minutes, whereas with others it may take months. But the principle remains the same. The right to talk intimately to another person about the Lord Jesus Christ has to be earned, and you earn it by convincing him that you are his friend, and really care about him.
And therefore the indiscriminate buttonholing, the intrusive barging in to the privacy of other people’s souls, the thick-skinned insistence on expounding the things of God to reluctant strangers who are longing to get away—these modes of behaviour, in which strong and loquacious personalities have sometimes indulged in the name of personal evangelism, should be written off as a travesty of personal evangelism. Impersonal evangelism would be a better name for them!
In fact, rudeness of this sort dishonours God; moreover, it creates resentment, prejudices people against the Christ whose professed believers act so objectionably. The truth is that real personal evangelism is very costly, just because it demands of us a really personal relationship with the other man. We have to give ourselves in honest friendship to people, if ever our relationship with them is to reach the point at which we are justified in choosing to talk to them about Christ, and can speak to them about their own spiritual needs without being either discourteous or offensive.
