When “Missional Church” gets too outwardly focused

“Missional church” has been a big movement and buzz word in recent years. The thrust of the movement is to recall the Church’s identity as a sent community, one that reaches out to those around them. It serves as a critique of the “attractional church” that attempts to attract people with great product offerings and marketing. (Less corporate words may be used, but the idea is the same.) Want a helpful 2-minute video primer on “missional church”? Try this.

I’ll start with this. I think the missional church’s critique of the attractional mindset is good and needed. See my posts, “Attracting with Buildings” and “Offer the Gospel!” And I think the missional church folk have generally had a good message for us: the church must get outside the walls of its own buildings and its programs for members.

But I’m also concerned that some of those influenced by missional church ideas have gone too far and are misunderstanding the church. An example comes in this blog post that was just sent to me. The post is actually very good. A helpful assessment with some great points. You should read it. But this statement in it made me cringe:

Theologically, I’m convinced that the Church is in the business of putting itself out of business. The mission of the Church, after all, is not the Church but the coming reign of God (emphasis mine).

This statement comes from an understanding of the Church that has an entirely outward focus. It calls on the Church to go into the world in outreach and witness until no more outreach and witness are necessary. If those goals were accomplished, the author reasons, there would no longer be a need for the Church.

Some use this mindset to say that the Church can and should bring the kingdom of God on earth by ridding the earth of all social evils. We’ve seen that before. In one of its most popular and recent manifestations, it was called the Social Gospel movement.

Others have rightly said that the kingdom of God and the defeat of evil will only come at Christ’s return. Still, they have argued that the Church’s sole purpose should be to work toward those goals. Even if we can’t “put ourselves out of business,” we should still work as if that’s the goal.

But for the Church to try and put itself out of business tragically misunderstands the nature of the Church. This kind of understanding assumes that the Church’s only calling is outward in witness and outreach. That understanding forgets that the Church is the bride of Christ, that Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her (see Ephesians 5:22-33). That understanding likely assumes that corporate worship is only for equipping people to go back out into the world in mission. It would see the only purpose of Christian fellowship as a form of preparation for the mission.

This article by John MacArthur – “Inward, Upward, or Outward?” – illustrates that mindset well.* I saw the article’s title and thought someone else was making my point. Instead, I found MacArthur proving the problem. In the article, he makes it clear that the Church’s “inward” and “upward” activities are fine and good, but the Church’s real purpose is “outward.” His concluding words:

Fellowship, teaching, and praise are not the mission of the church but are rather the preparation of the church to fulfill its mission of winning the lost. And just as in athletics, training should never be confused with or substituted for actually competing in the game, which is the reason for all the training.

I think MacArthur is totally wrong. I was excited to see his title, thinking he was going to argue that the central calling of the Church is inward, outward, and upward. They can’t be teased apart. One can’t be favored. And all three are essential. I was disappointed to find him making the opposite point.

Fellowship, teaching, and praise are not training – they are the very being of the Church! If we call our worship, our fellowship, our prayer, our sharing in communion, and our study of Scripture simply training, we take the typical pragmatic, man-centered turn that seems to plague most of the American Church’s thinking today. We make all of these into pragmatic steps toward accomplishing the mission and miss the deeper point of these actions.

The Westminster Catechism famously asks, “What is the chief end of man?” and famously answers, “To glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.” In all, I’m concerned that some influenced by the “missional church” movement have a new response to that question. They want to answer that the chief end of man is to glorify God by outreach and witness. All else is just training.

Why do we worship? Not primarily to be equipped for mission, but primarily because we are the people of God. 

The central purpose of our worship is to worship God – to praise and enjoy him. And that’s enough! I hope it prepares us for mission, but that’s a secondary purpose.

The central purpose of our prayer is to pray to God. And that’s enough!

The central purpose of our fellowship is to share deeply with each other as the Body of Christ. And that’s enough!

And the central purpose of our outreach and witness? To show compassion, to fight for justice, to advocate for the oppressed, and to testify to the gospel. And that’s enough!

All of these works are an end unto themselves. They don’t need to lead to another point. They are the point. Or if we insist, we may say they all lead to glorifying and enjoying God. But let’s make sure we keep that as the chief end of man and the Church — inward, upward, and outward. The business of the Church isn’t to put itself out of business. It’s to glorify and enjoy God, to be prepared as a radiant bride for Christ, to live in fellowship and mission as the body of Christ.

For more, SUBSCRIBE for e-mail updates.

————

* Note: MacArthur is no figurehead for the “missional church” movement. But I find his statement here reflective of the mentality that I see sometimes coming from that movement.

Christians and Porn – reader response

see no evil
see no evil
Speak no evil, see no evil, hear no evil?

I got a lot of responses from my last post, “Christians and Pornography.” I got a lot of “Amen”s and “thank you for saying it”s. I was really glad to see those. For those rejecting things that have become common in our culture, it sometimes feels like we might be all alone. Nice to know there are others.

From some, I got objections. Some objected that I didn’t focus on violence. I agree that depicted violence is a problem – though in a slightly different way, see the comments to the last post – but it wasn’t my focus.

Some people justified why they just don’t think this material is as bad for them as I make it out to be. I disagree with those people, but I’ve always intended this to be a place for provoking thought and conversation. If everyone agreed, I would probably be keeping it too tame and generic. And it’s good to hear the other side. My wife tells me I’m not right about everything. (She doesn’t really. She’s incredible and constantly affirming. That just sounded good right there.)

But then I received the below from an anonymous responder. (I’m okay with anonymous response when it’s of a confessional nature like this.) I thought it was perhaps the most helpful and honest response of all. He provides something I may have left out: avoiding cultural temptations is difficult. I suspect he says a lot of what many of us feel. I’m leaving it in the exact form he sent it. I hope it’s helpful to you…

An Anonymous Response to “Christians and Porn

Confession time: there is no doubt that I have seen some of those movies, and I will admit that I like some of those movies. However, I don’t “consciously” think I like those movies because of porn, usually I think they are really funny-but, I digress.

I think anyone that tries to defend watching any of these types of movies is being disingenuous with themselves and God. There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY you can legitimize watching any of these things other than pure, selfish enjoyment – which you can not describe as being Holy or even close.

I throw myself right in there; I know when I am watching these shows that I shouldn’t; but, my normal excuse would be “it isn’t that big of a deal, I’m not REALLY contributing or acting certain ways because of this—it’s innocent for me.” I know that doesn’t cut it; and it shouldn’t if I want to be sanctified through Christ. I need to be better. It isn’t easy—THAT IS WHAT PEOPLE NEED TO ADMIT . . . but, Jesus told us it wouldn’t be easy. And if we are being honest, most “Christians” DON’T want to be sanctified; they want to go to church and say all the right things without the work . . . Now, please don’t take this as being sanctimonious. I am not near where I need to be; and, I can admit that I know that and I really WANT to be better.

As an additional comment; I would also say that movies including language are right up there for me as being unholy. I REALLY like the standard of kids-in-mind for their rating system. . . We just need to find that “line” that you are talking about for each area.

Great post again; very convicting, and certainly something I will be praying about more often.

Christians and Pornography

50 shades

50 shadesWhat are you consuming? If you profess Christ as Lord, does it impact the decisions you make about what you watch and read? I’ll be candid from the start here – I’m concerned that professing Christians are regularly making entertainment choices that should be absolutely off the table for them.

I was encouraged to see this post by JillAnn Meunier, a junior in college who decided not to read a book for class because of its graphic depictions of sex and violence.

But I’ve been far more often discouraged to hear of a number of professing Christians who have no problem taking in porn.

The book Fifty Shades of Grey has become the best-selling book of all time in Britain and is wildly popular in America. A lot of those sales are to church-going women. But the book is an erotic novel. People are calling it “mommy porn.”

In the last few years, have you watched any of these movies?

All of these, at least judging from the raw descriptions of them, are exceedingly vulgar, erotic, and yes, pornographic. Yes, I’m sure I could have chosen others. I thought this was a good, representative sample. The links are to ratings and descriptions of each movie’s sexual content, violence, and profanity from Kids In Mind. Judging by these descriptions alone, it’s hard for me to believe there’s a proper place for any of these movies in a Christian’s life.

The New Oxford American Dictionary says pornography is “printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.” By this definition, wouldn’t we say all of the movies listed above contain pornography?

Why are Christian women reading “mommy porn”? Why are proud church-goers (and even leaders in the church) watching pornographic movies without any qualms?

A few of the reasons I think people may give, and my responses…

“I’ve never even considered that there’s an issue with these.”

I’m sure this is true for several people. And that’s one of the reasons I write this. I hope you’ll consider it. You were created and called to be holy. And taking in profane things like this surely is detrimental to that, at best, and an outright rebellion against God’s intentions for you, at worst.

“It’s important for me to share things like this with friends – especially those who aren’t Christians. How can I ever share my faith with them if we have nothing to talk about?”

I get it. You may have truly pure intent behind this. But I just don’t buy it. How far will you go to build relationships so you can be relevant and share your faith? Going to strip clubs with them? Using illicit drugs? Where’s the line?

I wrote about this in “Relevance and Holiness.” I hope you’ll read it, too.

“Speaking of lines, how are you so sure this is where the line should be drawn?”

This may be the most common objection. Why am I drawing the line right here? Maybe for others, the line is just in a different place (e.g. anything that’s not in the “adult” section of the movie store is fair game).

But I’m not drawing the line here. Honestly, I think drawing lines is very difficult – a constant struggle for me. How do we ever decide where the line should be drawn? And yet, we all must draw a line somewhere. Otherwise, nothing would be off-limits.

What I’m suggesting is that all of the particular examples I’ve given here are well beyond the line. If you can acknowledge that something is pornographic, I think that’s enough to say a Christian just shouldn’t be involved with it. Yes, many moral decisions will be difficult, but I think these all pass beyond that.

“I disagree with your definition of pornographic, so this whole argument is null and void to me.”

Okay, you don’t like the dictionary definition I use above. You don’t think that’s what “porn” truly is. Porn is the stuff that gets an X-rating. We can quibble over the semantics, but I think we can agree that the things I’m mentioning are intended to stimulate erotic feelings. And whatever word we assign to those things, I don’t think we can call them godly.

Some may say, “No! The Reader uses these depictions artistically. And The Hangover uses them for humor.” I’ll get perhaps uncomfortably blunt here. Does this material sexually arouse you? I think that was a part of the intent. Don’t tell me the producers of The Hangover weren’t counting on excited young men being more motivated to buy a ticket because of those scenes. Don’t tell me Kate Winslet nude on-screen for the majority of a movie and having sex with a teenage boy is all just art. And even if it is, is it appropriate art? Should you be watching other people have sex? In most other contexts, we would call that person a pervert or a voyeur, right?

But Jesus says, “Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them” (Mark 7:15).

Yes, I’m not focusing here on what comes out of a person – good deeds, outreach and witness. And those are greatly important! But are you really going to use this verse this way? Does this verse make it acceptable for you to consume anything you please? I’m just not buying it. Let’s consider 2 Corinthians 6:14-17:

Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.”

Therefore, “Come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you.”

“Do not be yoked together with unbelievers” is typically used in evangelical circles to tell Christians not to marry anyone who isn’t a Christian. I think the passage intends far more than this. “Come out from them and be separate. Touch no unclean thing.” I think this is telling us that we should expect Christians to touch and participate in markedly different things from the rest of our world. When we abstain from worldly things, can we still be relevant and still have a witness in the world? I sure hope so. If not, I hope we’ll choose to abstain anyway. See “Prophets and Pragmatism” for more on that.

“There are so many other things to consider in our reading and viewing choices. You’re focusing too much just on sexual issues.”

Yes, there are many other issues to address. They don’t make this particular issue any less of a problem, though. If you want to list other things we should consider abstaining from in addition to some of these, feel free. And if you want to say I’m focusing too much on what not to do rather than what to do, well, I think we need both.

The reason this is all upsetting me so right now… At the same time as I’ve seen a number of American Christians making entertainment choices no different from the rest of our world, I’ve been reading accounts of Christians in other parts of the world who were severely persecuted for things like refusing to work on the Sabbath. I’m disheartened at our level of commitment if we won’t abstain from some of these things at no real hardship to ourselves while others around the world are taking much bolder stands at risk of suffering and even death. Would those brothers and sisters around the world, who are persecuted for their faith, be shocked that we call ourselves Christians but can’t abstain from pornography because of our culture’s influence or our own desires?

I know I’m going to come off as a prude to some people. The word prude comes from the same root as prudence. And I suppose that’s what I’m asking for: a bit more prudence (and temperance) in our choices. If you disagree, help me understand what I’m missing.