What Is It?

[Gforce9]

In speaking with younger folks in my present congregation, I have found a philosophy emerging that I can't seem to identify. Let me illustrate:

One young man in his early/mid twenties is moving to a rough (ish) neighborhood in Chicago. He is going to be involved in a ministry which he described as "evangelism through community". I believe the "church" will not be ordained officers, but a group of self-ordained "ministers" and there is a boat load of problems right there. I know the general idea is to "meet people where they're at", which usually replaces direct gospel preaching with feel-good fluff. He uses the terms "engage","culture", and "community" often.
It seems there are elements of post-modernism and emergent-like thinking, but neither seems to capture the ideology in total. What is this?

 

[rbcbob]

Missional? Total Church? New names pop up monthly. Having the audacity to think that the Lord has left the church with no commands, no commission, and no defined identity today's young gospel entrepreneurs feel free to improvise.

 

[thbslawson]

I'd worry more about the lack of accountability and the self-ordained-ness of these people you're talking about. Just because some hipsters out there use words like "engage, culture" and "community" doesn't mean they're bad. A word used to describe how and in what context the gospel is being presented does not negate that the gospel is being presented.

Engage - Interact with people, understand them, be friendly, etc.
Culture - Everyone has one; a lens through which people look at the world and perceive it. Understanding another's culture is often helpful in gospel ministry so that one simply communicates the message clearly.
Community - Trying to think of a context in which this could "post-modern". We all live in one.

I work around people all day long who are passionate for the Lord, serve in their local churches and use these terms. Never seen or heard anything un-biblical in context.

Again, the problem I see is people doing this without the church sending them to do it. Perhaps if the church began taking more of a proactive interest in these communities with no gospel witness, we wouldn't see so many of these loners out there doing their own things with no accountability.

 

[Gforce9]

Missional? Total Church? New names pop up monthly. Having the audacity to think that the Lord has left the church with no commands, no commission, and no defined identity today's young gospel entrepreneurs feel free to improvise.

Thanks for this, Bob. Very good description.

I'd worry more about the lack of accountability and the self-ordained-ness of these people you're talking about. Just because some hipsters out there use words like "engage, culture" and "community" doesn't mean they're bad. A word used to describe how and in what context the gospel is being presented does not negate that the gospel is being presented.

Engage - Interact with people, understand them, be friendly, etc.
Culture - Everyone has one; a lens through which people look at the world and perceive it. Understanding another's culture is often helpful in gospel ministry so that one simply communicates the message clearly.
Community - Trying to think of a context in which this could "post-modern". We all live in one.

I work around people all day long who are passionate for the Lord, serve in their local churches and use these terms. Never seen or heard anything un-biblical in context.

Again, the problem I see is people doing this without the church sending them to do it. Perhaps if the church began taking more of a proactive interest in these communities with no gospel witness, we wouldn't see so many of these loners out there doing their own things with no accountability.

Thomas,
I agree with you semantically. It does seem the only folks who use these terms they way they do are they younger, Emergent, post-Modern folk, however.

 

[Wayne]

Try "transformation" - the idea that the work of the church is, at least in large part, the redeeming of the culture or community.

 

[Theogenes]

Sounds like the "Jesus People" movement of the early 70's...nothing new under the sun....

 

[John Carpenter]

Isn't this the "emergent church" or the "organic church"?

I don't think it's wrong to be "missional". We can affirm that. But the church with it's discipline (Mt. 18:15ff), ordinances of the Lord's Supper and Baptism, the preaching of the Word, and appointed offices (e.g. Eph. 4:11) should not be sacrificed for the sake of "mission". As with so many errors, it's often not that they are overtly wrong but that they only have a half-truth.

We have a motto at our church: "Relevant when reaching out, reverent when reaching up."

 

[thbslawson]

Try "transformation" - the idea that the work of the church is, at least in large part, the redeeming of the culture or community.

Again, what's wrong with this fundamentally? When Christ begins to redeem people within a community or a particular culture, it DOES, as a matter of sanctification result in transformation of them; it's a fruit.

We use it in our mission context as an indicator. We've seen the gospel come to communities, and people profess Christ. The result is that there is transformation that comes to the community.

I understand that people misuse terms, and I understand that people unconcerned with the gospel adopt them too and that they become catch phrases. But that doesn't mean everyone does. I feel we're too reactionary in the reformed world sometimes, we hear a word, see someone doing it poorly, and assume it's all bad.

 

[rbcbob]

Try "transformation" - the idea that the work of the church is, at least in large part, the redeeming of the culture or community.

Again, what's wrong with this fundamentally? When Christ begins to redeem people within a community or a particular culture, it DOES, as a matter of sanctification result in transformation of them; it's a fruit.

We use it in our mission context as an indicator. We've seen the gospel come to communities, and people profess Christ. The result is that there is transformation that comes to the community.

I understand that people misuse terms, and I understand that people unconcerned with the gospel adopt them too and that they become catch phrases. But that doesn't mean everyone does. I feel we're too reactionary in the reformed world sometimes, we hear a word, see someone doing it poorly, and assume it's all bad.

Thomas, you are correct to point out that some of these "buzzwords" today in the current discussion of 'what is church' and 'how ought we to do it' are innocent enough as words. But as a pastor today I am constrained to give attention to the latest fads and trends which either unwittingly or intentionally redefine "Church".

There are several such trends which are currently gathering a following and each is developing a vocabulary for the purpose of marking their emphasis and course. I cannot afford to be ignorant of their use of words, even common and established words. I must be cognizant of HOW those words are being used at this time.

I would commend to your reading a very helpful book which addresses this present trend faithfully and with an irenic spirit. It is called WHAT IS THE MISSION OF THE CHURCH by Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert.

 

[Jack K]

I wouldn't want to judge a ministry simply by the buzzwords used. All those words can mean good things if the ministry is done rightly and the true gospel is preached. My concerns, from what the OP describes, would be (1) no direct gospel preaching as part of the effort and (2) self-ordained "ministers" without solid accountability.

The first concern is paramount. If you aren't offering Jesus as the solution to people's problems, why bother with the rest?