In one of my prayer
meetings I shared about the fact that I have been increasingly seeing a lack of
interest by Christians about Mission. By “mission” I mean the core task of the
Church to make Jesus known to all and to be discipled into a sacrificial
lifestyle mirroring the life of Jesus. I do not mean what I see passing for
mission in many churches, such as having events which are purely social, “so
that people will come into our buildings and see that we are normal.” I also do
not mean the tokenism that passes for mission, such as tithing the church’s
income, or handing out money boxes for your loose change. These are useful activities
that raise needed money for mission, but they are not “mission.”
I use the term to mean
having a mind set which sees the highest calling in life being the building of
the Kingdom of God. It is a mindset that sees Jesus’ commands as being so
central to life that nothing is too precious to be sacrificed for Jesus and His
Kingdom.
The immediate issue I
want to discuss comes from a study of the recorded life and comments of James
and John, the sons of Zebedee.
These two formed 2/3
of the group closest to Jesus, along with Peter. There is no doubting their commitment
to Jesus. It seems that their father was not just a simple fisherman, but the
owner of a fleet of fishing boats. He was the equivalent of a successful
businessman with significant capital resources. James and John would have
inherited this business, and possibly were part of Zebedee’s succession plan.
So their leaving home
and following Jesus was a major commitment. In our terms, they left a comfortable
lifestyle for one where they had nothing. This was a major sacrificial
commitment.
Obviously Jesus saw
them as people who were genuine in their following of Him. He took the three
into his confidence more than the other nine. They were privy to the most
powerful moment, the Transfiguration.
They had seen Jesus’
miracles in the feeding of the 5,000 & the 4,000. They had seen many
healings. They had heard Jesus’ deepest teachings.
So there is no doubt as
to their commitment, sacrifice, and devotion to Jesus and His mission. They
knew that Jesus came proclaiming the Kingdom of God.
Yet there was a time
when their pride was to the fore.
Mark 10:35-45 NIV
[35] Then James and
John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to
do for us whatever we ask.” [36] “What do you want me to do for you?” he asked.
[37] They replied, “Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left
in your glory.” [38] “You don't know what you are asking,” Jesus said. “Can you
drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?” [39]
“We can,” they answered. Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink
and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, [40] but to sit at my
right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom
they have been prepared.” [41] When the ten heard about this, they became
indignant with James and John. [42] Jesus called them together and said, “You
know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them,
and their high officials exercise authority over them. [43] Not so with you.
Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, [44] and
whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. [45] For even the Son of Man
did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for
many.”
Matthew (ch 20) records
their mother bringing up the subject of precedence. Irrespective of who asked
the question of Jesus first, both accounts agree that James and John themselves
wanted these places of precedence at the
right and left hands of Jesus.
Their world view had
not yet been transformed into what it would become.
To put this in modern
terms, they might represent Christians who have genuinely given their lives to
Jesus, have sacrificed a great deal for Jesus and in their own eyes are genuine
disciples of Jesus. There is no room for criticism here.
Yet one thing remains.
There is still a need for a further world view change.
James and John (and
Peter of course) underwent a dramatic transformation at the day of Pentecost.
This was a lot more
than just speaking in tongues and having other manifestations. It was a total
reordering of their world view. There was no hesitation now about leaving
absolutely everything for the sake of the gospel. This ‘leaving’ was of a
totally different character from their previous leaving to follow Jesus. After
Pentecost there was no further thought about precedence or receiving anything
from God. It was a total surrender and dedication to the mission of the Kingdom
of God. There was no need for any motivational speaker to stir up a ‘vocation.’
The new world view was devoid of anything to do with rewards for them. Their
only concern was to live for Jesus and Jesus alone.
The theology of this
is well known and generally accepted by evangelicals. However when it comes to
praxis it is a different matter. The needs of the local church take over. The
comfort of the individual often overcomes the Scriptural imperatives. We
justify our actions in all sorts of ways. In the case of stipendiary clergy, it
can be something as basic as making sure that our family is catered for. Not
that we can even see this at the time.
Looking back in my own
life I recognise this, but, at the time, failed to see the conflict of theology
and praxis.
Many reading this will
say that this was my problem but is not theirs. I agree it was my problem. But
my heart was clear, I had no thought of personal preferment, or so I thought. I
suggest that I am not alone in this.
James and John were
true, decent, fervent followers of Jesus. However at the very core of their
being there was a blind spot.
In my case it led me
to dramatically re-examine my ecclesiology, missiology, and even basic
discipleship.
One of my greatest
changes has been in the area of
ecclesiology, the nature of the church. I believe that the form of church we
take for granted now derives more from Emperor Constantine than from the New
Testament. I will not argue the case for this here but just state the
conviction to which I have come. Much has been written on this by me and many
others.
The 16th
Century reformation led to a recovery of salvation by faith alone as seen in
the Word of God written. For centuries the Bible had been the preserve of the
“Schoolmen”, the educated clergy who alone could interpret God’s will for
others. This clerical caste became the intermediaries between God and man. The
Reformation put an end to this, at least in theory. However, the form of the
church remained unchanged with a division between the clergy and the laity. It
did not take very long for the old idea of the schoolman to rear its head. We
now are back in the same position as before the reformation. The clergy
generally are the ones who tell the laity what to believe. While we may deny
the fact in words, our practice shows that we see the clergy as a separate caste
of people who, in fact, are intermediaries between God and man.
The maintenance of the
pre-reformation structures has resulted in this return to pre-reformation
belief.
I believe this has
affected our buildings, clergy attire and status, the role of clergy as
separate from that of the laity. I also believe it has changed the nature of
the church to a “come to me”, from “go
into all the world”. This latter point is the most serious of all.
Michael Robinson has
written extensively on the Celtic way of evangelism. The English Celtic church
was already well established by the time the Pope sent Augustine of Canterbury
to “civilise and evangelise the British barbarians”. By Augustine’s time there
was already a network of monasteries, mainly in the north of England and in
Ireland. Great English missionaries had already spread abroad throughout
Europe, evangelising as they went.
The Celtic monasteries
were more in the style of our Theological Colleges in that those who came to
the monastery were educated and sent OUT to the world beyond the confines of
the monastery. The monasteries set up under the Papal rule became places of
retreat rather than places to go out from. Granted they served a valuable service in
copying and so preserving the Biblical text, but the Celtic monasteries also
had scriptoriums for this purpose.
The main emphasis of
the church changed from evangelistic to shepherding the believers. There were
occasional outbreaks of evangelism through the ages, but the basic static form
of Church remained.
The Constantinian
Church resulted in what we now call Christendom, where the Church claimed a
special role in society, the moral police if you like. I believe the last 1500
or so years have been rightly called the Babylonian (Constantinian) Captivity
of the Church.
In modern post-Christendom
times some of the negative effects of this have been seen. The area of finance
is an obvious example. The sacrificial giving of the believers (in the case
where it is sacrificial rather than token) is spent almost entirely on
maintaining the fabric of the church with only token amounts being given to
mission. Clergy salaries, building maintenance, insurances, etc, take most of
the finances of the church. In fact the viability of a church is largely judged
by finance and numbers. This bears very little contact resemblance to the
church that Jesus and the Apostles set up.
This is an enormous
topic that deserves, and has received, detailed analysis, and will continue to
do so.
All of the above affects the true core business
of the Church, mission.
A general malaise has
come over the church as far as mission is concerned. Many think they have discharged
their duty by giving money to missions, as important as this is. Money is
desperately needed for mission but giving money is not mission in itself.
Mission needs personal involvement. We are all called to be witnesses to the
Lord Jesus and this means stepping into the unfamiliar, and proclaiming Jesus
in Word and Deed. Both are needed.
The Christian life
must be a sacrificial life, and personal comfort is the greatest danger for
Christians. We are more comfortable in a ‘Constantinian monastery environment”
than in a “Celtic missionary environment.”
A major world-view change is needed for most of
the Church. But this should not surprise us:
Therefore,
I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God's mercy, to offer your bodies
as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God--this is your true and proper
worship. Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the
renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's
will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will.
(Rom 12:1-2 NIV)
Instead of talking about revival, we need to
talk about a transformative renewal.
Keith
& Kristyn Getty, on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the
Overseas Missionary Fund (OMF), originally the China Inland Mission, have reworked
an old hymn, Facing a Task Unfinished,
to draw attention to this central task of the Church.
|
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 go to all the world With kingdom hope unfurled No other name has power to save But Jesus Christ The Lord 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 We go to all the world With kingdom hope unfurled No other name has power to save But Jesus Christ The Lord O Father who sustained them O Spirit who inspired Saviour, whose love constrained them To toil with zeal untired From cowardice defend us From lethargy awake! Forth on Thine errands send us To labour for Thy sake We go to all the world With kingdom hope unfurled No other name has power to save But Jesus Christ The Lord |
Original Words and Music by
Frank Houghton. New Words and Music by Keith Getty, Kristyn Getty, Ed Cash, and
Fionan de Barra; © 2015 OMF International, Getty Music Publishing (BMI),
Alletrop Music (BMI), and Fionan de Barra (all admin. By MusicServices.org
But what about
life in the real world? How do I relate to the church as it is, while wanting
to see the church as it should be?
Firstly, the church will always be a flawed
institution to some degree or other,
since it involves people. No matter how mature we are, or become, in the faith,
there will always be an element of self which will intrude into whatever we do.
So this means that we will not see the perfect church, without wrinkle, spot or
blemish, this side of the return of Jesus.
This does not mean that we should not seek
to get as close as we can to the ideal, under the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit, while we actively wait for the return of Jesus.
Any assembly of Christians must have some
form of organisation in order to survive, especially after the second and third
generation of members. The issue is to ensure, as much as we can, that the
organisation formed keeps the main thing in clear view.
After the first generation of members, the
temptation will always be to relax and enjoy the experience of gathering
together. The move mentioned earlier from Celtic type monasteries (equipped to
serve and go) to Roman type monasteries (gathering of like minded people to
settle down and be served) will always be a temptation. The task is to balance
the need to be healed and nurtured with the imperative to be equipped and go on
mission wherever you are called, local or wider afield. Sacrificial living is
always difficult until you reach the place where you count it true joy to
sacrifice everything for Jesus and the Gospel.
For this reason, the local church should
take an important place in our lives, with all its faults and failings. To do
otherwise is to run the risk of being a “lone ranger” who is not submitted to
anyone. (“be submitted to one another out of reverence for Christ” Eph 5:21).
This may be an institutional church, or an informal group of believers, but it
must be something. We need a place where we can learn to submit to lawful
authority, grow in grace and humility, and learn to serve.
If the place where you currently are puts
you into conflict with the clear teaching of Jesus and the gospel, then leaving
becomes an option, but it should lead to another place of belonging. Such
leaving must not be for matters of secondary importance, but only for crucial
matters.
Does that mean I have to agree with
everything that goes on in my church? Of course not. This is an impossibility
anyway. However there are important matters that need to be faced in a spirit
of humility. The main issues have been mentioned above, but there may be
others.
Problems arise when there is not an
atmosphere where such discussion can take place. This leads to discontent and
frustration, often leading to people leaving that church.
Whatever happens, the main task of mission
must be kept in mind. If the main assembly does not see this, then at least the
individual must.
I have to admit that I
have held many of the views that I now criticise. So I appreciate the fact that
we grow in understanding as the years progress. I also appreciate that I now
espouse views that I would not have had when my income depended on my church
position. During my time of stipendiary ministry I believed my motives were
pure, as I believe are most of those in such positions today.
However, since leaving
that paid ministry my views have been dramatically changed. So much so that
many people find the change hard to understand. It is not a question of
senility as I am sure some people have thought. Nor is it a matter of
discontent, in a human sense. There is certainly a deal of intellectual,
theological and practical discontent, but I believe this arises from asking
questions which have always been there but not viewed in quite the same way.
Let us keep loving
each other as we face these difficult issues and move into the post-Christendom
era with faith and confidence, rather than defensiveness.
