;)
What is the Mission of the Church?
Posted by David Rogers in Bible & Theology, Church & Missions
DeYoung, Kevin and Greg Gilbert. What is the Mission of the Church?: Making Sense of Social Justice, Shalom, and the Great Commission. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2011.
Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert’s upcoming release, What is the Mission of the Church?, is a significant, and, in my opinion, helpful contribution to the ongoing discussion of a very relevant and critical issue facing evangelicals today. They present their topic in rather dramatic terms:
“From many conversations in print, online, and in person our sense is that this whole issue of mission (along with related issues like kingdom, social justice, shalom, cultural mandate, and caring for the poor) is the most confusing, most discussed, most energizing, and most potentially divisive issue in the evangelical church today” (25).
In the midst of such controversy, it is worth noting that DeYoung, senior pastor of the University Reformed Church in East Lansing, Michigan, coauthor of a number of bestselling books, including Why We Love the Church, and popular blogger, and Gilbert, senior pastor of Third Avenue Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky, author of What is the Gospel?, and regular contributor at the 9Marks e-Journal and blog, are working “together for the gospel” in this important transdenominational evangelical effort.
They are careful to clarify their lack of polemical intentions, and, for the most part, follow through with that objective: “We want to be positive in tone. We want to build up rather than tear down” (20); “We really don’t want this to be an us-against-them kind of book” (25). Though they freely admit to having a specific agenda, they make a special point to be balanced in the approach they take: “In correcting certain aspects of some missional thinking, we realize that missional thinking itself is striving to correct abuses of traditional missiology… The truth is that both sides have some important things to say to one another, and we should be careful in our mutual correction to not overcompensate” (23).
DeYoung and Gilbert are especially adamant that, while what they write is meant to correct certain contemporary understandings of what it means to be missional, they are NOT suggesting that we, as Christians, should be indifferent to suffering around us, think evangelism is the only thing that really matters, downplay or disparage the work of those who sacrifice and place themselves at risk to help the poor and disadvantaged, retreat into holy huddles, or quit being creative and courageous in our efforts to love our neighbors and impact our cities.
A lot of the implications of what DeYoung and Gilbert write can be summed up in the choice of language we use to describe our mission as Christians. Instead of “social justice,” they suggest it is better to speak of “loving your neighbor”; instead of “transforming the world,” it is better to speak of “faithful presence”; and instead of “building the kingdom,” it is better to speak of “living as citizens of the kingdom.”
Though the list of authors DeYoung and Gilbert cite as having read in preparation for writing What is the Mission of the Church? reads like a Who’s Who of evangelical theology and missiology, they appear to be responding especially to Christopher J. H. Wright, who, as a key leader in the Lausanne Movement, and close collaborator of the recently deceased John Stott, is one of the most influential figures in evangelical missions today.*
Though Wright is far from alone, either in the defense of his views, or in the crosshairs of DeYoung and Gilbert’s corrective, in much of the structure of the book, as well as in several specific references, What is the Mission of the Church? comes across as the “anti-Wright.” Here are a few choice examples:
Wright: “Everything a Christian and a Christian church is, says, and does should be missional in its conscious participation in the mission of God in God’s world” (The Mission of God’s People, 26).
DeYoung and Gilbert: “Some of what we want to correct is an overexpansive definition that understands mission to be just about every good thing a Christian could do as a partner with God in his mission to redeem the whole world” (20).
Wright: When seeking to understand the mission of God, and consequently that of the church, we must start with the grand narrative of the entire Bible, especially the Old Testament, which sets the backdrop for everything else.
DeYoung and Gilbert: “It makes sense that we would look to the New Testament more than the Old for a theology of mission” (42); “The way to understand the Bible’s story from beginning to end is actually to start at the middle, with the death and resurrection of Jesus” (68).
Wright (in the words of DeYoung and Gilbert): “Our understanding of redemption, of the gospel, and of the mission of the church should be ‘exodus-shaped.’ In other words, because the exodus from Egypt had political, social, and economic components, we must understand the gospel, redemption, and our mission to have political, social, and economic components as well” (79).
DeYoung and Gilbert: “When the New Testament talks about the exodus as a type of salvation, what it focuses on is not at all its political and economic aspects, but rather the picture it provided of the spiritual salvation God was bringing about” (80).
Wright (and Stott): Evangelism and social action are full partners in Christian mission.
DeYoung and Gilbert: “We are concerned that in all our passion for renewing the city or tackling social problems, we run the risk of marginalizing the one thing that makes Christian mission Christian: namely, making disciples of Jesus Christ” (22); “We want to make sure the gospel … is of first importance in our churches” (22).
Wright: Creation care and the corresponding “cultural mandate” are an essential part of God’s task for all mankind, and particularly for us as Christians.
DeYoung and Gilbert: “When God exiles Adam from Eden, it is not with a commission to continue the work of building the world into a God-glorifying, cultivated paradise” (75); “The story is not about us working with God to make the world right again. It’s about God’s work to make us right so we can live with him again” (89); “Paul does not say individuals will be redeemed as the whole universe is redeemed. He says the opposite… We are not called to bring a broken planet back to its created glory. But we are to call broken people back to their Creator” (248).
The bulk of DeYoung and Gilbert’s text is comprised of careful exegesis of relevant biblical texts. For the most part, their argument is straightforward, well-reasoned, and convincing. They are balanced in their treatment of Scripture, honestly recognizing the tension between differing emphases in different passages.
The most helpful part of all, for me, was the treatment given to our understanding, as evangelicals, of the gospel. As DeYoung and Gilbert insightfully observe, “In many ways evangelicals seem to be talking past one another on this question of what the gospel is” (92). There is good reason for this mutual misunderstanding. A careful and honest examination of Scripture reveals two evident emphases: the wide-lens perspective of the gospel as “the good news that God is going to remake the world, and that Jesus Christ—through his death and resurrection—is the down payment on that transformation and renewal” (i.e. the “gospel of the kingdom”); and the zoom-lens perspective of the gospel as “the good news that God has acted to save sinners through the death of Jesus in their place and his subsequent resurrection” (i.e. the “gospel of the cross”).
The key insight of DeYoung and Gilbert is that it is not a question of “either/or” or “both/and.” Both perspectives are undeniably biblical and, therefore, true. But they are not “equal partners” as Stott, Wright, et al, would have us believe. They are rather two perspectives of the same gospel, with one at the very core, and the other extending further to include the broader implications: “The gospel of the kingdom necessarily includes the gospel of the cross” (107), and, if it doesn’t, it is not truly the gospel; “Perhaps … it would be more accurate … to speak of the gospel of the cross and the gospel of the kingdom through the cross” (108).
When thinking of the kingdom of God, DeYoung and Gilbert are also helpful in reminding us of the hermeneutical grid of an “already, but not yet” eschatology, on which they claim there is practically an evangelical consensus, although it is not always consistently carried through in its implications: “If it is true that the kingdom will be fully established only when Jesus returns, it is equally true that it will be established by his hand alone” (131); “The primary task of Christians in this age, with reference to the kingdom, is not to build it or establish it or even to build for it, but rather to be witnesses to this representing, suffering, forgiving King” (138).
One unfortunate digression is the six pages in the middle of the book given over to a defense of one particular approach to economics (in broad strokes, laissez-faire “trickle-down” capitalism vis-à-vis Keynesianism). While successfully demonstrating that Keynesian economics should not be confused with the gospel, dedicating that amount of space to defend a rival economic theory weakens the overall thesis that the gospel is not about theories of economics, but spiritual salvation and discipleship.
DeYoung and Gilbert confess their better instincts on this: “We realize that few people picked up this book hoping for a primer on economics…” (186); “We may not all agree on what economic policy is best (because these matters require prudential judgments on which Christians can legitimately differ)…”(190). While they may well be right (or wrong) on their personal view of economics, it would have been best to have left economic theories for another book on that particular topic, rather than making this one, which purports to be about mission and the gospel, also about economics. While they successfully (in my opinion) show why liberal politics and economics are not the gospel nor the biblical mission of the church, it would have been more helpful to their overall cause to also point out how conservative politics and economics are not the gospel or mission of the church either. Unfortunately, they chose not to go there.
All in all, however, I am very happy for the publication of this important book. Even if you don’t completely agree with DeYoung and Gilbert’s overall thesis, you will definitely want to read this valuable contribution in order to keep abreast of the ongoing discussion on this vital subject.
—————————–
* See Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2006); The Mission of God’s People: A Biblical Theology of the Church’s Mission (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2010); John Stott, Christian Mission in the Modern World (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1975).
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
David,
A great review. Were you already pretty familiar with Wright (and Stott) regarding these issues, or did you do some digging after (or while) reading the book?
Andrew,
Thanks for the encouragement. I had read Wright’s The Mission of God before, and am familiar with Stott’s perspective more by way of quotes and references from other sources.
David, it seems like a great read, and I’ll look forward to getting a copy for myself so I can read more fully what DeYoung and Gilbert are trying to say. Having read Wright (and Stott) now for several years, my fear is that they may have misread some of the intent of the correctives that Wright seeks to bring about in his overall theology of mission. The biblical concept of “Shalom” (both OT and NT) is more far-reaching than simply in the spiritual realm. A glance at the gospel accounts reveals that the “salvation” Christ brings has physical, mental, emotional, social, economic, et al., aspects to it. This is what Jesus stated when he applied Isaiah’s prophecy to himself (Luke 4:18-19), and it is certainly what he demonstrated when in the way he ministered to people. As an ethicist, Wright is trying to these other aspects as having been long neglected in our “gospel” message. We sell salvation far too short when we dwell simply on the spiritual.
Kevin,
I definitely recommend you read the book for yourself. As I understand them, DeYoung and Gilbert would not disagree with what you have to say about Shalom, or the various aspects of salvation. They also dedicate a section to the exegesis and application of Luke 4:18–19. Their differences with Wright have more to do with emphasis, expectations this side of Christ’s return, and motives for serving others.
The church is the body of Christ.
“Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another–to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God.” Romans 7:4
“Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.” “But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.” I Cor. 12:27,31
“And He Himself gave some [to be] apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head–Christ–from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.” Eph. 4:11-16
“And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did [it] to one of the least of these My brethren, you did [it] to Me.” Matt 25:40 (John MacArthur indicates that “My brethren” are Christians)
Sorry for the overkill of scripture. I’m trying to either prove a point or request correction. Wouldn’t our mission as a Church be to focus more on helping and maturing the saints that come to Christ for salvation? I see some of it in what DeYoung and Gilbert mentioned. The thrust of most SBC churches that I have been a member of is to first, seek the souls with anyone (mature or immature). Wouldn’t soul winning be the natural result of a disciple mature Christian? The more I grow the more I tend to see a heart desire for telling the lost about Christ, but even more so, helping those within the body of Christ who are hurting as they grow. My true north isn’t necessarily soul winning as much as it is focusing on discipleship and helping those within Christ’s body. Am I wrong here?
Thanks Dave.
Bruce,
I don’t think DeYoung and Gilbert would disagree with what you say here. They are not pitting evangelism over against discipleship. They are definitely for giving priority emphasis to both.
Here is another quote from the book I originally thought about including in my review, but left out since it already had plenty of quotes:
“The mission of the church is to go into the world and make disciples by declaring the gospel of Jesus Christ in the power of the Spirit and gathering these disciples into churches, that they might worship the Lord and obey his commands now and in eternity to the glory of God the Father” (62).
I ordered the book since Chris mentioned it. Good buy. Thanks
David,
Thanks for the well-written and thoughtful review. I just ordered a copy today for $5.99 from Westminster’s online bookstore. I think this is the last day for the sale. I thought I would pass this along in case anyone’s interest was stirred enough to purchase the book.
Chris,
Thanks for the heads up. That’s a real bargain!
Have you read Goheens new book “A Light to the Nations”? I just finished it and it was amazing. He would strongly disagree with Gilbert and Deyoung about starting in the middle with the cross and resurrection. I look forward to reading this book as well but I think Wright and Goheen have me for now.
Craig,
I haven’t read Goheen. Sounds like an interesting read. I’ll have to add it to my already lengthy “to read” list.
A parable . . . in the Bible, I think . . .
something about a suffering person who had been robbed and beaten . .
two men see the injured person, but it is the holy man who doesn’t respond . . . he crosses the road instead and keeps on going
I guess he was on his way somewhere more important.
Christiane,
That parable is very important and plays a major role in the way we are to live and operate in this world. We have to remember, however, that the parable was about how we are to treat one another, not the central message of the gospel. Unless the gospel is primarily about how we treat each other…
Actually, the parable of the Good Samaritan is one of the passages that DeYoung and Gilbert deal with specifically in their book. In no way do they downplay its importance, nor the importance as Christians to act as “good Samaritans” to all our “neighbors,” but, otherwise, they pretty much give it the same interpretation as Andrew in his comment above.
“Unless the gospel is primarily about how we treat each other…”
I have heard many concepts of ‘the gospel’ from Southern Baptists.
If Christ did not come to teach us how to live, I might understand what you wrote. But He did. So I cannot down-grade anything He taught as not being essentially ‘primary’ in HIS gospel . . .
but I am from a different tradition and my understanding of what Jesus taught to us is emphasized in that tradition.
The Gospel is a story about JESUS CHRIST.
There is no ‘gospel’ separate from Him.
Again and again, He asks us to obey Him. If we love Him.
To ‘set aside’ what He has asked of us in how we are to relate to others as ‘not primary’ in His Message seems wrong somehow.
I think it is ‘integral’ to the gospel that we love one another as He has loved us. And I don’t think any person who follows Christ would ‘walk past’ a suffering person without stopping to do something about it.
If they can, then I don’t know how they will explain it to Him, when He asks why they didn’t stop to help Him. Will they say, ‘if we had seen it was You, Lord, we would have helped You, of course.’?
And He will ask, you know.
He will ask.
Christiane,
It is easy to misunderstand what is being said in this overall discussion, especially DeYoung and Gilbert’s contribution, just by reading my review. That is one reason I included so many direct quotes, to allow them, as much as possible, to speak for themselves. However, I would really recommend you read their book for yourself to catch their complete argument in context before judging it on the basis of what I say here.
In any case, I think the word “primarily” may be causing us to talk past each other on this. DeYoung and Gilbert (as well as I, and, if I understand him correctly, Andrew) are all NOT saying that “loving your neighbor” is an optional or unimportant part of the gospel. The “wide-lens”/”zoom-lens” analogy they give is an excellent illustration, in my opinion. “Loving our neighbor” is the fruit of the work of Christ in our hearts, as the result of His incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection, not vice versa. But faith without works is dead. We are not saved by our works, but the faith that saves is never alone.
Thank you, David, for your kind and very patient response.
Christiane,
Sorry, I wasn’t following the comment feed so I kind of dropped off. Another book by Gilbert, What is the Gospel?, would be a good one to peruse at your local bookstore (or buy), to getter a better picture of how we Evangelicals (in general) understand how all this fits together.