The Church, the Mission, and Disciple-Making

Bob Logan writes on “The Relationship between Church Planting and Disciple-Making.”

He begins with, “Jesus never called us to plant churches. He called us to make disciples.”

He ends with, “Church planting, at its most basic level, is a means to that end: a way to make disciples. If we aren’t making disciples, there’s no real point to most of the structures and activities that “church” usually involves.”

How does a well-developed NT ecclesiology reflect on this?

First, NT ecclesiology considers the Great Commission passage in Matthew 28:18-20, that Logan quotes to identify the mission. What Logan does not talk about the role of baptism that Jesus mentions. In the NT, baptism is a local church ordinance. It is performed by the local church in the local church as part of the disciple-making process.

What this means is that disciple-making in fulfillment of the Great Commission cannot be separated from the local church because if you separate it, there is no legitimate baptism, no NT way for disciples to identify themselves as disciples. There is no way for disciples to tell other disciples, that, “I’m in. I’m with you because I’m confessing Jesus.”

Separation of disciple-making from the church also means there is no biblical way to evaluate, ordain, and remove teacher/leaders. These things all take place in the body of believers, not outside of it.

Second, NT ecclesiology consider Logan’s final point, which I would suggest is poorly stated. To suggest that the church is a means to an end seems a minimization of the body of Christ. It seems a suggestion that church is all well and good so long as it does what we want it to do, but there are other ways to accomplish the mission, and we are free to choose between ways.

The problem is that in the NT, there are no other ways to accomplish the mission. When the apostles went out in fulfillment of the Great Commission, they started churches. Why? Because they apparently thought that’s what Jesus told them to do.

In the NT, church is where it’s at. That doesn’t mean college ministry is wrong. It means it needs to be rooted in and connected to the local church. It does not exist for itself. It exists for the body of Christ, visibly represented in an assembly of believers who regularly assemble.

It is true that many churches have all kinds of things going on that don’t fulfill the mission of disciple-making. Pastors, feel free to reorganize them to make disciples. Or feel free to get rid of them. Make the shape of your church fit the mission of your church.

Ask the simple question: Does this make disciples?

If the answer is “No,” then change it or get rid of it.

So my advice is to adopt Bob Logan’s type of thinking about the necessity of discipleship. Just don’t consider the church as an accessory. It is the mission.

Just Mail It In

Crank alert. Rant warning. Consider yourself notified.

Ben Wright quotes Mark Driscoll:

Pre-recording 2 sermons today. Allows me to go to Zac’s baseball tourney with my family rather than not seeing them on Father’s Day.

This is, as Ben says, a “minimal and rational step” when you conclude that you don’t need a pastor to preach to an assembly to have a church, though this goes a bit beyond “I can’t be there to preach because I am over here preaching the same message to a different assembly.”

Apparently, preaching on video in order to get to a baseball game is the only way to clear up a few hours to spend with the kids on Father’s Day.

And while I am here, If Driscoll is all about redeeming culture, why not start with little league baseball tournaments? Why not get them moved off of Sundays? 

Listen, I love sports. I played them growing up and I coach them today. I had my 5 year old son over hitting golf balls at the range last week after his swim meet, and took him swimming last night. I was out Sunday night at the ballfield pitching to my son and then chasing him to first base when he hit it. So this is not an anti-kids sports rant. Nonetheless, I remain unconvinced that kids’ sports are a good reason to miss Sunday worship, even occasionally, particularly if you are the pastor.

Furthermore, once we start this where does it end? What are the boundaries? Why not record the preaching video on Saturday when it’s raining so you can take the kids to the lake on Sunday when the sun is shining (cuz you know we need family time, right?)?

Here’s another thing: One of the things Driscoll recently claimed, in his table talk with Dever and MacDonald, is that they (Mars Hill) are raising up all kinds of pastors who can preach.

Apparently all of them were at baseball games or something, too.

Interesting that out of the 10,000+ people at Mars Hill, not a single person with the gift of preaching was going to be able to show up to handle the preaching on Father’s Day.

Which raises the question: Why do you need to train up other preachers if you can just video yourself? I suggest it’s an unhealthy, dare I say ungodly, celebrity culture.

I wonder how Driscoll would respond if those 10,000+ all decided that Father’s Day meant they needed to be somewhere else, so they would just watch the service later online? And fax in their offering checks?

I would say I am speechless, but if you have gotten this far, you know that’s not true.

Seriously, this reminds me that ecclesiology remains a weak subject for the modern church.  

Hyles, Hybels, Driscoll, and Warren (and lots of others) have taught us that all the stops can be pulled out to draw the crowd. And we can pull out a few stops to avoid the crowd if we have a better option.

There is, among these leaders, an admirable goal to reach people. I am challenged by it.

Hybels says something like, “We are not just seeker-driven; we are seeker-obsessed.” I think most of us could stand a little dose of desire to reach the unreached. Hyles had a similar philosophy, as do some others I know of, though for my dollar, I am not sure that the pop music, drama, and stage show at Willow Creek are all that much worse than the live goldfish swallowing, southern gospel music, and stage show at FBC Hammond. The preaching surely can’t be any worse. If I am going to endure some nonsense in the name of evangelism I would just as soon do it at Willow Creek than FBC Hammond. At least I wouldn’t have to wear a tie at Willow Creek.

Of course, some will be offended that I even make that comparison. It won’t bother them that I mentioned Hybels. It will only bother them that I left the “b” out.

But I digress.

I think we need a stronger ecclesiology, one that includes interaction with the question of whether or not the preacher should actually show up to preach.

On the other hand, perhaps Driscoll is on to something here.

I have a lot of friends I could play golf with on Sunday morning. If I video myself, I can go play golf on Sunday mornings, and still get home in time to see my family.

I could even take my wife, and we could call it a date, ‘cuz you know I am pretty busy the other 167 hours during the week and I gotta take care of my marriage.

And besides I need someone to carry my bag.

But don’t worry ‘cuz I tip good.

On Doctrinal Statements

It is common (and necessary, I think) for a church to have a doctrinal statement. But such doctrinal statements, creeds, or confessions, have not always been well received. And many disagree on what a doctrinal statement is and what it should contain.

As an example, Mark Dever made the comment that it is sin to have a statement of faith that requires a particular millennial view. This statement fired up the blogosphere for a few days a while back. I don’t know if anyone was converted or not. To borrow from an old political quip about friends, I know a lot of people agreed with Dever and a lot of people did not agree with Dever, and I am one of them.

So what is a doctrinal statement? I want to answer this from my view in a bullet-pointed fashion.

What a doctrinal statement is not:

1. A doctrinal statement is not a statement about who is a true Christian—who is saved. In other words, it is not a list of things that must be believed to go to heaven, though it will certainly contain the gospel which must believed for salvation.
2. A doctrinal statement is not a statement about who is a good Christian, a good preacher or teacher, somebody worth the time to listen to. Many people whose beliefs diverge from a particular church’s are still great tools of God for spiritual growth and maturity.
3. A doctrinal statement is not a statement of contemporary orthodox theology.In other words, it is not a statement about the possible options that believers may legitimately embrace as scriptural doctrine.
4. A doctrinal statement is not a statement of historical theology. In other words, it is not a statement about what someone somewhere in the church has believed in times past.
5. A doctrinal statement is not a replacement for the Bible, or an addendum to it. Many (particularly in the Baptist tradition) have rejected creeds and confessions in favor of saying, “The Bible is our creed.” But that’s really insufficient and a misunderstanding of the use of creeds and confessions.
6. A doctrinal statement is not a requirement for church membership or ministry. A person may join a church being untaught, and not knowing enough to agree or disagree. A person may join a church agreeing to disagree. In such cases, the church can rightly expect that the member will not attempt to divide the congregation over the issues.

What a doctrinal statement is:

1. A doctrinal statement is a statement of what a church’s official position is on doctrinal matters.
2. A doctrinal statement is a statement of what a church will teach, and therefore, what the congregation may expect to hear.

Some Practical Ramifications:

1. It is not a sin to have a statement of faith that includes a position on eschatology. In fact, it should be expected, not discouraged. I don’t know what Dever means by “requires” so I do not know if I disagree with him or not. For instance, I would not tell someone not to join because they are amillennial or arminian or continuationist or “local church only,” though I think all four positions listed for sake of discussion are biblically refuted.
2. A person with beliefs that diverse from the church’s doctrinal statement should seek unity in the body, and therefore should not seek to divide the body over it, and should not seek to “evangelize” for his position, thus creating dissension and division.
3. A person with beliefs that diverge from the church’s doctrinal statement should expect the regular preaching and teaching of the church to engage his or her beliefs and to attempt to persuade him or her to change.
4. A person with beliefs that diverge from the church’s doctrinal statement should expect that his ministry will be somewhat limited. For instance, I would not have an arminian-leaning brother teach a class on soteriology, though I might allow him to teach a series on something else, or to lead worship, or something similar. I would not allow an amillennialist to teach a class on eschatology, though I certainly would allow him to participate in discussions about the matter if it were being taught. This would not necessarily prevent him from leading a ministry team of some sort or from being a deacon for instance.

DeYoung “Toying With” a Great Point

Just to be clear, I am not against working for societal change, helping the poor, or ministering to the sick. I am hugely for all these things. But the idea I’m toying with is that maybe these things do not constitute the mission of the church. Certainly, we love our neighbor as ourselves in obedience to Christ, which will entail different individual callings and different responses depending on the situation. We are called to do good to all people, especially to those of household of faith (Gal. 6:10). So we need no excuse to love others. Praise God for Christian doctors, teachers, and relief workers all around the world. But it seems to me the mission of the church, what God wants to accomplish on earth through us, is not the meeting of all human needs nor the transforming of all cultures, but the discipling of all nations.

From here.

To me, the issue is not whether Christians should be in favor of societal change of all type (i.e., social justice). The issue is whether or not that is the mission of the church as the church.

Interestingly, in the gospels, we see Jesus leaving certain places before all the people were healed. We see him in certain places intentionally not doing miracles of healing and restoration (Matthew 13:58). We see him in one place leaving only crumbs for the dogs, so to speak, and that only after a heart-felt appeal for mercy (Matthew 15:21-28). And then there’s the comments of Jesus about Tyre and Sidon that if he had done certain miracles there they would have repented (Matthew 11:21; Luke 10:13). How staggering is that to our theology? Jesus did not do the very thing that he knows would have brought repentance. Did he not want these people to repent?

These should be thought provoking for anyone who thinks seriously about the mission of Jesus and social justice, and the mission of the church and the gospel.

We can debate the reasons for these passages and other like them, but it seems that Jesus’ mission was not complete social justice. He left some thing unjust, for various reasons.

While that might not make you think, it does make me think …