Over the past several months I’ve blogged about kingdom/mission/social justice issues more than any other set of topics. I’ve been trying to learn and sharpen my thinking. I’m in the process of reading a stack of mission and missional books. I’m trying to understand the conversation: where do I see green lights and where are the red flags?
In the intra-evangelical discussion about what is the mission of the church there are unhealthy extremes we can all recognize. “Ah, let it all burn up. Who cares about food and water for the poor? Who gives a rip about HIV? Give ‘em the gospel for the soul and ignore the needs of the body.” That’s one extreme. Likewise, I think we can admit this is careless too: “Sharing the gospel is offensive and to be avoided. As long as the poor have job training, health care, and education that’s enough. The world needs more food not more sermons.”
But on a good day the best representatives from both sides make valid points.
For example, here’s what one side wants us to hear:
Granted, this doesn’t say everything the missional side wants to say or in the way they might say it. But to the degree that this (the above paragraph) is your concern, I’m right with you. We should do good to all people (Galatians 6:10) and love our neighbors as ourselves (Matt. 22:39).
But I also sympathize with what I hear (and have said) on the other side:
I know there are all sorts of differences that still exist, and I don’t claim to be mediating some third way (you know how I feel about third ways), but I would hope that most evangelicals could agree with both of these paragraphs. The difference is some of us want to say, “Yes, but…” to the first paragraph and others want to say “Yes, but…” to the second.
One side fears careless, loveless indifference to the problems and potential opportunities all around us, a dualistic disregard for the whole person.
The other side fears overly optimistic (and exhausting) utopian dreams, a loss of God-centeredness, and a diminishment of the church’s unique and urgent message of Christ crucified for hell-bound sinners.
Both are real dangers.
What is the way forward? Well, I believe the Great Commission is the best summary of the mission of the church, and this puts the emphasis on proclamation and disciple-making. But a healthy church will also be growing in love, love for God, for each other, and for the world.
So in the end I think there is a lot the best representatives of both sides can agree on. Surely we can agree that a church which believes in the centrality of preaching and the necessity of gospel proclamation, a church which refuses to water down the offense of the cross and the reality of hell, a church that demonstrates compassion for the suffering, a church burdened with an anguish for the lost, a church with a heart for the city and a zeal for the glory of God in all things for the joy of all peoples—surely we can agree this is a good church.
