There is much talk about the mission of the church and why it exists. There are probably few pastors that could not name Rick Warren’s 5 purposes of the church.[1] Churches and its leaders struggle to hammer out mission, vision, and purpose statements. In all of the effort and desire to formulate nice, neat statements that describe the mission and strategy of the local church, I think that many have lost sight of and may have obscured the clear preeminent mission that every church has already been given. That mission is what I call the “gospel-mission.” There are many activities, ministries, functions and purposes that a church may have, but the number one mission of every church is the gospel-mission: to carry out the redemptive plan of God on earth.
There is a tremendous need in the typical church for a fuller understanding of the mission that has been given to it by its founder, Christ Jesus. When one looks at the book of Acts, you cannot help but to sense the excitement and the passion the early church had in sharing the gospel with the world. Christ had risen from the dead and they went with power to make this truth known. Amberson is correct in his assessment that, “We, today, need to recapture the note of spontaneity which existed in the New Testament and, therefore, produced churches as the believers witnessed to the Lord Jesus Christ.”[2] As you read the pages of Acts, you come to understand that the spread of the gospel was the natural, powerful product of Christians living out Christ’s gospel-mission in the world. The early Christians understood and embraced the gospel-mission that Christ had given them.
There is no doubt that Christ’s desire was for His church to see itself as being a “sent” people. Christ was sent by the Father on a mission, and Christ has clearly sent His followers to continue the fulfillment of that gospel-mission.[3] Christ’s plan was to leave a community of people who would carry out His mission to the ends of the earth. The three years of Christ’s earthly ministry was in part filled with the training and mentoring of disciples that would one day be left with the task of perpetually proclaiming the gospel to the world. Christ prepared and trained His followers for the eventuality of His departure and their inheritance of this gospel-mission.
Matthew chapter 10 records Christ’s instructions to the 12 in correlation to their being sent to proclaim the “kingdom of heaven.” This mission was preparatory training for the day that they would eventually be left by Christ, and empowered by the Spirit to take the gospel to the world. Immediately before the disciples were given this mission, the Lord told them that “The harvest truly is plentiful, but the laborers are few. Therefore pray the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest,” (Matthew 9.37-38). Interestingly the word for “send out” is ekballo which could be translated as “thrust out.” It could refer to workers who are already in the field but need to have a fire lit under them to thrust them out.”[4] What a fitting description for the church that already resides in the “field” but need to rediscover their biblical mission.
We know that this gospel-mission was not to be confined to just the twelve because the gospel of Luke tells us that at another time Jesus sent 72 disciples on a similar mission:
After these things the Lord appointed seventy others also and sent them two by two before His face into every city and place where He himself was about to go. Then He said to them. “The harvest truly is great, but the laborers are few; therefore pray the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest.” (Luke 10.1-2)
A significant lesson to be taken from this passage is that mission and ministry is not confined to a select few. Jesus expanded the ministry beyond the 12.[5] The mission of the church is to be shared by all the members of the fellowship. Sharing the gospel can and should be the ministry of everybody. The problem of too few “laborers” is once again the message given in Luke. The mission must be carried out by more and more disciples. Of this passage Bock perceptively points out that:
Part of the mission’s goal then is to expand the number of disciples, so that the number of those who can engage in the missionary task can grow. In other words, if people receive the message, they will help deliver it…Luke is saying that one of the results of the mission is that more take responsibility for it.[6]
Christ Jesus was on a mission to redeem the world through His sacrificial death and subsequent resurrection and also to prepare a people to continue His mission by proclaiming the gospel to the world. This mission was not intended to be just for the twelve.
[1] Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Church, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995)..
[2] Talmadge R. Amberson, “The Foundations for Church Planting,” in The Birth of Churches, ed. Talmadge R. Amberson (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1979), 45.
[3] Joe Aldrich, Lifestyle Evangelism, (Oregon: Multnomah Publishers, 1993), 30-31.
[4] Craig L. Blomberg, The New American Commentary: Matthew, (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 167.
[5] Darrell L. Bock, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Luke 9:51-24:53, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), 994.
[6] Ibid., 995.
4 Comments
02/16/2007 at 4:59 am
Hmmm … I wonder. If we REALLY want to go back to the early church for inspiration, consider this. There were no separate structures or buildings; churches met in each other’s homes. It is estimated that over 90% of the funds raised by churches go to mortgages, maintenance, and utilities of the church physical plants. I would hazard a guess that a similar percentage of the church volunteer work centers around upkeeping the church building and property.
Second, where modern churches only have services two nights a week (and many less than that) plus Bible study a night or two a week, the early church met all seven days of the week. And while there were certainly people with positions in the church due to their gifts, there was not the hard and fast separation between lay people and a professional church class that there is now. Is it true that virtually any believer could preach and teach in the early church?
Third, hierarchial bureaucracies (whether it be the Roman Catholic Church, denominations for the mainline churches, and “associations” for the nondenominational churches) did not exist; each church was under the headship of Christ. And yet, despite the lack of centralization or bureaucracy, there was actually more discipline. Another thing: whereas today preachers copyright and even sell their sermons, back then sermons were shared; copied and sent to each other where they could be preached in every church.
So now, where the church is now not only detached from communities but even compartmentalized in the lives of Christians (who leave their homes once or twice a week to drive to church, and then go about their business for the other five or six days; during that time they MAY read their Bibles or something), back then it was an integral part of the community and daily life of the believer. Where today you have this church railing that everyone in the church across the street is going to burn in hell, back then everyone but the rebels and heretics – and everyone knew who they were! – was preaching the same message because they were often preaching from the same letters that they sent to each other! Indeed, the Bible could have never been compiled in this current Christian environment, and even if it had been, it would have never been adopted outside of a single denomination, association, or movement, and even then it would not have been universally embraced.
With all due respect to Rick Warren, what is the gain in planting new churches that will adhere to questionable doctrine, growing churches with members that will not have Christ at the center of their lives, and where over 90% of the financial and volunteer resources will be spent maintaining a local building that will sit empty 75% of the time and will draw few if any sinners the other 25%? I honestly think that the growing “home church” movement has a much better potential for affecting positive change. Now the church should be involved with equipping people to run home and other nontraditional churches, to grow and manage them, and use them to attract and nurture people who are put off by the traditional churches. But if they do that, then it would mean that a lot of the existing infrastructure will collapse! This is not to say that the contemporary church structure is wrong and needs to be replaced; it still meets the needs of a lot of people. If anything, perhaps a good setup would be for a traditional church being the sponsor and organizer of a network of home churches, with the home churches accommodating people with a zeal for spiritual maturity and people who want an outlet to pursue a specific ministry or use a specific gift. That would allow the “main church” to concentrate on using its facilities and resources for outreach, social services, etc. The funny thing is that a lot of churches already do something similar, but it takes the form of specific groups meeting during the week: praise groups, Bible study groups, healing groups, family counseling groups, etc. But the problem is that these splinter groups still meet at and center their activities around the church building, and for that reason few attend because not everyone has the time or desire to drive to church during the middle of the week. But encourage these splinter groups to start meeting in each other’s homes, and that might be the start of something special.
02/16/2007 at 12:48 pm
healtheland,
We certainly need to strive to equip all Christ-followers to be develop missional lifestyles.
I truly agree that the typical church in America should develop strategies that include the use of homes and other places in our communities to gather. That being said, the first church did meet at Solomon’s Colonade until they were thrown out… I see no biblical indictment that would forbid Christians from buildins places of worhsip, places they can gather to worship and exalt the living God as a witness to their community.
TC
02/16/2007 at 1:04 pm
Timothy,
Clearly, the prayer for God to “send out” (i.e. “thrust out”) His people into the harvest is one that we need to be using more often. It seems to me that in recent years we have chosen to take the opposite approach. Instead of going out into the harvest (our communities), we have chosen to “feather our nests of comfort” within our church kingdoms (more like communes).
It’s hard to carry the Jesus message when the church seems unwilling to engage the people who need to hear it.
Did you see the stats in the Lifeway atudy published in “Facts & Trends?” 39% of pastors don’t care to engage their churches in any more ministry in their communities. 4 out of 10 are satisfied to “stay home.” Doesn’t sound much like the Jesus mission, does it?
I posted on the study at http://geoffbaggett.wordpress.com/2007/02/13/someone-call-911/ .
Geoff
02/16/2007 at 1:12 pm
Geoff,
Exactly, I am striving to transform our church into a missional fellowship of Christ-followers who are seeking to be light in their day-to-day lives.
TC