Mission Compels us to Reform

I read this recently and thought it worth reading and considering. It is written by John Armstrong and published on Mark Driscoll’s web page of Mars Hill church in Seattle, called resurgence. I hope you find it as helpful as I did

Mission Compels Us to Reform

Christianity is not the same as ecclesiasticism. Christianity is centered upon Jesus Christ, as he is presented to us in the foundational document of Christianity, the Bible. Ecclesiasticism is centered in the church-its development, dogma and practice. Make no mistake about it, we cannot have Christianity without the church, at least in one vital sense, but the church is reformable and "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8). Christ does not change, thus the Christian gospel never changes. But the church must change if it is to be truly faithful to both Christ and Scripture.

This principle, and the point I am making through it, is both vital and dangerous. It is vital because without it you have a tradition rooted in particular times and debates, but not a tradition that is alive and vital for the present time. It is dangerous precisely because a church that is subject to the spirit of continuous reformation is a church that can go badly astray in any age or place, and often has. It can become a church that seeks to get so close to the culture that it is virtually indistinct from the culture.

Witness the influence of liberalism on the church in the twentieth century and the resultant bankruptcy of many churches and schools that bought into this deadly form of existentialism. Liberalism presented itself as a necessary reform movement and some of its call was, in actual fact, quite correct. (This is precisely the problem, some of it was correct but the central truth of the gospel of Christ was profoundly threatened over time as the seeds of destructive process infected the church.)

I pondered this situation recently after reading a brochure that came to me from the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America. This small "faithful" church suggests that the solution to the modern church problem in America is to be found in return to a strict, historical and confessional Lutheranism. The brochure asks: "Should Lutherans apologize for the Reformation?" (The answer, if you wondered at all, is a resounding, "No!") The brochure then charges that most Lutherans want to be "something else" when they adopt the worship services of the Baptists and the Pentecostals. By such actions, the brochure argues, they are "disinterested in biblical theology." The problem is that interest in biblical theology, which I strongly encourage, is not equal to "not apologizing for the Reformation." The brochure then goes on to say that the name "Lutheran" is not "some sort of ‘brand preference' . . . [or] simply one more ‘denomination' among many." (This, of course, makes it the correct and faithful witness to the truth, or the true church.) The brochure further advances the notion that the ministers and churches of this diocese shall be "Lutheran without apologies or excuses." Frankly, if I believed this argument was valid, which of course I do not, it would be better to become Catholic or Eastern Orthodox than to fight for a Lutheran church on this type of argument. Even Luther, in my mind, did not argue in this way!

The point here is not to attack these conservative Lutherans, who undoubtedly love Christ. You could put the name Catholic, Orthodox, Methodist, Reformed, Baptist, Pentecostal, Independent Free, or whatever you like, into any of these sentences and you would be describing the approach taken by some within each tradition through ecclesiasticism. I believe we do much better to talk about Christianity in the singular, not of Christianities as represented by Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, or some form of Protestant or Free Church Christianity. Christianity has often been neglected or ignored by the church itself, even betrayed by it. In a modern, and now in a postmodern, world it is not compromise to admit this fact. I believe this admission will actually open the door to the Spirit's work in leading us to deeper repentance and truly missional Christianity. But this scares the daylights out of many conservatives-Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant.

The danger here is clear-we can miss the Christian substance, without which there is no Christianity. In the process we miss the very spirit of Christian faith and practice. In its place we prefer a Roman judicial system, an Orthodox traditionalism, or a form of Protestant fundamentalism, whether in actual creed or, as is often the case, simply in practice and mind-set.

I say again, I believe in the church! I confess that belief every Lord's Day in the Nicene or Apostles Creed. And I believe in the visible church, not knowing what an invisible church really is. (The term "invisible church," which can have a positive theological cash value, is now used incorrectly in almost every instance.) But I also believe that the church should bear witness to Christ, thus the church must continue to seek the truth as it is revealed in Holy Scripture. By so doing the church is made faithful to the Christian kerygma; i.e., the saving content, or "proclamation," of the early Christian message.

The church, in all its historical expressions, is not Christianity. Love for Christ, and his gospel, is much bigger than the various forms of the church. Instinctively we all know this to be true, but many keep striving to find the one true historical church so they can find a type of certainty that assures them they have come into the right communion and now hold consistently to all the right truths. I respect the sincerity of this pursuit, and the good will of most who make it. I simply do not agree with it. I rather long to see a Christianity that is more distinctly Christian. And I want to see a church that lives in continual reformation as it seeks Christ and the obedience of faith. (cf. Romans 1:5; 16:26).

The kind of reforming spirit I am describing makes many people nervous, yet I have come to believe that it is the true spirit of reform. I also believe it is the spirit of the New Testament. When I read the New Testament faithfully, it makes me nervous about many things. Radical reformation means that we must seek to go to the "root." Such reform is always needed because the church is always sinful. And it may be needed now more than ever, at least in the West. The Christian, and the church, that pursues such reformation in mission, will face real problems, on both the Left and the Right. If we remain locked into the conservative-liberal divide of the past, thinking only of what happened then, we will miss our moment for reformation and revival. This is precisely why we have been given both the Word and the Spirit. A church community centered in mission will keep asking for the Holy Spirit, and thus returning to Holy Scripture with a renewed heart, as it seeks to declare his glory to the nations.

¹Kerygma is a Greek word that literally means "proclamation." It refers narrowly to the preaching of the kingdom as found in Jesus' teaching (Mark 1:14-15). In forthcoming issues of Viewpoint I will address the fundamental nature of kerygma and how this relates to the church and the teaching of Christian living, or what is called didache. Suffice it to say, understanding and applying this biblical distinction has great power for the church's missional witness to the world.