NOTE: I mistakenly posted my paper out of order. While you may have already read this section, you may have missed the previous section. I have edited “Pt. 2″ to be the section of the paper that immediately precedes this section. For clarity and comprehension, you may want to return to “Worldview & Church Planting, Pt. 2” to better follow what I have written here. Thankyou.
—————————
The first question this paper is setting out to answer is: Can the Reformed world and life view accommodate these popular catch-phrases of contemporary evangelicalism? In other words, is the Reformed world and life view inherently opposed to “missional” and “incarnational” as defined above? It seems to me that there is nothing inherently problematic about this, so long as “missional” and “incarnational” are taken together.
Anytime you begin talking about a Christian worldview – Reformed or otherwise – the fundamental question at stake is “How do we be in the world but not of the world?” In John 17:14-18 Jesus prays,
I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world.
There is little doubt about the truth of “being in the world but not of the world.” But the debate over what exactly this means and the parameters of such a statement rages within the epistles themselves. World view questions are at the heart of Paul’s letters to the Corinthians and Ephesians, as well as the letters of 1 & 2 Peter and James. It seems to me that the recipients of these letters understood their roles as missionaries in their respective contexts, but struggled to realize how their actions affected their mission.
Within the boundaries of the Reformed world and life view, kingdom inhabits a prominent role that cannot be overlooked in answering this question. Pieter Tuit in his essay “The Gospel in Word and Deed: Johan Herman Bavinck’s Missiology and Its Application for Today” brings attention to the integral role of kingdom in relation to Reformed worldview and missiology. According to Tuit, Bavinck’s missiology is firmly rooted in an “already-not yet” understanding of the kingdom of God [Tuit, Pieter C. "The Gospel in Word and Deed: Johan Herman Bavinck's Missiology and Its Application for Today" (Calvin Theological Journal 44.1 (2009): 74-93.), 78ff.].
It is important for Bavinck that Reformed churches recognize the fact that Jesus ushered in the kingdom of God, and yet the kingdom is also an eschatological entity that will be realized in full when “God will restore his kingdom and restore his creation” [Ibid., 79.].
Although not confessionally Reformed, Halter shares Bavinck’s emphasis upon kingdom as important to missions. Responding in agreement with Dallas Willard in The Divine Conspiracy, Halter writes,
Jesus is saying that there is a new Kingdom now, one that’s totally different from the kingdom you’re accustomed to, and anyone can get in on it. Different things can and should happen now. His message wasn’t about just some future blessing of heaven; it was an announcement that his heavenly ways are available in some way here on earth [Halter & Smay, 90.].
The central role of kingdom is being “rediscovered” by much of current evangelicalism and it is beginning to seep into the consciousness of certain missional theologians. Consistent with Reformed theology, the kingdom of God is becoming more and more recognized as mysteriously “here and now” rather than something in some far away realm what’s arrival we are anxiously awaiting.
The Kuyperian worldview mantra of “the whole domain of our human existence” falling under Christ’s lord and kingship forces us into agreement with Halter’s words above: there are aspects of the kingdom of God to be realized and experienced right now. However, Kuyper – and Reformed world and life view in general – takes this one step further: Jesus’ lord and kingship over all creation makes all creation his kingdom. Wolters writes, “The kingdom of God, therefore, calls to mind the rightful king as he rules his territory, creation” [Wolters, 74.] ”[H]is heavenly ways are available” now because we are living in the kingdom now. The triumphal tone of A Contemporary Testimony is clear when it declares, “As followers of Jesus Christ, living in this world – which some seek to control but which others view with despair – we declare with joy and trust: Our world belongs to God!” [Our World Belongs to God: A Contemporary Testimony, Article 1.]
As such the church – visible and invisible – fills an indispensable role in the kingdom of God. And the terms “missional” and “incarnational” are almost necessary for describing that role in our current context.
In his essay, Tuit includes a paragraph outlining Bavinck’s understanding of the place of missions in the church. Unfortunately, Tuit (but possibly because Bavinck does the same) neglects to clarify whether Bavinck has in mind the visible or invisible church. But one can safely assume that the visible church is in view here. In summary, Tuit contends:
Bavinck sees missions as the task of the church. He believes that the church must extend itself over the whole world…he does not want the church to gorget that it exists to satisfy the needs of the world. Missionary activity, therefore, is not incidental but “it is a part of the very essence of the church…it is through his church that Christ stretches forth his hands to those outside the light of his everlasting salvation” [Tuit, 77. To draw these conclusions, Tuit is pulling from two Bavinck sources, Ons zendingsboek and Science of Missions, respectfully. Full citations of the original sources can be found in the footnotes on p 77.].
For Bavinck, “missional” is a principium essendi of the church; if the church fails to be missional, then it fails as a church. A Contemporary Testimonyaffirms Bavinck’s assertions of the importance of mission in the church in Art. 44:
Following the apostles, the church is sent – sent with the gospel of the kingdom to make disciples of all nations, to feed the hungry, and to proclaim the assurance that in the name of Christ there is forgiveness of sin and new life for all who repent and believe – to tell the news that our world belongs to God. In a world estranged from God, where millions face confusing choices, this mission is central to our being, for we announce the one name that saves.
Article 44 pulls out the essential elements of what I have presented as an understanding of “missional:” the church is sent and at odds with – “aliens and strangers” – the world. And this occurs with the purpose of making God and his kingdom known. Therefore, we can say that “missional” within a Reformed worldview is to be understood as the posture of the visible church as it seeks to relate to the world and proclaim God as king over all.
As I’ve already suggested, to stop our discussion with affirming the consistency of a missional view of the church with a Reformed world and life view would leave us with an incomplete picture of the church (visible and invisible combined). To stop here would inadvertently suggest that the kingdom “here and now” is limited by the church walls or altogether non-exist at this point in time. For that reason we have to look beyond just speaking of the church as “missional” and also address the church as “incarnational.”
Again, the kingdom motif must be addressed here. If we are to confess that all of creation is God’s kingdom, then we must also admit that his people are subject to the rule of Christ in both our religious observances and our everyday life. This means that we conduct our lives, occupations, and relationships according to the standards of the kingdom of God. Yet again, Bavinck (via Tuit) provides guidance, “Bavinck states that the church is called to reveal the Christian principle in every area of life. The church needs to call its members to live wherever they are according to the guiding principles of God’s Word” [Tuit, 81. Referencing Ons zendingsboek.]. And later: “For Bavink, the essential proclamation of the Word needs the continuous illustration of deeds and true compassion” [Ibid., 83.].
If I understand Bavinck correctly here, he is already suggesting in his day what is seen today as a shift in what is meant by “gospel.” While many – even in the Reformed tradition – may be uncomfortable with the shift, we cannot deny its validity. On numerous occasions, Paul seeks to emphasize the necessary change that takes place within the heart of the believer upon conversation; faith is not just an intellectual exercise, but works itself out in our actions. Halter offers this definition of “gospel”: “It is the tangible life of God flowing into every nook and cranny of our everyday life” [Halter, 90.].
This is a significant shift in that it recognizes the gospel not only as the message wrapped up in the creation-fall-redemption narrative, but as something that affects the actions and lifestyle of the person who has received it. Therefore, to be “incarnational” in your lifestyle is not to proclaim the Gospel, but to live the Gospel. As citizens of the kingdom of God, we are walking, breathing, eating, living testimonies to the kingship of Jesus Christ and the ongoing redemption of all [The Biblical concept intended to be invoked here is ta panta/ta, pa,nta]. Wolters seems to support such an idea when he writes, “The church, through its diaconate, has a responsibility to show the love of Christ in material ways. God’s people also have a responsibility, individually and communally to bring the claims of Christ to bear upon all of life” [Wolters, 93.]. Even Billings, who seems more keen to make a case for Reformed missionality, is forced to speak of being both “missional” and “incarnational”:
[T]he historic Reformed church has been concerned with both the internal life and the outward ministry of the church…Ultimately, we should seek to draw upon missional theologies of the church as a way to live deeper into the gospel – and deeper into our own strengths as Reformed Christians [Billings, 5.].
By my estimation, there is absolutely no reason why “missional” and “incarnational” cannot be a part of the Reformed world and life view. However, they must both be present in order to work; both are necessary for consistency with the confession of Jesus as lord over all. In many ways, the relationship between “missional” and “incarnational” is much like that of faith and deeds in James 2:26, “As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.”
Filed under: Bible Study, Christianity, Church, Church Planting, Ministry, Philosophy, Theology
