A Call to Be Truly Biblical

As I'm still marinating on the concept of what it means to "preach ourselves," as Paul repudiates in 2 Corinthians 4:5, I thought a few comments were in order which address a post I ran into recently in my travels through the blogosphere.

Recently, the folks over at Desiring God posted an excerpt of a chapter on missions from the new book, "Don't Call it a Comeback: The Old Faith for a New Day," edited by Kevin DeYoung. This particular chapter was written by David Mathis, who currently serves as the executive pastoral assistant to John Piper. The post at Desiring God also got picked up and excerpted even further by Justin Taylor over at Between Two Worlds. The blog post was entitled: A Call to Be Truly Missional.

I haven't spoken much about the issues surrounding being "missional" on this blog before now (here's one exception), not because I don't think it's an important issue but because I'm still formulating my thoughts on the topic itself and how to best address it. I suppose I plan to address it more directly in the future. But for now I feel comfortable saying that I don't feel comfortable with the missional idea and the ecclesiology and philosophy of ministry that it seems to identify. In that vein, I offered a comment on that original post, and I thought it would be helpful to post it over here as well.

That original post begins by saying, "Many of you reading this are living alongside us in a post-Christian Western culture. One where the term evangelism is a bit outdated and to be missional is in vogue." He continues to give a diagnosis of Europe and North America: they have "become more and more like a mission field—but a post-Christian, rather than pre-Christian field." Because of this, the ministerial prognosis is: "We now need a more missions-like engagement even on battleground here on the home front." Now, I actually don't think that that conclusion is true. I think one of the major failures of the "missional" philosophy of ministry is a conflation between a Christian missionary and a Christian witness and, correspondingly, between a culture and a subculture. But that's not the point of this current post.

What really jumped out at me and was extremely puzzling was the concession that the word "evangelism" is outdated. That seems like an outrageous statement, especially in light of the fact that it is falling out of favor and the word "missional" is taking its place. Evangelizing — gospellizing — is a Biblical word (euaggelizomai), which in and of itself should guarantee its rightful endurance, no matter how "outdated" it might seem. (I still get a confused look on my face even as I write that. Evangelism? Outdated? ... What???) Heaven and earth will pass away, but Jesus' words will never pass away (Mt 24:35; cf. Mt 11:5; Lk 4:43). Beyond the fact that it's a Biblical word, there's no question that it’s also a Biblical concept; that is, evangelizing is speaking and proclaiming the evangel, the Good News (Lk 4:18; Ac 8:4; 13:32; 14:15; Rom 1:15; 1Cor 1:17; 2Cor 10:16; 1Pet 1:12).

“Missional,” on the other hand, is not a Biblical word. And to the degree that it is a Biblical concept, the part of that concept that is Biblical is in fact expressed by the term "evangelism." The original post at Desiring God itself bears this out. Consider this:

[A church] is not fully missional in the biblical sense if it is not both pursuing mission at home among native reached people and being an engaged sender in support of missionaries to the unreached.

Well, first: What does it mean to "pursue mission"? (Even here we are getting away from Biblical language for poor, vague substitutes.) Biblically, pursuing mission cannot mean anything else but to fulfill the commission we’ve been given: to make disciples of all nations (Mt 28:19-20). And how do we go about that? We evangelize: We preach the Gospel. Why? Because nothing else contributes to the new birth, which is the first step in discipleship. Consider these texts:

• James 1:18 - In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures.
• 1 Peter 1:23, 25 - ...for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God. ... And this is the word which was preached to you.
• Romans 10:17 - So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

Being “fully missional in the biblical sense,” then, seems, according to the original writer, to mean simply being concerned with evangelizing the lost. Again, he says, “We can’t be truly missional without preserving a place for, and giving priority to, the pursuit of the unreached.” The pursuit of the unreached is evangelism. It’s preaching the Gospel. And so if that’s the heart of the missional idea, why do we need the new language? Because “evangelism” is “outdated”? Sorry, but no sale.

Why the new language then? Well, I fear that a real reason for ditching “evangelism” and “evangelistic” for “missional,” whether it’s intentional or not, is that we desire to safely import into evangelicalism some of the nonbiblical ideas and worldliness that fall under the umbrella of being “missional.” If it was only about preaching the Gospel, being evangelistic and doing evangelism, the term evangelism would work just fine. But unfortunately, it seems that that's not all that being missional is about. In a nutshell, it seems like it's about getting Christians to be as much like the world as they can, trying to show unbelievers how much Christians are like them, and hoping that they can see that because we're like them, they can be Christians too. It's seeker-sensitive, attractional, market-driven, church growth strategy -- just on the individual level rather than the church level.

Getting back to why it's a bad idea to use the term, when you consider that there are indeed nonbiblical, worldly ideas being proclaimed under the banner of being missional, – whether you personally stop short of espousing those things yourself or not – it makes even less sense to trash “evangelism” for “missional.” Now you're using a term that means more than you want to say, in place of a term that says exactly what you want to say.

Listen, I definitely agree with David Mathis's call to suffer in the path of fulfilling the Great Commission, and to be as concerned with world missions and unreached people groups as we are with evangelism at home. I disagree, though, that we need to rubber stamp “missional” and the aberrant theologies and philosophies of ministry that find refuge under that banner in order to do it.

Am I simply wrangling about words (2Tim 2:14)? Well, to that accusation, I'd respond by noting, as John Frame says, that words are the theologian’s tools. And if we are to be workmen not needing to be ashamed, cutting a straight course in the word of truth (which Paul says in the very next verse, 2Tim 2:15), and if in the very same letter he commands us to retain the pattern of sound words (2Tim 1:13, ESV) and in doing so we guard the Gospel (2Tim 1:14), well then we’d better be using the right tools. In my opinion, “missional” falls short, and “evangelism” cuts just fine.

Rather than a call to be truly missional, let us sound and heed the call to be truly Biblical.