The church piece we know well: traditional, attractional church don't work no more. Nor do denominational structures that reflect such a paradigm. What we haven't acknowledged nearly as much--and this surprises me now that I'm aware of it--is the extent to which our ecclesiastical challenges are rooted in a common understanding (more to the point, misunderstanding) of the Gospel.
Typically, the church has embraced one of two versions of the Gospel. By no means are they mutually exclusive, but one does tend to be privileged over the other.
The first is a Gospel of Atonement: in accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, your sins are forgiven, you receive the gift of eternal life, and your salvation is assured. This understanding of the Gospel is primarily about the individual--an individual's relationship with Jesus Christ and an individual's salvation. Discipleship is less of an issue because the primary focus is on the profession of faith in Christ and forgiveness of sins (“I’m right with Jesus…why do I need discipleship?”). To the extent it is pursued, discipleship is seen as a primarily individual behavior done for the benefit of the individual. Not surprisingly, in this understanding of the Gospel, the purpose of evangelism is to win souls and make new Christians.
The second is a Gospel of the Kingdom: people can live now in the Kingdom of God, a vision of what life can and should be in all its dimensions and a way of life that can help bring it into reality. This understanding of the Gospel is primarily about others because, as Leonard Hjalmarson points out, the Kingdom of God is inherently relational (Kingdom implies relationship with the King, with fellow citizens, with the community in which you live, with standards of justice and mercy), missional (it propels us into mission in response to God’s call to be part of the Missio Dei and in the name of expanding the Kingdom) and monastic (it calls us to shared spiritual practices in community, such as worship, prayer, and reconciliation). Here, the purpose of evangelism is to make disciples--in line, obviously, with the Great Commission and the fact that, in the Gospels, Jesus talks about the Kingdom of God more than anything else.
It should not be news that the version of the Gospel a church embraces will be reflected in the structure, ministry, and assumptions of the church itself. The Gospel of Atonement will tend to result in a church focused on the needs of the individuals in the pews: ministries will be about self-development, worship will be focused on individual experience, the locus of church life will primarily be the church building, and mission and outreach will be a personal prerogative. In other words, a Gospel of Atonement will pretty much result in a traditional, attractional church.
A Gospel of the Kingdom of God, on the other hand, focused on others, will tend to result in a church focused on the community and growth of the Kingdom: ministries and worship will reflect an over-arching concern for the Missio Dei, the locus of church life will be outside the church building, and mission and outreach will be the organizing principle of all the church does. A Gospel of the Kingdom of God, therefore, will pretty much result in a missional/incarnational church.
Clearly, I'm generalizing. Exceptions can be found. But there is, I believe, a fundamental truth at work here, and it has great significance for the missional/incarnational paradigm. Any church wishing to be a missional/incarnational church would be well-served by first making sure everyone involved understands and embraces a Kingdom of God Gospel. I'd even go so far as to say it's a necessary first step, and that's coming from a pastor helping to lead a church down the road to missional that didn't get the Gospel straight first. In retrospect, I'm realizing how different (dare I say easier?) the journey thus far would've been had we taught the congregation a Gospel of the Kingdom of God to begin with. In that case, all this change wouldn't be in service to something new and untried (what the heck is missional anyway?) but in service to what Jesus pretty clearly preached is God's intent for God's people and God's church.
If you die tonight, where will you go? It's the favorite evangelical question. It's also the wrong one. The right question is, If you don't die tonight, what are you going to do tomorrow? And the right answer is, “Trust Jesus with all of my life because the Kingdom is now.”
I think the challenge is that both of these Gospels are present to some extent within the writings of the New Testament. The Gospel of Atonement was not pulled out of thin air it has been a part of Christian theology for many years. Yet, because of its dominance withing Western Christianity we have done a true disservice to the Gospel of the Kingdom.
ReplyDeleteOne more thing, as a person, who has come from a denomination that was very focused on the Gospel of Atonement I can say that discipleship was mentioned many times, but it centered on the concepts of "self-control" and "righteousness". To be disciple was to be someone who did the "right" things, you could say it was legalism in many ways.
Given that discipleship in your tradition centered on self-control and righteousness (by which I assume you mean "righteous behavior"), it sounds as if discipleship was still understood as individually-focused rather than other-, community-focused. And you are, of course, right that the Gospel of Atonement wasn't pulled out of thin air, that there is, in fact, evidence of such a paradigm throughout the New Testament. The key, I suspect, is to strike a balance between atonement and Kingdom or, better yet, to demonstrate that the Gospel of the Kingdom includes atonement.
DeleteSpecifically regarding "(dare I say easier?)":
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that the transition would've been easier if you'd treated the Gospel of the Kingdom as a first principle. For a congregation deeply rooted in the atonement paradigm, I think that the knee-jerk reaction to a shift towards a Gospel of the Kingdom is to rebel, to marginalize it as so much works-basedness.
Not to say it's not foundationally important. Just saying that -if- you had worked that angle first, I think it would've shifted the learning curve forward, in fact making it -harder- up front.
Interesting comment, Mark, and I see your point. It hadn't occurred to me that a Gospel of the Kingdom might be greeted with more resistance. You are quite right that if such a take on the Gospel is not presented with some sensitivity it could be construed as works-righteousness. I wonder how congregation-specific such a reaction might be. In other words, how likely is it that any congregation deeply rooted, as you say, in the atonement paradigm, would react, "This is just all about works!"
ReplyDelete