The Cross and the Commission

In Matthew 28:18-20, Jesus gives to believers what is known today as the Great Commission. While His commission was meant for all believers, many throughout the centuries have neglected it. It has become for many the Great Omission, but why has it become this for so many? Many answers could be given at this point. Two common answers heard are: 1) “Missions is not for everyone,” and 2) “What about the people in our own backyard?” These answers may explain some of the reasons why people don’t get involved, but they fail to address the heart issue. What if the answer to this question lies within the Great Commission itself?

Jesus says, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:18-20 ESV). In order to see the answer to the question posed, some background is necessary. When Jesus shares the Great Commission with His disciples as this point, He is not doing so carelessly. He is doing so intentionally, and He is telling them to do something that is fully in line with the purposes of His Father. Jesus does not just throw this out there for His disciples before He leaves. It is not as though Jesus almost forgot to tell them to go and make disciples, and remembered right before He ascended. Jesus passes on to His disciples the very mission given to Him. This mission was prophesied long ago.

The mission of God is often missed in the Bible because of the exaltation of theology over missiology. Debates concerning how God saved us are far more prevalent than debates on why God saved us. From Genesis to Revelation, God reveals His mission that finds its ultimate fulfillment in Christ Jesus. The first command given to man in the Bible is to be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth (Genesis 1:28). Thus, God’s desire from the beginning has been to fill the earth with worship. However, the relationship between God and man was destroyed when man disobeyed God. But God began pursuing the worship of men's hearts, which is why mission's exists.[i] God’s design to redeem mankind can be seen in two verses in Genesis. In Genesis 3:15, God pronounces this judgment on the serpent, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head and you shall bruise his heel” (ESV). This is known as the protoevangelium[ii], or the “first gospel.” God declares that He will raise up from the woman a man who will destroy the serpent (Satan), but the serpent would bring suffering on the man.

The second verse that reveals God’s design to redeem mankind is Genesis 12:1-3. It reads, “Now the Lord said to Abram, Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (ESV). Some have called this the Old Testament version of the Great Commission.2 This promise reveals God’s plan to make from Abram, whose name is changed to Abraham meaning “father of many nations,” a great and blessed nation through whom He will bless all peoples. God promises that this will come through Abram’s offspring. The Apostle Paul writes of these verses in Galatians 3:8, “And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham saying, ‘In you shall all the nations be blessed’” (ESV).

In Isaiah 49:6, there is a prophecy concerning the Servant of the Lord. God is speaking through Isaiah and says, “It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the preserved of Israel; I will make you as a light for the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth” (ESV). Here, God is saying that it is too small to just send the servant to the people of Israel. He will raise Him up and send Him as a light to all peoples, thus fulfilling the promise made to Abraham. The offspring of the woman, the offspring of Abraham and the Servant of the Lord are all prophecies concerning Jesus. When Jesus comes on the scene He declares why He was sent saying, “For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through Him” (John 3:17 ESV). Jesus was sent to fulfill the mission of God. However, in John 20:21, He says something very interesting when He says, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you” (ESV). Jesus is sending His disciples out as He Himself was sent by the Father. This is considered John’s version of the commission.2 So why have so many over the centuries turned the Great Commission into the Great Omission, and how is the answer to this question seen in the Great Commission itself?

In the Great Commission, Jesus gives the command to “go and make disciples of all nations” (Matthew 28:19). There are two phrases that will help answer the question above. These two phrases are “make disciples” and “all nations.” The phrase “all nations” in the Greek is the word panta ta ethne. In English, it means “all the nations.” When the word “nations” is spoken today, many people tend to think of this as nation-states, or countries. However, in the Greek, “ethne” means “ethnic/people groups.”1 So the Great Commission could read, “Go and make disciples of all the ethnic/people groups.” This phrase is connected to the other phrase “make disciples.” It is with this phrase that the answer begins to unfold. Jesus’ command to make disciples assumes one thing, and that is that it takes a disciple to make disciples. Jesus throughout His ministry was calling people to follow Him, but following Him carried a cost. He said on numerous occasions that if anyone wanted to be His disciple they would have to deny themselves, take up their cross and follow Him (Matthew 16:24, Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23 and Luke 14:25-27). In denying themselves, they would have to give up their rights to their lives and dreams and ambitions. In taking up their cross, they would have to embrace much pain and suffering and even death. In following Him, they would have to go where He goes and do what He does. Discipleship was Jesus’ way to reach all the people groups of the world with the glorious life-saving, life-giving gospel. This is why He commands His disciples to go and make disciples of all the ethnic/people groups. And it is at this point that the answer is revealed.

For centuries, the Great Commission has become the Great Omission for many because of the lack of discipleship. Disciples embrace both the Cross and the Commission for the two are inseparable. Discipleship is about far more than bible studies and church attendance. It’s about far more than how many times you pray and if you tithe. True discipleship leads to one serving others as Jesus served. It leads to feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, giving shelter to the homeless, visiting the sick and needy, looking after the orphans and widows, visiting those in prison, preaching the gospel truth and defending the oppressed. True discipleship leads to making disciples of others, but even this is not enough. As Jesus commands, true disciples make disciples of all people groups. This is a command for disciples of Jesus Christ. It is for those who would live the way of Jesus denying themselves, taking up their cross and following Him. For centuries, the lack of true disciples in the Church has lead to the majority not being much involved in God’s mission. True disciples have ears to hear when Jesus says, “As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you” (John 20:21 ESV). The issue here is not about going overseas as missionaries. The issue is being disciples who place our “Yes, Lord” on the table and let Him place it on the map.

If disciples are those who deny themselves, take up their crosses and follow Jesus, then they must be about the very things Jesus was about. The cross Jesus bore was to “purchase people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Revelation 5:9 NIV). This, too, is the cross of His followers, though it’s not our blood that purchases sinners but His. The Cross has made the Commission achievable, and the Commission is making the Cross known to people groups all over the world. Today, disciples are needed who embrace the Cross and the Commission.

[i] John Piper, Let the Nations Be Glad! The Supremacy of God in Missions (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1993).

[ii] Moreau, A. Scott, Gary Corwin, and Gary McGee. Introducing World Missions: A Biblical, Historical, and Practical Survey. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2004).

For His glory and fame among all peoples,

Bryan

Why I am FOR the Emerging Church

About 2 hours ago, I reached into our pantry and pulled out a bag that had three little cheetos left in it. My wife had finished off the cheetos a couple of weeks ago, or so we thought. Anyway, I was about to throw the bag away and thought I would finish them off. I put the three little chips in my mouth, and I immediately spit them back out. They were so stale. They kind of had that hard yet moist taste and feel. Sick! I should have seen this, but I was fooled because outwardly everything seemed ok. The color and feel led me to believe that they were still good and needed to be eaten. The inside, however, was an altogether different story.

The church in America today (and really in most Western cultures) seems to somewhat resemble the cheetos I ate. It seems to me that people look at the church and see that it still carries the same "color" and "feel," and therefore, assume that it's OK. They "go" to church only to find out that it is stale and spit it back out. But why is this? I mean, afterall, isn't the church to be salt and light? It seems to me that we should bring flavor, instead we're stale and hard. I realize that this is my opinion and that there are many people still in America that do not see a major problem with the church. It is my understanding that the majority of "church going Christians" are mostly fine with the church the way it is minus a few problems. One such problem they see is from those who do church in a different manner. I guess those people are just too liberal!

I've never been one that fit the mold of a cookie cutter too well. That's probably why I have such a hard time with seminary. The point of a cookie cutter is to cut cookies into the same shape and size so that each one looks alike. For the most part, churches in America follow this model. The problem is that when a church does not look the same it is severly questioned and in some cases altogether dismissed. This, I fear, is what is happening to the emerging church. Those most critical of the emerging church say that the emerging church is liberal or lacking in the area of theology. They say this because some of the leadership of the emerging church do not have seminary degrees. Translation: they do not have proper theological training. This has led many to conclude that the emerging church is liberal theologically. This is not the only thing that has brought about this conclusion. The emphasis on meeting humans needs has also factored in to this conclusion. The emerging church is very much interested in the social issues of the day. They are concerned about poverty, injustice, oppresion, human trafficking, homelessness, AIDS, war and the environment. They are in favor of showing love to the homosexual population and those who have had abortions. These very issues are the ones most liberal politicians talk about, and thus it is easy to see why some might label the emerging church as liberal.

The very reasons that many oppose the emerging church are the very reasons I am FOR it. The "cookie cutter" approach has failed in society as far as I'm concerned. There was a day when it worked well. That day was when most of America went to church. That day was when the culture was more influenced by Christian values. It was a day where the church was gaining a high percentage of new converts. In that day, the church had a voice and quite a few people listened to it. Today is a new day though. Today we live in a postmodern society. I know for many believers that word "postmodern" is a cuss word. For many, they hear that word and automatically think words like "relativism" and "pluralism." Often times you will hear emerging church leaders refer to the emerging church as the "postmodern church." This realy sets off those who oppose it, and most of the time it affirms their preconceived notions. Postmodern is NOT just relativism and pluralism. It is a new (at least to us) way of thinking and living.

Since the protestant reformation we have lived in a Modern age. Everything was linear and logical, at least here in the West. This is evidenced by the way we argue and debate, and by the way we organize and compartmentalize. Walk into any church and it will be very symmetrical. Sit in any court room and the arguments will be logical. As more and more people migrated to America from the East, eastern ways of thinking came with them. Ironically, the root of Christianity, Judaism, is an Eastern religion. In eastern thought, things do not necessarily have to make sense or add up. Reason is not the strong point of eastern thought. Here in the West if I want to prove something is true or make a point I will use reason. In the East, if you want to prove something is true or make a point you would use imagery or parables. More or less, you would use things that reveal the truth or the point. Revelation is not often times explained by reason, but we want it to be that way. What postmodernism has done is introduced new ways of expressing truth, while at the same time it has introduced things such as relativism and pluralism. There are positives and negatives to both reason and revelation.

I believe the above is important to note because it helps to understand where this emerging church has come from. You don't have to sit long in an emerging church service before you realize the emphasis of the arts. From the music to wall paintings, believers are finding creative ways to express ancient, Biblical truths. They are always creating ways to express their love to God and their hurt from life. This has more to do with revealing than reason, and there is nothing wrong with that. The emerging church is also relativistic, but not about truth. The styles and methods are relative, and this really seems to rub some who oppose it the wrong way. For example, I had a professor just yesterday say that house churches were great, but he one problem with them. His problem with them was that some house churches lead everyone to believe that they are leaders, and they don't have a pastor. He argued that this was not Biblical. Is it or not? To me this has more to do with style and structure, which I would contend is relative. The house churches that I have heard, known and read about do not operate the way he says they do. Most have a defined leadership known as either elders or some other name. There is generally one who has the gift of teaching that rises up and does much of that. Each person is seen to have a responsibility in the body, and all are held accountable to doing it. The Bible did not give a point by point way to structure a church, the church did. Overseers (elders) and deacons were appointed to lead the church, serve the church and correct the church. Pastors were not necessarily the leaders, nor teachers. Apostles, prophets and evangelists are supposed to be apart of equipping the body too, but I haven't seen any of those guys in awhile!

All I'm saying here is that there is not one clear cut way to do church. What I believe the Bible presents us with is a skeleton that will be covered with the skin of different cultures. While the church in America has been sleeping, our culture changed. Thus, the skin needs to change. The truths MUST remain, but the style, structure and methods must change. Again this is relative. If you plant a church in a retirement village, I doubt very seriously that you will be singing David Crowder songs and preaching with videos and powerpoint. What will work there most likely is hymns with a piano and organ, and a good onle 3 to 5 point sermon. This is why I despise "how to" guides for church growth. Give me a break! Go engage the culture around you and meet them there. Don't let some book or seminary tell you how best to structure your church. This is just a minor part of the emerging church, and I want to add that the general style of an emerging church does not work in every context. I fear some churches are trying too hard to look like an emerging church that they are missing the people in their community completely. You MUST know those of your own community.

The main difference, as far as I can tell, between the emerging church and the existing church is in the areas of social issues. As I mentioned above, the emerging church has a heavy emphasis on meeting the needs of humanity. (I want to note here that they do not preach a social gospel as some have begun to do in this country. Those that do that are consider part of the Emergent church. There is a difference, and I would encourage anyone to do their research about an emerging church to make sure they are not really Emergent. The social gospel places all them emphasis on human needs, and neglects the gospel essentials such as repentance, faith in Christ alone and in some cases even the existence of hell. It is basically a mix of secular humanism and Christianity.) The emerging church seeks to live the way of Jesus, and not just preach it. Jesus lived His life among the poor, the sinners, the drunks, the tax collectors and whores. He was considered their friends. These are the type of people He came to call. He did not spend His life lobbying the government of His day to pass laws saying that homosexuals could not get married. Nor did He lobby them to end abortion and prohibit alcohol. He understood that there was already a law against those things, just like there was against lying and stealing and adultery and murder, etc. God's law has never changed whether a country or nations government has acknowledged or not. The law was given to show us our need for Jesus. However, the Pharisees of the day thought their morality was fine enough. I hear at seminary a lot something like this, "It's great that you want to go and feed everyone and clothe them and heal thier diseases, but what good is it for them to go to hell well fed and comfortable?" I agree. But the opposite is true as well which would sound like this, "It's great that you want to go and make sure there's no more abortion or homosexuality or drunkeness, but what good is it for them to go to hell as good and moral citizens?"

It seems to me that the church today has become more concerned about issues of morality than they have social issues. We can quote the Word inside and out, but we can't tell or show anyone how to actually do what it says. I fear we are more like the Pharisees of Jesus' day than Jesus. This is why I believe the emerging church is such a timely reform of the church. It is wonderful to be grounded theologically and to live moral lives, but this is not all we're called to be about. It is the churches responsibility to care for the poor and naked and homeless and hungry and oppressed and sick. Not the government! Like our pastor here said once, "Do you find it interesting that in Jesus' day the homeless and drunks and whores and poor viewed Jesus as their friend, and the rich, upper and middle classes viewed Him as their enemy. Yet today, the upper and middle classes of society view Jesus as their friend, and the poor, homeless, whores and drunks view Him as their enemy." Why is this? And can this be changed?

The emerging church has some flaws, and they must be addressed and dealt with in humility and love. However, the emerging church does not need to be written off or dismissed. My plea is that members of the older generations (i.e. my grandparents and parents generations) would get behind the emerging church and bless it and strengthen it and fan it into flame. I don't know if I speak for the majority of my generation or not, but I feel that the older generations just view us as ignorant and rebellious. I do not feel that we are validated by the older generations, and I long for them to come alongside us and encourage our growth in the Lord even if it doesn't happen to look exactly the same as it did for them. So this is why I am FOR the emerging church!

Thoughts?


Bryan

A Sad Day for SWBTS and its Trustees

OK, so every week seems to strike up some new controversy at the seminary. Thus far there have only been two major things happen. One, they cut off a chapel speakers webcast because he confessed to speaking in a private prayer language. He also took a shot at the IMB, though not directly. And two, was the pastor from Florida would gave a political message of sorts about loving Israel and hating the Muslims who are our enemy. (I addressed this in "An Open Letter to a Pastor in Florida".) Now the latest controversy is actually a revisiting of the first controversy mentioned. The past two days at seminary the board of trustees held meetings to discuss among other things whether or not to pass a policy that would deem the school a cessasionists school. (By cessasionists, I mean they no longer believe the charismatic gifts of the New Testament are around today, namely, speaking in tongues and a private prayer language.)

Here is the statement the trustees voted on 36-1:
"The trustees pledged, 'Southwestern will not knowingly endorse in any way, advertise, or commend the conclusions of the contemporary charismatic movement including ‘private prayer language.’ Neither will Southwestern knowingly employ professors or administrators who promote such practices.'"

The one person who voted against this policy was the Rev. Dwight McKissic Sr. He is a trustee and the one who delivered the chapel message about speaking in a private prayer language. (A side note here: The statement released from SWBTS stated that it was a unanimous vote to pass this policy. Last I checked unanimous meant everyone was in agreement, yet they show that it was a 36-1 vote. Here's what it says: "Consequently, at the president’s encouragement in the Oct. 16 forum, trustees adopted a statement unanimously recommended by the board’s executive committee clarifying the school’s perspective on private prayer language by a vote of 36-1, McKissic being the only trustee voting in opposition." That seems like a slap in the face to me! You can read the statement here: http://www.sbtexas.com/default.asp?action=article&aid=3262&issue=10/17/2006.)

OK, so why is this a sad day for the seminary and its trustees? Well, I believe it's a sad day because of their complete disregard for other views on the gifts. I also believe it's a sad day because their is no Scriptural evidence that warrants a belief in the cessasion of the gifts. I believe that this is merely a swinging of the pendulum in Christian theology. The Charismatic movement in America has gotten out of hand recently, and therefore, the Southern Baptist, trying to make sure they have nothing in common with that movement, have swung the pendulum back to the other extreme and say the charismatic gifts have ceased. All I ever hear from administrators and professors at seminary is that we need to use the right hermanuetics (a fancy way of saying study of the biblical texts) and right exegesis (a fancy way of saying critical, in-depth study of the biblical texts).

Now here's what Dr. Paige Patterson, president of the seminary, said in an April 4th chapel last spring:
"Preaching from 1 Corinthians 14, Patterson stated that 'Acts 2 portrays the legitimate gifts of tongues' for gospel proclamation and that the Corinthian believers were merely imitating the Acts 2 manifestation in a manner similar to pagan prophets of the time. Nevertheless, "It would be a mistake for evangelicals to forbid others to speak in tongues ... That doesn't mean that a person who is building a major part of his faith on something that is so ... downplayed by Paul should be called to be your pastor," Patterson said. He said 1 Corinthians 14 seems to give evidence of a private prayer language, but notes that Paul says such prayer leaves the mind out of prayer so that praying with the mind is preferred.

I italicized two things to note in this statement. (By the way, this was taken from a statement released today which can be found at http://www.sbtexas.com/default.asp?action=article&aid=3265&issue=10/18/2006.) First, Patterson sees the issue of tongues in 1 Corinthians 14 as an "imitation" of the Acts 2 tongues and that it was in a manner similar to that of pagan prophets of the time. OK, so my question is where in the world does he get this nonsense? Either this is poor hermanuetics and exegesis, or maybe, just maybe, it's a swinging of the pendulum. Then he states that Paul emphasizes praying with the mind over praying in tongues. What Paul actually says is that "in church" he would rather say five words with his minds than ten thousand words with a tongue. Notice where he would rather do this: in church! That is in verse 19. Now if we take a look at verse 15 he says something rather interesting. He says, "What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit (i.e. tongues), but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also." I do not believe that Paul is rebuking the Corinthians here for imitating Acts 2 or mimicing pagan prophets of the day. I believe Paul is encouraging unity in the community. He's encouraging them to build each other up, and private tongues doesn't do that. This is why he calls for an interpreter if you are going to speak in tongues in the church so that the body may be built up. The issue is not about tongues, but about how to live in community together as new believers.

I am astounded at when this debate comes up how often 1 Corinthians 13 is left out. Everyone focuses on chapters 12 and 14, and all they do is bicker back and forth about the gifts. Yet, Chapter 13 is completely ignored. Paul gets done talking about the gifts in chapter 12 , and then says something rather startling for us today in the last verse of 12. 1 Cor. 12:31 says, "But eagerly desire the higher gifts. And I will show still a more excellent way." Now, Paul did not write this with chapters and verses, therefore, he's going to keep going and show us this most excellent way. The most excellent way is love! He says that he could speak with the tongues of angels, have prophetic powers to understand all mysteries, have all faith to move mountains, could give away all he has and offer himself to be burned, but without love he would be a resounding gong; he would be nothing; he would gain nothing. He then defines love, but I want to emphasize verse 8. He says, "Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away." Two things here: 1) Love never, ever, ever, ever ends, and 2) if we're going to say that tongues has ceased then we must be fair and say that so have prophecies and knowledge. Again, this is not the point of what Paul is writing about. He speaks of the ceasing of these things at that time when we who only know in part shall know fully as we are fully known (see verses 9-12). Therefore, it is absurd to say the gifts have ceased!

1 Cor. 13:13-14:1, "So now faith, hope and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love. Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy." Why does he emphasize prophesying? Because it serves to build up the body, thus he says in 14:3-5, "On the other hand, the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation. The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church. Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up." The unity of the body is what's at stake here, not gifts!

If we look at the context of chapters 13 and 14, they come on the heels of chapter 12 where Paul is talking about the body of Christ being one body with many members. He says God has appointed apostles, prophets, teachers, miracles, gifts of healing, helping administrating and various kinds of tongues (1 Cor. 12:28). Not everyone is each of these things he says in the next verse, but we all have a part of the body. We should all desire the higher gifts, and the most excellent way. Paul says love is the most execellent way because love "binds everything together in perfect harmony" (Colossians 3:14). So what if you can exegete scripture well, and so what if you can speak in tongues or prophesy or have all faith or give everything away. So what! Without love, you are nothing! At best you are just an annoying sound in the ears of all. My fear is that this is what has become of the Southern Baptist Convention because of ridiculous battles to be better and more right than everyone else on issues that never get to the heart of the matter. Maybe we need to spend more time focusing on the point of the Corinthian letter rather than on the peripherreal issues in it. Who cares if we can figure out what Paul really meant when he spoke about tongues, if we cannot love each other and build each other up. Our fighting says more about us than our love, and this is really sad.

The trustees yesterday made a decision draw the line out even further between "us and them." Not only are we drawing lines between us and the world, we're also drawing lines between believers. Paul deals with this earlier in 1 Corinthians, and maybe it's time we have a chapel message and a convention on that. A house divided will not stand, and at the rate things are going I'm not sure how much longer the SBC can keep it together. This truly is a sad day.

Thoughts.

For His glory and fame among all peoples,

Bryan