Discipleship as Mission in a Post-Christian World

Ever since Willow Creek launched a seeker service, the gatekeepers of evangelical orthodoxy have lumped nearly anything that smacks of strategic evangelism as being unhealthily or impiously or heretically obsessed with being relevant.  As if relevancy always was and always will be a matter of syncretism and ever the enemy of faithfulness. As if the gospel is only the gospel if it is veiled by us on purpose.

I believe in relevancy. I just don’t believe skinny jeans are going to make the gospel more appealing or less offensive. But nobody actually believes that; especially people who wear skinny jeans. If wearing skinny jeans and singing Jesus words over early Coldplay and Band of Horses songs is what you think the relevancy conversation is about, you might consider a career as a caricaturist.

Relevancy is not about assimilation. It’s about communication. And it realizes that words are the means of communication, and words don’t work without contexts, and there are numerous varying contexts.

I don’t believe the world understands what a Biblical Christian really is and I believe that is to a great extent the Church’s fault,  And for that reason I wonder if the Church should distance itself, not from orthodoxy, but from “Christianity”. Deliberately; and temporarily move the focus of conversation from missiology and philosophy of ministry to discipleship.

The difference between Willow Creek and the Emerging Church is that the former wanted to deconstruct why and how we did church (particularly for yuppies and suburbanites) and the latter wanted to deconstruct the church itself and re-translate the gospel in postmodern language (particularly for white millennial hipsters. I said it) With the Emerging Church, what many originally thought was a (slightly condescending) lesson about contextualization, turned out to be a theological overhaul. The problem with Willow Creek was that method was prioritized over message and the result was a contrived church and a shallow anthropocentric gospel.

But this is the best of Hybels/Warren and McClaren; a sense that as time goes on, the evangelical Christians’ world becomes smaller and more isolated and more insulated, resulting in a language gap between the evangelical world and the real world; a language gap that deserves serious thought.

I’ll roll with that.

The worst of each: on one side we have the gospel packaged like a Big Mac, and on other, the gospel blended seamlessly into postmodern humanism.

We’re not trying to sell the Gospel. Nor are we trying to throw it into the postmodern melting pot.  We’re trying to live it as a distinct but comprehensible way of life. This is a slower process than Church Growth philosophies entice us with. It’s not results oriented. Hey. We might not see any tangible results. But I maintain that if we try to sell the Gospel as a product or defend it as a worldview, or blend Christian discipleship with postmodern humanism—these strategies only dim Christianity, and pour salt on the wound of millennial confusion, and we will lose this generation and the next. But if, with fierce humility, we live the Christian gospel in this world, not pushing for results, moral/political victories, or conversions, we might preserve real Christianity for a more open and not so faithless generation.

But what exactly is Christian living? Since 2003 I’ve been immersed in missiological, philosophical, and church strategy conversations. They’re framed like this: what can we do to get more people interested in what we have to say? There are of course discrepancies regarding the specific things “we” can do, and most young church planters seem to have bought into more or less organic/missional community models that place varying degrees of emphasis on a Sunday Morning Gathering, and promoted events.

But the missiological conversation no longer interests me. I’m not saying it’s unimportant. But I’m burdened by the complete lack of understanding as to what Gospel-centered Christians are saying. Executing our missiology may succeed at gathering many people; from the seeker, to the millennial who was raised in Church but is dissatisfied with their parents expression of faith.  Many missiologies sincerely claim they’re designed to attract the non-churchgoer, but since they rarely address the cultural-lingual chasm between the Evangelical fishbowl and the real world, or if they do, it’s in a shallow and embarrassing way, and they never force churchgoers into the discomfort zone of joining in the blood, sweat, and tears of everyday people, nor prepare them for it if they do send them to the wolves, churches just war with each other for the hippest service and the best preacher,  they essentially remain an isolated sub-culture, which seems bigger than it is because small worlds seem like the whole world to the people in them, and the gospel remains unheard and misunderstood.

At this point, the next step shouldn’t be to get people to come to Church or to a missional community, to get them “saved”, or try to use the Church as a platform to take America back to the 80’s and 50’s, when everything was awesome for middle-class white people. The next step is to get every person to recognize a real Christian when they see one, not by the Bible under their arm, nor by the tract in their hand, nor by the cross on their neck, nor by the Jesus tattoo, nor by the Christian music on their Spotify playlist, nor by their condescending Flanderian tone, nor by the social backwardness, nor by the palpable and hateful disdain for minority perspectives, but by their other worldly love for one another and neighbor; love that goes way beyond the common worldly expressions, humanist and otherwise.  Worldly expressions fall short of Christian love because non-Christians are compelled to consider “reality”– being respected, feeling heard, following dreams, and surviving. We have no such burdens holding back our love. We only have the easy yoke of Christ. Our love is free from the bonds of “reality”.

A billboard, a political movement, a best-seller with trendy postmodern words, might turn curious heads, but it will either project a muddled message or get drowned out in the cacophony.

Real, fearless, public, Christian living will turn heads and project the Gospel, without getting lost in noise.  It will stand out from the noise; like an expertly played cello in a New York Subway.

And standing out from the noise enables people to see the revolution at hand. To stand out, we have to be more than.

Christians are more than nice. Christians are sacrificial. Nice is expected. Sacrifice is revolution.

Christians are more than considerate. Christians gladly take the worst seat. Considerateness is what is expected from us. Voluntary slavery is revolution.

Christians are more than selfless. Christians are dead.  Selflessness is what is expected. Death to ourselves is revolution.

Christians are more than high-road takers. Christians bless those who curse them. Non-violence is expected from (some of) us. Wishing peace and happiness upon our tormenters is revolution.

Christians are more than generous. Christians lack “good stewardship” when they give. Charity and food and clothing distribution are expected. Voluntarily declining to own anything is revolution.

Christians are more than Bible-thumpers. Christians are indwelt by the Word Himself. Laying out tracts and putting Bible verses on public signs is expected. Embodying Jesus in our relationships is revolution.

Christians don’t view themselves as having rights. Christians view themselves as altars, drink offerings to be poured out, and crucified. And they view the old world which is (no matter how well-intentioned it appears at times) fashioned after Adam worth dying to, and the new world being fashioned in the Church after Christ worth dying for. That is discipleship. That is sanctification. Dying daily to Adam and dying in and for Christ are two sides of the same coin of discipleship.

Fighting for our right to…is expected. Swallowing our rights, privileges, and life is revolution.

Discipleship has little to do with the substances we abstain from, the entertainment we engage in, what we do on Sundays, who we vote for, getting our beliefs about the supernatural or the natural out there, “defending the faith”, Bible-knowledge, and hours amassed in Bible Study, whether in homes or at the Church, whether with “unbelievers” or not.

Discipleship is about what we do with Jesus. Which manifests publicly in how we treat people, particularly the least of these,  and dying to ourselves for their sake. Love God. Love your neighbor.

If a bunch of those kind of people gather in community and exist in broad daylight in their towns, and do so with verve and intentionality, then they will be the salt that preserves the kingdom for the next generation.

*MAJOR DISCLAIMER

Discipleship is not based on our own effort. It is God’s grace. God gives us an impossible supernatural gift, in that he gives us the grace to die with him.  But, for the love of God, do not think of discipleship as anything less than death.  And do not think that you can have mission without discipleship. Mission without discipleship is a business plan without a market. Therefore, it is a bad business plan. Mission with discipleship is a trust with God, who doesn’t need a market. He makes it his business to turn markets into Houses of Prayer for all people.

Some Love for the Evangelist

A gifted evangelist is a wonder to me. Without them I would give up.

Maybe not Christianity.

Maybe just evangelicalism.

I say that because evangelism is impossible to me. I’m not afraid to talk about the gospel. I mean, to me it is so beautiful. But I need currency, or cache’ to feel comfortable. It’s the line from stranger to Jesus conversation that is intimidating.

Not evangelists. They were born with an unending supply of cache’. I know it’s the Holy Spirit who draws people, but it seems like He’s extra present on the tongues of the evangelist.

Evangelists have a maddeningly enviable ability to give zero cares about what people think. And very rarely do they come off poorly, (the difference between evangelists and prophets) even when they’re street witnessing. That may be at least half of the gift. Many have tried to imitate the zeal, going out on the streets, and have ended up just embarrassing coffee-sipping, book worm Christians like me. But when I am on the streets with an evangelist, who is doing every taboo thing that hipster Christian bloggers say make Jesus look bad, on those occasions, I’m not embarrassed. I’m in awe of my friend and feel that Jesus is honored.

I sometimes wish I had my own personal evangelist who I could just take with me everywhere. He or she would initiate conversation, and I’d fill it in with witticisms and qualifications. The person would say to me: “I would go to your church and listen to your sermon” and to the evangelist “I would go to your dinner party, and become a Christian.”

When I’m with an evangelist talking to someone about Jesus, I’m not uncomfortable. “Sinner’s prayer” notwithstanding. The same stuff that would make me cringe reading about, when on the streets with gifted evangelists, impresses me.

As long as evangelism is just a reading topic surrounding church planting, church growth, missiology, methodology, I think I will be critical of evangelism. The reason why is simple.

Evangelists, typically, are concrete, practical, impulsive, extroverts to the extreme, and this makes evangelism a thing nearly impossible or silly thing to try and intellectualize, and turn into theories, like writing a thesis about the capacity of snowmen to feel pain. (Come to think of it, anything is a subject in postmodernism)

I can complain behind my computer that what we call evangelists are really Finneyites, and there’s a big problem with Finneyites, and that we need to look past revivalist mentality in evangelicalism to Jesus and Paul for examples of evangelists, and how they built relationships and blah, blah, blah.

I know what I’m doing.

Excusing my envy of gifted evangelists with academia.

Because again, whenever I’m with a truly gifted evangelist working their magic, skepticism is at a minimum.

Now dangerous fanaticism and charismata and enthusiasm gone overboard exist in the church world, and it is a product of the 2^nd Great Awakening led by Charles Finney. And we have to be careful about it. But there is a difference between non-gifted screaming escapists extremists, entrenched in a culture war, trying to artificially produce a revival, and just plain gifted evangelists being their boss evangelist selves. And we can’t equivocate individuals in the group with their fringe members, i.e., Ferguson rioters with Ferguson protestors, Westboro Baptist Church with all Baptists. Most gifted evangelists aren’t extreme, red-faced, escapists with questionable eschatology.  They’re regular people in whom boldness, likeability, persuasiveness, and instant relatability combine all at once, naturally, and lethally.

They need not be included in book-wormish lambasts of extremist evangelicalism, lest we alienate them and their gift from the Christian community.

Do not throw evangelists out with the bathwater.

When we subject evangelism to a discussion about method, philosophy, and church growth, by making church structure the method of evangelism, we smoke out the gifted evangelists, and the mission turns into us trying to be hipper, realer, and friendlier, or on the other side, rejecting discussion about method, in favor of a church that is sounder, righter, and “orthodoxer”.

A mentor of mine says, “Evangelism is not the result of church planting. Church planting is the result of evangelism.”

Which, for my part, is also to say. “Evangelism is not the form of the church. It is the Spirit’s gift to the church in the form of gifted individuals.”

We don’t go to evangelists for counseling, strategy, or meaty theology. For that we rely on shepherds, apostles, and teachers, none of which are the form of the church either (is it fair to say that the seeker-friendly vs. God-centered war comes down to “the evangelist form” against the “pastor/teacher form”, i.e. two non-forms vying for form status, and thus totally redundant, divisive, and time-wasting?). We go to evangelists for evangelism and watch them smash our worst fears and stereotypes about evangelism. How do they do the same thing we try to do, but successfully and fearlessly? It’s like asking an actor how she channeled that character? I’ll never understand why we listen to actors stammer through abstracting their characters in interviews. The answer is on the screen, not in the interview. In short, they’re gifted. Let gifted people lead in their giftedness.

I walked into the coffee shop where I write sermons and build relationships; only this time with my buddy who is an evangelist. I’ve got good rapport as a regular with the baristas and fellow regulars, but my friend, he doesn’t even live in this town, or know any of these people. It’s his first time at this shop. Within five minutes of talking to the barista we know her musical tastes, her opinions of Brattleboro, her favorite places to hang out, and her thoughts about God. I don’t even know how this happened. I reached into my pocket to grab some cash for the coffee and the tip, and I look up and this barista and my friend are in a full-blown conversation about Jesus.  And it is not awkward. It’s fun.

This is what happens every time I hang out with evangelists. These people should be encouraged and unleashed. Our churches should be furiously seeking these people and releasing them on baristas, street folk, business-people, restaurant servers, small business owners, etc…etc…

Maybe today is a good day to find an evangelist and tag along.

Next post: What if I am not gifted at evangelism?