The Mission of the Church, mercy, and a Radical Life vs. a Plodding Life

This morning I posted on Facebook an article written by Reformed Pastor Kevin DeYoung. It's not perfect, but it is a very good article that pushes back on some of the trends we see in Christianity these days. A friend (and member of the church I served in Illinois) replied to the post; "Ok so this article popped up below the one you shared. I read both and now I'm confused. What do you think of this guy's opinion?"

This is a great question and I started to answer on Facebook, but it started to get WAY TOO LONG for a Facebook response, so I figured I'd address it in a more in depth way here. I highly encourage you to read the articles (linked above) before you read my blog post.


There's a lot to cover here, so I'll take it point by point.
1. The author of the second article clearly has a dislike of the writer of the first article (Kevin DeYoung). That's clear in his opening. It seems to me that McDurmon (the author of the second article) has a bone to pick with DeYoung from the start and doesn't take the post with the spirit intended, but is looking for a fight. 

The dichotomy of "Christ follower" or "the confines of the church" are not extremes that DeYoung embraces. Rather, he is reacting to a false dichotomy that he sees being pushed by others. His larger point is that it often seems more attractive to ditch the church, ditch ecclesiology, and go do your own thing as a "Christ follower" or to find others who want to do the same things you want to do and have them be your "community." DeYoung is pushing back against the idea that the only true and authentic Christianity looks radical. In many ways, he's doing exactly what Luther did during the Reformation. When Karlsadt led a peasants revolt, Luther spoke against him and commended people to do their vocations faithfully rather than revolt against authority.


2. The author's definition of "Church" in the second article is only partially correct, but is very incomplete. He writes, A group of “real Christ followers living in community” IS the church. That is true. The Lutheran Confessions (Smalcald Articles) say the same; That God, today a seven-year-old child knows what the Church is, namely the holy believers and lambs, who hear the voice of their Shepherd.

However, this definition has to be considered in the larger context. In 1 Corinthians (and elsewhere in the NT) we get the bigger picture that indicates that the church is both the local gathering as well as all believers everywhere. It also shows that we are not free to just do whatever we want as the church, but that we are to follow the lead of our head (Christ) and we are always to do things in light of our fellow believers. The local church always exists as a local manifestation of the lager whole, so we have a responsibility to have unity with our fellow believers.

Do we need a church building to be the church? No. But do we need to gather together? Yes. Is there to be a pastor who is in authority over the local church? Yes. Are we free to leave behind those who are "holding us back" so that we can be more genuine, authentic, followers of Christ? Absolutely not.

3. The author of the second article writes: Problem: social justice is a mission of the church. 

Actually, the mission of the church is to make disciples through baptism and teaching. The Church exists for the sake of delivering the forgiveness of sins won by Christ on the cross. 

Secondarily, the church is called to address social issues. But "Social Justice" is a loaded term that has a lot of baggage that Christians can not agree with. So, not to "social justice," but yes to addressing social issues like poverty (as you heard from Amos on Sunday and will again this coming Sunday), racism, abortion, euthanasia, marriage, etc. 

The Gospel of Jesus should (and does and will) lead to social actions. Many hospitals bear Christian names because Christians founded them. Women being treated well (as equally valued by God and society) came about because of Christianity. Child labor laws, the end of slavery, caring for the poor; all of these resulted from the gospel changing hearts and then changing their actions. (You can read about this in the great book "How Christianity Changed the World" by Dr. Alvin Schmidt. 

What does McDurmon mean by "Social Justice?" He doesn't define his term here, so I don't know. Does he mean things like this? If so, that's great! However, traditionally "Social Justice" has been used to speak of replacing the gospel message of Christ crucified and risen for sinners with social activism. It means using force (political or otherwise) to compel those who have money or power or opportunity to give those things to those who do not have them. This idea is not fitting with Christianity. Here is one pretty good overview of "Social Justice." 

4. To sum it up; I think DeYoung's argument can be aptly articulated by this sports metaphor. In football, every kid wants to be the quarterback or running back or a wide receiver. Those are the glamour positions. Everyone notices the RB who carries the ball for 100 yards in the game. The QB is guy who gets talked about the most. WR's make big plays that impact the game in an obvious way.
But the truly great teams know that the most important positions aren't RB, WR, or even QB. The most important position for the offense is that of linemen. The linemen seem to get talked about only if they miss a block. But without a good offensive line, the QB doesn't have time to make a good decision before the defense hits him. Without a good OL, the RB doesn't have a chance of gaining many yards. Without a good OL, the WR won't have a chance to catch passes.
Few kids say, "I want to be an offensive linemen." Yet they are the most important players for the success of the offense. 

In the church, there is a temptation to want to stand out. To do something big and impressive. But it is those who humbly and faithfully do the vocations given them by God, love the neighbors around them, and faithfully serve in ways that are not at all flashy (altar guild, counting money, Sunday School teacher, etc.) that often make the biggest difference for the church and the kingdom of God.
Do we need those who are willing to step out (when called by God) to do something that seems risky and scary? Absolutely. But before a person does that, it is good for them first to learn the importance and value of the "plodding" Christian life. 

It is much as Paul wrote about men who desire to be pastors. Before he is to become a pastor, first, He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect. (1 Timothy 3:4).

What DeYoung is emphasizing is much the same as what Paul seems to desire for Christians in 1 Timothy 2 also.

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. (1 Timothy 2:1-2)

Peaceful. Quiet. Not drawing attention to ourselves or the radical things we're doing, but humbly and simply doing the work God has given us to do, which includes caring for the poor and addressing social issues.

Before we seek to do a radical thing for God, let us first learn what it is to follow Christ in the seemingly small things.

Hope this was helpful!