Attractional Church The Impac

SOUTHEASTERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
WAKE FOREST, NORTH CAROLINA
ATTRACTIONAL CHURCH: THE IMPACT OF THE INNER LIFE OF
A LOCAL CHURCH ON CORPORATE MISSION IN NORTH AMERICA
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
BY
JOSEPH MATTHEW SLIGER
MAY 2017

ProQuest Number: 10275121

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

ProQuest 10275121

Published by ProQuest LLC (2017 ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
©
2017
Joseph Matthew Sliger
This Dissertation prepared and presented to the Faculty as a part of the requirements for
the Doctor of Philosophy Degree at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Wake
Forest, North Carolina. All rights and privileges normally reserved by the author as a
copyright holder are waived for the Seminary. The Seminary Library may catalog,
display, and use this Dissertation in all normal ways such materials are used, for
reference, and for other purposes, including electronic and other means of preservation
and circulation, including on-line access and other means by which library materials are
or in the future may be made available to researchers and library users.
Ph.D. Dissertation Approval
Student Name: Joseph Matthew Sliger Student ID# 000-227915
Dissertation Title:
ATTRACTIONAL CHURCH: THE IMPACT OF THE INNER LIFE OF

A LOCAL CHURCH ON CORPORATE MISSION IN NORTH AMERICA
This Dissertation has been approved.
Date of Defense: April 21, 2017
Major Professor: John S. Hammett

Dr. John Hammett
2nd Faculty Reader: Keith S. Whitfield

Dr. Keith Whitfield
External Reader: Michael Goheen

Dr. Michael Goheen
Ph.D. Director: Charles L. Quarles

Dr. Charles L. Quarles
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This dissertation, appealing to the Scriptures, emphasizes the corporate aspect of mission.
The acknowledgments, appealing to experience, emphasize the corporate aspect of
dissertations.
To begin, Dr. Phil Newton encouraged me to pursue this degree, modeled for me
the possibility of balancing life as a husband/father/pastor/PhD student, then kept me
from the ditches nearly every step of the way. In my ecclesiology seminar, someone
asked Dr. John Hammett what dissertation he recommended we read as a model. Without
hesitation, he replied, “Phil Newton’s.” Incredibly, I work 25 feet from Phil every day.
He’s read nearly every word I’ve written for the past 10 years. Even worse, he endured
hearing many of my initial mental drafts. However, no one has shaped my thinking on the
church to the degree he has. When I think of a pastor, I think of Phil.
Long before God graciously put Phil in my life, he gave me loving, hard–
working, creative parents. No one on either side of my family (including aunts and
uncles) graduated college prior to me. I mention this only because my parents labored to
reverse that trend. From a young age, they both demonstrated and expected excellence.
They pushed me to work hard, encouraged me to read, and assumed I would do well in
school. Their ceiling was my floor. Thanks Mom and Dad.
As a 10–month old, I met Josh Smith. Not only is he my first–cousin, he grew up
across the street from me. As a newly converted teenager, Josh once asked me, “What
iv
have you learned recently?” Though he might not remember that conversation, I know
where I was standing. Josh taught me––in our conversations and by his life––that
thinking and Christianity were not diametrically opposed. He read many of these
chapters, disagreed with me on a few things, but never without grace. In one sense, what
follows is the convergence of the two most theologically influential people in my life
(Phil and Josh). This dissertation is better because of him. So is my life. When I think of
a friend, I think of Josh.
And those were not the only family members who encouraged me. My wife’s
parents––Max and Barbara––helped Julie and the kids in countless ways while I was in
Wake Forest for seminars. They also bought a significant portion of this dissertation’s
bibliography for years of Christmases. The Lord gave me godly in–laws, for which I’m
grateful.
J. D. Greear told us in one of our seminars, “Write for your church, not someone
else’s.” That statement resonated with me. Subsequently, I began to consider how I might
write for South Woods Baptist Church, the church I’ve attended, served and, most
importantly, been served by, for the past ten years. As the pastor tasked with overseeing
many of the inner life issues at South Woods, I began attempting to integrate my role
with my study on the mission of the church. In other words, how did the inner–life
realities I oversaw contribute to South Woods’ mission in Memphis? This dissertation is
my attempt to answer that question. In fact, when I think of a united and holy church, I
think of South Woods Baptist Church.
I want to thank my fellow elders at South Woods––Dr. Tommy Campbell, Jim
Carnes, Drew Harris, David Jones, Dr. Dan Meadows, Dr. Phil Newton, Tom Tollett, and
v
Chris Wilbanks––for modeling the Christian life and persistently encouraging me in my
studies. To my co–laborer Debbie Jones, I’m not sure how you endure the ecclesiological
nerd–dom that is Phil, Chris, Jim, and me, but your partnership in the gospel is a gift
from the Lord. To the South Woods body, its elders, and my co–workers, the weeks you
gave me in 2016 to focus on this dissertation enabled progress that otherwise would have
been impossible. Thank you!
Thanks to Brad Dunlap, Dr. Todd Engstrom, Chris Gonzalez, and Shane England
for answering my many ignorant questions on Missional Communities. The churches you
help lead brought me much encouragement. I especially want to thank Mercy Hill in
Memphis for allowing me to attend their Missional Communities, eat their food, and pick
their missiological brains.
Speaking of Memphis, I wrote nearly every word of this dissertation at a coffee
shop called Tamp and Tap. No one saw me blankly stare off into the distance and
eventually type more than my barista friends Kam and Harris. Thanks for serving both
great coffee and great company.
Everything I hoped for in a seminary, I found at Southeastern. To begin, while a
PhD in Applied Theology ought to be an applicable degree, I can honestly say that every
seminar, every paper I wrote, and nearly every book I read applied in some sense to my
ministry setting at South Woods. However, to the seminary’s credit, practical application
did not entail intellectual laxity. My professors––in particular Drs. Bruce Ashford,
Andreas Köstenberger, Alvin Reid, Keith Whitfield, Mike Dodson, Danny Akin, J. D.
Greear, and Ed Stetzer––pushed me both intellectually and spiritually. Thanks Dr.
Stephen Stout for knowing the answers to questions I’d never considered.
vi
Furthermore, at SEBTS the Lord kindly surrounded me with other scholars in the
form of a PhD cohort. Thanks to Lizette Beard, Phud Chambers, Aaron Coe, Mike
Graham, Stan Graham, Devin Maddox, Mike McDaniel, Will McGee, Matt Rogers, Don
Wooley, and Trevin Wax for laboring to create a culture of excellence in our courses
together. I learned much from each of you.
If you read the footnotes in the pages to come, you’ll soon realize the influence
Dr. Michael Goheen’s books had upon my thinking. Furthermore, his research introduced
me to many of the other sources I cited. I’m thankful he made the time to read my work,
critique it, and sharpen it.
I took the PhD entrance exam a few weeks before the birth of my firstborn son,
Owen. When he was two, he began praying for my comprehensive exams in these terms,
“Pray for Daddy’s test.” After I passed that test, he continued praying in those same
terms. So, rather than dissuading him, Julie and I translated “test” each time to
“dissertation.” Therefore, for the past few years (now he’s five), he’s prayed for this
dissertation probably as much as anyone. To you and your little sister Eden Rose, thank
you for putting up with Daddy being in school your entire lives.
I think the disparity between Owen and Eden’s knowledge and mine is analogous
to the one between Dr. John Hammett’s and mine, just the opposite direction. When Dr.
Hammett and I talked about something I’d written, he always seemed to know what
century I’d neglected, what author I’d not read closely enough, or what sentence needed
to be added to my paragraph. However, when he’d point it out, he somehow mastered the
art of making me want to actually dig deeper and think more precisely. For example, I’ll
never forget Dr. Hammett responding to a fellow student asking for a deadline extension,
vii
“I’ll wait for something worth waiting for.” That’s a microcosm of his manner: gracious
yet firm. When I think of a scholar, I think of Dr. Hammett.
Without really a close second, I dedicated this dissertation to my wife. Though
quite a few times I considered throwing in the towel, she would not allow it. She
persevered through a slew of moody Mondays after I wrote all day, encouraged me to
pick up a book for an hour or two before bed nearly every night for five years, and
considered my good above her own times without number. This dissertation focuses in
large part on the display of Christianity in embodied humanity. I’ve seen her version up
close for quite a while now; and she’s Exhibit A for my thesis. Unfortunately, the
aforementioned Dr. Hammett would not accept that alone, so I wrote 248 pages. When I
think of a Christian, I think of Julie.
To the gracious Giver of all these gifts, I return my thanks. May these pages
ultimately bring glory to you.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................... xiv
ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................... xv
DEDICATION ................................................................................................................. xix
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
Statement of Thesis .......................................................................................................... 1
Key Terms........................................................................................................................ 3
Assumptions Concerning the Mission of the Church ...................................................... 7
The Participants in the Mission of the Church.............................................................. 7
The Nature of the Mission of the Church ..................................................................... 9
The Breadth of the Mission of the Church.................................................................. 12
Chapter Summaries ........................................................................................................ 15
CHAPTER 2: CORPORATE MISSION AND THE INNER LIFE OF THE LOCAL
CHURCH ..................................................................................................................... 21
The Corporate Mission of the Local Church ................................................................. 22
Individualism and America ......................................................................................... 22
Individualism and Authority ....................................................................................... 26
The Inner Life of the Local Church ............................................................................... 29
The Corporate Nature of Salvation ............................................................................. 30
ix
The Relationship Between the Church's Inner Life
and the Church's Corporate Mission ........................................................................... 38
Biblical Argument for Mission ................................................................................... 41
Biblical Argument for Corporate Mission ................................................................. 48
Centripetal and Centrifugal Mission ........................................................................... 54
Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 60
CHAPTER 3: THE UNITY OF THE LOCAL CHURCH AS A DISPLAY OF THE
GOSPEL....................................................................................................................... 66
Biblical Understanding of Local Church Unity ............................................................. 67
The Nature of God and Church Unity......................................................................... 67
The Gospel and Church Unity .................................................................................... 69
New Testament Images of Church Unity.................................................................... 74
Historical Understandings of Local Church Unity ........................................................ 78
Catholicism ................................................................................................................. 80
Reformers.................................................................................................................... 84
Free Church................................................................................................................. 89
Theological Understanding of Local Church Unity....................................................... 92
Theological Unity ....................................................................................................... 95
Visible Unity ............................................................................................................... 97
Organizational Unity ................................................................................................. 101
Relational Unity ........................................................................................................ 103
Missiological Impact of Local Church Unity .............................................................. 105
x
Gathered and Scattered Church ................................................................................ 108
Visible and Invisible Church .................................................................................... 111
The Unity of the Local Church as a Display of the Gospel ...................................... 115
CHAPTER 4: THE HOLINESS OF THE LOCAL CHURCH AS A DISPLAY OF THE
GOSPEL..................................................................................................................... 125
Biblical Understanding of Local Church Holiness ...................................................... 126
The Character of God and Holiness .......................................................................... 126
The New Testament and the Church's Holiness ....................................................... 131
Holiness: Positional or Progressive? ........................................................................ 134
Historical Understandings of Local Church Holiness ................................................. 138
The Holiness of the Church and Augustine .............................................................. 140
The Holiness of the Church and the Reformers ........................................................ 141
The Holiness of the Church and the Anabaptists ...................................................... 145
Theological Understanding of Local Church Holiness ................................................ 146
Positional Holiness Expressed in Local Churches .................................................... 146
Progressive Holiness Encouraged in Local Churches .............................................. 150
Missiological Impact of Local Church Holiness ......................................................... 151
Holiness and Mission in the Scriptures..................................................................... 151
Holiness and Mission in History ............................................................................... 153
The Holiness of the Local Church as a Display of the Gospel ................................. 154
Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 161
xi
CHAPTER 5: THE LOCAL CHURCH AS COUNTERCULTURE: A
CONTEXTUALIZED CONTRAST COMMUNITY ............................................... 163
Countercultural Model of Contextualization ............................................................... 165
Creation and Contextualization................................................................................. 165
Contextualization ...................................................................................................... 169
Countercultural Model of Contextualization ............................................................ 174
Local Church as Counterculture ............................................................................... 178
Counterculture and the Corporate Aspect of the Church's Mission.......................... 182
Contrast Communities on Display ............................................................................... 187
Contrast Necessitates Holiness ................................................................................. 189
Community Necessitates Unity................................................................................. 190
Contrast Communities on Display ............................................................................ 193
Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 203
CHAPTER 6: MODELS FOR ECCLESIOLOGICAL AND MISSIOLOGICAL
EFFECTIVENESS ..................................................................................................... 205
Missional Communities and Open Networks .............................................................. 207
House Churches and Missional Communities .......................................................... 208
Missional Communities and Corporate Mission ...................................................... 213
Missional Communities and Local Mission ............................................................. 215
Missional Communities and Visible Mission ........................................................... 220
Missional Communities Facilitate Open Networks .................................................. 221
Missiological Models for Ecclesiological Effectiveness ............................................. 236
United Missional Communities ................................................................................ 238
xii
Holy Missional Communities ................................................................................... 241
Conclusion to Chapter Six ........................................................................................ 243
Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 244
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 249
xiii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ANF Ante-Nicene Fathers
BST Bible Speaks Today
DBW Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works
GOTR Greek Orthodox Theological Review
JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
JSNT Journal for the Study of the New Testament
LCC Library of Christian Classics
NAC New American Commentary
NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary
NPNF Nicene and Post–Nicene Fathers
NSBT New Studies in Biblical Theology
SBJT Southern Baptist Journal of Theology
TNTC Tyndale New Testament Commentary
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
xiv
ABSTRACT
The thesis of this dissertation asserts that the health of the local church’s inner life shapes
the corporate aspect of the mission of the church because united and holy congregations
accurately display the gospel to the world. Though listing the number of inner life
realities within a local church would be extensive, this argument focuses on local church
unity and local church holiness. The first chapter of the dissertation details this thesis, the
key terms, and the major assumptions underlying it.
The second chapter attempts to clarify what the thesis means by the corporate
aspect of the local church’s mission, primarily contending that an individualistic
interpretation of the gospel and the church truncates the corporate aspect of the church’s
mission. In other words, rather than cumulative mission efforts by individual, isolated
believers, the mission of the church demands communal mission by united believers.
While some might dichotomize centripetal and centrifugal mission, this argument
maintains that centripetal mission shapes the centrifugal aspects of that mission.
Corporate mission, therefore, focuses on the attractiveness of the local church’s inner life
for the purpose of outward impact.
Chapter three addresses the first missiologically significant inner life issue in this
dissertation: local church unity. The corporate aspect of mission argued for in chapter two
depends largely upon local church unity. While the united God created a united church by
the gospel, he gave the church the task to maintain that unity. This maintenance, chapter
xv
three maintains, proves to be patently missiological. To the degree that the church
maintains this unity, it displays the unifying work of the gospel to the unbelieving world.
Drawing upon biblical material and historical understandings of church unity, this
chapter notes four dimensions of local church unity––theological, visible, organizational,
and relational––that the local church maintains for the purpose of shaping corporate
mission. Further, this chapter connects church unity with the gathered and scattered forms
of the local church. Within the surrounding discussion concerning the missiological
significance of these inner life issues, this emphasis might be described as the scattered
church together or the gathered aspect of corporate mission. This chapter also places
emphasis upon the visible nature of the local church over and above invisible church
notions. The argument asserts that if local church unity implies a covenantal obligation
that continues in the church’s scattered forms and the church by nature exists as a visible
entity, local church unity must be missiological.
Chapter four addresses the second missiologically significant inner life issue in
this dissertation, namely, local church holiness. While the Old Testament pointed to this
reality, the life of Christ and the indwelling Holy Spirit make the New Testament church
positionally holy. God separates a people from the world for the good of the world.
The chapter argues that the local church ought to seek that which Christ made a
positional reality. After briefly surveying the historical understandings of local church
holiness, this author takes the Free Church––primarily Baptistic––position on local
church holiness expressed in a regenerate church membership. The regenerate church,
pursuing holiness together, manifests the transformative power of the gospel. Therefore,
xvi
the pursuit of a holy church ends up being missiologically significant. In short, the
unregenerate do not display the truths of the gospel.
Chapter five then seeks to contextualize the holy and united local church for the
good of the unbelieving world, arguing that the countercultural model of
contextualization best embodies the corporate aspect of mission advocated in this thesis.
More specifically, when local churches intend to create a counterculture, their united aim
demands that one church member be concerned for another church member’s faithful and
meaningful contextualization.
Drawing upon the countercultural model, this chapter emphasizes a
distinctiveness that simultaneously prioritizes engagement. As chapters three and four
contended, the local church pursues a distinctive and united culture. However, as this
distinctive culture engages the world, it necessarily counters those aspects of the broader
culture that contradict God’s creational design. Therefore, as holy and united church
members contextualize together, they fulfill to a more significant degree the corporate
aspect of mission by displaying gospel realities to the world.
Missiologists often label these countercultural churches “contrast communities.”
Yet, contrast necessitates holiness. Likewise, community necessitates unity. Therefore, in
line with the thesis’ chief contention, these inner life realities actually shape the corporate
aspect of the local church’s mission.
This final chapter contends that the Missional Community methodology takes
these missiological abstractions and makes them possible within local churches. Based
largely on Rodney Stark’s assertion that open networks enabled much of the early
church’s growth, this chapter argues that closed membership need not inhibit growth as
xvii
long as these regenerate members pursue open networks together. Closed networks
protect the purity of the church. Open networks advance the cause of the church.
Missional Community methodology, chapter six argues, facilitates these missiological
open networks.
Missional Community methodology pursues the church as a culture––both the
corporate and centripetal aspects of the church’s mission––engaging the unbelieving
world. However, in line with the thesis, Missional Communities depend upon inner life
realities––in particular unity and holiness––corroborating the truths of the gospel. In
other words, the centripetal mission of the church inevitably affects the corporate aspects
of the Missional Community’s centrifugal mission. In conclusion, because united and
holy congregations accurately display the gospel to the world, the health of the inner life
of a local church––including Missional Communities within––shapes the corporate
aspect of its mission to the world.
xviii
This dedication belongs
to the one who stood beside me
as I spent our first ten years in school.
Your hand is my credential.

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Statement of Thesis
The thesis of this dissertation asserts that the health of the local church’s inner life shapes
the corporate aspect of the mission of the church because united and holy congregations
accurately display the gospel to the world.
While many aspects of a church’s inner life might be addressed, this dissertation
focuses on local church unity and local church holiness. Rather than seeing unity as an
inner life issue alone, local church unity displays to the world gospel reconciliation.
Rather than seeing holiness as an inner life issue alone, local church holiness displays to
the world the transformative power of the gospel. God separates a people from the
world––uniting them in the gospel––so that the world might no longer be separated from
him.
The health of these inner realities within a local church distinguishes the church
from the unbelieving world in biblically countercultural fashion. Missiologists often label
countercultural churches “contrast communities.”1 Contrast communities, however,
depend upon both local church unity and holiness. Contrast necessitates holiness;
1
For a biblical and theological argument for the New Testament church as a contrast community,
see Michael Goheen, A Light to the Nations: The Missional Church and the Biblical Story (Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic, 2011); see also Gerhard Lohfink, Jesus and Community (Freiburg: Herder Verlag, 1982).
1
community necessitates unity. Insofar as this local church distinctiveness remains
engaged with the aspects of the broader culture needing countering, it fulfills the
corporate aspect of the mission of the church by displaying the gospel to the world. This
thesis maintains that the countercultural community need not be disengaged from the
culture as if Christ were against culture ontologically.2
This dissertation’s thesis focuses on the correlation between the inner life of the
church and the corporate aspect of the mission of the church. While some aspects of the
local church’s mission imply application by an individual,3 the biblical evidence seems to
emphasize that individuals better participate in God’s mission––to make himself known
to the world––when they do so together in the context of a local church.4 Though some
fail to connect inner life realities with the mission of the church, this dissertation
contends that the degree of health within a local church’s inner life determines the degree
2
Paul Hiebert, Anthropological Insights for Missionaries (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), 30, “The
gospel belongs to no culture. On the other hand, it must always be understood and expressed within human
cultural forms.”
3
However, when the New Testament spoke concerning individuals, it did not intend to detach
them from the community. See James Samra, Being Conformed to Christ in Community: A Study of
Maturity, Maturation and the Local Church in the Undisputed Pauline Epistles (New York, N. Y.: T&T
Clark, 2008), 28. The emphasis in the Scriptures upon corporate realities informs the local church’s mission
as well.
4
1 Peter 2:9–12; Phil 2:14–16; John 17:20–21; Matt 28:18–20; Acts 1:8; Matt 5:13–14; for a
source on corporate mission in Philippians see James Patrick Ware, “Holding Forth the Word of Life”:
Paul and the Mission of the Church in the Letter to the Philippians in the Context of Second Temple
Judaism, (PhD diss., Yale University, 1996); for 1 Peter see Eric Zeller, “Intertextuality in 1 Peter 2:9–12:
Peter’s Biblical–Theological Summary of the Mission of God’s People” (PhD diss., Dallas Theological
Seminary, 2013). See corroboration of these theological assertions in Gregg Allison, Sojourners and
Strangers: The Doctrine of the Church (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2012), 147; George Hunsberger,
“Evangelical Conversion toward a Missional Ecclesiology,” in Evangelical Ecclesiology: Reality or
Illusion? (ed. J. Stackhouse; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 119; John Howard Yoder, The Royal
Priesthood: Essays Ecclesiological and Ecumenical (ed. Michael Cartwright; Scottsdale, Pa.: Herald Press,
1998), 74; Wilbert Shenk, Write the Vision: The Church Renewed (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press
International, 1995), 89.
2
to which the corporate aspect of its mission to the world functions. In fact, the inner life
of the local church corroborates the gospel it proclaims.5
Key Terms
Various terms in the thesis and argument need further explanation. This dissertation, for
example, places priority upon the local church rather than the universal church. D. A.
Carson writes, “There are surprisingly few references to the universal church in the NT.
The overwhelming majority of the occurrences of the word ‘church’ refer to local
churches.”6 John Hammett states that 90 of the 114 uses of ekklesia refer to the local
church.7
When the dissertation speaks of church health, it assumes each local church
shares the characteristics of an organism (1 Corinthians 12). Mark Dever’s pursuit of
church health informs the author’s understanding when he states, “Paul used the image of
the church as Christ’s own body, and he described its prosperity in organic images of
growth and health.”8 It is understood––in the scope of this argument––that if the local
church exists as an organism it follows that it also may be diagnosed concerning the
health of its unity or holiness. Furthermore, any lack of health can be addressed by the
5
Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 222–223.
6
D. A. Carson, “Why the Local Church is More Important than TGC, White Horse Inn, 9 Marks,
and Maybe Even ETS,” Themelios 40, no. 1 (April 2015): 2.
7
John Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology
(Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005), 31.
8
Mark Dever, 9 Marks of a Healthy Church (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2004), 19. An example
would be Eph 4:15–16.
3
gospel for the good of her mission. Churches can be more or less pure based on the
degree to which they conform to the word of God.9
Another phrase––the corporate aspect of the mission of the church––needs
further delineation as well. Andreas Köstenberger writes that, “ . . . the church’s mission
is not to be carried out as an individualistic enterprise. The mission should rather be
supported by the corporate life as believers reflect God’s love and unity.”10 This
argument places priority upon those aspects of the mission that members of the
congregation enact together. Christ died for a corporate reality, rather than just a
cumulative one. Chapter two will labor to make this clear.
When missiologists distinguish between the nations coming geographically to the
people of God in the Old Testament and the people of God going to the nations in the
New Testament, they often employ the terms centripetal and centrifugal mission,
respectively.11 Evangelical scholars rightly critique those who emphasize centripetal
mission alone;12 however, centripetal mission––the cultivation of the local church’s inner
life with a view toward mission––proves to be foundational for effective centrifugal
mission. This dissertation will discuss centripetal mission within those parameters.
9
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1994), 874.
10
Andreas Köstenberger, The Missions of Jesus and the Disciples According to the Fourth
Gospel: With Implications for the Fourth Gospel’s Purpose and the Mission of the Contemporary Church
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 211.
11
For some of the earliest use, see Johannes Blauw, The Missionary Nature of the Church: A
Survey of the Biblical Theology of Mission (New York: McGraw Hill, 1962) 38–41. For a biblical theology
that describes the shift, see Andreas J. Köstenberger and Peter T. O’Brien, Salvation to the Ends of the
Earth: A Biblical Theology of Mission (D. A. Carson, ed., NSBT; Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2001), 136.
12
Christoph Stenschke, “Paul’s Mission as the Mission of the Church,” in Paul’s Missionary
Methods: In His Time and Ours (ed. Robert L. Plummer and John Mark Terry; Downers Grove, Ill.: 2012),
92.
4
Concerning culture, this dissertation affirms the created order’s ontological
goodness and its perversion by the fall of man, particularly as stated by Albert Wolters.13
If one affirms both of those truths, the countercultural model of contextualization need
not jettison those aspects of culture that reflect God’s creational design. Stephen Bevans
believes this so strongly that he begins his sketch of the model writing, “A first thing to
be said about the term countercultural model is that it is not anticultural.”14 Lesslie
Newbigin, one of the countercultural exemplars, said the gospel “ . . . has to be
communicated in the language of those to whom it is addressed and has to be clothed in
symbols which are meaningful to them.”15 This understanding of culture attempts to
retain a robust doctrine of creation.
As mentioned in the preceding section, in this dissertation inner life will almost
always be in reference to local church unity and holiness. When speaking of unity, this
dissertation refers to local church unity rather than the unity between local congregations
in the universal church. The local church maintains this unity by holding fast to that
which unified it, the gospel.16 Gregg Allison notes, “The paradox is striking: pure, yet
impure, and striving after holiness; united, yet divided, and laboring for oneness.”17
13
Albert Wolters, Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 88, writes, “Structure denotes the ‘essence’ of a creaturely thing, the kind of
creature it is by virtue of God’s creational law. Direction, by contrast, refers to a sinful deviation from that
structural ordinance.”
14
Stephen Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology (Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis Books, 2002), 118;
emphasis in original.
15
Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, 141.
16
Chapter three will label this the theological dimension of unity, along with introducing a few
more dimensions of local church unity.
17
Gregg Allison, Sojourners and Strangers: The Doctrine of the Church (ed. John Feinberg;
Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2012), 469.
5
When this dissertation speaks of local church holiness, it emphasizes contrast
between the local congregation and the unbelieving world. David Peterson writes, “The
root meaning of the Hebrew noun ‘holiness’ (qodes) and the adjective ‘holy’ (qados) is
separation.”18 As this author holds to a Baptist ecclesiological framework as opposed to
the Corpus Permixtum of Roman Catholicism, regenerate membership will be argued as
an expression of the local church’s holiness.19
In the final chapter of the dissertation, these concepts will be applied to the
Missional Community methodology. Mike Breen gives the definition of a Missional
Community that will be used by this writer, defining it as a “ . . . group of anything from
twenty to more than fifty people who are united, through Christian community, around a
common service and witness to a particular neighborhood or network of relationships.”20
Though the local churches that employ this methodology might not subscribe to the exact
numbers in that definition, it will be assumed that a Missional Community constitutes a
smaller portion of the church––not the entire body–– that gathers together regularly to
live within and reach a certain unbelieving area of the local church’s community.21
18
David Peterson, Possessed by God: A New Testament Theology of Sanctification and Holiness,
NSBT 1 (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1995), 17.
19
Hammett, Biblical Foundations, 57.
20
Mike Breen and Alex Absalom, Launching Missional Communities: A Field Guide (Myrtle
Beach, S. C.: Sheriar Press, 2010), 18.
21
However, if a local church were small enough––for example, 30 to 50 members––the entire
body might be considered a Missional Community.
6
Assumptions Concerning the Mission of the Local Church
The Participants in the Mission of the Church22
First, rather than relegating mission to some priestly class, this dissertation asserts that all
believers should engage in the mission of God through his church.23 Some scholars,
basing their argument largely on the lack of evangelistic imperatives in the New
Testament, disagree with this assumption.24 Robert Plummer, while spending the
majority of his dissertation affirming that all believers should engage in the mission of
God, concedes this point in his first line: “Paul rarely, if ever, commands the recipients of
his letters to evangelize.”25 For something so integral to the historic practices of
Christianity, that the entirety of the New Testament makes little mention of the
evangelistic obligation of all believers puzzles the missiologist.
Typically, scholars agree concerning the amount of evidence; they disagree as to
the reason behind this lack of evidence.26 While no one single passage declares
unequivocally that every individual Christian must personally share the gospel both in
word and deed, a survey of the New Testament develops a strong case.27 Generally
22
The third and final assumption in this section concerns the breadth of the mission of the church,
locating it within the making of disciples through both word and deed. Both the evangelistic presentation of
the gospel through words and the embodied implications of the gospel presented through deeds fit within
this author’s understanding of the mission of the church. The final assumption will labor to make this clear.
23
Robert Plummer makes this argument in, “The Church’s Missionary Nature: The Apostle Paul
and His Churches” (PhD diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2001).
24
Paul Bowers, “Church and Mission in Paul,” JSNT 44 (1991): 107.
25
Plummer, “The Church’s Missionary Nature,” 1.
26
Köstenberger and O’Brien, Salvation to the Ends of the Earth, 201; I. Howard Marshall, “Who
Were the Evangelists?” in The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles (ed. Jostein Adna and
Hans Kvalbein; Tübingen, Germany: 2000), 258; Plummer, “The Church’s Missionary Nature,” 139.
27
John 17:20–21; Matt 5:14–16; 1 Pet 2:4–12; Col 4:5–6; 1 Thess 1:6–10; 1 Cor 9:19–11:1; Phil
2:16; Eph 6:15; Acts 8:4; Luke 24:33; Matt 28:16–20.
7
speaking, the New Testament corpus appears to assume first–century believers would
own and participate in the mission of God.28
Inherent to Paul’s understanding of the gospel is an impetus toward growth, and
necessarily, gospel proclamation. For this reason, among others, Paul saw little need to
make explicit commands. Christoph Stenschke notes, “Paul expected them to spread the
gospel through their exemplary behavior at home, at church and elsewhere in their day–
to–day living and through verbal communication of the gospel in different situations.”29
Eckhard Schnabel agrees, “There is sufficient evidence to conclude that Paul’s teaching
included the encouragement of the believers to share their faith in Jesus Christ with other
people.”30 This study claims that Jesus and Peter expected the same, namely, that
followers of Christ were to live attractive lives before outsiders and actively respond to
their questions.
28
For sources that interpret this assumption from the above passages, see: Köstenberger, “The
Missions of Jesus and the Disciples According to the Fourth Gospel,” 358; Craig Blomberg, Matthew
(NAC; Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman, 1992), 102; Zeller, “Intertextuality in 1 Peter 2:9–12,” 88; Tom
Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude (NAC 37; Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman, 2003), 116–116n; Blauw, The
Missionary Nature of the Church, 132; James D. G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon,
(NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 267; Plummer, “The Church’s Missionary Nature,” 92, 133;
Peter O’Brien, Gospel and Mission in the Writings of Paul: An Exegetical and Theological Analysis (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1995), 91, 106; Ware, “Holding Forth the Word of Life,” 299–300; Marshall, “Who Were
the Evangelists,” 260; Eckhard J. Schnabel, Paul the Missionary: Realities, Strategies and Methods
(Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2008), 246; John Stott, The Message of Acts (The Bible Speaks
Today; Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 1990), 146; John Stott, Christian Mission in the Modern World (Downers
Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2008), 36; D. A. Carson, “Conclusion: Ongoing Imperative for World Mission,” in The
Great Commission: Evangelicals and the History of World Missions (ed. Martin I. Klauber and Scott M.
Manetsch; Nashville, Tenn.: B&H, 2008), 179.
29
Stenschke, “Paul’s Mission as the Mission of the Church,” 92.
30
Schnabel, Paul the Missionary, 244.
8
The images of the church given in the New Testament assume mission as well.31
While the question scholars debate is whether the Scriptures commanded them to,32
historically, the early church laity fully engaged in mission.33 Though history must not be
equated with Scripture, early church practices help us understand what the early church
understood the Scriptures to teach.
This dissertation assumes that Paul and the other New Testament authors
admonished and encouraged these churches, including all individuals within, to
participate fully, actively, and intentionally in the mission of God. In a dissertation that
emphasizes the corporate aspect of the church’s mission, it must be made clear that the
Scriptures expected all believers to participate.
The Nature of the Mission of the Church
The second major assumption––intimately related to the first––is that mission must be
understood as intrinsic to the nature of the church, rather than merely a function of the
church.34 Because mission arises initially in the affections of God, the mission of God
actually creates a missionary church. Christopher Wright asserts, “The God revealed in
31
Goheen, A Light to the Nations, 156; John Driver, Images of the Church in Mission (Scottdale,
Pa.: Herald Press, 1997).
32
Bowers, “Church and Mission in Paul,” 104.
33
Marshall, “Who Were the Evangelists,” 262; Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity: How the
Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few
Centuries (New York, N. Y.: HarperOne, 1996), 6; Michael Green, Evangelism in the Early Church (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 274.
34
David Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (Maryknoll, N.
Y.: Orbis Books, 1991), 390.
9
the Scriptures is personal, purposeful, and goal–oriented.”35 Foundationally, mission
remains intrinsic to a sending God.
While the Missio Dei classically referred to Inter–Trinitarian sending,36 David
Bosch applies it to God sending the church into the world. He contends, “In the new
image mission is not primarily an activity of the church, but an attribute of God. God is a
missionary God . . . . Mission is thereby seen as a movement from God to the world; the
church is viewed as an instrument for that mission.”37 Keith Whitfield points out the
missiological significance of each person of the Godhead knowing one another
exhaustively: “Because each of the persons of the Triune God knows each other
comprehensively, God is able to communicate to his creation perfect knowledge of
himself.”38 The Missio Dei affirms God’s desire to make himself known; the Scriptures
depict a God who does so consummately.
Since the mission of the church finds its basis in the doctrine of God––rather than
within the doctrine of salvation or the church––God’s mission births ecclesiology. Bosch
states this truth in these terms, “There is church because there is mission, not vice
versa.”39 Wrongly reversing this order causes mission to be viewed as a function of the
church rather than innate to its nature. Craig Van Gelder comments, “Those who start
35
Christopher Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (Downers
Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2006), 63.
36
See Craig Ott, Stephen Strauss, and Timothy Tennent. Encountering Theology of Mission:
Biblical Foundations, Historical Developments, and Contemporary Issues (Grand Rapids, Baker
Academic, 2010), 62. See also John Flett, The Witness of God: The Trinity, Missio Dei, Karl Barth, and the
Nature of Christian Community (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 41.
37
Bosch, Transforming Mission, 390.
38
Keith Whitfield, “The Triune God: The God of Mission” in Theology and Practice of Mission:
God, the Church, and the Nations (ed. Bruce Ashford; Nashville: B&H Academic, 2011), 26.
10
with a theology of the church and proceed to mission usually make mission a functional
task of the church.”40 Ecclesiology must be done with mission in mind.
When ecclesiologists do theology with mission in mind, healthy integration
emerges. Van Gelder contrasts his earlier statement on the function of the church with the
following statement: “Those who start with a theology of mission and proceed to the
church usually approach the church as something developed through the work of
missionaries.”41 In this light, the missional function of the church proceeds from the
nature of the church. Gregg Allison gives his assent, saying, “This notion contrasts with
missions being seen more as an activity of the church rather than in terms of the church’s
essential image of itself. Missional is a matter of identity first, then function.”42 Missional
ecclesiologists do theology with missiological presuppositions.
The arguments for the missional nature of the church become apparent when the
interpreter rightly considers the biblical context. The epistles of Paul, though detailed
earlier as not explicitly missional, are implicitly so. Bosch explains, “The New Testament
writers were not scholars who had the leisure to research the evidence before they put pen
to paper. Rather, they wrote in the context of an ‘emergency situation,’ of a church
which, because of its missionary encounter with the world, was forced to theologize.”43
God’s mission to make himself known creates the church.
39
40
Craig Van Gelder, The Essence of the Church: A Community Created by the Spirit (Grand
Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), 32.
41
Ibid., 32.
42
Allison, Sojourners and Strangers, 147.
43
Bosch, Transforming Mission, 16; emphasis in original.
11
Mission begins with God; yet his mission demands our participation. The
missional God inculcates this sending nature into his church. Johannes Blauw agrees,
“There is no other Church than the Church sent into the world, and there is no other
mission than that of the Church of Christ.”44 In God’s purposes, humanity becomes both
the object and the agent of mission.45 To separate church from mission confuses both the
fundamental nature of the church and the God–appointed locus of the mission. Lesslie
Newbigin concurs, “An unchurchly mission is as much a monstrosity as an unmissionary
Church.”46 The church of God arises from and advances forward the mission of God.
The Breadth of the Mission of the Church
Those two assumptions––the necessity of every Christian engaging in the mission of God
and the intrinsically missionary nature of the church––lay a foundation for the rest of the
dissertation that connects the intricacies of the inner life of the church to the mission of
the church. The final assumption concerns the breadth of the mission of the church,
primarily locating it within the making of disciples through both word and deed.47
The mission of the church is that which God has sent his people into the world to
both be and do. Rather than emphasizing that which God does outside the church through
44
Blauw, The Missionary Nature of the Church, 121; emphasis in original.
45
Doug Coleman, “The Agents of Mission: Humanity,” Theology and Practice of Mission: God,
the Church, and the Nations (ed. Bruce Ashford; Nashville: B&H Academic, 2011), 36–47.
46
Lesslie Newbigin, The Household of God (New York, N. Y.: Friendship Press, 1954), 169.
47
The literature surrounding the extent of the mission of the church is detailed and extensive,
however a few sources can be mentioned. For those that emphasize gospel proclamation in the discussion,
see Schnabel, Paul the Missionary; O’Brien, Gospel and Mission in the Writings of Paul; Köstenberger and
O’Brien, Salvation to the Ends of the Earth; For those who take a broader understanding of the relationship
between word and deed––though their views do not align completely––see John Stott, Christian Mission in
the Modern World (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2008); Christopher Wright, The Mission of God’s
12
common grace, this definition makes clear that the mission of the church must necessarily
be accomplished through the church.48 This definition also pushes against those who
argue for a functional definition, as in, “The mission is whatever God sends his people to
do in the world.” Greg Gilbert and Kevin DeYoung’s definition suffers from this
limitation, as they write, “The mission of the church is to go into the world and make
disciples by declaring the gospel of Jesus Christ in the power of the Spirit and gathering
these disciples into churches.”49 Building upon the previous assumption in this section on
the church’s nature, the mission of the church must be understood in ontological terms
before applying it in functional terms. Van Gelder asserts that being precedes doing in the
local church, writing, “The church is. The church does what it is. The church organizes
what it does.”50 God sends his people into the world to be something as well as do
something.
This corporate body intends to embody that which God intended for humanity at
creation, pointing as well to God’s consummated kingdom.51 Inaugurated eschatology
informs any fruitful discussion concerning the mission of the church, where the “already”
of the kingdom precludes disengagement from the world and the “not yet” chastens the
People (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010); Wolters, Creation Regained; Michael Goheen, Introducing
Christian Mission Today: Scripture, History, and Issues (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2014).
48
Contra J. C. Hoekendijk, The Church Inside Out (ed. L. A. Hoedemaker and Pieter Tijmes;
trans. Isaac C. Rottenberg. Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster Press, 1966).
49
Greg Gilbert and Kevin DeYoung, What is the Mission of the Church?: Making Sense of Social
Justice, Shalom, and the Great Commission (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2011), 62; emphasis in original.
50
Van Gelder, The Essence of the Church, 37.
51
Bruce Ashford, “The Church in the Mission of God,” in The Community of Jesus: A Theology
of the Church (eds. K. Easley and C. Morgan; Nashville: B&H Academic, 2013), 257.
13
prospects of any activity.52 If the local church emphasizes the “not yet” aspect
exclusively, they will dismiss the Scriptures that speak to our obligation in this world to
alleviate injustice, poverty, and suffering. If they overemphasize the “already,” they will
deceive and eventually disappoint themselves regarding the potential for justice in a
fallen world.
The degree to which the people of God rightly comprehend the relationship
between the kingdom of God and the church often determines the degree to which it
rightly participates in social ministries. When thought unrelated, the church fails to
holistically point to Christ’s rule over all the earth, including fallen institutions, systems,
and even unregenerate people. However, as citizens faithfully embody what it means to
live under Christ’s reign, they serve as a foretaste and sign of the coming kingdom.53
James Davison Hunter writes, “Such work may not bring about the kingdom, but it is an
embodiment of the values of the coming kingdom and is, thus, a foretaste of the coming
kingdom.”54 When the world looks at the local church, they should observe kingdom
realities on display.
While some––like J. H. Bavinck––argue that mercy ministries serve as a
manifestation of gospel proclamation,55 John Stott disagrees. Others call mercy ministries
a means toward evangelism. Again, Stott disagrees by insisting, “If it is visible preaching,
52
Russell Moore, The Kingdom of Christ: The New Evangelical Perspective (Wheaton, Ill.:
Crossway, 2004), 79.
53
Moore, The Kingdom of Christ, 136.
54
James Davison Hunter, To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of
Christianity in the Late Modern World (New York, N. Y.: Oxford University Press, 2010), 234.
55
John Herman Bavinck, An Introduction to the Science of Missions (Philadelphia, Pa.:
Presbyterian and Reformed, 1960).
14
then it expects a response. If it is visible loving, it expects nothing in response.”56 Stott
goes on to make the case that these elements are partners.57 Both stand on their own two
feet, neither serving as a means nor a manifestation of the other. This dissertation takes
this position. Though Chris Wright’s argument does not align perfectly with Stott’s, he
uses the illustration of a hub and rim of a wheel. The hub is gospel proclamation, clearly
attached to the engine of the gospel. The rim, as it does to the road, connects to the world.
Apart from a hub, the rim has no direction. Apart from the rim, the hub spins without
going anywhere.58
Many of the efforts to answer this question of word and deed ministry leave out
the necessity of being and the necessity of corporate application regarding the mission of
the church. DeYoung and Gilbert’s book makes the former error. To address the second
error, Hammett pulls together the five ministries of the church––worship, evangelism,
service, teaching, and fellowship––and connects those five realities to the mission of the
church.59 This makes the mission of the church necessarily corporate, as individuals
cannot serve or fellowship alone.60
Chapter Summaries
This first chapter sought to make clear the thesis of this dissertation, the key terms used
throughout, and major assumptions that underlie the overall argument. The rest of chapter
56
Stott, Christian Mission in the Modern World, 43.
57
Ibid., 41–43.
58
Wright, The Mission of God’s People, 278.
59
Hammett writes in Biblical Foundations, 227, “By simply living its life, the church proclaims
the gospel.”
15
one will attempt to briefly summarize the chapters that follow. The second chapter seeks
to clarify what the thesis means by the corporate aspect of the local church’s mission.
Against Western individualism’s effect upon the Missio Ecclesiae––that of cumulative
mission by individual, isolated believers––the mission of the church demands communal
mission by united believers.61 To make this argument, the author begins by contending
that salvation creates community.62 However, even more integral to this dissertation’s
purposes, the thesis argues that the corporate realities of salvation also create corporate
mission.63
If the corporate realities of salvation create corporate mission––what might be
called communal corroboration––the church’s inner life determines to some degree the
effectiveness of corporate mission.64 While some might dichotomize these two
missiological emphases––centripetal and centrifugal mission––this argument maintains
that centripetal mission shapes the centrifugal aspects of that mission.65 In the New
Testament, the inner life of the church stood in contrast to the life and social norms of the
60
Chapter two will argue that the church should prioritize the corporate aspect of evangelism as
well.
61
Allison, Sojourners and Strangers, 147. For an individualistic ecclesiology, see E. Y. Mullins,
The Axioms of Religion: A New Interpretation of the Baptist Faith (Philadelphia, Pa.: Judson Press, 1908),
129.
62
Ephesians 2:11–22 and Acts 2:42–47 make this point. Joseph Hellerman, When the Church Was
a Family (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2009), 124; see also Stanley Grenz, Theology for the Community of
God (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1994), 661; Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio: A
Theological Study of the Sociology of the Church (DBW 1; trans. Reinhard Krauss and Nancy Lukens; ed.
Clifford Green; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1998), 134; Miroslav Volf, After Our Likeness: The
Church as the Image of the Trinity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 189.
63
Hunsberger, “Evangelical Conversion toward a Missional Ecclesiology,” 119; Volf,
After Our Likeness, 160.
64
Francis Schaeffer, The Mark of the Christian (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1970), 25.
65
Köstenberger, The Missions of Jesus and the Disciples According to the Fourth Gospel, 189–
190.
16
unbelieving world.66 Corporate mission, therefore, focuses on the attractiveness of the
local church’s inner life for the purposes of outward impact.
Chapter three begins with the first of two aspects of the church’s inner life
included in this dissertation––local church unity––arguing that local church unity
displays gospel truths to the unbelieving world.67 To make the case, this chapter
investigates the biblical and theological rationale for church unity, the historical
understanding of it, and the missiological impact. Biblically and theologically, the unity
of the church mirrors the unity of God (John 17:20–21).68 God chooses to create this
unity in his people by uniting them in the work of Christ.69 While God creates this unity,
he expects them to maintain it (Eph 4:3). This, it will be argued, is a maintenance that is
patently missiological. To the degree that the church maintains this unity, it displays the
unifying work of the gospel to the world.70
Chapter four addresses the second aspect of the church’s inner life considered in
this dissertation, that of local church holiness. Like the unity mentioned above, the
66
Goheen writes in A Light to the Nations, 131, that “ . . . the story told in Acts . . . is an account
of how ecclesial communities that corporately embody the gospel (like the one in Jerusalem) are spread
throughout the world.”
67
Mark Dever, “The Church,” in A Theology for the Church (ed. Daniel L. Akin; Nashville: B&H
Academic, 2007), 767.
68
G. C. Berkouwer, The Church (Studies in Dogmatics; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 48.
69
John Calvin writes in “Psychopannychia” in Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters
(ed. and trans. Henry Beveridge and Jules Bonnet; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 416, “We acknowledge no
unity except in Christ; no charity of which he is not the bond.”
70
Conversely Newbigin writes in The Household of God, 171, “Insofar as the Church is disunited
her life is a direct and public contradiction of the gospel.”
17
holiness of the local church intends to be a display of the holiness of God.71 The holy
God creates a holy people whom he sets apart from the world for the sake of the world.
For the purposes of this dissertation, local church holiness must be emphasized
alongside local church unity. Though local churches might be unified around a project or
a particular ministry, if they remain unholy they do not accurately display gospel realities
to the unbelieving world.72 This chapter ––similar to the chapter on local church unity––
explores the biblical and theological rationale for local church holiness, the historical
understandings of local church holiness, and the missiological impact. Notably, this
dissertation distinguishes itself from Roman Catholicism’s corpus permixtum, arguing
instead for a regenerate church membership that expresses the local church’s holiness.73
To simply state the missiological significance: the unregenerate do not display the truths
of the gospel.74
Chapter five connects the united, holy church to the unbelieving world. Based on
the countercultural model of contextualization,75 the local church most effectively lives
on mission when it remains both distinctive and engaged. While some who argue for
71
Richard Bauckham, “The Holiness of Jesus and His Disciples in the Gospel of John,” in
Holiness and Ecclesiology in the New Testament (ed. Kent E. Brower and Andy Johnson; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2007), 111.
72
Peterson, Possessed by God, 24.
73
Bruce Ashford and Danny Akin, “The Missional Implications of Church Membership and
Church Discipline,” in Those Who Must Give an Account: A Study of Church Membership and Church
Discipline (ed. John Hammett and Benjamin Merkle; Nashville: B&H Academic, 2012), 202.
74
Francis Schaeffer’s book The Church Before the Watching World: A Practical Ecclesiology
(Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1971) includes principles that seem to parallel this thesis.
However, when he writes concerning holiness and church discipline he refers to the universal church’s
response to the infiltration of liberal theologians within the Presbyterian denomination. In short, he focuses
much more on the universal holiness of the church––a needed emphasis––than holiness in a local church
expressed by a regenerate membership.
75
Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology, 117–137.
18
centripetal mission potentially lead the church toward introversion or separatism,76
centripetal mission must be contextualized. This chapter will contend that the
countercultural model of contextualization best embodies the corporate aspect of the
church’s mission.77 This model not only challenges individuals to contextualize, it forces
those individuals to be concerned for their fellow church members’ contextualization,
including that which is intrinsic to both local church unity and holiness.78 Therefore, this
model best embodies the corporate aspect of the mission of the church.
However, the world must see contrast communities to note the contrast. So the
question remains––for this dissertation’s application in a North American context––as to
how the local church might faithfully hold the standard for closed, regenerate
membership while, concurrently, keeping their collective social networks open for the
purpose of engaging unbelievers.79 How might the world observe local church unity or
local church holiness?
Chapter six examines potential models for the display of these countercultural,
united, holy communities. Based largely on Rodney Stark’s assertion that open networks
76
William Dyrness, The Earth is God’s: A Theology of American Culture (Faith and Cultures;
Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 2004), 75; Bowers, “Church and Mission in Paul,” 101.
77
Other models of contextualization include David Hesselgrave and Edward Rommen,
Contextualization: Meanings, Methods, and Models (Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey Library, 2000); Dean
Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament: Patterns for Theology and Mission (Downers Grove,
Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2005); David Clark, To Know and Love God: Method for Theology (Wheaton, Ill.:
Crossway, 2003).
78
If unity is missiological––as chapter three will contend––an individual believer must be rightly
united to other believers.
79
For an example of a work that wrongly dichotomizes these emphases, see Michael Frost and
Alan Hirsch, The Shaping of Things to Come: Innovation and Mission for the 21st–Century Church
(Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003), 47.
19
enabled much of the early church’s growth,80 this chapter argues that closed membership
need not inhibit growth as long as these regenerate members pursue open networks
together. Closed networks protect the purity of the church. Open networks advance the
cause of the church. Modern “Missional Communities,” advocated by authors like Mike
Breen, function as a model for this kind of display community.81 A few local churches
that employ this methodology will be consulted in this chapter.82 Chapter six will include
as well the conclusion of the dissertation, reviewing the thesis and the argumentation
employed.
Though individual Christians might rightly picture vertical reconciliation with
God, an isolated individual fails to picture the horizontal reconciliation with others God
purchased in the gospel. Therefore––if salvation includes these corporate realities––our
gospel presentations concerning that salvation remain incomplete apart from the church
engaging God’s mission together and subsequently inviting unbelievers into the life of
this distinct community.
80
Stark, The Rise of Christianity, 20.
81
Breen, Launching Missional Communities.
82
Churches that emphasize the Missional Community methodology in reaching their community
fit the criteria for this study. This author interviewed Dr. Todd Engstrom at The Austin Stone Community
Church in Austin, Texas, Chris Gonzalez at Missio Dei Communities in Tempe, Arizona, Brad Dunlap at
Mercy Hill Church in Memphis, TN, and Shane England at Resonate Church in Nashville, TN. Information
about these fellowships may be found here: http://austinstone.org/ http://missiodeicommunities.com/
http://www.mercyhillmemphis.org/ and http://weareresonate.org/, respectively.
20
CHAPTER 2
CORPORATE MISSION AND THE INNER LIFE OF THE LOCAL CHURCH
The plural form of Christian is not church. Unfortunately, the West’s continual applause
of autonomous individualism contradicts the nature of the church purchased by God.1
Though some consider the church to be an aggregate of individual Christians2––
mistaking the church corporate for a cumulative reality––salvation in the New Testament
creates and unites a new humanity.
These half–truths not only subvert biblical ecclesiology, they sabotage
ecclesiological missiology. When God gave the church its mission, he intended corporate
application. Gregg Allison agrees, “Being missional is a matter of corporate identity first,
then individual engagement.”3 For if salvation creates community, the local church’s
corporate life corroborates the gospel it proclaims. Above the cumulative mission of
individual believers, the mission of the local church stipulates communal mission by
1
Robert Bellah, Richard Madsen, William Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and Steven Tipton, Habits of
the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life (Berkely, Calif.: University of California
Press, 2008), xiv, write, “Individualism, the first language in which Americans tend to think about their
lives, values independence and self–reliance above all else.”
2
Jack Hoad, The Baptist: An Historical and Theological Study of the Baptist Identity (London:
Grace Publications Trust, 1986); Henry Cook, What Baptists Stand For (London: Kingsgate Press, 1947),
169–174. W. R. McNutt, Polity and Practice in Baptist Churches (Philadelphia, Pa.: Judson Press, 1935),
21–24. Norman Maring argues that Francis Wayland affirmed this notion in “The Individualism of Francis
Wayland” in Baptist Concepts of the Church: A Survey of the Historical and Theological Issues which
Have Produced Changes in Church Order (ed. Winthrop Hudson; Chicago, Ill.: Judson Press, 1959), 146.
21
united believers. This chapter begins with a critique of individualistic ecclesiology and
missiology, followed by a more corporate interpretation of both.
The Corporate Mission of the Local Church
Individualism and America
During recent history the emphasis upon corporate realities ceded ground to
individualism. Columbia scholar Andrew Delbanco argues that American history tells the
story of a culture initially putting its hope in God, subsequently in its nation, and finally
putting it squarely upon self.4 David Bosch gives a broader historical context, implicating
in part the Enlightenment by noting, “ . . . the Enlightenment regarded people as
emancipated, autonomous individuals. . . . In Augustine and Luther the individual was
. . . never emancipated and autonomous but was regarded, first and foremost, as standing
in a relationship to God and the church.”5 John Hammett locates some of this devolution
in the shift from church competence to soul competence, arguing that the First Great
Awakening’s emphasis on individual, personal conversion exacerbated the
Enlightenment’s trends.6 Robert Bellah’s work on individualism in America corroborates
that assertion: “ . . . through the peculiarly American phenomenon of revivalism, the
emphasis on personal experience would eventually override all efforts at church
3
Gregg Allison, Sojourners and Strangers: The Doctrine of the Church (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway,
2012), 147.
4
Andrew Delbanco, The Real American Dream: A Meditation on Hope (Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1999), 103.
5
David Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (Maryknoll, N. Y.:
Orbis Books, 1991), 267; emphasis in original.
6
John Hammett, “From Church Competence to Soul Competence: The Devolution of Baptist
Ecclesiology,” Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry 3, no. 1 (Spring 2005): 157.
22
discipline.”7 Historical, theological, sociological, and missiological factors created the
perfect conditions for individualism’s ascent. Without qualification, the individual began
to take precedent over the group.
The effects of individualism persist, profoundly affecting Western ecclesiology.8
Gerhard Lohfink agrees, “It could well be that late nineteenth–century theology’s
individualistic conceptions of redemption are far from overcome, that they determine our
concepts of pastoral ministry, our images of church, and the concrete appearance of our
parishes far more strongly than we like to think.”9 Furthermore, some argue that
individualism operating under American democracy continued to undercut both
community and covenant solidarity.10 Not coincidentally, mission strategies played right
into this notion, as one scholar writes, “Evangelism in the revivalistic cast was not (and is
not) a call to become a part of a new people, a ‘holy nation,’ a contrasting community. It
presumed not initiation into the transnational church but a reawakening of faith in the
individual American––who, exactly as an American, was supposedly already something
of a (Protestant) Christian.”11 George Hunsberger draws out the implications for the
church, noting, “Church then tends to take on the modern social form of a voluntary
organization grounded in the collective exercise of rational choice by its members rather
7
Bellah, Madsen, et al., Habits of the Heart, 233.
8
Michael Goheen, A Light to the Nations: The Missional Church and the Biblical Story (Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 13.
9
Gerhard Lohfink, Jesus and Community: The Social Dimension of Christian Faith (trans. J.
Galvin; Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1982), 4; emphasis mine.
10
Howard Snyder, “The Marks of Evangelical Ecclesiology” in Evangelical Ecclesiology: Reality
or Illusion? (ed. John Stackhouse; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 96.
11
Rodney Clapp, A Peculiar People: The Church as Culture in a Post–Christian Society
(Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 163.
23
than the form of a communion of saints that is made such by the will of the Spirit of
God.”12 If communion with God becomes solely personal––as the Enlightenment and the
subsequent evangelists implied––the individual relegates the church to the periphery.
According to Hammett, E. Y. Mullins functioned as the likely key figure in this
shift among Baptists.13 Mullins defined the church as, “ . . . a community of autonomous
individuals under the immediate lordship of Christ held together by a social bond of
common interest.”14 The emphases of his theology, along with the other mentioned
factors, led to the understanding among many congregationalists that individual, isolated
human bodies gather cumulatively on Sundays.15 Winthrop Hudson winsomely
articulates the import, “The practical effect of the stress upon ‘soul competency’ as the
cardinal doctrine of Baptists was to make every man’s hat his own church.”16
Nevertheless, American congregationalists did not monopolize this understanding.
Friedrich Schleiermacher regarded the church as a group organized, “ . . . through the
coming together of regenerate individuals.”17 Individualistic soteriology birthed
individualistic ecclesiology.
12
George Hunsberger, “Evangelical Conversion toward a Missional Ecclesiology” in Evangelical
Ecclesiology: Reality or Illusion? (ed. John Stackhouse; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 118;
13
Hammett, “From Church Competence to Soul Competence,” 154.
14
E. Y. Mullins, The Axioms of Religion: A New Interpretation of the Baptist Faith (Philadelphia,
PA: Judson Press, 1908), 129; emphasis mine.
15
Stanley Grenz, Theology for the Community of God (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1994),
611–612.
16
Winthrop Hudson, “Shifting Patterns of Church Order in the Twentieth Century” in Baptist
Concepts of the Church: A Survey of the Historical and Theological Issues which Have Produced Changes
in Church Order (ed. Winthrop Hudson; Chicago, Ill.: Judson Press, 1959), 216.
17
Friedrich Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith (eds. H. R. MacIntosh and J. S. Stewart;
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1928), section 115; cited in Herman Bavinck, Holy Spirit, Church, and New
24
However, to say that individualism arose ex nihilo following the Enlightenment
distorts the facts as well.18 Owen Chadwick writes, “During the third and early fourth
centuries the idea of sanctity was becoming less corporate and more individualistic.”19
Though Antony’s tribe considered the solitary life to be the highest form of spirituality,
those practices led to unbridled eccentric believers.20 Chadwick writes, “The loneliness of
the solitary’s life increased the chance of abnormality, eccentricity, even madness.”21
Bruce Shelley notes that hermits essentially replaced temptations from without with
temptations from within.22 To combat the effects of radical individualism, Antonian
leaders eventually ruled that believers must live in community for an extended period
before attempting any sort of isolation.23
Benedict would later expect monks to remain within communities under the rule
of an abbot.24 From the Greek term for “common life,” Benedict distinguished these
monks from hermits by describing them as “cenobites.”25 Among the four kinds of monks
he described, he considered the cenobites the strongest, mainly distinguishing them by
Creation, vol. 4 of Reformed Dogmatics, (ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend; Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2008), 331.
18
Larry Siedentop, Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism (Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2014), argues that that assigning full culpability to the period immediately
preceding the 16th century neglects earlier factors within Christianity, even if in seed form.
19
Owen Chadwick, ed. Western Asceticism (Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster Press, 1958), 21.
20
Justo Gonzalez writes in The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of the
Reformation (Vol. 1; Peabody, Mass.: HarperCollins, 1984), 143, that Eastern Monks were “ . . . prone to
fanaticism.”
21
Chadwick, Western Asceticism, 24.
22
Bruce Shelley, Church History in Plain Language (Dallas, Tex.: Word Publishing, 1995), 118.
23
Chadwick, Western Asceticism, 24.
24
Ibid., 27.
25
Nancy Bauer, “Benedictine Monasticism and the Canonical Obligation of Common Life” (JCD
diss., The Catholic University of America, 2003), 1.
25
their life within community.26 Long before the Enlightenment, radical individualism
failed to produce the disciples the New Testament described.
To be fair, the Scriptures occasionally emphasize the individual. Derek Tidball
notes that the scores of personal references within Paul’s letters as well as the concluding
greetings make the case for Paul’s concern about the spiritual welfare of individuals.27
Rather than on a collective basis, God’s eschatological judgment lands on individuals (2
Cor 5:10). In his letter to the Romans, Paul writes, “Each one should be fully convinced
in his own mind” (Rom 14:5, emphasis mine). However, when Paul spoke concerning the
individual, he did not intend to detach them from the community. James Samra notes,
“We recognize that the ‘individualism’ of the modern Western world would be foreign to
the [sic] Paul. By ‘individualism’ we mean the idea of the autonomous, personally free
self as introduced by Descartes and expanded by Locke. To apply such an idea to Paul
would indeed be anachronistic.”28 In New Testament terms, the group provides the
context for understanding the individual.
Individualism and Authority
As Post–Enlightenment revivalist strategies often gave final evangelistic authority to the
individual––giving the believer’s experience excess expertise––missiological errors
26
Ibid., 1.
27
Derek Tidball, Ministry by the Book: New Testament Patterns for Pastoral Leadership
(Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 109.
28
James Samra, Being Conformed to Christ in Community: A Study of Maturity, Maturation and
the Local Church in the Undisputed Pauline Epistles (New York, N. Y.: T&T Clark, 2008), 28.
26
stemmed from a misunderstanding of authority.29 The Bridge to Life tract popularized by
the Navigators fails to use any corporate language in describing the response of the
Christian to the gospel. In fact, after the question “How does a person receive Jesus
Christ?” the tract instructs, “Everyone must decide individually whether to receive
Christ.” It goes on to conclude, “Therefore, if you pray sincerely, asking him this: Lord
Jesus, please come into my life and be my Savior and Lord. Please forgive my sins, and
give me the gift of eternal life. – He will do it now.”30 Then the tract ends. Nothing in this
evangelistic tract discusses confessing Christ before others or joining a local church. This
tract seemingly gives final authority to the individual’s personal experience, assurance
without reference to the church’s affirmation, while simultaneously assuming the
Scriptures say nothing about salvation’s implications for community life.
However, Jesus says, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and
whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth
shall be loosed in heaven (Matt 16:19). The significance of this verse lies in the fact that
Jesus employs decidedly plural pronouns for “you” throughout this text, thereby giving
the keys to the church corporate. Benjamin Griffith notes, “The keys are the power of
Christ, which he hath given to every particular congregation; by virtue of the charter and
the power aforesaid, which Christ hath given to his church, his spiritual corporation, they
29
See Ricky Nelson’s description of Charles Finney’s anthropocentric soteriological framework’s
effect on evangelistic methodology in “The Relationship Between Soteriology and Evangelistic
Methodology in the Ministries of Asahel Nettleton and Charles G. Finney” (PhD diss., Southwestern
Baptist Theological Seminary, 1997), 118–124.
30
David Bell, “Tracts to Christ, An Evaluation of American Gospel Tracts” (PhD diss., The
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2005), 333; emphasis in original.
27
are enabled to receive members in, and to exclude unworthy members as occasion may
require.”31 Though much discussion of this concept relates to church discipline, the
power to receive members includes evangelism.32
Nevertheless, many churches abrogated the authority Christ gave them as a body.
Concerning this shift, Hammett notes, “We would expect that as there was a growing
unwillingness to discipline members after they joined, there would also be an
unwillingness to ask of prospective members serious commitment before allowing them
to join.”33 Yet, the authority Jesus gave the church entails they play a central role in
affirming the believer’s profession of faith, picturing this authority through baptism.34
Miroslav Volf writes, “The sacraments, which no person can self–administer and yet
which each person must receive personally, symbolize most clearly the essentially
communal character of the mediation of faith.”35
Volf goes on to connect the priesthood of believers to the admission of believers
into the body of Christ by stating, “The universal priesthood of believers implies the
‘universal motherhood of believers.’”36 Some credence must be given to the notion that
31
Benjamin Griffith, “A Short Treatise Concerning a True and Orderly Gospel Church,” in Polity:
Biblical Arguments on How to Conduct Church Life (ed. Mark Dever; Washington D. C.: IX Marks
Ministries, 2001), 99; emphasis mine.
32
Jonathan Leeman, The Church and the Surprising Offense of God’s Love: Reintroducing the
Doctrines of Church Membership and Discipline (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2010), 189.
33
Hammett, “From Church Competence to Soul Competence,” 161.
34
Leeman, The Church and the Surprising Offense of God’s Love, 192.
35
Miroslav Volf, After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1998), 163.
36
Ibid.,166.
28
the church mediates salvation in a limited, but noteworthy, sense.37 Volf continues, “The
communal character of the mediation of faith implies that, . . . every Christian does
indeed receive faith from the church; for that which a person believes is precisely that
which the previously existing communion of believers has believed.”38 Rather than in
direct intercession, the church mediates salvation as they advocate the Intercessor.
In contrast, the context described above––where believers often see themselves as
ultimately self–reliant and autonomous––often hijacks the mission intended for corporate
appropriation, applying it merely as disconnected individuals. However, the gathering of
believers together and the mission given to that people need not be dichotomized. John
Howard Yoder writes, “Thus peoplehood and mission, fellowship and witness are not two
desiderata, each capable of existing or of being missed independently of one another;
each is the condition of the genuineness of the other.”39 The corporate aspect of the
mission of the church argued for in this chapter speaks to those aspects of the mission
believers enact together.
The Inner Life of the Local Church
However, for the purposes of the argument, it must first be made clear that salvation
incorporates a believer into community40 rather than leaving them as the autonomous
37
Not to the degree the Roman Catholic Church often teaches, however. See Richard McBrien,
Catholicism (New York: HarperCollins, 1994), 7, where he overstates, “Just as Jesus Christ gives access to
God, so, for Catholicism, the Church gives access to Jesus Christ.”
38
Ibid., 163.
39
John Howard Yoder, The Royal Priesthood: Essays Ecclesiological and Ecumenical (ed.
Michael Cartwright; Scottsdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1998), 78.
40
Joseph Hellerman, When the Church Was a Family (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2009), 124.
29
individuals of Post–Enlightenment ecclesiology. Historically, the relation between Christ,
his church, and salvation went in two polar directions. Volf describes these extremes,
“One comes either by way of Christ to the church, or by way of the church to Christ.”41
The latter––“by way of the church to Christ”––could describe the Roman Catholic
Church’s emphasis on the Church granting access to the message of salvation.42 As an
example, Cyprian writes, “If you leave the Church of Christ you will not come to Christ’s
rewards, you will be an alien, an outcast, an enemy.”43 However, the former––“by way of
Christ to the Church”––betrays an individualistic understanding of salvation when taken
exclusively.44
The Corporate Nature of Salvation
This either/or dichotomy oversimplifies the truths of salvation. Volf writes, “In the
complex ecclesial reality of all churches, the relation of individuals to the church depends
on their relation to Christ, just as their relation to Christ depends on their relation to the
church; the two relations are mutually determinative.”45 Dietrich Bonhoeffer affirmed
both. In Life Together he categorically declares, “We belong to one another only through
41
Volf, After Our Likeness, 159.
42
Richard McBrien, Catholicism (New York: HarperCollins, 1994), 7; See also Donald Bloesch,
The Church: Sacraments, Worship, Ministry, Mission (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 59,
where Bloesch suggests that the Roman Catholic Church understands itself to be a co–mediator of
salvation.
43
Cyprian, “The Unity of the Catholic Church,” in Early Latin Theology: Selections from
Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose and Jerome (LCC; ed. S. L. Greenslade; Louisville, Ky.: The Westminster
Press, 1956), 127.
44
An example would be the Bridge to Life tract mentioned above.
45
Volf, After Our Likeness, 159; emphasis in original.
30
and in Jesus Christ.”46 However, he notes just as emphatically in Sanctorum Communio,
“Being in Christ means being in the church. The unity of the church as a structure is
established ‘before’ any knowing and willing of the members.” He balances these
emphases perfectly, stating, “Only all members together can possess Christ entirely, and
yet every person possesses him entirely too.”47 Both remain true; neither relationship may
be separated from the other.
In Acts 2, Peter admonishes each individual within the Pentecost crowd: “Repent
and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your
sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38, emphasis mine). God
saves individuals. However, in the following verses Luke goes on to describe the
communal lives of those who repented and believed: “And they devoted themselves to
the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers” (Acts
2:42). God saves individuals; simultaneously God puts them into communities. P. T.
Forsyth notes, “The same act which sets us in Christ set us also in the society of Christ. .
. . It puts us into a relation with all saints which we may neglect to our bane but which we
cannot destroy.”48 Joseph Hellerman concurs, “According to the New Testament, a
46
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together/Prayerbook of the Bible (DBW 5; trans. Daniel Bloesch and
James Burtness; ed. Geffrey Kelly; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2005), 31.
47
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio: A Theological Study of the Sociology of the
Church (DBW 1; trans. Reinhard Krauss and Nancy Lukens; ed. Clifford Green; Minneapolis, Minn.:
Fortress Press, 1998), 134; emphasis in original.
48
P. T. Forsyth, The Church, The Gospel, and Society (London: Independent Press, 1962), 61–62;
31
person is saved to community.”49 Though God saves individuals by faith alone, that
individual is not saved alone.
God made man not to be alone (Gen 2). Rather than create humanity like the
animals––according to their kind––God created male and female in his image (Gen 1:26–
28). The commands he gives Adam “imply that God gifted humans to image him in a
holistic manner (via spiritual, moral, rational, creative, relational, and physical
capacities) . . . .”50 As part of imaging God, we represent him in our relational capacities.
Bruce Ashford explains, “Man and woman are created to flourish in interdependence,
reflecting God’s triune being; they are created to depend on each other, as they both
depend on God.”51 Commenting upon the Genesis account, Henri Blocher notes, “From
the very beginning, the human being is . . . a being–with; human life attains its full
realization only in community.”52 From a biblical perspective, human beings can never be
fully or ultimately autonomous, as human life is intrinsically communal.53
The nature of the Trinitarian God furthers this argument. Jesus prays in John 17,
“ . . . that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also
may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (John 17:21). In that
prayer, the Trinity functions as the ideal for church community. Stanley Grenz writes,
49
Hellerman, When the Church Was a Family, 124; emphasis in original.
50
of the Church (ed. Kendell Easley and Christopher Morgan; Nashville: B&H Academic, 2013), 241;
emphasis mine.
51
Ashford, “The Church in the Mission of God,” 242.
52
Henri Blocher, In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis (trans. David G. Preston;
Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1984), 82.
53
Lesslie Newbigin, Foolishness to the Greeks: The Gospel and Western Culture (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1986), 141.
32
“As the doctrine of the Trinity asserts, throughout all eternity God is community, namely,
the fellowship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit who comprise the triune God. The creation
of humankind in the divine image, therefore, can mean nothing less than that humans
express the relational dynamic of the God whose representation we are called to be.”54
Jürgen Moltmann concurs, “Without community, a person cannot be a person.”55 A
Trinitarian God made man in his image, interdependent with his fellow image–bearers.
As the fall splintered God’s creational norms, creating separation among humans,
sin might be defined as an assault on that human interdependence.56 However, salvation
makes reconciliation possible. Though Eph 2:1–10 describes the personal nature of
reconciliation with God––those dead in trespasses and sins being made alive by Christ––
verses 11–22 outline the relational reconciliation provided by the gospel. In this text, Paul
applies the gospel to the stark division between Jew and Gentile, stating, “For he himself
is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing
wall of hostility” (Eph 2:14). Though the fall separated us from God and from one
another, Christ’s reconciling work on the cross united us both to God and to one another.
Grenz points out the significance, “The biblical gospel, however, is explicitly social . . .
reconciliation is a social reality, for we are in right standing with God only as we are
likewise being brought into right relationship with others.”57 Through the cross, more
54
Grenz, Theology for the Community of God, 232.
55
Jurgen Moltmann, “Freedom and Community in an Age of Individualism and Globalization,”
International Congregational Journal 11, no. 1 (Summer 2012): 15.
56
57
Ibid., 661.
33
than Jesus died on the cross. In bearing the sins of his people––including relational strife
––Jesus crucified separation among them.
Further, Paul combats an individualistic soteriology in his letter to the
Corinthians: “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks,
slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit. For the body does not consist of
one member but of many” (1 Cor 12:13–14). At conversion, the Spirit baptizes a believer
into a body of interdependent members. To underscore the significance, Paul notes, “The
eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you,’ nor again the head to the feet, ‘I have
no need of you’” (1 Cor 12:21). Samra concludes, “It is reasonable to conclude that in
Paul: 1) individuality is not lost but neither is the church merely a multiplicity of
individuals and 2) each individual believer is conditioned not only by his or her
personhood but especially through relationship with others.”58 Without equivocation,
individuals remain individuals. Nevertheless, salvation joins individuals one to another.
Before Paul, Jesus gathered a community. Michael Goheen describes the central
feature of Jesus’ kingdom mission as “to gather a people.”59 Lohfink notes, “Jesus’ ethic
is not directed to isolated individuals, but to the circle of disciples, the new family of
God, the people of God which is to be gathered. It has an eminently social dimension.”60
Jesus promised to build a church rather than isolated believers (Matthew 16). He modeled
58
Samra, Being Conformed to Christ in Community, 32.
59
Goheen, A Light to the Nations, 103.
60
Lohfink, Jesus and Community, 62
34
this community by gathering disciples together in what might be called a proto–ekklesia
relationship.61
Likewise, the images of the church in the New Testament portray the corporate
nature of salvation. Peter uses the familiar Old Testament term––People of God––to
describe the New Testament church (1 Pet 2:9–10). Hammett states, “This image can also
serve as a corrective to the strong individualism in American society, for it reminds us
that the church is a people, not a collection of isolated individuals.”62 Another image––
the body of Christ––carries with it ecclesiological implications. Goheen details these:
“Too often the language of ‘in Christ’ is interpreted primarily (if not exclusively) in terms
of individual salvation. . . . A separation of the individual and social aspects is not
possible; . . . Being ‘in Christ’ is not first of all about discrete individuals enjoying the
benefits of Christ’s work. It is about being part of the new humanity that now shares in
his work.”63 This image depicts the unity of the church, a unity created in Christ.64
Furthermore, the Scriptures call the church the temple of the Holy Spirit (2 Cor
6:16; Eph 2:21–22). G. K. Beale explains, “Paul is not allegorizing nor is he merely
making an analogy between a temple idea and that of Christians, but he is saying that
Christians are the beginning fulfillment of the actual prophecy of the end-time temple.”65
Paul explains in the letter to the Ephesians the purpose of this temple: “ . . . in whom the
61
R. Newton Flew, Jesus and His Church: A Study of the Idea of Ecclesia in the New Testament
(Carlisle, U. K.: Paternoster Press, 1998), 86–88.
62
63
64
35
whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you
also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit (Eph 2:21–22).
God builds his people together for the purpose of dwelling among them by his Spirit.
Hammett describes God’s building praxis, “As used here, the word speaks of the
care with which a mason fits together the stones in a building.”66 If believers are the
stones, the Spirit serves as the mortar. On this work of the Spirit, Volf notes, “They
(believers) do not, however, within this juxtaposition dissociate into a multiplicity of
individuals standing in isolation from one another, since the same Spirit is present in
every person, and the same Spirit connects them all with one another.”67 The Trinitarian
images of People of God, Body of Christ, and Temple of the Holy Spirit all serve as a
polemic against the Western notion of individualistic salvation.
Missiological practice within the New Testament validates these corporate
notions. Ben Merkle points out, “It was Paul’s goal not merely to win converts, but to
plant churches in every city in which he ministered.”68 The New Testament Epistles
almost exclusively address the inner life of the congregation.69 If Paul considered
individual salvation to be paramount, the labor of gathering believers together,
establishing leadership, and admonishing them to love one another wasted precious
missiological time.
65
G. K. Beale, “Eden, the Temple, and the Church’s Mission in the New Creation,” JETS 48, no.1
(March 2005): 24.
66
67
Volf, After Our Likeness, 189; emphasis in original.
68
Benjamin Merkle, “Paul’s Ecclesiology,” in Paul’s Missionary Methods: In His Time and Ours
(ed. Robert Plummer and John Mark Terry; Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2012), 59.
36
However, Paul believed vertical reconciliation necessitates and creates horizontal
reconciliation. Cyprian makes this salient point, “You cannot have God for your father
unless you have the Church for your mother.”70 Calvin, though with a few different
presuppositions, would still call the visible church the mother of all believers when he
writes, “For there is no other way to enter into life unless this mother conceive us in her
womb.”71 Hellerman goes on to translate Cyprian and Calvin’s familial language: “ . . .
when we get a new Father we also get a new set of brothers and sisters.”72 All these
authors emphasize that salvation must be understood in respect to, not in distinction from,
the church. No wall divides personal salvation from corporate salvation.
In this framework, a reconciled humanity––the church corporate––might be seen
as corporately imaging God. Chris Morgan writes, “Because of Christ’s saving work and
through our union with him, we as the church are now the image of God. We are the one
new people, the new humanity, the people called to display God to the world, the new
creation in the image of God, called to reflect Christ and embody God’s holiness.”73
Grenz agrees, “The divine image is a shared, corporate reality. It is fully present only in
69
Robert Plummer, “The Church’s Missionary Nature: The Apostle Paul and His Churches” (PhD
diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary).
70
Cyprian, “The Unity of the Catholic Church,” 128.
71
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 2 (ed. John T. McNeill, Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 1016.
72
Hellerman, When the Church Was a Family, 124.
73
Christopher Morgan, “The Church and God’s Glory,” in The Community of Jesus: A Theology
of the Church (ed. Kendell Easley and Christopher Morgan; Nashville: B&H Academic, 2013), 228;
emphasis mine.
37
community.”74 In fellowship one with another, humanity reflects the triune relational
God.75
Salvation, seen as a corporate reality as well as an individual one, corrects
fallacious ecclesiology. Hellerman points to Paul’s perspective, “In his letters, Paul refers
to Jesus as ‘our Lord’––that is, as the Lord of God’s group––53 times. Only once, in
contrast, does the expression ‘my Lord’ appear in Paul’s writings (Phil 3:8).”76 Paul’s
soteriology included a decisively corporate element, both in justification and
sanctification. Within community, salvation fully works itself out.77 Ben Witherington
says as much, writing, “The community, not the closet, is the place where salvation is
worked out.”78 Tidball concurs, “The community was not incidental to the learning
process; the learning took place both in it and because of it.”79 The New Testament
knows nothing of the radical, autonomous individualism of our day. God, in the death of
his son, turns plural isolated individuals into a singular reality called the ekklesia.
The Relationship Between the Church’s Inner Life

and the Church’s Corporate Mission
P. R. Parushev makes the connection between the former paragraphs and the next section
by noting that “ . . . our view of salvation is probably the most critical determinant in
74
75
N. T. Wright, The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is (Downers Grove,
Ill.: IVP Academic, 1999), 124.
76
Ibid., 7; emphasis in original.
77
See Tod Bolsinger, It Takes a Church to Raise a Christian: How the Community of God
Transforms Lives (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2004).
78
Ben Witherington III, The Paul Quest (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 277.
79
Tidball, Ministry by the Book, 23.
38
deciding on our approach to missions.”80 Salvation seen in the corporate terms outlined
above also corrects a truncated individualistic missiology. Yoder writes, “That men and
women are called together to a new social wholeness is itself the work of God, which
gives meaning to history, from which both personal conversion (whereby individuals are
called into this meaning) and missionary instrumentalities are derived.”81 The church
functions as both a result of God’s mission and a means toward its fulfillment.
When salvation becomes merely personal and individual, the mission of the
church often becomes the mission of the individual. Volf details the correlation, that “ . . .
an individualistic understanding of the mediation of faith is at once also an individualistic
view of salvation, and a communal understanding of the mediation of faith is also a
communal view of salvation.”82 Hunsberger details the ramifications clearly and,
therefore, will be quoted at length:
If, for evangelicalism, Christian faith and identity are first personal and
individual, its sense of missions tends to be the same. The responsibility to
give witness to Christ is one each person bears. The accent rests on
personal evangelism, therefore. Any sense of the church’s mission grows
from this ground. It is the aggregate of the individual callings to be
witnesses. Identity and missions are first and foremost individual matters.
Missions is not conceived to be first of all the “mission of the church,” to
which every member is joined. First it is the mission of the Christian,
which in the church becomes a collective responsibility.83
80
P. R. Parushev, “Salvation,” in Dictionary of Mission Theology: Evangelical Foundations, ed.
John Corrie (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2007), 353.
81
Yoder, The Royal Priesthood, 74.
82
83
Hunsberger, “Evangelical Conversion toward a Missional Ecclesiology,” 119.
39
In contrast to that understanding, Hellerman argues that in the first–century the group’s
mission superseded that of the individual.84 If God purposed that individuals alone would
best propagate the gospel, why gather them into communities?
As mentioned in the preceding chapter, the mission of the church must not be
separated from the discussion of the church’s nature. Goheen writes, “At its best,
‘mission’ describes not a specific activity of the church but the very essence and identity
of the church as it takes up its role in God’s story in the context of its culture and
participates in God’s mission to the world.”85 A triune, relational God on mission created
a church––a people relational by nature––to advance his mission.
Furthermore, the mission of God creates and guides the mission of the church.
Keith Whitfield writes, “The foundation and pattern for the mission is God himself.”86
Appealing to Trinitarian realities, he continues, “We focus on the relational nature of the
triune God as the pattern of God’s mission. By pattern, we are suggesting that what
occurs within the life of the triune God is the model for what takes place outside the
triune life.”87 Based on these Trinitarian realities in Jesus’ high–priestly prayer,
Köstenberger asserts, “Relationships among believers are seen as a prerequisite for the
church’s mission in the world rather than as ends in themselves.”88 The Trinity, though a
84
Hellerman, When the Church Was a Family, 32.
85
Goheen, A Light to the Nations, 4; emphasis in original.
86
Keith Whitfield, “The Triune God: The God of Mission” in Theology and Practice of Mission:
God, the Church, and the Nations (ed. Bruce Ashford; Nashville: B&H Academic, 2011), 23; emphasis in
original.
87
88
Andreas Köstenberger, “The Missions of Jesus and the Disciples According to the Fourth
Gospel” (PhD diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1993), 358.
40
multiplicity in a perfect sense, models unity of purpose. The church, though not perfect in
multiplicity, accomplishes the mission of God by striving for a similar unity of purpose.
Therefore, the being of the church shapes the function of the church. Karl Barth
writes that “ . . . mission is not additional to its being. It is, as it is sent and active in its
mission. It builds up itself for the sake of its mission and in relation to it.”89 Rather than
focusing on mission alone, Hammett argues that the balance of the church’s ministries
must be addressed to arrive at a healthy missiology.90 Healthy ecclesiological identity
leads inevitably to a healthy missiology. He goes on to write, “The implication we are to
draw from the New Testament is that evangelism should be a natural product of a healthy
church.”91 The inner life of the church shapes her mission; ecclesiological deficiencies
negatively affect missionary causes.
Biblical Argument for Mission
The inner life realities of the local church carry missiological implications because the
mission of the church includes the embodiment of the message.92 Defining the Christian
community as both salt and light, Jesus described a people he intended to provoke a God–
glorifying response from the unbelieving world (Matt 5:14–16). Concerning this passage,
Craig Blomberg notes, “In light of the countercultural perspectives enunciated in the
Beatitudes, it would be easy to assume that Jesus was calling his followers to a
89
Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.1.62.2 (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2010), 725.
90
91
92
Michael Goheen, Introducing Christian Mission Today: Scripture, History, and Issues
41
separatistic or quasi–monastic lifestyle. Here Jesus proclaims precisely the opposite.
Christians must permeate society as agents of redemption.”93 Logically, the kind of
observation that leads an unbeliever to believe in the gospel surpasses brief, superficial
interaction.
Embodied Mission
The Apostle Peter––in an almost certain allusion to the Sermon on the Mount––
admonishes elect exiles to commend the gospel with their lives (1 Pet 2:12). In his
dissertation on that Petrine pericope, Eric Zeller connects Matthew 5 and 1 Peter 2,
stating, “Both passages begin with an exhortation regarding the good conduct of Jesus’
followers, following from the preceding context describing the identity of these
followers. In both texts, the good conduct of Jesus’ followers is to be deliberately carried
out in the view of the unbelieving nations of the world.”94 God wanted these communities
on display.
The New Testament assumes these display communities would provoke questions
from the watching world. Paul instructs the church at Colossae: “Walk in wisdom
toward outsiders, making the best use of the time. Let your speech always be
gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each
person” (Col 4:5–6). Some scholars––like Paul Bowers––claim that this text fails to
obligate believers toward intentional mission. Bowers writes, “It is a ministry of
93
Craig Blomberg, Matthew (NAC; Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman, 1992), 102.
94
Eric Zeller, “Intertextuality in 1 Peter 2:9–12: Peter’s Biblical–Theological Summary of the
Mission of God’s People” (PhD diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2013), 88.
42
attraction and responsiveness rather than one of deliberate outreach and active
solicitation. If it may be put that way, it is a stationary rather than a mobile witness.”95
However, James Dunn disagrees, stating, “Here, evidently, was a church not on the
defensive against powerful forces organized against it, but expected to hold its own in the
social setting of marketplace, baths, and meal table and to win attention by the
attractiveness of its life and speech.”96 The command to walk in wisdom toward outsiders
and to intentionally speak graciously moves the Colossian church beyond passivity. Their
corporate inner life intended to attract.
To understand the implications of these texts, the tension between the
congregation’s holiness and its mission must be held without compromise.97 Jesus never
commanded his followers to compromise their distinctiveness;98 both Peter and Paul
instructed believers to keep their conduct honorable before unbelievers. These inner life
realities authenticate their proclamation of God’s excellencies.
Evangelistic Mission
Not only did these distinct communities provoke questions, Paul approved when the early
church evangelized (1 Thess 1:8–9). Here too Bowers maintains that these verses do not
imply evangelism on the part of the Thessalonians, arguing that this passage describes the
95
Paul Bowers, “Church and Mission in Paul,” JSNT 44 (1991): 101.
96
James D. G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, (NIGTC; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1996), 267. This author thinks Dunn’s quote underemphasizes the powerful forces organized
against the church, however.
97
85–86; emphasis in original.
98
See John 17:15–19.
43
encouragement of local believers rather than the evangelization of pagans.99
Nevertheless, I. Howard Marshall disputes this analysis, noting that “ . . . this
interpretation fails to give full force to the verb exhcew which conveys something much
more dynamic than a report of somebody’s behavior. It is also curious to describe a report
of somebody’s conversion as being the content of ‘the word of the Lord’. Finally the
sentence structure is best explained as making two connected but independent
statements.”100 To clarify, 1:8 describes how the Thessalonians became an example to the
believers in Macedonia and Achaia; namely, by proclamation of the word of the Lord.
Though 1:9–10 points to other believers reporting the Thessalonians’ repentance,
Robert Plummer sees no need in falsely bifurcating. He asserts, “The fact that other
Christian believers had heard of and were talking about the Thessalonians’ dramatic
conversion does not deny the Thessalonians’ evangelistic proclamation. Rather, such
reports further confirm that the Thessalonians were effectively making known their
Christian presence.”101 If Paul preferred that the Thessalonian church not grow in
influence, he might not have approved of their widespread testimony so adamantly in this
text.
The New Testament’s repeated admonitions for imitation speak to the church’s
mission as well. In his first epistle to the Corinthians, Paul writes, “Be imitators of me, as
I am of Christ” (1 Cor 11:1). The question concerns what particular characteristics of
Paul’s life and mission he expected the Corinthian church to imitate.
99
100
I. Howard Marshall, “Who Were the Evangelists?” in The Mission of the Early Church to Jews
and Gentiles (ed. Jostein Adna and Hans Kvalbein; Tübingen, Germany: 2000), 259.
44
To understand rightly this command one must reckon with the context of that
epistle––in particular chapters nine through eleven––where missiological aims drive
Paul’s instruction. In chapter nine he writes, “For though I am free from all, I have made
myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them . . . . I have become all things to all
people, that by all means I may save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may
share with them in its blessings” (1 Cor 9:19, 23). In this text, Paul describes how he
personally relates to both those under the law and those without the law. Plummer
explains the missiological import, noting, “The apostle adjusts his behavior in morally
and doctrinally inconsequential areas so as not to put an unnecessary barrier between a
non–believer (or person of questionable faith) and the gospel.”102 Within areas of
conviction, missiological aims determine Paul’s differing practices.
The argument concludes, “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do
all to the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just
as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of
many, that they may be saved” (1 Cor 10:32–33). Peter O’Brien connects these two
passages, “In these latter words it is generally agreed that the apostle is picking up what
he has said in 9:19–23 about behaviour in relation to Jews, Gentiles, and Christians.”103
This is the context in which he declares, “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (1 Cor
11:1). Immediately after Paul declares his seeking the advantage of many so that they
might be saved, he commands the Corinthians to imitate him. Therefore, he intends for
101
Plummer, “The Church’s Missionary Nature,” 92.
102
Ibid., 133.
45
them to seek the advantage of many so that they may be saved (1 Cor 10:32). The whole
context implies questions the Corinthians had concerning their relationship to those
outside their community. Paul’s text both affirms their desires and answers their
missiological questions.
Furthermore, James Ware argues that the book of Philippians includes a key verse
concerning the church’s mission, hinging on what is often translated, “ . . . holding fast to
the word of life” (Phil 2:16, emphasis mine). Ware disagrees with this translation: “It can
be stated categorically that the verb epecw does not bear the sense hold fast in any ancient
passage, and the etymology and usage of the word sketched above in fact preclude such a
meaning.104 Marshall gives some credence to Ware’s assertion: “Again, the case that
epecontej refers to ‘holding fast’ rather than ‘holding forth’ is not a closed one. The latter
meaning is certainly a lexical possibility.”105 Ware goes on to argue convincingly it
should be translated “holding forth the word of life.”106 The Philippians were to hold
forth the word of life in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation (Phil 2:15).
If this translation proves to be accurate, this text comes closest to being an explicit
description of intentional mission by the church within Pauline literature. O’Brien seems
to find some middle ground regarding translation, without compromising the missionary
imperative for all Christians, stating, “On contextual and linguistic grounds ‘hold(ing)
103
Peter O’Brien, Gospel and Mission in the Writings of Paul: An Exegetical and Theological
Analysis (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 91.
104
James Patrick Ware, “Holding Forth the Word of Life”: Paul and the Mission of the Church in
the Letter to the Philippians in the Context of Second Temple Judaism, (PhD diss., Yale University, 1996),
105
Marshall, “Who Were the Evangelists,” 260.
106
Ware, “Holding Forth the Word of Life”, 299–300.
46
fast’ is preferable. . . . However, holding fast the word (logoj/logos) of life is not to be
interpreted in a restricted sense. Paul’s expression does not suggest keeping the message
to oneself, enfolding it in one’s bosom, as it were.”107 However translated, Paul’s
expectation that these Philippians proclaim the word of life together remains the salient
point.
Any scholarly discussion of mission must wrestle with the commission texts of
the Gospels. Of the Lukan setting, John Stott reminds that “ . . . others were present with
the Twelve when the Great Commission was given (e.g., Luke 24:33). We cannot restrict
its application to the apostles.”108 The Matthean commission includes a promise beyond
the scope of the apostles’ lives when Jesus declares, “And behold, I am with you always,
to the end of the age” (Matt 28:20b).
As many point out, the only imperative within that commissioning is that of
making disciples.109 However, within that text, “teaching them to observe all that I have
commanded you” (Matt 28:20a) points to an ongoing missionary application.110 If the
apostles were to teach others to observe all Christ taught, this necessarily included the
command to make disciples given only a few seconds prior. D. A. Carson sarcastically
points out the absurdity of other interpretations:
Matthew’s version of the Great Commission does not read, “All authority in
heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you, except
107
O’Brien, Gospel and Mission, 119.
108
John Stott, Christian Mission in the Modern World (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2008), 36.
109
Blomberg, Matthew, 431.
110
47
for this commandment to make disciples. Keep their grubby hands off that one,
since it belongs to you, my dear apostles. And surely I am with you always, to
the very end of the age.” The ludicrousness of this reading merely has to be
spelled out; the laughter will handle the rest.111
Generally, the New Testament corpus appears to assume the first–century church would
own and participate in the mission of God, by both embodying the message and declaring
it.
Biblical Argument for Corporate Mission
However, the central contention of this chapter remains that each of the mission texts
quoted above should be interpreted corporately.112 Nevertheless, evangelicals’
misunderstanding of these texts may likely be attributed to the way Bible translators––in
particular the English language––confuse second person singular and second person
plural pronouns. Jonathan Wilson notes, “This plurality of commissioning and indeed of
the New Testament is obscured for us today by the limitations of contemporary
English.”113 Translators rarely distinguish between the singular “you” and the plural “you
all” in English versions of the Bible. Therefore, those conditioned by Post-Enlightenment
thinking read their own presuppositions, largely individualistic, into their Bibles.
111
D. A. Carson, “Conclusion: Ongoing Imperative for World Mission,” in The Great
Commission: Evangelicals and the History of World Missions (ed. Martin I. Klauber and Scott M.
Manetsch; Nashville, Tenn.: B&H, 2008), 179.
112
The author argues for a corporate aspect of mission that describes those missionary tasks
believers––plural––do together in the unbelieving context. Provided they intend to gather again with fellow
church members they live in covenant with, individual believers certainly contribute cumulatively to the
corporate mission of the church in their respective spheres of influence. However, the narrow focus of this
dissertation concerns those endeavors the church members actually participate in together. One might label
this emphasis the scattered church together or the gathered aspect of corporate mission. Chapter three will
address some of the distinction between the church gathered and the church scattered.
113
Jonathan Wilson, Why Church Matters: Worship, Ministry, and Mission in Practice (Grand
Rapids: Brazos Press, 2006), 76.
48
In contrast, this chapter points out that the majority of mission texts were spoken
to plural believers largely unaffected by Post-Enlightenment thinking.114 For example,
“You are the salt of the earth” and “You are the light of the world” (Matt 5:13; 14) could
both be translated “You all are the salt of the earth” and “You all are the light of the
world” because both are second person plural pronouns (umeij). Johannes Nissen notes,
“The words in 5:13–16 are not just to individual followers of Jesus but the Christian
community as a whole. The ultimate basis of the church’s mission is the witness of its
community life and praxis.”115
In the Great Commission, Jesus speaks to a gathered group, reinforcing the
corporate dimension by having both the verb (maqhteusate) and the participle
(poreuqentej) occur in the second person plural. Wilbert Shenk asserts, “The Great
Commission is a foundational ecclesiological statement, for it is addressed to the disciple
community, not autonomous individuals.”116 Hammett notes that the instruction to baptize
“ . . . was given to the apostles, not as independent individuals, but as the authorized
114
Therefore, without the individualistic predisposition of the modern West, first–century
believers more likely assumed mission would be a corporate undertaking.
115
Johannes Nissen, New Testament and Mission: Historical and Hermeneutical Perspectives
(Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang, 2004), 27.
116
Wilbert Shenk, Write the Vision: The Church Renewed (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press
International, 1995), 89; emphasis in original. See also D. G. Hart and John Muether, Worship with
Reverence and Awe: Returning to the Basics of Reformed Worship (Phillipsburg, N. J.: Presbyterian and
Reformed, 2002), 43; see also Bruce Ashford and Danny Akin, “The Missional Implications of Church
Membership and Church Discipline,” in Those Who Must Give an Account: A Study of Church Membership
and Church Discipline (ed. John Hammett and Benjamin Merkle; Nashville, B&H Academic, 2012), 198.
49
leaders of the early church.”117 Jesus commissioned the church––the local body of
believers who covenant together––to make disciples of all nations.118
Furthermore, two other mission texts––“You are witnesses of these things” (Luke
24:48) and “You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to
the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8b)––sound decidedly more corporate when the reader
grasps both the audience and the grammar: You all are witnesses. Based on his study of
the Gospel of John, Köstenberger writes, “The church’s mission is not to be carried out
as an individualistic enterprise. The mission should rather be undergirded by the
corporate life of the community.”119 The New Testament places making disciples, being
salt and light to the world, and witnessing to the deeds of the Lord in the realm of the
corporate church’s mission.
Mentioned above, Paul reflected on the evangelistic impact of the church at
Thessalonica by writing, “For not only has the word of the Lord sounded forth from you
in Macedonia and Achaia, but your faith in God has gone forth everywhere, so that we
need not say anything” (1 Thess 1:8). Again, second person plural pronouns (umwn)
indicate in this text that the word of the Lord sounded forth from a corporate, united
body.
117
118
While a one–on–one relationship certainly advances the mission of the church, the command
to baptize new believers places the discipleship relationship long-term within the context of a local church.
One–on–one settings fail to be sufficient in bringing a person to full maturity as a disciple. See Bolsinger, It
Takes a Church to Raise a Christian and Samra, Being Conformed to Christ in Community.
119
Andreas J. Köstenberger and Peter T. O’Brien, Salvation to the Ends of the Earth: A Biblical
Theology of Mission (D. A. Carson, ed., NSBT; Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2001), 226; emphasis in original.
50
The same case may be made from the letter to the church at Philippi. Paul pens,
“Among whom you (all) shine as lights in the world, holding fast to the word of life”
(Phil 2:15b–16a, emphasis and plurality added). Though debate exists about whether this
clause should be translated “holding fast” or “holding forth” the word of life, the
pronouns are clearly plural. Paul implored the gathered saints corporately at Philippi––
you all––to hold fast and forth the word of life.120
Likewise, the Apostle Peter used corporate language to describe the mission of
God’s people. To those dispersed, he reminds them of their interconnectedness, using
corporate metaphors: race, priesthood, nation, and people. (1 Pet 2:9a). A few verses
prior, Peter used plurality language to emphasize that these believers were not merely
individual stones in writing, “You yourselves like living stones are being built up as a
spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood” (1 Pet 2:5). God placed individual stones in a
wall, alongside other stones, to form a spiritual house. Rather than the priesthood of the
believer (singular), this text points to a universal priesthood. “The universal priesthood,”
writes Paul Althaus, “ . . . expresses not religious individualism but its exact opposite, the
reality of the congregation as a community.”121 In fact, the Reformers understood the
universal priesthood to be an office of intercession, one believer’s obligation to his fellow
believer.122
120
Along with Ware, see Mark Keown, Congregational Evangelism in Philippians: The
Centrality of an Appeal for Gospel Proclamation to the Fabric of Philippians (Paternoster Biblical
Monographs; Carlisle, U. K.: Paternoster, 2008).
121
Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther (trans. R. Schultz; Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress
Press, 1966), 314.
122
Paul Avis, The Church in the Theology of the Reformers (Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock,
1981), 100–101.
51
After reminding these believers of their interdependence, Peter outlines the
corporate purpose for this race, priesthood, nation, and people, stating, “That you may
proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light”
(1 Pet 2:9b). While certainly the primary emphasis remains the worship of God, some
scholars broaden the proclamation. Tom Schreiner writes, “The declaration of God’s
praises includes both worship and evangelism . . . . It is mistaken, then, to limit what is
said here to worship.”123 Johannes Blauw comments upon this text, “What is more, she
can be a chosen race only in and through this proclamation, and only thus does she
appear to be so.”124 Once again, the biblical writers employ plural pronouns here, “you
(all) are a chosen race . . . that you (all) may proclaim the excellencies of him . . .” (1 Pet
2:9, emphasis and plurality added). Nissen insists that this purpose clause broadens the
implications of the text from inner Christian fellowship to outward service for
mankind.125
One more text bears mentioning. According to the letter to the church at Corinth,
corporate mission appears to happen within the worship gathering as well. Speaking of
the gift of prophecy, Paul writes that when an unbeliever “ . . . is convicted by all, he is
called to account by all” (1 Cor 14:24). James Thompson notes, “The repetition of ‘all’
indicates that the outsiders are moved, not by the evangelistic sermon, but by the role of
123
Tom Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude (NAC 37; Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman, 2003), 116–116n.
124
Johannes Blauw, The Missionary Nature of the Church: A Survey of the Biblical Theology of
Mission (New York: McGraw Hill, 1962), 132.
125
Nissen, New Testament and Mission, 145.
52
the entire community in calling them to repentance.”126 Paul instructed the Corinthians––
the united body of Christ described two chapters earlier––to practice corporate mission.
The New Testament corroborates the corporate aspect of mission by regularly
pointing to teams doing mission together.127 Craig Ott and Gene Wilson write, “The use
of teams is a clear pattern in Acts. It is rare indeed to find the early apostles engaged in
ministry alone.”128 The church at Antioch sent out Saul and Barnabas to plant churches
(Acts 13:2–3). Don Howell points out Paul’s example in this regard, “One of the keys to
the success of Paul’s mission was his ability to attract capable and dedicated men and
women to work alongside him both in itinerant evangelism and in settled discipleship and
follow up.”129 Both Jesus and Paul modeled corporate mission for our instruction.130
Furthermore, a methodology committed to church planting underscores the communal
aspects of mission, emphasizing more than the conversion of individuals.131 Groups of
believers intended to establish other groups of believers. In other words, the local church
plants local churches.
126
James Thompson, The Church According to Paul: Rediscovering the Community Conformed
to Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014), 168.
127
See Ken Caruthers, “The Missionary Team as Church: Applied Ecclesiology in the Life and
Relationships between Cross-Cultural Church Planters.” (PhD Diss., Southeastern Baptist Theological
Seminary, 2014).
128
Craig Ott and Gene Wilson, Global Church Planting: Biblical Practices and Best Practices
for Multiplication (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 48–49.
129
Don Howell, “Mission in Paul’s Epistles: Genesis, Pattern, and Dynamics,” in Mission in the
New Testament: An Evangelical Approach (ed. Willam Larkin and Joel Williams; Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis
Books, 1998), 86.
130
Lucien Legrand, Unity and Plurality: Mission in the Bible (trans. R. Barr; Maryknoll, N. Y.:
1988), resp. 101 and 128. (Jesus and Paul)
131
Stuart Murray, Church Planting: Laying Foundations (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 2001), 51.
53
New Testament believers engaged in God’s mission together, rather than
independently one from another.132 In fact, their corporate life proved to be part of that
witness. The inner life of the church shaped aspects of the mission they shared.
Centripetal and Centrifugal Mission
Missiologists often label this portrayal of corporate mission centripetal mission,
describing this as the primary way Israel participated in God’s mission throughout the
Old Testament. Centripetal refers to movement toward the center, rather than movement
from the center.133 Using the prophets, Köstenberger and O’Brien explain, “All these
prophetic passages speak of the nations coming to Israel, not Israel going to them. The
movement is centripetal, not centrifugal.”134 Though a few Old Testament scholars claim
that Israel purposefully went out to engage the nations in centrifugal mission, they remain
the minority.135 Goheen describes Old Testament centripetal mission in these terms,
noting, “The people of God are to be attractive so those outside will come, drawn by the
salvation visible in Israel.”136 As a light to the nations, God called Israel to himself for the
sake of the world (Isa 49:6; Ps 67:7).
132
Even when New Testament believers were forced to act as individuals due to persecution or
other factors, they did not do so apart from the authority and sending of a local church. Rather than
individualistically, they acted as the church scattered.
133
Richard Bauckham, Bible and Mission: Christian Witness in a Postmodern World (Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 72. For some of the earliest use of this term, see Blauw, The Missionary
Nature of the Church, 38–41.
134
Köstenberger and O’Brien, Salvation to the Ends of the Earth, 42.
135
An example would be Walter Kaiser, Mission in the Old Testament: Israel as a Light to the
Nations (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000).
136
Goheen, Introducing Christian Mission, 66.
54
Some scholars see the mission of the New Testament church as primarily
centripetal as well. Bosch writes concerning Pauline churches, “Its primary mission in the
world is to be this new creation. . . . Through their conduct, believers attract outsiders or
put them off. Their lifestyle is either attractive or offensive. Where it is attractive, people
are drawn to the church, even if the church does not actively ‘go out’ to evangelize
them.”137 Bowers agrees concerning the mission of the church, “Where Paul (like an Old
Testament prophet) searches out, pursues, confronts and urges men to accept the word,
his churches are expected (like Old Testament Israel) to attract, allure, respond and
receive. Paul promotes a centrifugal mission; his churches are to form the focus of a
centripetal movement.”138 Bowers’ position makes a distinction between the obligations
of the apostles and that of the church. Though both engage in mission, they embrace
differing missiological roles.
Bosch elaborates upon this elsewhere, insisting, “Paul’s whole argument is that
the attractive lifestyle of the small Christian communities gives credibility to the
missionary outreach in which he and his fellow–workers are involved. The primary
responsibility of ‘ordinary’ Christians is not to go out and preach, but to support the
mission project through their appealing conduct and by making ‘outsiders’ feel welcome
in their midst.”139 These scholars use texts like 2 Corinthians 3:2, where Paul writes,
“You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on our hearts, to be known
and read by all.” From the New Testament evidence Bosch concludes, “These comments
137
Bosch, Transforming Mission, 168; emphasis in original.
138
55
probably do not suggest that the Thessalonian, Corinthian, and Roman churches are
actively involved in direct missionary outreach, but rather that they are ‘missionary by
their very nature’, through their unity, mutual love, exemplary conduct, and radiant
joy.”140 Bosch and Bowers seemingly argue that the New Testament expects centripetal
mission alone.
While Bosch and Bowers appear to argue for centripetal mission alone, others rail
against the significance of centripetal mission emphases. Alan Hirsch and Michael Frost
explain, “The New Testament impulse of mission is therefore centrifugal rather than
centripetal.”141 Hirsch and Frost appear to be reacting to an overemphasis upon modern–
day attractional thinking.142 They write, “When we say it is a flaw for the church to be
attractional, we refer more to the stance the church takes in its community. By
anticipating that if they get their internal features right, people will flock to the service,
the church betrays its belief in attractionalism.”143 Though this author agrees with Hirsch
and Frost’s Post–Christendom assessment, like Bosch and Bowers, their either/or
bifurcation between centripetal and centrifugal mission falsely represents the New
Testament evidence.
139
140
Ibid., 168.
141
Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch, The Shaping of Things to Come: Innovation and Mission for
the 21st–Century Church (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003), 39; emphasis mine.
142
Authors often use attractional in a pejorative sense, decrying an emphasis on the attractiveness
of church events rather than people. See Chapter two of Jared Wilson, The Prodigal Church: A Gentle
Manifesto Against the Status Quo (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2015). Hirsch refers more to internal features,
however.
143
Ibid., 19.
56
Köstenberger and O’Brien emphasize the discontinuity between centripetal and
centrifugal mission, largely assigning centripetal mission to the Old Testament people of
Israel and centrifugal to the New Testament church. They write concerning New
Testament disciples, “In a major paradigm shift from a centripetal movement (men and
women coming to Israel) to a centrifugal one (God’s people going out to others), the
twelve function as ‘witnesses’ to Israel and subsequently Paul as a ‘witness to the
Gentiles.”144 Christopher Wright, however, allows for more continuity between the
testaments, writing, “On the one hand, there are centrifugal elements in the Old
Testament vision also. . . . And in the New Testament, on the other hand, while it is
certainly true that the centrifugal commission of Jesus to go to the nations is a radical
new departure, . . . the purpose of that going out is so that the nations might be gathered
into God’s kingdom, in fulfillment of the scriptural vision.”145 Richard Bauckham,
acknowledging degrees of continuity as well, points to centrifugal aspects in the
prophecy of Isaiah.146 Goheen asserts that centrifugal mission in the New Testament
actually serves the centripetal aspects. Though some go out to the nations centrifugally,
they go out to plant communities of believers who engage in mission with a centripetal
focus.147
Elsewhere, Köstenberger keeps both foci in view. He notes, “The disciples’
internal relationships are rather presented as foundational for their potential impact on the
144
Köstenberger and O’Brien, Salvation to the Ends of the Earth, 257.
145
Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2006), 523; emphasis in original.
146
Is. 2:3; 66:19 in Bauckham, Bible and Mission, 73.
147
Goheen, Introducing Christian Mission Today, 66.
57
world . . . . John indeed incorporates the Old Testament ‘centripetal’ concept of mission
resulting in the nations’ flocking to Zion. But surely John transcends this concept.”148
Rather than the either/or emphasis on centripetal or centrifugal, Köstenberger argues here
for a healthy both/and. He goes on, “Where direct proclamation of the word may fail to
persuade, the more indirect, corroborative approach of providing an example of loving,
unified relationships may succeed, or both aspects jointly may be effective.”149
Interestingly, when Bosch speaks of the mission in Luke and Acts, he grants more of this
balance, observing, “Luke’s church may be said to have a bipolar orientation, ‘inward’
and ‘outward.’”150 He goes on to describe Luke’s portrayal of the inner life of the church
as connected with its outer life.151 The summation of this discussion concerning
centrifugal and centripetal mission should lead the reader to disregard neither.
In fact, both should be embraced.152 The emphasis of this chapter remains that the
inner life of the church––centripetal mission––actually shapes the centrifugal aspects of
the mission. The two images of God’s mission need not be mutually exclusive.153 Goheen
writes that “ . . . the story told in Acts . . . is an account of how ecclesial communities that
corporately embody the gospel (like the one in Jerusalem) are spread throughout the
world.”154 These communities put on display the gospel as they simultaneously
proclaimed it. Wright notes, “The centrifugal mission of the New Testament church had
148
Köstenberger, “The Missions of Jesus and the Disciples,” 189–190.
149
Ibid., 211.
150
151
Ibid., 120.
152
Hendrikus Berkhof, Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Study of the Faith (trans. Sierd
Woudstra; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 410.
153
Bauckham, Bible and Mission, 74.
58
its centripetal theology also: the nations were indeed being gathered in––not to Jerusalem
or to the physical temple or to national Israel––but to Christ as the center and to the new
temple of God that he was building through Christ as a dwelling place for God by the
Spirit.”155 The Scriptures call for a community that goes and tells the world to come and
see. Rather than a compelling event, a transformed people prove to be the attraction.156
Furthermore, centrifugal mission must be understood in ecclesiological terms.
Though the church “sending out” an individual is both biblically plausible and needed,
the New Testament account of the mission of the church necessitates more. Goheen
captures this reality, “The centrifugal movement of mission may be misunderstood as
only a matter of individual Christians being sent out as evangelists or missionaries (either
from a home base or from the institutional church) into the nations (nearby or far
away).”157 If God sends communities on mission, communal mission demands the
integration of centripetal and centrifugal mission. God sends a people out to live out the
gospel in the midst of the unbelieving nations.
Jesus modeled this kind of corporate sending for the purpose of mission. Though
he concedes that some of the sending motif in the Scriptures concerns individuals,
Bauckham argues that the Gospel of John proves to be an exception, noting, “John’s
gospel . . . seems to envisage a corporate sending by Jesus of the community of his
154
155
Wright, The Mission of God, 524; emphasis in original.
156
Chapter six will discuss this in more detail in the context of Missional Communities.
157
59
disciples.”158 Goheen makes this same point from other commissioning texts by writing,
“Jesus does not send here eleven discrete individuals, . . . each with his own
responsibility to bear witness to the gospel; this way of reading the mission mandate in
light of the Western missionary enterprise has led us astray. This is not a task assigned to
isolated individuals; it is an identity given to a community.”159 This understanding
faithfully incorporates both centripetal mission and centrifugal. If the church by its inner
life attracts outsiders, then mission must be centripetal and communal.
Here this author takes issue with Greg Gilbert and Kevin DeYoung’s
dichotomous statement, “Our strategy is no longer ‘come and see’ but ‘go and tell.’”160
As with so many theological tensions, both/and surpasses either/or. The inner life of the
church corroborates the gospel they intend to communicate. Centripetal mission––the
cultivation of the local church’s inner life with a view toward mission––proves to be
foundational for effective centrifugal mission. Furthermore, centripetal mission actually
shapes those aspects of centrifugal mission that the congregation participates in together.
Conclusion
Kenneth Latourette, in his History of the Expansion of Christianity, describes the
nineteenth century expansion of Christianity as unparalleled in the history of the world.
Within this discussion, he emphasizes the missiological effect of the church’s inner life
on its corporate mission: “The nineteenth–century expansion of Christianity would not
158
Bauckham, Bible and Mission, 75.
159
Goheen, A Light to the Nations, 115; emphasis in original.
160
Gilbert and DeYoung, What is the Mission of the Church?, 59.
60
have occurred had the faith not displayed striking inward vitality.”161 Based on the first
century, Roger Gehring argues along the same lines, “If asked to give the reason for the
phenomenal success of the early Christian mission, it would have to be related to the
powerful attraction of this brotherly love.”162 Communities of believers display this
inward vitality and brotherly love in a way individual believers fail to picture. C. Norman
Kraus agrees, “The life of the church is its witness. The witness of the church is its life.
The question of authentic witness is the question of authentic community.”163 The Bible
teaches, and history corroborates, the effectiveness of corporate mission.
The Apostle Paul planted reconciled communities of believers in strategic
geographic centers for the furtherance of the gospel.164 Hellerman notes, “Paul’s
overarching concern in his ministry went far beyond the personal spiritual pilgrimages of
his individual converts. Paul’s driving passion was to establish spiritually vibrant,
relationally healthy communities of believers in strategic urban settings throughout the
Roman Empire.165 Nissen agrees, “The goal of mission was the formation of a new
community in Christ.”166 Rather than using a diffusion strategy, the New Testament
161
Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of the Expansion of Christianity, Vol.6: The Great
Century in Northern Africa and Asia, 1800–1914 (New York, N. Y.: Harper & Row, 1944), 442.
162
Roger W. Gehring, House Church and Mission (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers,
2004), 189.
163
C. Norman Kraus, The Authentic Witness: Credibility and Authority (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1978), 156; emphasis in original.
164
See Roland Allen, Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962),
12.
165
166
Nissen, New Testament and Mission, 111.
61
church thought it better to concentrate their corporate efforts in a specific area over an
extended period of time.167
Most of the early church met in homes, attracting outsiders by living out the
gospel together before their eyes.168 Michael Green explains, “It is very noticeable that
the home provided the most natural context for gossiping the gospel. . . . In the urban
insulae where people lived in close proximity to one another in small apartments, it was
easy for the gospel to spread up and down the block.”169 Gehring describes the house
church’s way of life, “Their unaffected way of relating, their brotherly love, their sense of
togetherness as members of the body of Christ, from which a mutual concern for one
another grew . . . all of this stimulated the interest of their fellow citizens and presumably
led them to ask the members of these house churches why they were the way they
were.”170 These descriptions appear to fit the New Testament’s assumed questions from
the unbelieving community (Col 4:6; 1 Pet 3:15).
The distinct community invites others to live within this community. Gehring
delineates, “From the very beginning of one’s spiritual journey, each individual
experienced the built–in support of his or her decision for Christ in the rest of the newly
converted household. Each new Christian was immediately integrated in a community of
faith that provided significant assistance for further growth as a believer.”171 This further
167
John Mark Terry, “Paul and Indigenous Missions,” in Paul’s Missionary Methods: In His Time
and Ours (ed. R. Plummer and J. M. Terry; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2011), 162.
168
Chapter six will discuss this reality in more detail.
169
Michael Green, Evangelism in the Early Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 24:
170
Gehring, House Church and Mission, 189.
171
Ibid., 187.
62
confirms the need for communal mission. If the immediate and long–term goal for a new
believer subsists in them living within community, a community must be established to
receive them.172 Stuart Murray writes, “Unless the church becomes a community of
loving relationships and meaningful interaction, there is little to call others to join.”173
Yoder agrees, “Pragmatically it is just as clear that there can be no evangelistic call
addressed to a person inviting him or her to enter into a new kind of fellowship and
learning, if there is not that body of persons, again distinct from the totality of society, to
whom to come and from whom to learn.”174 This evangelistic methodology requires
planting churches for the purpose of congregationalizing new believers.175
In conclusion, church communities embody the truths of the gospel as they live
with one another better than scattered, disconnected individuals.176 Tim Chester and
Steve Timmis assert, “Mission must involve not only contact between unbelievers and
individual Christians, but between unbelievers and the Christian community.”177 If
salvation creates community, community best puts on display that salvation.
A corporate understanding of the gospel necessitates a community–oriented
presentation of that gospel. Individualistic explanations of the gospel, without any
reference to the church, continue to produce individualistic disciples. Hellerman writes,
172
Rodney Stark and Roger Finke, Acts of Faith: Explaining the Human Side of Religion
(Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press, 2000), 117.
173
Murray, Church Planting, 106.
174
Yoder, The Royal Priesthood, 75.
175
J. D. Payne, “Mission and Church Planting,” in Theology and Practice of Mission: God, the
Church, and the Nations (ed. Bruce Ashford; Nashville, B&H Academic, 2011), 203.
176
177
Tim Chester and Steve Timmis, Total Church: A Radical Reshaping around Gospel and
Community (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 2008), 59.
63
“It is time to inform our people that conversion to Christ involves both our justification
and our familification, that we gain a new Father and a new set of brothers and sisters
when we respond to the gospel.”178 He further argues that the family of God living on
mission together functions as something of a living metaphor for the reality of
reconciliation with God and others in Christ. In this framework, believers invite
unbelievers to live in and among this reconciled community for the purposes of clarifying
the gospel with both their lips and up–close observation of their lives. An individual
living on mission alone pictures only aspects of this reality.
While this argument does admit the biblical precedent for personal, individual
evangelism, it should be understood in relation to the mission of the church rather than
separate from it. Bauckham concurs, “The church’s mission requires both the individuals
and groups who, authorized by God to communicate his message, go out from the
community to others, near and far, and also the community that manifests God’s presence
in its midst by its life together and its relationships to others.”179 The question between
corporate and individual mission is one of priority, quoting again Gregg Allison: “Being
missional is a matter of corporate identity first, then individual engagement.”180 Volf
restates this in his terms: “Only within the framework of the motherhood of the local
church can one speak of the motherhood of individual Christians.”181 The church sends
178
179
Bauckham, Bible and Mission, 77; emphasis mine.
180
181
64
out its members to engage the mission of God in their respective contexts, though
preferably together and, even more essential, under the corporate body’s authority.
Individualism distorts the nature of the church revealed in the Scriptures. Since
healthy ecclesiology enables healthy ministries within the church, individualistic
ecclesiology inhibits the mission of the church. Unfortunately, within the predominant
framework, an autonomous believer understands the mission of God through the church
to be something he or she engages in alone. Therefore, the mission of the church
becomes our cumulative, individual efforts to share the gospel with our neighbors.
Hunsberger notes: “This is the functional ecclesiology that shows up when the word
church is used. . . . The word church, when it is used, functions as a placeholder for the
distributive plural language of “Christians” and “believers” and thus signifies a
cumulative reality, not a corporal one.”182 However, though individual Christians might
picture rightly vertical reconciliation with God, an individual fails to picture the
horizontal reconciliation God purchased in the gospel. The mission of the church is the
mission of the church.
182
Hunsberger, “Evangelical Conversion,” 120; emphasis in original.
65
CHAPTER 3
THE UNITY OF THE LOCAL CHURCH AS A DISPLAY OF THE GOSPEL
The united life of the church corroborates the truths of the gospel. Jesus assumes this in
the Fourth Gospel, praying, “I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will
believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me,
and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent
me” (John 17:20–21, ESV). Rather than unity merely being an end in itself, Jesus asserts
that the church’s oneness bears witness to the gospel message.
While disunity paints a distorted picture of the gospel, unity mirrors it rightly.
Mark Dever agrees, “Christian proclamation might make the gospel audible, but
Christians living together in local congregations make the gospel visible (see John 13:34–
35). The church is the gospel made visible.”1 Therefore, inasmuch as the church images
unity, it portrays the unifying work of the gospel. This chapter argues that the accuracy of
this ecclesiological picture actually shapes the local church’s missiological efforts.
To make this argument the chapter begins by briefly covering the biblical
teaching concerning the unity of the church.2 After some investigation of the nature of
1
Mark Dever, “The Church,” in A Theology for the Church (ed. Daniel L. Akin; Nashville: B&H
Academic, 2007), 767.
2
Robert Banks’ assertion in Paul’s Idea of Community: The Early House Churches in Their
Historical Setting (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 53, that the local church serves as “a tangible
66
God and his unifying work in the gospel, various applications of church unity throughout
history will be addressed. Then, drawing upon the combined resources of Scripture and
history, the chapter proposes four dimensions of local church unity, concluding with their
missiological impact. In essence, the chapter below asserts that the corporate aspect of
mission argued for in the preceding chapter depends largely upon local church unity.3
Biblical Understanding of Local Church Unity4
The Nature of God and Church Unity
Unity finds its source in one God. In other terms, the nature of the church reflects the
nature of its creator. Gregg Allison explains, “The church is united because its triune God
exists eternally as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit––not three gods but three persons, each of
whom is fully God, in the unity of the Godhead, so that God is one.”5 This Trinitarian
analogy proceeds, not from the theologian’s pen, but from Jesus’ prayer: “ . . . that they
may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you” (John 17:21a).6
expression of the heavenly church, a manifestation in time and space of that which is essentially eternal and
infinite in character” informs this author’s understanding of the local church as a microcosm of the
universal. The first section of this chapter includes texts traditionally concerned with universal church unity
and those texts typically associated with local church unity. However, this author maintains that those texts
that seem to emphasize a universal church unity between churches would also necessitate unity between
believers in a local church. The former will not be attained if the latter is not also pursued.
3
If they fail to be united, how can they live on mission together?
4
Some of the theologians cited in this chapter might emphasize universal church unity over local
church unity. However, this author cites the universal principles those authors appeal to that also apply to
local church unity.
5
Gregg Allison, Sojourners and Strangers: The Doctrine of the Church (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway,
2012), 168–169.
6
This author put analogy in italics above because an “ontological gulf” exists between the
Trinity––the uncreated, infinite, Godhead––and the created church. See Constantine Scoutieris, “The
People of God—Its Unity and Glory: A Discussion of John 17:17–24 in the Light of Patristic Thought,”
GOTR 30 (Winter 1985), 408. Furthermore, James Gifford, “Union with Christ: A Third Type of
Perichoresis” (PhD diss., Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2003), 233, writes, “Humans are
creatures bound by space and time. It is not possible for humans to completely indwell another in the same
67
As the Father and the Son remain distinct persons, yet united, so follows the
church. Bruce Ware comments on the Trinitarian reality, “The relationships in the Trinity
exhibit so beautifully a unity that is not redundancy, and a diversity that is not discord.”7
Allison notes the ecclesiological application, “The eternal Trinitarian reality of unity in
diversity is the source and template of ecclesial unity.”8 Unity, as in the Trinity, never
demands uniformity.9 However, diversity, as in the Trinity, never entails disunity. G. C.
Berkouwer writes of Jesus’ analogy in John 17 between the church’s unity and the
Trinitarian nature of God: “Unity cannot be indicated more deeply than in this
analogy.”10
The Apostle Paul argues for local church unity based on the unity of the Godhead
as well.11 He admonishes the Ephesians to maintain the unity of the Spirit because “ . . .
there is one body and one Spirit––just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to
your call––one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all
and through all and in all” (Eph 4:4–6). These seven oneness commonalities, particularly
fashion as the persons of the Trinity do with each other. At this time, one may only speak analogously of
the relationship between the believer and Christ as perichoretic.” Nevertheless, while unquestionably
analogous, the Scriptures unequivocally use the Trinitarian relationships as a model for human
relationships, specifically in the church.
7
Ware’s quote highlights the relational dimension of unity within the Godhead, previewing a
dimension of unity within local churches to be discussed later in this chapter. Bruce Ware, Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2005), 135.
8
9
John Webster, “The Church and the Perfection of God,” in The Community of the Word: Toward
an Evangelical Ecclesiology (ed. Mark Husbands and Daniel Treier; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity,
2005), 82.
10
11
John Stott, The Message of Ephesians (BST; Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 1979), 150.
68
the oneness of God, necessitate the oneness of the Ephesians.12 The people of God mirror
the nature of God.13
The Gospel and Church Unity
In the beginning, this one God created one man. The Apostle Paul locates clearly the
genesis of humanity in stating, “And he made from one man every nation of mankind to
live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of
their dwelling place . . .” (Acts 17:26 ESV, emphasis mine). Genesis 1–2 go on to teach
that God created Adam and Eve pre–fall as the parents of a united humanity.14 Desmond
Alexander contends that these opening chapters of the Scriptures reconstruct for us God’s
blueprint for the world.15 Walter Brueggeman describes the way God expected his
creation to interact with one another, noting, “The destiny of the human creation is to live
in God’s world, with God’s other creatures, on God’s terms.”16 To the degree humanity
imaged their maker they imaged unity.
12
While scholars consider the letter to the Ephesians to be a circular letter intended to be read by
several churches, the local church in Ephesus functioned as an audience of the letter as well. John Stott
even asserts that the unity of Ephesians 4 primarily referred to local church unity in The Message of
Ephesians, 154.
13
Ephesians 4–6 speak regularly of the relational dimension of unity discussed later in this
chapter, yet these chapters in that letter proceed from the theological dimension of unity outlined in
chapters 1–3. See Peter O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians (ed. D. A. Carson; The Pillar New Testament
Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999).
14
G. K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 382.
15
T. Desmond Alexander, From Eden to the New Jerusalem: An Introduction to Biblical
Theology (Grand Rapids, Kregel, 2008), 26.
16
Walter Brueggeman, Genesis (Interpretation; Atlanta, Ga.: John Knox Press, 1982), 40;
emphasis mine.
69
Soon after this Edenic scene, sin divided humanity (Genesis 3). While many other
examples could be listed,17 Ephesians 2 details the ensuing chasm polarizing the Jewish
and Gentile peoples. The Jews, or the circumcision, pejoratively labeled the Gentiles “the
uncircumcision,” highlighting their separation from God and his people (Eph 2:11).18 J.
Daniel Hays argues that the term “Gentile” included dozens of Indo–European, Asian,
and African ethnic groups in the New Testament era.19 The Jews considered themselves
superior to every one.
The gospel message, however, reconciles a divided people. First, the message
asserts that no ethnicity stands righteous before a holy God.20 If all stand equally
condemned––the holy wrath of God aimed toward all rebellion––no ethnicity may rightly
claim superiority before God. While sin separates humanity from God ultimately, the
effects of sin separate humanity from one another. Though united in condemnation, that
condemnation relationally divides.
The fall unites ethnicities in their need for a Savior. In a gracious response to that
reality, God provides the same means of salvation for all peoples.21 David Clark writes,
17
For some effects of the curse, see James Hamilton Jr., God’s Glory in Salvation Through
Judgment: A Biblical Theology, (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2010), 80.
18
O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians, 187, writes, “Five deficiencies of these Gentile Christian
readers are listed, and all of them have to do with their being outside God’s people, Israel, and his saving
purposes.”
19
J. Daniel Hays, From Every People and Nation: A biblical theology of race (D. A. Carson ed.,
NSBT; Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2003), 156.
20
Paul establishes the sinfulness of the Gentiles in Romans 1 and shortly thereafter the Jewish
people before declaring in Romans 3, “For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are
under sin, as it is written: ‘None is righteous, no, not one . . .” (Rom 3:9–10).
21
Craig Keener, “Some New Testament Invitations to Ethnic Reconciliation,” Evangelical
Quarterly 75:3 (2003): 209, writes, “Jewish people commonly believed that they would be saved by virtue
of their descent from Abraham, but Paul emphasizes that spiritual rather than merely physical descent from
Abraham was what mattered.”
70
“As all are descended from Adam and Eve and therefore mired in sin, so all may become
one in the second Adam, Jesus Christ, and thus find release from sin.”22 God secured
release from sin and eternal salvation for all ethnicities by the person of Jesus Christ in
the message of the gospel.
Therefore, as various divided ethnicities become united to Christ, he unites them
to one another. In Eph 2:11–12, Paul emphasizes the Gentiles’ relational enmity with
God and God’s people to remind them of the vastness of their reconciliation. But then he
draws the contrast, declaring, “But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have
been brought near by the blood of Christ” (Eph 2:13, emphasis mine). Andreas
Köstenberger and Peter O’Brien write concerning this section, “The resulting new
humanity of Jews and Gentiles as fellow members of the body of Christ was ‘to serve
through the universe as an object–lesson of the wisdom of God’.”23 Two ethnicities
become one in Christ.
The Ephesian locale did not monopolize this division. In fact, the occasion for the
book of Galatians may be said to hinge upon Jewish elitism.24According to F. F. Bruce, a
first–century Jew commonly gave thanks to God in his morning prayer that he was not
made a Gentile, a slave or a woman. Bruce writes, “It is not unlikely that Paul himself
had been brought up to thank God he was born a Jew and not a Gentile. . . . ”25
22
David K. Clark, To Know and Love God (ed. John Feinberg; Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2003),
127.
23
Andreas J. Köstenberger and Peter T. O’Brien, Salvation to the Ends of the Earth: A Biblical
Theology of Mission (D. A. Carson, ed., NSBT; Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2001), 167.
24
Timothy George, Galatians (NAC 30; Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman and Holman, 1994), 60.
25
F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand
71
In the context of ethnic strife, Paul wrote the Galatians, “For as many of you as
were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek” (Gal 3:28).
Paul continues in the next verse, “And if you are Christ’s then you are Abraham’s
offspring, heirs according to promise” (Gal 3:29). Though Abraham’s lineage previously
bifurcated Jews and Gentiles, the true and better offspring was Christ (Gal 3:16). In
Christ these divisions are gone.
The letter to the church at Colossae contains a similar statement, though it moves
beyond ethnic divisions alone: “Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and
uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all” (Col 3:11).26
While including the same ethnic distinctions as the book of Galatians, this passage adds
cultural distinctions based upon ethnicity. James Dunn writes, “The very term barbaroj
carried a derogatory significance. In its primary usage it referred to a speaker of a
strange, unintelligible language. And from its early use in reference to the Medes and
Persians, the historic foes of Greece, it carried a clear note of contempt.”27 To employ the
term would project the reality of an ever–present cultural superiority in that context.
Furthermore, that Paul includes Scythians next in this list confirms his disdain for this
ethnic and cultural elitism. Dunn writes, “Their name (Scythians) was synonymous with
crudity, excess, and ferocity. . . .”28 Colossians 3:11 sits in the context of a list of
26
While other churches in the Laodicean region might have read this letter, the letter to the church
at Colossae was primarily written to that local congregation for their application. See Ben Witherington III,
The Letters to Philemon, the Colossians, and the Ephesians: A Socio–Rhetorical Commentary on the
Captivity Epistles (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 206.
27
James D. G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon (NIGTC; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1996), 225.
28
Ibid., 226
72
practices the believer puts away post–conversion. Therefore Hays states, “Racial
prejudices and divisions belong to the old man, the worldly culture that we inherited in
the flesh. As we become the new humanity, these attitudes––along with anger, rage,
slander, and the rest––must be abandoned.”29 The gospel transforms sinful conceptions of
ethnic or cultural superiority.
The letters to the churches of Ephesus, Galatia, and Colossae all contain
indicative statements concerning the unity of ethnicities and cultural distinctions under
the person of Christ. In fact, O’Brien locates the entire purpose of Ephesians under this
theme, writing, “Cosmic reconciliation and unity in Christ are the central message of
Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians.”30 Our union with Christ functions as the sine qua non of
unity among God’s people. From this wealth of evidence Hays concludes, “Furthermore,
God desires unity and reconciliation between his children. This desire of our Master is
not an obscure doctrine hinted at on the fringes of Scripture, but rather a central theme
that is stressed continuously throughout the New Testament.”31 The gospel creates a new
man, breaks down dividing walls, and transforms sinful conceptions of humanity.
Ethnic unity need not be the only evidence of the gospel’s unifying power for the
local church. The New Testament notes that the gospel unites the weak and the strong
(Rom 15:1–7).32 Galatians 3:28 not only mentions ethnic unity, but class unity, “there is
neither slave nor free,” and gender unity, “there is no male and female, for you are all one
29
Hays, From Every People and Nation, 189.
30
O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians, 58.
31
32
For more on this, see James Thompson, The Church According to Paul: Rediscovering the
Community Conformed to Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014), 144–145.
73
in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28).33 Furthermore, Paul’s letters to local churches presuppose a
unity between ages (1 Tim 5:1–10).
The local church––through ethnocentrism, pragmatism, or fallen structures––only
furthers this division by succumbing to the sociology of a sinful world. Diverse
intentionality portrays a new identity rooted not in sociology but in gospel conformity. If
all ethnicities stand united in condemnation from God and separated from one another,
obtaining salvation by embracing the same message inherently abolishes division.
God intended for humanity to be united. The fall and the effects of sin separated
humanity from God and from one another. Yet God, in sovereign wisdom, purposed to
unite a diversity of people under the banner of his crucified and risen Son.34 Gospel
reconciliation travels both vertically and horizontally. Local churches, as the later parts of
this chapter intend to argue, seek to maintain this unity.
New Testament Images of Church Unity
This unity proceeds from the nature of God, the work of Christ in the gospel, and the
work of the Spirit. Paul, in the context of the body of Christ image, states, “For in one
Spirit we were all baptized into one body––Jews and Greeks, slaves or free––and all were
33
In this case, the relational dimension of unity depends upon the theological dimension of unity
argued for in Galatians 1.
34
Everett Ferguson, The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1996), 403–404, writes that “ . . . to be divided is to say God has not done enough to produce
unity.”
74
made to drink of one Spirit” (1 Cor 12:13).35 Though the work of the gospel unites
believers, the Spirit applies those truths in the life of a believer. Everett Ferguson writes,
“No differences in the modern world are greater than the cultural and religious
differences between Jews and Gentiles in antiquity, but the Spirit creates unity out of
differences.”36 Paul describes the unity of the church as the “ . . . unity of the Spirit” (Eph
4:3, emphasis mine). The book of Acts concurs. Alan Thompson, in his study on the
unity of the church in Acts, writes, “This study has shown that there is a consistent
emphasis in the narrative of Acts on the role of the Spirit in uniting the people of God.”37
Since God’s oneness includes singularity of purpose, all three members of the Godhead
aim to unite the church.38
The images of the church picture this unity created by the Spirit. While the term
for church exists in the plural,39 the images of house, temple of God, bride and flock all
remain unified in the singular.40 Jesus, referring to himself as the good shepherd, asserts
oneness in his redeemed sheep by stating, “And I have other sheep that are not of this
fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock,
35
Based on 1 Corinthians, Mark Dever notes that the unity of God is to be reflected in united
local congregations. See The Church: The Gospel Made Visible (Nashville: B&H Publishing, 2012), 75.
36
Ferguson, The Church of Christ, 402; emphasis mine.
37
Alan Thompson, One Lord, One People: The Unity of the Church in Acts in its Literary Setting
(New York, N. Y.: T&T Clark, 2008), 173.
38
The maxim Opera Trinitatis ad extra sunt indivisa translated as “The external works of the
Trinity are indivisible” corresponds with this point. Though other scholars employ this maxim later,
Augustine’s words quamuis pater et filius et spiritus sanctus sicut inseparabiles sunt, ita inseparabiliter
operentur translated “just as Father and Son and Holy Spirit are inseparable, so do they work inseparably”
seem to be the genesis of this maxim. For original source, see De Trinitate (trans. Edmund Hill; The Works
of Saint Augustine; New York: New City Press, 1991), 70–71. See also Luigi Gioia, The Theological
Epistemology of Augustine’s De Trinitate (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 157.
39
This reality will be considered in the next section.
40
Berkouwer, The Church, 42.
75
one shepherd” (John 10:16). The New Testament image of the church as a building
agrees with this assessment. As believers come to Christ, Peter writes that “ . . . you
yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house” (1 Pet 2:5a). Paul
employs similar imagery with the Ephesians. “In him you also are being built together
into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit” (Eph 2:22). Paul Minear’s landmark work on
the church includes 96 images. The four major images he investigates––People of God,
New Creation, Fellowship in Faith, and Body of Christ––all strongly imply unity.41
Concerning the image of a body, Paul notes, “For as in one body we have many
members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are
one body in Christ, and individually members one of another” (Rom 12:4–5). Though
individuals must apply the gospel personally, unity with Christ subsumes the individual
into community.42 The foot may not assert its independence from the body just because it
is not a hand (1 Cor 12:15).
According to Joseph Hellerman, the New Testament employed familial terms in
describing church relationships in order to point out the unity the church enjoyed.43 He
writes, “If there was one place in the ancient world where a person could expect to
encounter a united front, it was in the descent–group family of blood brothers and sisters.
For Paul, the church is a family; as such, unity must prevail.”44 Robert Banks argues that
41
Paul Minear, Images of the Church (Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster, 1975).
42
See the argument in chapter two of this dissertation.
43
The relational dimension of unity will be discussed in more detail in the pages to come.
44
Joseph Hellerman, When the Church was a Family (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2009), 83.
76
family serves as the most significant image of the church in the New Testament.45 The
English equivalent of brother, adelfoj, occurs 139 times in the letters of Paul alone.46 A
scholar in his own right, Roger Gehring notes, “Many scholars point to the astounding
capacity of Pauline house churches to integrate people from different backgrounds. Some
suggest that this ‘brotherly love’ was uniquely revolutionary.”47 The gospel redefined
family.
None of this comes naturally to fallen humanity. D. A. Carson notes, “The church
itself is not made up of natural ‘friends.’ It is made up of natural enemies. . . . Christians
come together, not because they form a natural collocation, but because they have all
been saved by Jesus Christ and owe him a common allegiance.”48 The centrality of
Christ’s death in creating this unity cannot be overstated. In fact, John Calvin declared,
“We acknowledge no unity except in Christ; no charity of which he is not the bond.”49
The New Testament calls upon the church to enact its nature; unexpressed unity is
no unity at all. Bosch writes, “The church is called to be a community of those who
glorify God by showing forth his nature and works and by making manifest the
reconciliation and redemption God has wrought through the death, resurrection, and reign
45
Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community, 53.
46
Hellerman, When the Church was a Family, 77.
47
Roger Gehring, House Church and Mission: The Importance of Household Structures in Early
Christianity (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 2004), 189.
48
D. A. Carson, Love in Hard Places (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2002), 61.
49
John Calvin, “Psychopannychia” in Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters, Vol. 3
(ed. and trans. Henry Beveridge and Jules Bonnet; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 416.
77
of Christ.”50 The community shows his nature of oneness by being one and makes
reconciliation manifest by reconciling with one another.
Christ unites a divided people, purchasing unity rather than uniformity. In the
beginning, God created a united humanity of worshipers.51 In the end, God restores a
united humanity of diverse worshipers (Rev 5:9). In between, the local church seeks to
embody both of those ideals.
Historical Understandings of Local Church Unity
Historically, though often referring to the universal church, ecclesiologists regularly
emphasized church unity. Hammett notes the prominence, “The single most influential
statement concerning the church from history comes in the line from the Nicene Creed
giving the four classical notae of the church: unity or oneness, holiness, catholicity, and
apostolicity.”52 The early church thought itself to be the true Israel under a new
covenant.53 In the second century, Irenaeus agreed.54 However, as other sects emerged,
the need for a more careful definition of the church arose. Glenn Hinson writes that the
apostolic marks of the church––including oneness––stem from the conflict between the
church and those sects.55 In fact, the term “Catholic” was first applied by Ignatius to
50
David Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (Maryknoll,
N. Y.: Orbis Books, 1991), 168.
51
Concerning God’s intent for humanity at creation, Bruce Ashford notes, “Man and woman are
created to flourish in interdependence, reflecting God’s triune being.” In “The Church in the Mission of
God” in The Community of Jesus: A Theology of the Church (ed. Kendell Easley and Christopher Morgan;
Nashville: B&H Academic, 2013), 242.
52
Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches, 51.
53
E. Glenn Hinson, Understandings of the Church (Eugene, Oreg: Wipf & Stock, 1986), 6.
54
J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (New York, N. Y.: HarperOne, 1978), 192.
55
Hinson, Understandings, 4.
78
designate orthodox Christians attached to the bishop in opposition to those following
schismatics or heretics.56
Concerning the oneness of the church, Ignatius saw unity as the union of seen
with unseen, or flesh with spirit, in an analogous relationship not unlike that of the
incarnation.57 However, he considered the unity of the church to be institutional as well,
bound up with union with its leaders, noting, “Similarly all are to respect the deacons as
Jesus Christ and the bishop as a copy of the Father and the presbyters as the council of
God and the band of the apostles. For apart from these no group can be called a
church.”58 Ignatius hinted at the organizational––often deemed institutional––dimensions
of unity to come.
After Ignatius, Irenaeus emphasized the theological dimension of unity based on
truth. In the face of heretical teaching, he wrote, “The church, though dispersed
throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles
and their disciples this faith . . . (and) as if occupying one house, carefully preserves it. It
also believes these points just as if it had only one soul, and one and the same heart.”59
56
Ibid., 5.
57
Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 190. After the apostolic writers, Ignatius was the first to write
extensively on issues of union. See Gifford, “Union with Christ,” 102.
58
Justo Gonzalez, A History of Christian Thought: From the Beginnings to the Council of
Chalcedon (Volume 1; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1970), 77; Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the
Trallians, 3.1, in ANF, 1:67.
59
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1.10.1–2, in ANF, 1:330-331; Gregg Allison rendered the text
clearer in Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 2011),
567. This author used Allison’s version.
79
Catholicism60
One of the first historical controversies that brought church unity to the forefront
occurred in the third century when the Decian persecution brought about the lapse of
many Christians.61 Theologians raised the question as to how, or if, these men and
women could return to full communion in the Church.
In that context––to answer that ecclesiological question––Cyprian penned the
famed De Unitate Ecclesiae in 251.62 Cyprian understood the unity of the church to be a
visible matter, inasmuch as the church remained in communion with the bishop.63
Elsewhere, he wrote, “The bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop.”64 Only
one church existed––visibly represented by the appointed bishops––therefore to be out of
fellowship with those bishops entailed being out of the one church.
60
While Roman Catholicism emphasizes unity on a universal scale more than the local parish,
aspects of their argument inform the consideration of local church unity in the subsequent section of this
chapter. For example, an examination of their understanding of the organizational dimension of unity––in
particular unity expressed by a common leadership––informs the pursuit of organizational unity within the
local church, though on a much smaller scale. Furthermore, one must understand to some degree what
Roman Catholicism taught concerning Church unity––and their institutional overemphases––to
comprehend the Reformers’ teaching on the invisible church. Later in this chapter, this author will
prioritize the visible church over the invisible, distinguishing local church unity from the notions of both
Roman Catholicism and the Reformers.
61
Alister McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction (4th ed.; Marlton, Mass.: Blackwell
Publishing, 2007), 409.
62
S. L. Greenslade, “Cyprian: General Introduction,” in Early Latin Theology: Selections from
Press, 1956), 115.
63
Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches, 52. Though this author describes
something different than Cyprian, the visible dimension of unity discussed in a few pages occupied
theologians for centuries.
64
Cyprian, “Epistle 68,” in the Ante–Nicene Fathers, (Vol. 5; ed. Alexander Roberts and James
Donaldson; Buffalo: The Christian Literature Company, 1886), sec. 8.
80
In Cyprian’s rationale, the unity of the church could not be destroyed.65 He wrote,
“If you abandon the Church and join yourself to an adulteress, you are cut off from the
promises of the Church.”66 In his mind, the fatherhood of God depended upon the
motherhood of the Church.67 Concerning those outside the Catholic Church who
baptized, he would write, “Although there can be no other than the one baptism, they
fancy they baptize. Forsaking the fountain of life, they promise the grace of living and
saving water. Men are not purged there, they are dirtied; their sins are piled up, not
purged.”68 This understanding of the unity of the church persisted among Roman
Catholics until the Second Vatican Council.69
While a century earlier Tertullian considered the three elements of unity, holiness,
and apostolicity to belong to the local congregation,70 Cyprian began to assign aspects of
them to the bishops outside the local congregation.71 Then, by the time of Augustine, the
institutional, catholic church served as the rubric by which each of these three qualities
was assessed.72 Though Augustine understood the unity of the church to hinge upon its
relationship to Christ, he also included the visible matters of the sacraments and the
65
Cyprian, “The Unity of the Catholic Church,” in Early Latin Theology: Selections from
Press, 1956), 140.
66
Ibid., 127.
67
He famously wrote, “You cannot have God for your father unless you have the Church for your
mother” in Ibid., 128.
68
Ibid., 131.
69
McGrath, Christian Theology, 410.
70
Robert Evans, One and Holy: The Church in Latin Patristic Thought (Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and
Stock, 2010), 33–34; Jonathan Leeman, “A Congregational Approach to Unity, Holiness, and
Apostolicity,” in Baptist Foundations, Church Government for an Anti–Institutional Age (ed. Mark Dever
and Jonathan Leeman; Nashville: B&H Academic, 2015), 337.
71
Cyprian, “Epistle 68,” sec. 8.
81
bishops.73 In summary, as the Roman Catholic Church sought the organizational
dimension of unity, the doctrine of the oneness of the church continued to develop toward
more institutional forms.
This ecclesiological institutionalization did not abate. Various schisms in history
caused the Church and its theologians to consider afresh the unity of the church. Jaroslav
Pelikan, speaking of the papal schism between Rome and Avignon in the 14th century, the
Hussite schism, and the divide between Constantinople and Rome in 1054, noted, “The
stubborn and embarrassing reality of these three schisms, . . . made it obligatory for
Western ecclesiology to clarify both the nature and the locus of the church’s unity with
greater precision and subtlety than may have been necessary earlier.”74
Following Cyprian to his logical end, many Roman Catholics stressed union not
only with the bishop but also with the papacy as integral to union with the Church.75
Papal authority increased dramatically. Pope Gregory’s issue of Dictatus Papae (1075)
taught that the Roman church’s history and future were infallible. Innocent III (1198–
1216) took these claims most seriously, positioning himself between humanity and
divinity. Pope Boniface VIII wrote in his bull Unam Sanctam (1302), “We declare, state,
72
Leeman, “A Congregational Approach to Unity, Holiness, and Apostolicity,” 343.
73
Evans, One and Holy, 88–89; Roger Haight, Christian Community in History: Historical
Ecclesiology, vol. 1 (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2004), 244.
74
Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 4:
Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300–1700) (Chicago, Ill.: The University of Chicago Press, 1984),
79.
75
Two editions of Cyprian’s “On the Unity of the Church” exist today. What scholars labeled the
Primacy Text emphasized the papacy much more than the Episcopalian text. Increasingly scholars believe
both editions proceeded from Cyprian’s pen, addressing different historical situations. Therefore, Cyprian
might have more strongly hinted at the papal authority to come centuries later. See S. L. Greenslade, “On
the Unity of the Church: Introduction,” in Early Latin Theology: Selections from Tertullian, Cyprian,
Ambrose and Jerome (LCC; ed. S. L. Greenslade; Louisville, Ky.: The Westminster Press, 1956), 122–123.
82
define and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature
to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”76 The Catechism of the Council of Trent in 1566
quoted Ambrose as saying, “(Christ) placed over his church . . . a man to be his vicar; a
visible church requires a visible head, and therefore, the Savior appointed Peter head and
pastor of all the faithful . . . desiring that he, who was to succeed him (Peter) should be
invested with the very same power of ruling and governing the entire church.”77
In some Catholic organic interpretations of the Totus Christus,78 scholars find
little distinction between Christ and the Church.79 The Church, in this framework,
becomes an extension of the incarnation of Christ.80 Combining this undue amalgamation
with the Roman Catholic emphasis on institutional visibility of unity only exacerbates the
power of the Roman pontiff.81 Throughout most of church history, Roman Catholicism
concerned itself with universal church unity––often rooted in the papacy––rather than
local church unity.82
Nevertheless, recent Catholicism has been less monolithic. Hans Küng, something
of a rogue Roman theologian, argued for theological unity despite organizational
76
Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2013), 33.
77
Catechism of the Council of Trent (trans. Jeremy Donovan; Baltimore: Lucas Brothers, 1829),
75.
78
Totus Christus means “The Whole Christ.” Often it carries the meaning of Christ as Head and
the Church as His Body. See Augustine, Homilies on the Gospel of John and on the First Epistle of John
(NPNF 1, vol. 7; ed. Philip Schaff; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), 1.2.
79
Karl Adam, The Spirit of Catholicism (New York: Crossroad: 1997), 7.
80
Ibid., 20.
81
Michael Horton, People and Place: A Covenant Ecclesiology (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster
John Knox Press, 2008), 158.
82
Richard McBrien, Catholicism (New York: HarperCollins, 1994), 627; Hammett, Biblical
Foundations, 52.
83
division.83 He writes, “The unity of the Church, moreover, not only presupposes a
multiplicity of Churches, but makes it flourish anew. . . . It is not part of the nature of the
Church to have a uniform form or worship, nor uniform hierarchies, nor even a uniform
theology.”84 Küng reflects much of Vatican II’s significant departure from the hundreds
of years that preceded it.85 Contrary to Vatican I, the Church seems to include more than
the Roman Catholic Church.86 The change in Article 8 of Lumen Gentium from “is” to
“subsists in” allows this broader understanding.87 While those that favored the
institutional model––knowingly or unknowingly––permitted this updated language,
Dulles argues that the context implies that “Church” terminology now might be applied
to non–Roman Catholic congregations.88 This position would be unheard of in the days of
the Reformers, to which this chapter turns.
Reformers
The Reformation brought a new understanding to the issue of church unity.89 For those
that opposed the Reformers, much of their disagreement came from the validity of
83
Rogue might be an understatement. Eventually, the University of Tübingen removed Küng
from the Catholic faculty, though allowing him to remain a professor of Ecumenical Theology.
84
Hans Küng, The Church (Garden City, N. Y.: Image Books, 1976), 355–356.
85
As an example of Vatican I’s emphases, note Pius XI’s Encyclical Letter, “Thus, Venerable
Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of
non–Catholics. There is but one way in which the unity of Christians may be fostered, and that is by
furthering the return to the one true church of Christ of those who are separated from it,” in G. K. A. Bell,
Documents on Christian Unity (2nd series; London: Oxford University Press, 1930), 61.
86
McBrien, Catholicism, 684.
87
Avery Dulles, Models of the Church (New York: Image Books, 2002), 130. Article 8 states,
“This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church.”
88
Ibid., 130.
89
As with Roman Catholicism, the Reformers wrote less about local church unity than the
Anabaptists that followed them. However, while the Roman Catholics’ emphasis on organizational unity
informs the local churches understanding of leadership’s importance for unity, the Reformers main
84
Christians breaking away from the established church. In their mind,90 the Reformers
violated the unity of the church, as Rome was the church.91 However, the Reformers
argued that Rome’s doctrinal errors provided sufficient reason to break away from the
established, institutional body, understanding unity to belong to the spiritual realm more
than the visible one. According to Paul Avis, they tied this spiritual unity explicitly to the
presence of the gospel, noting, “This conviction lay at the root of the whole Reformation
struggle and was shared by all the Reformers––Lutheran and Reformed, Anglican and
Anabaptist. They were prepared to sacrifice the visible unity of the Western Church if
only by so doing they could save the gospel.”92 Once the Reformers made this convincing
case, little could prevent the further splintering of churches.93
Therefore, while church leadership served as a unifier in Roman Catholicism, the
Reformers believed it belonged within the bene esse, or well–being, of the church.94
Calvin rejected the idea that the bishopric held any authority over the gospel. He wrote,
“A most pernicious error widely prevails that Scripture has only so much weight as is
conceded to it by the consent of the church. As if the eternal and inviolable truth of God
contribution to local church unity centers on the theological dimension of unity. Further, this section on the
Reformers highlights some of the ways the concept of unity developed throughout church history,
especially following the Middle Ages. Finally, this section introduces the invisible and visible notions of
the church to be considered later in this chapter.
90
Robert Bellarmine, On the Marks of the Church (trans. R. Grant; Post Falls, Idaho: Mediatrix
Press, 2015), 1.
91
92
Paul Avis, The Church in the Theology of the Reformers (Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock,
1981), 3. The Reformers contributed significantly to the theological dimension of unity discussed in the
next section.
93
McGrath, Christian Theology, 409. Granted, the divisions that followed were often based on
factors other than the gospel.
94
Avis, The Church in the Theology of the Reformers, 109.
85
depended upon the decision of men.”95 Instead, the common Fatherhood of God and
headship of Christ united brothers one with another.96
The Magisterial Reformers, in particular Calvin and Luther, concerned
themselves with the Christological center of the church more than they did the
circumference.97 Calvin wrote concerning the circumference: “For here we are not bidden
to distinguish between reprobate and elect––that is for God alone, not for us, to do––but
to establish with certainty in our hearts that all those who, by the kindness of God the
Father, through the working of the Holy Spirit, have entered into fellowship with Christ,
are set apart as God’s property and personal possession; and that when we are of their
number we share that great grace.”98 In the context of Roman Catholicism and its gospel
and ecclesiological drift, the Reformers outlined marks to distinguish the true church
from the false church.
These marks of the church sought to answer, in part, questions concerning the
unity of the church.99 One of the primary Lutheran confessions affirms this understanding
of the marks, stating, “It is sufficient for the true unity of the Christian church that the
Gospel be preached in conformity with a pure understanding of it and that the sacraments
be administered in accordance with the divine word.”100 Calvin considered the
95
96
Calvin, Institutes, 2:1015.
97
98
99
Ibid., 1023.
100
Philip Schaff, The Evangelical Protestant Creeds, vol. 3 of The Creeds of Christendom With a
History and Critical Notes (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 12.
86
sacraments to express church unity, writing, “By baptism we are initiated into faith in
him; by partaking in the Lord’s Supper we attest our unity in true doctrine and love.”101
Within the Anglican church, the marks took a prominent place in this discussion
as well. The earlier Thirty–Nine Articles of the Anglican Church (1563 and 1571)
defined the true church with the two marks.102 However, the later document from 1870––
the “Chicago–Lambeth Quadrilateral”––detailed four aspects for the unity of the church:
Scripture, the Apostles’ Creed, the sacraments, and the episcopate.103 Though the
Reformers did not include leadership in their marks, the Anglican Church moved toward
an institutional unity, requiring the bishopric.104
Further, Calvin followed Augustine in borrowing from the remnant notions of Old
Testament theology.105 In part, this remnant notion brought about Calvin’s emphasis on
the distinction between the visible and invisible church. He wrote, “To embrace the unity
of the church in this way, we need not (as we have said) see the church with the eyes or
touch it with the hands.”106 Jonathan Leeman comments on Calvin’s understanding, “The
local or city churches . . . are not invisibly united in the faith since they are deliberately
mixed assemblies. As with the church’s holiness, Calvin placed its unity both above and
101
102
Veli–Matti Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology: Ecumenical, Historical, and Global
Perspectives (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2002), 83.
103
The Book of Common Prayer, Historical Documents of the Church, Lambeth Conference of
1888, Resolution 11; quoted in Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology, 83. Though potentially
overemphasized, the Anglicans contributed to the church’s understanding of the organizational dimension
of unity.
104
Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology, 83.
105
106
87
below the local assembly.”107 Rather than using visible and invisible language, some
employed the old scholastic definition between the church “properly speaking” and the
church “broadly speaking.”108
In the context Calvin lived in, the primary battle to be won concerning the
church’s unity concerned a proper understanding of the gospel and doctrine.109 He wrote,
“If we would unite in holding the unity of the Church, let it be by a common consent only
to the truth of Christ.”110 Therefore, while the Reformers affirmed the four creedal marks
of the church, they mainly applied them to the eschatological church.111
The marks of the Reformation, according to Veli–Matti Kärkkäinen, did not
emphasize the individual’s faith in the oneness of the church. While interestingly,
Calvin’s first edition of the Institutes (1536) listed profession of faith as one of the marks
of the church, his later editions backed away from that assertion.112 Kärkkäinen notes,
“Even though the personal faith of individuals is not a matter of indifference, unity can
never be based on it.”113
107
108
109
Leeman, “A Congregational Approach to Unity, Holiness, and Apostolicity,” 350. Again, the
Reformers prioritized the theological dimension of unity over and above what they considered to be the
visible dimension of unity.
110
John Calvin, Tracts and Treatises (ed. T. F. Torrance; trans. H Beveridge; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1958), 266.
111
Avis, The Church in the Theology of the Reformers, 8; McGrath, Christian Theology, 410.
Furthermore, their emphasis was on the universal rather than the local church.
112
113
Ibid., 83.
88
In fact, modern–day Reformed ecclesiologies often critique other ecclesiologies––
in particular the Free Church––as contractual rather than covenantal.114 In their
theological constructions and creeds, priority remains on the initiative of God rather than
the response of humanity.115 Michael Horton points out that the Reformed Confessions
describe the visible church as “believers together with their children,” thereby excluding
the emphasis on a voluntary covenant.116 The Free Church largely disagrees with that
exclusion.
Free Church
Rather than the predominant negative terminology––as in “Dissenters” or
“Nonconformists”––Congregationalists and Baptists began to be called by the phrase
“Free Church” in 19th century England.117 While distinctions remain between those
traditions, a sufficient number of similarities tie them together in distinguishing them
from Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, and Reformed churches.118 Nathan Finn
writes that most of these congregations “shared what might be called a voluntary
approach to church membership.”119
114
Michael Horton, People and Place, 185. To be fair, chapter two pointed out some of these
tendencies with Baptists.
115
Ibid., 186.
116
117
William Pitts, “The Relation of Baptists to Other Churches,” in The People of God: Essays on
the Believers’ Church (ed. Paul Basden and David Dockery; Nashville: Broadman, 1991), 236.
118
This includes, in particular, the Reformed understanding of the church that argues for
paedobaptism.
119
Nathan Finn, “A Historical Analysis of Church Membership,” in Those Who Must Give an
Account: A Study of Church Membership and Church Discipline (ed. John Hammett and Benjamin Merkle;
Nashville: B&H, 2012), 65.
89
One’s ecclesiology directly affects one’s view of ecumenism.120 In a significant
distinction from the Roman Catholic and Reformation conceptions of church unity, the
Free Church emphasizes the believing hearts of individuals in determining the unity of
the church.121 Kärkkäinnen lists four aspects of unity in the Free Church: the personal
faith of every Christian; a focus on the local church; the priesthood of all believers;
reservations with regard to the idea of visible unity.122 He argues that Free Churches
leave the question of leadership open in terms of its importance for church unity.123
Miroslav Volf comes from the Free Church perspective, but follows the
Reformation theologians in arguing that ordained office belongs to the well–being rather
than the essence of the local church.124 The essence of the church is “constituted by the
assembled people confessing Christ.”125 This does not necessarily mean that he reduces
the church to the aggregate of assembled believers. He writes, “While several ‘I’s’
together do constitute a grammatical plural, they do not yet constitute an ecclesial
‘we.’”126 Nevertheless, the confession of Christ––the personal faith of individuals––
comprises a key part of the unity of the local church.127 Stanley Grenz agrees, “The true
church is essentially a people standing in voluntary covenant with God.”128
120
121
Ibid., 83.
122
Ibid., 84.
123
Ibid.
124
Miroslav Volf, After Our Likeness, The Church as the Image of the Trinity (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1998), 152; Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology, 84.
125
Volf, After Our Likeness, 150, n. 93.
126
Ibid., 10.
127
Ibid., 147–149.
128
Stanley Grenz, Theology for the Community of God (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1994),
609.
90
Kärkkäinen notes that Free Churches consider the personal faith of individuals the
key to unity.129 This does not mean, however, that other factors fail to merit notice in
Free Church ecclesiology. In fact, one Baptist confession emphasizes the local body and
the ordinances practiced within by stating, “The Christian experiences the communion of
the community above all in the local assembly of the faithful. In it baptism for the
confession of faith is performed, and the one bread, bestowed by the one Lord, is broken
and shared.”130
In distinction from Kärkkäinen’s understanding of unity within the Free
Church,131 Leeman appears less suspicious of unity’s visible nature, making the case that
local churches “are invisibly united by the apostolic gospel and visibly united by the
apostolic authority of the keys of the kingdom.”132 He argues that the keys of the
kingdom belong to the entire congregation, rather than the pastor(s) alone.133 In essence,
two believers in the same local church retain the God–given authority to exercise the keys
of the kingdom in matters of membership while two believers in different local churches
do not.134 This heightened authority distinguishes local church unity from universal
Church unity.135
129
130
Bund Evangelisch–Freikirchlicher Gemeinden in Deutschland, ed., Rechenschaft vom Glauben
2, no. 7 (1977); quoted in Kärkäinnen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology, 84.
131
Footnote 121
132
Jonathan Leeman, “A Congregational Approach to Catholicity: Independence and
Interdependence,” in Baptist Foundations: Church Government for an Anti–Institutional Age (ed. Mark
Dever and Jonathan Leeman; Nashville: B&H Academic, 2015), 367.
133
134
Ibid., 366.
135
The next section of this chapter will distinguish these two kinds of unity more precisely.
91
Nevertheless, prior to the rise of the Anabaptists, most of the historical
expressions of unity concerned the upper–case universal Church, that is, the relationship
between lower–case churches and later denominations. However, the Free Church, in
particular the Anabaptists and Baptists that followed stressed unity within the local
church.136 While other ecclesiologies might better portray the unity of the universal
church, a Free Church understanding of the church endeavors to display the unity of the
local congregation.
These few pages surveying history pale in comparison to the ink spilt addressing
the oneness of the church. Furthermore, if one considers the seeking of the Reformation
marks of the church an attempt to locate oneness, the matter of church unity could be
argued as the most debated ecclesiological topic in church history. Even if that is found to
be true, the vast number of pages written through history pale in comparison to the
importance of the issue considered. Church unity, or the lack thereof, communicates
something about God and his gospel.137
Theological Understanding of Local Church Unity
God unites his people. However, in something of an antinomy, the New Testament
employs the term for “church” in the plural.138 When speaking of churches in a region,
for example, Paul used the plural form (1 Cor 16:1, 19; 2 Cor. 8:1). So while the
136
The next section will characterize this as the visible dimension of unity.
137
The final section of this chapter on unity’s missiological significance will make this point
explicit.
138
Out of 114 uses of ekklesia in the New Testament, 36 times the biblical author uses the term in
the plural to refer to local churches. See Hammett, Biblical Foundations, 27–28, 31.
92
Scriptures describe the oneness of the church, the New Testament speaks of more than
one church.139 In that sense, the oneness of the church had boundaries.140
Scholars, especially in ecumenical circles, discuss at length the issues concerning
unity. However, they often address the unity between local churches rather than the unity
within a local church.141 Hans Küng noted two directions to ecumenism, the first to other
churches and second to other world religions.142 However, this chapter details a unity
often neglected by the ecumenists, namely, unity within each local church.
Robert Banks describes the local church as, “ . . . a tangible expression of the
heavenly church, a manifestation in time and space of that which is essentially eternal
and infinite in character.”143 Following that definition, local church unity ought to be a
microcosm of universal church unity, with no less missiological significance (John
17:20–21). Furthermore, to the degree the local church manifests disunity, to that degree
139
Jules Thobois notes in La Mission d’Evangeliser (Paris: Les Carnets De Croire Et Servir,
1962), 21, “Le Saint–Esprit fonde l’Eglise, mais Il fait surgir aussi des Eglises,” translated by this author,
“The Holy Spirit founds the church, but also brings forth churches.” Thobois then lists various local
churches from the New Testament, including Antioch, Corinth, Thessalonika, etc.
140
John Hammett, “What Makes a Multi–Site Church One Church,” Great Commission Research
Journal 4, no. 1 (Summer 2012), 97.
141
Doo-Seung Chun, “Unity and Mission: Moravian Case Study and Implications for the Mission
Associations of Local Churches in Korea” (DMiss diss., Fuller Theological Seminary, 2003). See also
Seong Sik Heo, “Missional Debate: An Interpretive Study of Lesslie Newbigin’s Theological Debates with
Diverse Partners” (PhD Diss., Princeton Theological Seminary, 2013). See also Michael Goheen and
Margaret O’Gara, ed. That the World May Believe: Essays on Mission and Unity in Honour of George
Vandervelde (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 2005). Other book examples include: Rex
Koivisto, One Lord, One Faith (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1993); John Kromminga, All One Body
We: The Doctrine of the Church in Ecumenical Perspective (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970).
142
Hans Küng, Theologie in Aufbruch: Eine ökumenishce Grundlegung (Munich: Kaiser Verlag,
1987), 246.
143
93
it fails to reflect the universal church unity created by God.144 Therefore, while much of
ecumenical literature addresses the unity of the universal church––oneness between local
churches or denominations––their arguments apply to the inner life of each local
congregation because the local church serves as a “ . . . real anticipation or proleptic
realization of the eschatological gathering of the entire people of God.”145
God grants the local church oneness; he then charges the united church to
maintain its unity (Eph 4:3). Ferguson clarifies, “The human task is not to achieve unity
among themselves, but to keep the unity already created. . . . ‘United and pursuing unity’
describes the situation of members of Christ’s body, the church.”146 While some argue for
a parousia–induced oneness147––invisible presently––Berkouwer writes, “The call to
unity and concord resounds in the Church’s present, and the earnestness of this call
entirely excludes every eschatological alibi.”148 Charles Van Engen writes, “The gift that
the church’s nature is one entails the task of striving toward unity, living as one, uniting
in the Lord.”149
144
When Jesus prayed that his followers might be one in John 17, he certainly desired global
unity between local churches. However, a global ecclesiological unity assumes unity between believers in
local contexts. How can local churches be united with one another if the local church itself is not united?
145
146
Ferguson, The Church of Christ, 406.
147
For example, the eschatological emphases detailed in Reformation ecclesiology detailed earlier
in this chapter.
148
149
Charles Van Engen, Mission on the Way: Issues in Mission Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker
Books, 1996), 120.
94
This chapter contends that local churches maintain and display this unity in ways
the universal church does not.150 Leeman notes, “The movement from universal church to
local church, then, is the movement from faith to order.”151 Though this section will not
exhaust those “movements,” it will cover the order implied within the local church’s
doctrinal statement, membership, ordinance observance, leadership, and relationships.
The maintaining of unity includes each of these “movements from faith to order.”152
Furthermore, each movement toward order maintains a dimension of local church
unity. An affirmed doctrinal statement maintains the dimension of theological unity.
Church membership––and the ordinances that govern that membership––maintains
visible unity. Local church leadership maintains organizational unity. And finally,
covenantal relationships maintain relational unity.153
Theological Unity
First, the local church maintains and expresses its unity by affirming that which unified
them: the gospel. Bruce Ashford and Danny Akin note, “We affirm that the church is one
as she holds to one gospel.”154 The apostolicity of the church necessitates that the church
150
Due to geographical proximity, local churches endeavor to apply universal church principles
outlined in the Scriptures.
151
Jonathan Leeman, “Introduction––Why Polity?” in Baptist Foundations: Church Government
for an Anti–Institutional Age (ed. Mark Dever and Jonathan Leeman; Nashville: B&H Academic, 2015), 5.
152
Ibid, 5.
153
Though these categories are different, this author found helpful Mark Driscoll and Gerry
Breshears’ categories for unity in Vintage Church: Timeless Truths and Timely Methods (Wheaton, Ill.:
Crossway, 2008), 137–140.
154
Discipline (ed. John Hammett and Benjamin Merkle; Nashville, B&H Academic, 2012), 193; emphasis in
original.
95
hold to apostolic teaching.155 John Hammett notes, “Local churches partake of the
oneness of the universal church to the degree that they hold to the one Lord and one faith
of that one church.”156 In the passage on maintaining unity, Paul refers to the one faith of
the one church (Eph 4:5). God builds his church on the foundation of the apostles and
prophets (Eph 2:20).
Yet more needs to be said concerning the maintenance of theological unity within
local churches. For the local church, theological unity means spelling out the particulars
of their doctrinal affirmations concerning the implications of the gospel. For some
biblical precedent, Richard Phillips points out that the false teachers seeking to infiltrate
the community at Galatia affirmed the deity of Christ as well as his death and
resurrection. They affirmed these broad theological categories. However, while these
“teachers” did not dispute the facts of Christ’s life, they taught falsehoods concerning
gospel implications within the doctrine of justification.157 In response to their faulty
doctrine of justification, Paul deemed each of these teachers divisive, saying, “ . . . let
him be accursed” (Gal 1:9). That text makes clear that Paul expected local churches to
maintain doctrinal purity.158
Gregg Allison makes the case for confessions of faith based on biblical passages
like 1 Tim 3:16, Phil 2:5–11, and Col 1:15–20.159 While some argue that spelling out
these doctrinal particulars only exacerbates division––affirming no creed but the
155
156
Ibid., 53.
157
Richard Phillips, “One Church,” in The Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic
(Phillipsburg, N. J.: P&R: 2001), 32.
158
96
Bible160––many scholars contend that denominational clarity actually promotes unity.161
Theological clarity within a denomination maintains a certain degree of unity between
local churches.162 Following that logic, theological clarity within local churches maintains
local church theological unity.163
Visible Unity
Second, to maintain and express something of their unity, the local church in the New
Testament enacted boundaries between itself and the world. When Paul writes, “To the
church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy” (1 Cor
1:2, emphasis mine), we see the church as an exclusive body made up of those sanctified
in Christ. Paul’s letter to the church at Ephesus begins, “To the saints who are in
Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus” (Eph 1:1b). Paul addressed his letters to a
certain subsection of humanity. Clear boundaries existed.
To make this clear, the New Testament authors explicitly use insider and outsider
language. Paul wrote to the church at Thessalonica, “Work with your hands, as we
159
160
Timothy George discusses this reality in “The Priesthood of All Believers,” in The People of
God: Essays on the Believers’ Church (ed. Paul Basden and David Dockery; Nashville: Broadman, 1991),
89.
161
Bruce Shelley, “Denominations––Divided We Stand,” Christianity Today, September 7, 1998,
90; Phillips, “One Church,” 27; Hammett, Biblical Foundations, 54. These sources make the case that
denominations allow for more unity between local churches because they make explicit their agreement on
secondary theological issues. Furthermore, denominations can share spiritual unity with different
denominations without continually debating––agreeing to disagree on––secondary theological issues.
162
The Southern Baptist Convention, for example, cooperates in both theological education and
global missions because they agree together on a particular understanding of secondary theological issues.
Apart from a denomination, the argument goes that they would be less likely to unite in these efforts. In a
denominational context, an affirmed doctrinal statement prevents local churches from endlessly debating––
and dividing––over secondary issues like baptism, eschatology, the gifts of the Spirit, etc.
97
instructed you, so that you may live properly before outsiders and be dependent on no
one” (1 Thess 4:11–12). When an insider––a church member––persists in unrepentant
sin––the insider becomes an outsider (Matthew 18). Paul wrote to the church at Corinth,
“For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you
are to judge? God judges those outside” (1 Cor 5:12–13). Furthermore, the qualifications
for overseers even include a reference to those outside the covenant community. Paul
states, “Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into
disgrace, into a snare of the devil” (1 Tim 3:7). The pervasive use of insider and outsider
language speaks to some form of visible church membership in the first–century. John
Hammett and Thomas White note, “A church does not so much have members as it is its
members.”164
Jesus gave the church the authority to visibly determine who it is that represents
Christ.165 Or as Leeman writes, “Christ authorized the church to mark off the people of
God.”166 The ordinances––baptism and the Lord’s Supper––serve as the mechanism by
which the church distinguishes between believer and unbeliever. Bobby Jamieson argues,
“Together baptism and the Lord’s Supper mark off a church as a unified, visible, local
163
Similar to the denominational argument, in a local church context an affirmed doctrinal
statement prevents the local church from endlessly debating––and dividing––over secondary issues.
164
John Hammett and Thomas White, “Church Membership and Discipline,” in Baptist
Foundations: Church Government for an Anti–Institutional Age (ed. Mark Dever and Jonathan Leeman;
165
The following chapter will address in more detail the argument for regenerate church
membership as an expression of the holiness of the church.
166
Jonathan Leeman, The Church and the Surprising Offense of God’s Love: Reintroducing the
Doctrines of Church Membership and Discipline (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2010), 168.
98
body of believers. To put it more technically, they give a church institutional form and
order.”167 In a local church, the ordinances visibly communicate who it is that is unified.
To further explain, a believer enters the universal church at conversion by the
baptism of Spirit (1 Cor 12:13). Ultimately, the Spirit of God creates unity by this
baptism. However, the local church affirms this baptism of the Spirit––or the believer’s
conversion––when they baptize by immersion.168 Water baptism signifies that the Spirit
baptism occurred.169 Allison notes that the “one baptism” of Ephesians 4 refers to the
tangible initiatory rite of water baptism.170 Baptism includes the idea of incorporation
into the covenant community, serving as one way the local church maintains the unity the
gospel creates.171
The Lord’s Supper expresses the unity of the local church as well.172 Augustine
defined the sacraments as an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace.173
He connects that definition to the unity of the church in the Supper by stating, “One
bread; what is this one bread? The one body which we, being many, are. Remember that
bread is not made from one grain, but from many . . . Be what you can see, and receive
167
Bobby Jamieson, Going Public: Why Baptism is Required for Church Membership (Nashville:
B&H Academic, 2015), 2.
168
John Hammett, “Membership, Discipline, and the Nature of the Church,” in Those Who Must
Give an Account: A Study of Church Membership and Church Discipline (ed. John Hammett and Benjamin
Merkle; Nashville, B&H Academic, 2012), 18.
169
Hammett, Biblical Foundations, 266–267.
170
171
Hammett, Biblical Foundations, 264; Allison, Sojourners and Strangers, 356.
172
Thomas Schreiner, “The Lord’s Supper in the Bible,” in Baptist Foundations: Church
Government for an Anti–Institutional Age (ed. Mark Dever and Jonathan Leeman; Nashville: B&H
Academic, 2015), 140; Allison, Sojourners and Strangers, 173.
173
Augustine, On the Catechizing of the Uninstructed, 26.50 (NPNF 3:312).
99
what you are.”174 Augustine interpreted Paul’s words to the Corinthians, “Because there
is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor
10:17).
Unity could be inferred on multiple levels during the Supper. Jürgen Moltmann
notes that the common cup points the believer to his or her unity with all participants in
all of time, what we might call the universal church.175 In a more local church
perspective, Hammett argues that the believer renews himself or herself to the local body
during the Supper.176 Of course, differing views of the Supper picture differing views of
unity. Open communion displays the unity of the universal church. Of course, strict or
closed communion pictures local church unity most vividly.177 Debates over that issue
notwithstanding, the Supper displays, expresses, and endeavors to maintain the unity of
the local church. Paul would instruct the Corinthians to consider the body of the Lord in
their observance of the Supper (1 Cor 11:29), meaning both Jesus’ crucified body and his
corporate ecclesial body, the church.178
174
Augustine, “Sermon 272,” in Works of St. Augustine, (ed. John E. Rotelle, vol. 7: Sermons,
trans. Edmund Hill; Hyde Park, N. Y.: New City, 1993), 300–301.
175
Jürgen Moltmann, Church in the Power of the Spirit (New York, N. Y.: Harper & Row, 1977),
257–258.
176
177
Ibid., 285. Ecclesiologians use “closed communion” terminology in different ways. This
sentence uses the term to describe what Nathan Finn calls “local–church–only communion,” meaning only
baptized members who covenant together in a local church partake of the meal together. See Nathan Finn,
“Baptism as a Prerequisite to the Lord’s Supper” Center for Theological Research, September 2006, 11.
[cited 9 August 2016]. Online:
http://www.baptisttheology.org/baptisttheology/assets/file/baptismasprerequisteforsupper.pdf
178
Gordon Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 563–
564; Schreiner, “The Lord’s Supper in the Bible,” 141.
100
Organizational Unity
As a third dimension of unity, common leadership maintains and expresses the
organizational unity of local churches.179 The author to the book of Hebrews writes,
“Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God” and then, “Obey
your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls” (Heb 13:7,
17, emphasis mine). Benjamin Merkle notes the responsibilities and implied locality, that
“ . . . they are to heed the advice of their leaders by placing themselves under their
authority. For this relationship to function in a healthy manner, a formal membership
commitment is needed.”180 In the church at Thessalonika, an agreed–upon leadership
constituted part of that which united the believers, as Paul admonished the believers to
esteem their shepherds highly (1 Thess 5:12–13). Again, Paul assumes a measure of
authority. Elsewhere, Paul begins the letter to the church at Philippi with these words,
“To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi, with the overseers and deacons (Phil
1:1, emphasis mine). If everyone is an overseer, no one is an overseer. An agreed upon––
and submitted to––polity sets apart the local church from the universal.181
Merkle catalogues the overwhelming amount of evidence for organized leadership
in the New Testament, writing, “There were a plurality of elders at the churches in
Jerusalem (Acts 11:30), Antioch of Pisidia, Lystra, Iconium, and Derbe (Acts 14:23),
179
A. H. Strong writes in Systematic Theology (Philadelphia, Pa.: Judson Press, 1946), 894, “It is
however not merely informal, but formal, organization in the church, to which the New Testament bears
witness.”
180
Benjamin Merkle, “The Biblical Basis for Church Membership,” in Those Who Must Give an
181
Leeman, “Introduction––Why Polity?,” 5.
101
Ephesus (Acts 20:17; 1 Tim. 5:17); Philippi (Phil. 1:1), the cities of Crete (Titus 1:5), the
churches in the dispersion to which James wrote (James 5:14), the churches in the Roman
provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.”182 Wayne Grudem
concludes, “The consistent New Testament pattern is a plurality of elders ‘in every
church.’”183 Historically, the Didache, written in the first century, instructed the early
church to appoint bishops, or overseers, and deacons.184
Furthermore, New Testament local churches likely chose their own leaders.185
The congregation’s choosing of the proto–diaconate in Acts 6 serves as one example of
the congregation’s role in choosing their leaders.186 The qualifications listed for overseers
and deacons assume some form of congregational involvement. Allison explains, “One
wonders if Paul’s presentation of the qualifications for both church offices . . . doesn’t at
least imply the need for congregational involvement in the selection of these church
leaders. How would Timothy and Titus know whether certain people met those
qualifications?”187 Rather than some degree of passivity––or a hierarchy outside the local
congregation––the practice of choosing their own church leaders points toward a
182
Benjamin L. Merkle, 40 Questions About Elders and Deacons (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2008),
164.
183
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1994), 913.
184
185
In Acts 14:23 where Paul appointed elders in each church, Simon Kistemaker notes one
possible meaning of the Greek term, “In Greek, the term to appoint actually means to approve by a show of
hands in a congregational meeting.” In Simon Kistemaker, Acts (New Testament Commentary; Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1990), 525.
186
187
Allison, Sojourners and Strangers, 279n.
102
participatory congregation. Local churches express their unity by an agreed–upon and
submitted–to leadership.
Relational Unity
As a fourth dimension of unity, covenantal realities maintain and express the relational
unity of the local church. Hammett argues for covenantal obligations as primary, stating,
“Most often, though, the oneness of a local congregation in the New Testament seems to
be relational, rooted in the relationships among the members. So, in Acts 2:44, we read
that ‘all the believers were together and had everything in common.’ . . . Unity seems
very much a matter of the quality of relationships members have with each other.”188 If
geographical distance made regular assembly impossible, or relationships difficult to
maintain, believers did not necessarily consider themselves united in the same local
church.189
Various passages in the New Testament speak to manifestations of the church’s
relational unity. New Testament fellowship functions as its fruit.190 Paul writes to the
Romans, “Live in harmony with one another” (Rom 12:16) and to the Philippians,
“Complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord
and of one mind” (Phil 2:2, emphasis mine). However, fellowship not only functions as a
fruit of unity, biblical fellowship maintains unity.
188
Hammett, “What Makes a Multi–Site Church One Church,” 99–100.
189
Ibid., 105. The New Testament underscores this point by consistently using the term for
church in a city in the singular while using the term for church in a region in the plural. See Hammett,
Biblical Foundations, 29.
190
P. T. Forsyth, The Church, the Gospel, and Society (London: Independent Press, 1962), 60.
103
The New Testament “one–another” verses express the relational unity of the
church, portraying individualistic living as alien to biblical church culture.191 According
to a few of these texts, believers are to, “ . . . love one another” (John 15:12), “ . . .
comfort one another, agree with one another” (2 Cor 13:11), “bear one another’s
burdens” (Gal 6:2), “be kind to one another” (Eph 4:32), “show hospitality to one
another” (1 Pet 4:9), “outdo one another in showing honor” (Rom 12:10), “encourage one
another” (1 Thess 5:11), and “welcome one another” (Rom 15:7). By its deeds, the
Scriptures expected the New Testament church to display its unity. Roland Allen writes,
“Inward unity was the only thing that mattered, because inward unity which did not
express itself in outward unity was the negation of unity.”192 Inward unity, by the Spirit
through the gospel, intends to be lived out.
By many records, the early church lived out these commands. Acts 4:32 reads,
“Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul.” Speaking of
Acts, Thompson asserts, “It is not education, property–sharing, military force, friendship
or marriages between people from East and West that brings true unity. Thus, unlike
Hellenistic ideals or Roman imperial claims, the risen and exalted king Jesus brings true
unity through the work of the Spirit whom he has poured out.”193 This unity, created by
God and maintained by the church, distinguished itself from the unifying forces of the
Ancient Near East.
191
For a good list of these, see Mark Dever, “The Practical Issues of Church Membership” in
Those Who Must Give an Account: A Study of Church Membership and Church Discipline (ed. John
Hammett and Benjamin Merkle; Nashville: B&H, 2012), 88.
192
Roland Allen, Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), 133.
193
Thompson, One Lord, One People, 103.
104
Partly for this reason, the idea of covenant remains paramount in matters of
membership. In his extensive study of Baptist church covenants, Charles Deweese states,
“Baptists have stated forcefully and repeatedly that the covenant idea is essential to the
nature, definition, and constitution of a church.”194 Allison notes that no biblical
imperative explicitly commands the local church to write specific church covenants for
members to abide by. However, he goes on to note that neither does that deny the
covenantal nature of the church.195 Peter Gentry argues that Ephesians 4–6 contain
covenantal instructions for the new covenant community.196
The gospel created unity; God gives the local church the responsibility to
maintain it. Local churches maintain theological unity through an affirmed doctrinal
statement, visible unity by properly administering the ordinances to clarify membership,
organizational unity in the appointing and esteeming of local church leadership, and
relational unity by living out the New Testament descriptions of the church.
Missiological Impact of Local Church Unity
Many present day scholars acknowledge both the helpfulness of the patristic marks––one,
holy, catholic, and apostolic––as well as their limitations.197 Moltmann points out the
attributes’ seeming dismissal of mission, insisting, “We cannot therefore merely give the
marks of the church bearings that tend in an inward direction, . . . we must to the same
194
Charles Deweese, Baptist Church Covenants (Nashville: Broadman, 1990), 97.
195
196
Peter Gentry, “Speaking the Truth in Love (Eph 4:15): Life in the New Covenant
Community,” SBJT 10/2 (Summer 2006): 70–72.
197
See Howard Snyder, “The Marks of Evangelical Ecclesiology,” in Evangelical Ecclesiology:
Reality or Illusion? (ed. J. Stackhouse; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 77–103.
105
degree give them an outward direction and see them in reference to the world. They are
not merely important for the internal activities of the church; they are even more
important for the witness of the church’s form in the world.”198 Charles Van Engen
agrees, “Maybe it is time we begin to see the four words of Nicea not as adjectives which
modify a thing we know as the Church, but as adverbs which describe the missionary
action of the Church’s essential life in the world.”199 In essence, Moltmann and Van
Engen think these four attributes should describe not only the nature of the church, but
the church’s deeds proceeding from its nature.
Craig Van Gelder agrees with that notion, asserting that ecclesiological doings
find their genesis in the church’s being. If deeds emanate from nature, then attributes
should reflect both. He explains, “The church is. The church does what it is. The church
organizes what it does.”200 Therefore, if the church is unified, the church unifies.
In this framework, the unity of the church could describe an aspect of the mission
of the church as well as its nature. How can unity be used adverbially rather than just
adjectivally? Van Engen answers, “The one Church of Jesus Christ would be seen as a
unifying force. Its life would be occupied with gathering, inviting, and incorporating.”201
Oneness, used adverbially, describes the mission of the church in gathering those out of
unity with God and his people.
198
Moltmann, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, 342.
199
Charles Van Engen, God’s Missionary People: Rethinking the Purpose of the Local Church
(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991), 68.
200
Craig Van Gelder, The Essence of the Church: A Community Created by the Spirit (Grand
Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), 37.
201
Van Engen, God’s Missionary People, 68.
106
Darrell Guder takes this concept one step further by reversing the order of the
attributes. He notes, “The apostolicity of the church, expressed in its catholicity and
holiness, must result in its unity.”202 In other words, he places mission (apostolicity)
prior; it causes unity. John Kromminga, conversely, places unity before mission, noting,
“Perhaps it is expected that mission will produce unity. But that is to place the cart before
the horse. It may be joyfully discovered in mission that there is more unity than was
thought to exist. But unity is at least logically prior.”203 In both of their minds, the order
remains significant.
In the conclusion to his work The Household of God, Lesslie Newbigin seems to
be closer to the truth by emphasizing unity and mission’s biblical interdependence rather
than placing one prior to the other. He concludes, “These two tasks––mission and unity––
must be prosecuted together and in indissoluble relation one to another.”204 Regardless of
the debate over order, the missionary nature of the church must not be separated from the
unified nature of the church. Unity’s pursuit remains missiologically significant;
missiological aims pursue unity.
That which seems to be “inner” in orientation––such as local church unity––need
not be considered unrelated to that which goes on outside the church. In fact, no subset
within theological study faithfully interprets the Scriptures unless that subset understands
202
Darrell Guder, “Missional Connectedness: The Community of Communities in Mission,” in
Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1998), 260. When Guder uses apostolicity, he emphasizes the “sending” nature of that mark.
203
Kromminga, All One Body We, 115.
204
107
itself within the mission of God to redeem his people.205 Stuart Murray laments the
pitting of maintenance against mission, writing, “The church is both a community and a
missionary organization, an institution and a movement.”206 In his section on the future of
the church, he goes on to note that sustaining community207 will be vital for mission in a
postmodern world.208 Kärkäinnen agrees, concluding his book on ecclesiology by
pointing out the theme he believes will dominate much of future ecclesiological study:
the nature and purpose of community.209 He then draws the missiological import, writing,
“In our fragmented world, with so many people looking for their roots and meaning, a
community with purpose and hope for the future will be something to look for.”210 Bruce
Ashford––drawing upon the images of the church––contends that the local church’s inner
life enables and exemplifies its mission.211
Gathered and Scattered Local Church
The previous chapter addressed some of the differences between centrifugal and
centripetal mission, arguing in part that the inner life of the church––often labeled
centripetal mission––actually shapes the centrifugal aspects of the mission. To connect
that chapter with this one, since the God of mission sends communities of believers––
205
See Keith Whitfield, “The Mission of Doctrine: An Evangelical Appropriation of the Missio
Dei as a Key for Systematic Theology,” (PhD diss., Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2013).
206
Stuart Murray, Church Planting, Laying Foundations (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 2001),
106.
207
True biblical community depends upon biblical unity.
208
Ibid., 171. Though the author does not prefer the term Postmodern, Murray clearly speaks of
present and future contextual dynamics.
209
210
Ibid., 231.
211
Ashford, “The Church in the Mission of God,” 254.
108
rather than isolated, autonomous believers––the corporate aspect of mission necessitates
unity. United believers embody the truths of the gospel corporately. Disunity actually
promotes an isolated, autonomous, and individualistic mission.
Chapter two made the case as well that the mission texts in the New Testament
were addressed primarily to groups of believers who, in turn, applied them together.
Without question, if believers refuse to consider themselves autonomous from their local
church, the cumulative efforts of believers contribute in some measure to the corporate
aspect of the mission of the church. In other words, whether the church acts as a gathered
body or as a group of scattered members, the corporate aspect of God’s mission certainly
advances to some degree. However, this dissertation’s argument focuses on the
missionary enterprises church members actually undertake together.212 This is the
corporate aspect of mission this dissertation’s thesis argues for.
One might label this emphasis the scattered church together or the gathered
aspect of corporate mission.213 The scattered church together finds both biblical evidence
and a measure of theological rationale. While some theologians that emphasize the
gathered aspect of the church focus on the use of the term ekklesia, meaning
“assembly,”214 Allison argues that conceptualizing church by defining the term ekklesia
alone commits a methodological error. He notes that theologians do not limit their
conceptions of salvation or justification by defining the words soteria or dikaiosune,
212
See chapter two for more on this New Testament emphasis.
213
This might be described as a corporate subsection of the covenant body.
214
1 Corinthians 11:17–34 uses ekklesia in this way. For an argument for this understanding of
ekklesia, see Darrell Grant Gaines, “One Church in One Location: Questioning the Biblical, Theological,
109
respectively.215 Furthermore, while most of the New Testament uses of the word certainly
speak of gathered believers, not all do. For example, Acts 8:1 uses the term ekklesia to
describe the church scattered because of persecution.
The broader use of this idea––the scattered ekklesia together––seems to have been
a development. Ken Caruthers points out that prior to the New Testament the term
ekklesia likely never referred to a group of unassembled people. He notes the shift,
explaining, “What is unique about the usage of ekklhsia in the New Testament is that the
writers began to use it to continue referring to the assembled group of people even when
they were not assembling. It seems that as long as they maintained the habit of meeting
they could be referred to as ekklhsia.”216 In other words, the church appears to be those
who gathered together in the past and intend to gather regularly in the future.217 The
scattered church remains together.
The church remains together, in part, due to the indissolubility of any organism.
David Bosch notes––right or wrong––that the Reformation’s understanding of the church
curbed its organic qualities, writing, “It is a place where something is done, not a living
organism doing something.”218 However, the use of ekklesia in the book of Acts reveals
the church as both acting and being acted upon. The church enjoyed and was encouraged
and Historical Claims of the Multi–Site Movement,” (PhD diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary,
2012), 67–90.
215
Allison, Sojourners and Strangers, 313n.
216
Ken Caruthers, “The Missionary Team as Church: Applied Ecclesiology in the Life and
Relationships between Cross-Cultural Church Planters” (PhD Diss., Southeastern Baptist Theological
Seminary, 2014), 18. This quote refers mainly to the instances where the biblical authors used ekklesia in
reference to the local church.
217
Ibid., 20.
218
110
(Acts 9:31). The church feared (Acts 5:11). The church was strengthened (Acts 15:41;
16:5). Goheen, though not decrying the necessary institutional and gathered aspects of the
church, emphasizes that if the church is the new humanity sent on mission, their scattered
callings need not be disconnected from their gathered activities. In fact, any dichotomy
stems from a dualistic mindset, separating private religion from public life.219
In Free Churches that emphasize the covenant aspects of membership, the
applications become clear. Covenant obligations do not cease upon the amen of the
benediction. Volf notes, “Even if a church is not assembled, it does live on as a church in
the mutual service its members render to one another and in its common mission to the
world.”220 The gathered church scatters, yet remains the church. That scattering does not
negate their obligations one to another.
The scattered church, if it follows the New Testament understandings of church
unity, must also be one that gathers. And if the scattered church remains organically and
covenantally together, then the corporate aspect of mission should include some measure
of gathering. The church gathers and scatters, remaining united.
Visible and Invisible Church
This understanding of the gathered and scattered church intersects with an emphasis on
the visible church over and above the invisible. To explain, if the covenant realities of
church membership maintain the unity of the local church even in its scattered forms and
the mechanism for maintaining church membership––the ordinances––could be argued to
219
Michael Goheen, Introducing Christian Mission Today: Scripture, History, and Issues
111
be highly conspicuous,221 then the abstractions of invisible church notions do not
necessarily further the corporate aspect of the local church’s mission.
Following Augustine’s lead, the Reformers distinguished between the visible and
invisible church. These categories likely resulted from an overreaction to the Roman
Catholic understanding of the visible church, that is, those believers united to the
institution’s visible Pope and Bishops.222 In fact, the interpretative walls bifurcate so
drastically that Roman Catholic theologian Robert Bellarmine concluded that
Reformation theologians constructed two churches.223 Nevertheless, these two categories
remained so ecclesiologically significant that James Bannerman devotes a chapter to
them in his esteemed Presbyterian tome on the church.224
Many modern–day theologians seem to disagree with the Reformation’s
emphases, however. D. A. Carson notes, “The ancient contrast between the church visible
and the church invisible, a contrast that has nurtured not a little ecclesiology, is either
fundamentally mistaken, or at best of marginal importance.”225 Karl Barth considered this
view to be “ecclesiological Docetism.”226 Robert Banks maintains that the distinction has
no basis in Paul’s thought whatsoever.227
220
221
Further, earlier in the chapter the author noted that church membership maintains visible
dimensions of church unity.
222
Hammett, “What Makes a Multi–Site Church One Church,” 97.
223
Berkouwer, The Church, 37
224
James Bannerman, The Church of Christ (Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth, 2015), 31–44.
225
D. A. Carson, “Evangelicals, Ecumenism, and the Church,” in Evangelical Affirmations (ed.
Kenneth Kantzer and Carl F. H. Henry; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 367.
226
Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, vol. 4 (ed. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance (Edinburgh:
T&T Clark, 1956), 653.
227
112
Free Church ecclesiologists push against merely invisible notions of the church.
John Smyth, one of the first Baptists, described the local church as “ . . . a visible
communion of saints.”228 The London Baptist Confession of 1644 defined the local
church as “ . . . a company of visible saints . . . joined to the Lord and each other.”229 In
1967, a group of scholars met to consider the believers’ church in Louisville, Kentucky.
In their summary of the Believers’ Church Affirmations, they concluded: “The church is
visible.”230 In his concluding thoughts on ecclesiological challenges for the Third
Millenium, Pentecostal theologian Kärkkäinen warns, “Nothing would be more
dangerous to our understanding of the church, than to resort to the kind of ‘invisible’
church; . . . it is not only foreign to the New Testament but also detrimental to our
ecclesiology.”231 Even the Roman Catholic Küng criticizes an overly vague
understanding of the church, insisting, “A real church made up of real people cannot
possibly be invisible.”232
Baptist ecclesiology, in particular, emphasizes the visibility of the
congregation.233 Hammett notes the biblical use of ekklesia, “The New Testament pattern
of usage indicates that we should think of the church primarily in terms of a local, visible,
228
John Smyth, “Principles and Inferences Concerning the Visible Church,” in The Works of John
Smyth (ed. W. T. Whitley; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1915), 1:252; The text has been
rendered clearer by Allison, Historical Theology, 581.
229
William Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith (Philadelphia, Pa.: The Judson Press, 1959),
33; emphasis mine.
230
Donald Durnbaugh, “Summary of Believers’ Church Affirmations,” in The Concept of the
Believers’ Church: Addresses from the 1968 Louisville Conference (ed. James Leo Garrett Jr.; Scottdale,
Pa.: Herald Press, 1969), 322.
231
Kärkkäinen, Introduction to Ecclesiology, 232.
232
Küng, The Church, 59.
233
113
assembly.”234 That quote makes plain that much of Baptist ecclesiology’s emphasis on
visibility proceeds naturally from their emphasis on locality.235 In fact, Leeman maintains
that the authority of the local church––specifically in affirming who represents Christ––
makes the rule of Christ visible.236
Whether theologians use language like invisible to describe the church or not, the
world observes the church. In North American culture, there is no hiding. The Free
Church understanding of the local church unites believers one to another visibly in
membership. The baptismal waters immerse conspicuously. The regular observance of
the Lord’s Supper intends to be a corporate ordinance, observed by all present with the
worshipping congregation. Furthermore, in a North American context, the world observes
church leaders.237 Finally, whether or not believers attempt to isolate themselves from
other believers, the unbelieving world beholds relational unity or a lack thereof.238
Therefore, if the covenant obligations of the church continue in their scattered forms and
the church by nature exists as a visible entity, then unity must be missiological.
234
Hammett, “Membership, Discipline, and the Nature of the Church,” 12; emphasis mine.
235
French Baptist Jules Thobois writes of the church in La Mission d’Evangeliser, 21, “Mais ce
rassemblement est aussi une realite visible et locale,” translated by this author, “But this gathering is also a
visible and local reality.” Emphasis in original.
236
Leeman, “A Congregational Approach to Catholicity,” 369.
237
A lack of present persecution allows visibility in pulpits, websites, podcasts, etc.
238
Tim Keller, Center Church: Doing Balanced, Gospel–Centered Ministry in Your City (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 317.
114
The Unity of the Local Church as a Display of the Gospel
Churches encumbered by division contradict the gospel.239 Francis Schaeffer writes to the
church, “Our love will not be perfect, but it must be substantial enough for the world to
be able to observe or it does not fit into the structure of the verses in John 13 and 17. And
if the world does not observe this among true Christians, the world has a right to make
the two awful judgments which these verses indicate: That we are not Christians and that
Christ was not sent by the Father.”240 Newbigin concurs, “There is one Lord, one faith,
one atoning act, and one baptism by which we are made participants in that atonement.
Insofar as we, who share that faith and that baptism, prove ourselves unwilling or unable
to agree together in one fellowship, we publicly proclaim our disbelief in the sufficiency
of that atonement.”241 Jesus’ prayer in the Gospel of John contended that church unity
displays the gospel; the antithesis rings true as well. If the church can be nothing but
visible––with covenant realities continuing in the scattered forms of the church––then
disunity hinders the corporate mission of the church.
The Display of Disunity
In Galatians 2 Paul states that Peter’s “ . . . conduct was not in step with the truth of the
gospel” when he separated from the Gentiles (Gal 2:14). The false gospel infiltrating the
Galatian region insisted on the rite of circumcision for inclusion into the gospel
239
Newbigin, The Household of God, 171.
240
Francis Schaeffer, The Mark of the Christian (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1970), 25.
241
Newbigin, The Household of God, 171.
115
community.242 And, for a moment, Peter feared the reproach of the Jewish teachers and
forsook fellowshipping with his Gentile brothers in Christ.
Hays describes the gravity of this Galatian error: “The Church’s misunderstanding
of justification led to a social stratification within the Church, a stratification that was
contrary to the unity in Christ that lay at the heart of the Christian faith.”243 G. Walter
Hansen concurs with more specificity: “If a church does not defend in practice the
equality and unity of all in Christ, it implicitly communicates that justification is not by
faith but by race, social status or some other standard.”244 Paul considered Peter’s
segregation such an affront to the message that he confronted him to his face.
Paul believed that when the gospel unites and division remains, that division
repudiates the gospel. F. F. Bruce contends, “He (Paul) was not concerned to make
Gentiles into Jews, but to introduce Jews and Gentiles alike into a new community
through faith in Jesus as Lord.”245 Interestingly, of the fifteen works of the flesh listed
later in Gal 5:19–21, eight of them focus on disunity within the church.246 Eckhard
Schnabel asserts, “Paul’s emphasis on the unity of a local congregation in which Jews,
proselytes, God–fearers and Greek and Romans who have come to faith in Jesus Christ
live and learn and worship together proceeds from the foundational significance of the
242
Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians, 27.
243
244
G. Walter Hansen, Galatians (InterVarsity Press New Testament Commentary; Downers
Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1994), 25.
245
Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians, 29.
246
Examples include enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, and
envy.
116
missionary message he preaches.”247 The message of the gospel inherently destroys
divisions between those who trust in it. Schnabel writes, “Paul was convinced that any
differentiation between or separation of Jewish believers and Gentile Christians
contradicted the logic of the gospel and denies the efficacy of Jesus’ sacrificial death on
the cross.”248 Schnabel goes on to assert that church division is in essence polytheistic.249
This division blurs the gospel, communicating falsehoods about God.
The Display of Unity
However, as those outside the congregation observe a unity distinct from the unbelieving
world, they often find the message that unifies alluring. Unity among diversity––ethnic or
otherwise––points to the intrinsic reconciliatory power of the gospel. Michael Green
writes, “The fellowship the Church offered, transcending barriers of race, sex, class, and
education, was an enormous attraction.”250 In this way, the pursuit of unity doubly
pursues mission. Newbigin explicates this notion, “The only effective hermeneutic of the
gospel is the life of the congregation which believes it.”251
John 17 reminds us that church unity, created by a unified Godhead, pictures a
uniting gospel. Jesus prays, “ . . . that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me,
and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent
me” (John 17:20–21, emphasis mine). G. C. Berkouwer winsomely notes, “Via the
247
Eckhard J. Schnabel, Paul the Missionary: Realities, Strategies and Methods (Downers Grove,
Ill.: IVP Academic, 2008), 406.
248
Ibid., 52.
249
Ibid., 176.
250
Michael Green, Evangelism in the Early Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 253.
251
Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 234.
117
‘detour’ of the Church’s unity, the world is mentioned.”252 So that the outsider might
believe in the sending of the Son, Jesus prays that they be one. C. K. Barrett elaborates,
“The unity of the church in God is the supreme testimony to the truth of the claim that
Jesus is God’s authorized emissary. The existence of such a community is a supernatural
fact which can be explained only as the result of a supernatural cause.”253 Local church
unity corroborates the redemption–seeking incarnation of the Son of God.
However, in order for this supernatural fact to lead others to believe, it must be
seen. D. A. Carson comments upon this verse that “ . . . this purpose clause at the end of
v.21 shows beyond possibility of doubt that the unity is meant to be observable.”254
Berkouwer concurs, “In the light of Christ’s prayer, the Church may not be viewed as a
hidden, mystical, mysterious present reality full of inner richness, which the world cannot
perceive.”255 According to this text, the world clearly perceives the unity, or disunity, of
the church. Furthermore, to seek invisibility would be to seek isolation, that which the
mission of God rejects. For missiological faithfulness, the church can be nothing but
visible.
The Display of Unity in Local Churches
But how might local churches maintain, for the purposes of display, this missiological
unity, in obedience to Ephesians 4 and in the spirit of John 17? Earlier in this chapter the
252
253
C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes
on the Greek Text, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster Press, 1978), 512.
254
D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John (The Pillar New Testament Commentary; Grand
255
118
author argued that local churches maintain and express their unity by affirmed doctrinal
statements, a maintenance of membership through proper observance of the ordinances,
by selecting local leaders, and by living in covenant relationships together. The balance
of this chapter intends to introduce how some of these inner realities function
missiologically.256
First, if local church theological unity depends upon agreeing on truth, doctrinal
statements shape the mission of the church. Martin Downes notes, “The first priority of
the church is not mission but confession. Any emphasis on being missional that is not
already clear on what it means to be confessional will misrepresent the person and work
of Christ and hinder the work of the church. And without a true confession there is no
authentic mission.”257 Theological unity ensures the church corporate shares the same
message with the unbelieving world. Certain truths unite the local church
theologically.258
This unity intends to be seen. In North America, local churches primarily display
their theological unity during corporate worship.259 In fact, Dietrich Bonhoeffer argues
256
The missiological nature of church membership––in particular regenerate membership––will
be addressed more fully in chapter four on the holiness of the church. Church membership on display––in
particular covenantal realities––will be addressed more fully in chapters five and six. This chapter only
intends to begin those discussions.
257
Martin Downes, “Entrapment: The Emerging Church Conversation and the Cultural Captivity
of the Gospel,” in Reforming or Conforming? Post–Conservative Evangelicals and the Emerging Church
(ed. Gary Johnson and Ronald Gleason; Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2008), 235.
258
Furthermore, clear confessions keep the local church from endlessly debating secondary
theological issues, allowing the local church to focus on its mission to the world.
259
This statement assumes a few things about a local church. First, it assumes theologically rich
preaching. For an example of a work that encourages this kind of preaching, see Sidney Greidenus, The
Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text: Interpreting and Preaching Biblical Literature (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1988). Second, it assumes theologically rich music. For an example of a work that encourages
this aspect of hymnody, see Mark Dever and Paul Alexander, Deliberate Church: Building Your Ministry
119
that the church’s worship makes a clarifying statement before the world.260 Paul,
acknowledging this same dynamic, instructs the church at Corinth to keep their worship
intelligible to outsiders, noting, “But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters,
he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all, the secrets of his heart are disclosed,
and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among
you” (1 Cor 14:24–25). James K. A. Smith describes the evangelistic encounter between
the worshiping church and the observation of the unbelieving world, “What might stop
people short––what might truly haunt them––will be encounters with religious
communities who have punched skylights in our brass heaven. . . . In other words,
historic Christian worship is not only the heart of discipleship; it might also be the heart
of our evangelism.”261
Schnabel further delineates the significance of this truth, writing, “The meeting of
the congregations therefore are opportunities for missionary witness. These opportunities
do not happen incidentally or automatically: Christians must grasp these situations
consciously as a task that influences their behavior in the meetings of the
congregation.”262 In ways other vehicles may not, gospel–centered corporate worship
displays not only the unity of the church but the basis for that unity in the gospel. Bruce
Ashford and Danny Akin concur, “Just as God has been present to us, we are called to be
on the Gospel (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2005).

260
Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio: A Theological Study of the Sociology of the
Church (Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, Vol. 1; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1998), 231.
261
James K. A. Smith, You Are What You Love: The Spiritual Power of Habit (Grand Rapids:
Brazos Press, 2016), 102.
262
Eckhard Schnabel, Early Christian Mission: Paul and the Early Church, Vol. 2 (Downers
Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 1467.
120
present to Him as a worshipping community, and in so doing we are a window to God for
the world.”263 Gathering the entire church, rather than a smaller group, more fully
highlights this theological unity.264
Second, though corporate worship displays theological unity among a greater
number of people, corporate worship might not vividly display the relational unity
described by the “one–anothers” of the New Testament. However, small groups of
believers––subsets of the whole congregation––often enact these relational aspects of
covenant membership. In other words, while corporate worship displays the confessional
and theological dimensions of unity, small groups within the congregation arguably
better put on display the relational dimension. In a North America that is increasingly
Post–Christian, unbelievers often evaluate our gospel based on the kind of community it
creates.265
However, the world will only see that we are one if they can see that we are one.
For this missiological purpose of visibility, smaller groups of believers can more easily
gather in places where the unbelieving culture gathers. Therefore, if the scattered church
were to gather for the purpose of corporate mission––putting on display local church
263
Ashford and Akin, “The Missional Implications of Church Membership and Church
Discipline,” 200.
264
This assumes that the larger gathering is unified theologically. A megachurch might not
display the unity of the gospel more than a smaller group of believers if they disagree concerning the
gospel.
265
Hellerman makes this assertion in When the Church Was a Family, 138–139; For an
understanding of Post-Christendom North America, see Craig Bartholomew and Michael Goheen, Living at
the Crossroads: An Introduction to Christian Worldview (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 82–126.
121
unity––small groups would seem to be the most efficient medium.266 As unbelievers see
the gospel lived out in a group of unified people, God often corrects misperceptions
concerning the gospel.
Third, the maintenance of church membership clarifies local church unity, visibly
marking those whom Christ redeemed. The ordinances and church discipline,267
according to the Baptistic perspective, serve as the primary vehicle for identifying “the
saints who belong to the church” at whatever locale. If this clarification makes clear
whom church members unite with––and if that interrelatedness remains on display for the
unbelieving world––then local church membership proves to be missiological.268 Church
membership marks out visibly whom Jesus prays that believers endeavor to unite with in
John 17.
Fourth, while this author agrees with most Free Church ecclesiologists that
matters of leadership belong to the bene esse––or well–being––of the church, maintaining
unity includes issues of well–being. God gives the offices, and officers, to the local
church that they might help form the congregation in Christlikeness, including unity.269 If
the church seeks to maintain organizational unity, local churches choose leaders to
266
Again, chapter six will address this in more detail, applying this reality to Missional
Community methodologies.
267
Chapter four will address this aspect of church discipline in more detail.
268
Leeman, The Church and the Surprising Offense, 17.
269
Cornelis Van Dam, The Elder: Today’s Ministry Rooted in All of Scripture (Phillipsburg, N. J.:
Presbyterian and Reformed, 2009), 4; emphasis mine.
122
pursue it. Biblical leadership expresses the unity of the local church, as members submit
together to their chosen leadership.270
Local church unity, in particular missionary efforts by united believers, implicitly
critiques the individualistic notions of both the church and its mission detailed in chapter
two. Since the gospel is neither merely personal nor individual, the explanation of that
gospel should not be either, as autonomous individuals fail to depict before the world the
horizontal reconciliation provided in Christ’s death. However, diverse individuals united
by the cross communicate to the world reconciliation both with God and with humanity.
The mission of the church stipulates a communal mission by united believers.
Doctrinal statements, membership practices, covenantal relationships, and local
leaders express the theological, visible, relational, and organizational dimensions of
unity within local churches. Theological unity on the local church level––primarily
maintained by doctrinal affirmations––guards the unity of the church while ensuring the
church attempts to evangelize the unbelieving world with the same truths. Visible unity
on the local church level––membership realities maintained through properly observing
the ordinances––shapes the corporate mission of the church by clarifying whom exactly a
believer shares life and mission with. Organizational unity on the local church level––
primarily expressed by an affirmed common leadership––shapes the corporate mission of
the church by maintaining order. Relational unity on the local church level––maintained
and encouraged by the covenantal nature of church membership––shapes the corporate
270
Submission to authority in and of itself might also be argued as missiological, as anti–
authoritarian sentiments increase in the broader North American culture.
123
mission of the local church by putting on display gospel reconciliation before the
watching world. Since the mission of the church includes matters of being as well as
doing, an aspect of God’s mission for the church includes believers endeavoring together
to be what the Scriptures intend. The Scriptures portray, without qualification, a united
church.
These inner realities contribute to, and fundamentally shape, the corporate aspect
of the church’s mission to the world. While many consider the unity of the local church
to be solely concerned with the inner life of the congregation, the inner life of the church,
for good or ill, witnesses to the unbelieving world. Unity, therefore, becomes a vehicle
for mission. The implications of the gospel in the life of the local church clarify the
implications of the gospel in the life of the world. In fact, the unity of the church
authenticates the message they proclaim. The pursuit of local church unity doubles as the
pursuit of mission.
124
CHAPTER 4
THE HOLINESS OF THE LOCAL CHURCH AS A DISPLAY OF THE GOSPEL
The book almost always surpasses the film. However, films based on a book often
adversely affect later interpretations of said book. To be less vague, though visual
representations of truth carry indelible influence, only rarely do they match authorial
intent. In a perfect world, the author would intricately design that which visually
represents the words he or she writes.
Though not yet a perfect world, God did so. While God certainly reveals himself
sufficiently through his word, he nevertheless chose to display aspects of his glory and
character through the people he redeemed. The Apostle Paul writes to the church at
Ephesus, “So that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made
known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places” (Eph 3:10, ESV, emphasis
mine). This chapter investigates the display of God through his people, in particular via
the holiness of the church.
The author intends to argue that if the holiness of the church serves as a picture of
the transformative gospel to the unbelieving world, local church holiness––like local
church unity in the preceding chapter––proves to be missiologically significant. Scholars
125
that connect unity and mission often do not necessarily stress holiness.1 Unfortunately,
local churches might be visibly united, but if they fail to be holy, they will not be faithful
contrast communities.2 The chapter contends that holiness within a local congregation
actually shapes the corporate aspect of its mission to the world.3
To make this argument, the chapter begins by briefly covering the biblical
teaching concerning the holiness of the church. After some investigation of the character
of God and his sanctifying work in the gospel, various understandings of church holiness
throughout history will be addressed. Then, drawing upon the combined resources of
Scripture and history, the chapter details a few theological applications concerning local
church holiness, concluding with its missiological impact. In essence, this chapter asserts
that the corporate aspect of mission argued for in chapter two depends not only upon
local church unity, but local church holiness as well.
Biblical Understanding of Local Church Holiness
The Character of God and Holiness
John Webster asserts, “A doctrine of the church is only as good as the doctrine of God
which underlies it.”4 Therefore, any study of the holiness of the church must begin where
1
At least they do not stress both local church unity and local church holiness. Nor do they often
understand local church holiness to demand what this chapter argues for.
2
Gerhard Lohfink, Jesus and Community (Freiburg: Herder Verlag, 1982), 146; David Peterson,
Possessed by God: A New Testament Theology of Sanctification and Holiness, NSBT 1 (Downers Grove,
Ill.: InterVarsity, 1995), 24. Chapter five will address in detail contrast communities, thereby uniting
holiness and unity in local churches.
3
See chapter two for an explanation of what the author means by the corporate aspect of the
church’s mission.
4
John Webster, “The Church and the Perfection of God,” in The Community of the Word: Toward
an Evangelical Ecclesiology (ed. Mark Husbands and Daniel Treier; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity,
2005), 78.
126
revelation begins: the holiness of its creator. Timothy George writes, “Holiness so defines
the character of God that it can be said to include all of the other divine moral perfections
as well.”5 Eugene Merrill concurs, “The fundamental truth about the character of God in
the Bible is that he is holy.”6 Stephen Charnock notes that the Scriptures employ holy as
a prefix to God’s name more than any other attribute.7 Though the definition of holiness
must not be limited in scope, holiness demands distinction.8 God stands above, and in
contrast to, all things.
The holiness of God, however, remains a communicable attribute.9 God himself
commands in both testaments, “You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy” (Lev
19:2; 1 Pet 1:15–16). In the beginning, God’s image–bearers perfectly reflected the
holiness of God.10 Due to the pervasive effects of the fall, humanity no longer images
him rightly.11
For this attribute to be communicable, holiness demands relationship to the holy
one.12 Therefore, God calls Abraham to himself.13 When he called Abraham, he did not
5
Timothy George, “The Nature of God: Being, Attributes, and Acts,” in A Theology for the
Church (ed. Daniel Akin; Nashville: B&H Publishing, 2007), 223.
6
Eugene Merrill, Everlasting Dominion: A Theology of the Old Testament (Nashville: B&H
Academic, 2006), 56.
7
Stephen Charnock, The Existence and Attributes of God (Evansville, Ind.: Sovereign Grace Book
Club, 1958), 448.
8
9
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 201.
10
Michael Goheen and Craig Bartholomew, Living at the Crossroads: An Introduction to
Christian Worldview (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 42–43.
11
Christopher Morgan, “The Church and God’s Glory,” in The Community of Jesus: A Theology
of the Church (ed. Kendell Easley and Christopher Morgan; Nashville: B&H Academic, 2013), 226.
12
13
The Old Testament foreshadows and anticipates the fullest expression of the holiness of God’s
people: the New Testament Church. However, this author affirms both elements of continuity and
discontinuity between the testaments, primarily distinguished by the coming of Christ and the indwelling
127
call him merely as an individual but as the father of a people, promising, “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” (Gen 12:2, emphasis mine). In that missiologically significant Old
Testament text,14 God makes clear that this nation’s purpose subsists in them being a
people of blessing. Michael Goheen explains, “The role of God’s people is here: they are
chosen for the sake of the world.”15 The first chapter of God calling out a people in
distinction from the world unfolds; Israel exists to bless the world. The particulars
continue to be vague; but God will bless the world through this people.
Following God’s deliverance of his enslaved people, the book of Exodus
elaborates upon this calling, “Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep
my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is
mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod 19:5–6,
emphasis mine). Goheen describes God’s purpose here, “For this reason God chooses
Holy Spirit. For an overview of this issue, see John Feinberg, ed., Continuity and Discontinuity:
Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway Books,
1988). For a closer description of this author’s understanding of the relationship between the testaments,
especially concerning the church, see Stephen Wellum, “Baptism and the Relationship Between the
Covenants,” in Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ (ed. Thomas Schreiner and Shawn
Wright; Nashville: B&H Academic, 2006), 97–162; Wellum defends, for example, a view that “argues for
more redemptive–historical discontinuity between Israel and the nature of the church,” in ibid, 138. The
discontinuity concerns the mixed nature of Old Testament national Israel in contrast to the nature of the
New Testament church. However, John Hammett notes elements of continuity due to the developing nature
of the people of God in the Scriptures. See Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary
Ecclesiology (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005), 33, where he describes the call of Abram as the conception of
the church. He includes subsequent gestation and labor periods through the Scriptures, yet locates the birth
of the church at Pentecost. Therefore, as God gathers His people, that development throughout the
Scriptures allows for some measure of continuity between both testaments concerning the people of God.
14
Contra Greg Gilbert and Kevin DeYoung, What is the Mission of the Church?: Making Sense of
Social Justice, Shalom, and the Great Commission (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2011), 30–33.
15
Michael Goheen, A Light to the Nations: the Missional Church and the Biblical Story (Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 30.
128
Israel: the whole earth belongs to him and he is taking it back.”16 He goes on to note the
import of God calling them holy, writing, “As a holy nation they are to live as a model or
paradigm before the world of what God intends for all.”17 Until this point in the canon,
God had not called the people of Israel holy.18 God separates a people from the world so
that the world might no longer be separated from him.
So that the pagan nations no longer live in complete darkness, God intends that
this people display his character. Christopher Wright notes, “The whole history of Israel,
we might say, is intended to be the shop window for the knowledge of God in all the
earth.”19 The purpose of their holiness does not terminate within the community. Jo
Bailey Wells notes, “Yhwh’s special relationship with Israel does not preclude . . .
Israel’s relations with other nations. . . . We may suggest it even demands a relationship
with others, for if Israel is invested with God’s presence, then it may represent it and
mediate it to others.”20 Exodus 19 explains how God intends to fulfill the promise of
Genesis 12; he will bless the nations in part through a holy people.21
This holiness is not vague. The Old Testament outlines in detailed specificity how
the Israelites were to relate to one another, as well as to God.22 Goheen writes, “God’s
universally valid creational design for human life is contextualized in Israel’s particular
16
Ibid., 38.
17
Ibid., 39.
18
Jo Bailey Wells, God’s Holy People: A Theme in Biblical Theology (Sheffield, England:
Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 33.
19
Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2006), 127.
20
Wells, God’s Holy People, 57.
21
22
For example, see Exodus 21–22.
129
cultural setting.”23 The extensiveness of the law made clear that the creation norms of
God were to influence every aspect of his followers’ lives. Reflecting on the Old
Testament people of God, Paul House concludes, “They must be holy, that is, set apart
for his purposes, as he has set himself apart for them.”24 Peterson describes, “With regard
to God’s people, holiness means being set apart for a relationship with the Holy One, to
display his character in every sphere of life.”25 Just as God was distinguished from the
false gods of the pagan nations, this would distinguish the people of God from the
pagans.
As any cursory reading of the Scripture reveals, the Old Testament people of God
failed to embody the holy standard detailed in the law. Therefore, God warns the people
he chose, “You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish
you for all your iniquities” (Amos 3:2). Lesslie Newbigin writes, “Again and again it had
to be said that election is for responsibility, not for privilege. Again and again unfaithful
Israel had to be threatened with punishment because it was the elect of God.26
Worshiping other gods, they compromised their distinctiveness from the other nations.
They were not holy, as he is holy.27
23
24
Paul House, “God Walks with His People: Old Testament Foundations,” in The Community of
Jesus: A Theology of the Church (ed. Kendell Easley and Christopher Morgan; Nashville: B&H Academic,
2013), 10.
25
Peterson, Possessed by God, 24; emphasis in original.
26
Lesslie Newbigin, The Open Secret: An Introduction to the Theology of Mission (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1995), 32; emphasis mine.
27
Contra Lev 19:2.
130
The New Testament and the Church’s Holiness
However, rather than judging all of humanity irrevocably, God sent his son to be that
which he intended for Israel.28 In the Gospel of John, Jesus says concerning himself, “I
always do the things that are pleasing to him” (John 8:30). Peterson notes, “His complete
self–consecration to God brought about his death, making possible a consecration of
God’s people in a way that had not occurred before.”29 Gerhard Lohfink claims that
establishing a holy people in the midst of the nations proved to be the backdrop for all of
Jesus’ actions.30
Though the seeming intricacy of New Testament instruction pales in comparison
to the detailed laws of the Pentateuch, Jesus’ teaching raised the bar (Matthew 5–7).31
Both simultaneously and subsequently to his teaching, Jesus’ life met the holy standard
God set for humanity. Alister McGrath prioritizes Jesus’ holy consecration, noting, “To
speak of the ‘holiness of the church’ is thus primarily to speak of the holiness of the one
who called that church and its members.”32 Jesus prayed that this might be true, “And for
their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth” (John 17:19). In
essence, Jesus’ holy life makes possible a holy people.
In discussing God’s cosmic purposes in reconciling us through Christ, Paul writes
that, “ . . . he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy
and blameless before him” (Eph 1:4, emphasis mine). Peter joins Paul in describing these
28
Goheen, A Light to the Nations, 75–100.
29
30
Lohfink, Jesus and Community, 123.
31
131
people of God as set apart by calling them a holy nation (1 Pet 2:9).33 The letter to the
church at Colossae makes clear that this reality exists now, “ . . . as God’s chosen ones,
holy and beloved . . .” (Col 3:12, emphasis mine).
The effectual call of God restores humanity’s relationship with the holy one.
Hammett points out the distinction between the Old Testament Hebrew terms edah and
qahal. He notes that the translators of the Septuagint chose ekklesia to translate qahal
nearly a hundred times but never to translate edah. In light of that, he argues that qahal
refers to those called out into a new community, in distinction from the one into which
they were born.34 Based on this argument, he concludes, “The church comes into being in
response to a divine call. Those who respond to that call separate themselves from the
world.”35 The call of God makes the church holy.36
This call makes the church holy due to the indwelling work of the Holy Spirit.
Christoph Schwöbel notes, “The church is holy only insofar as it is sanctified by the Holy
Spirit–ubi et quando visum est Deo.”37 One of the predominant images of the New
32
33
See Wells, God’s Holy People, 208–240.
34
John Hammett, “Church Membership, Church Discipline, and the Nature of the Church,” in
Those Who Must Give an Account: A Study of Church Membership and Church Discipline (ed. John
Hammett and Benjamin Merkle; Nashville: B&H Academic, 2012), 11.
35
Ibid., 12.
36
John Webster notes in, “The Church and the Perfection of God,” 89, “To speak of the church as
holy is to indicate that it is the assembly of the elect.”
37
Translated: “Where and when it pleases God.” In Christoph Schwöbel, “The Creature of the
Word,” in On Being the Church: Essays on the Christian Community (ed. Colin Gunton and Daniel Hardy;
Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989), 129.
132
Testament Church––Temple of the Spirit––infers the holiness of the church.38 T.
Desmond Alexander explains, “If they are corporately to be the dwelling place of God,
they need to be holy.”39 Peterson connects the indwelling of the Spirit with the church’s
holiness, “The gift of the Spirit brings us together with other believers into a dedicated
and distinct relationship with the Father, united as one spiritual family and as a people for
his own possession and use. The Spirit continues to use the word of God and the ministry
of his people to one another to motivate and sustain them in a life that expresses their
holy status and calling.”40 Since the Holy Spirit makes the call of God effectual, the
importance of this image must not be dismissed.
Philip Ryken notes, “The holiness of the church is the logic behind the remarkable
word that the Bible uses to describe Christians: ‘saints’––literally, ‘the holy ones.’”41
Paul begins his letter to the Romans, “To all those in Rome who are loved by God and
called to be saints” (Rom 1:7).42 To the morally inept church at Corinth, he writes, “To
the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints
together with all those who in every place all upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1
Cor 1:2). Even after chiding them for their unholy behavior, he describes them as a
38
Gary Badcock, The House Where God Lives: Renewing the Doctrine of the Church for Today
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 27. For more on the images of the church, see Paul Minear, Images of the
Church in the New Testament (Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster, 1975).
39
T. Desmond Alexander, From Eden to the New Jerusalem: An Introduction to Biblical
Theology (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2008), 135.
40
41
Philip Ryken, “A Holy Church,” in The Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic
(Phillipsburg, N. J.: P&R Publishing, 2004), 48.
42
James Thompson contends that Paul used saint as a synonym for ekklesia in The Church
According to Paul: Rediscovering the Community Conformed to Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2014), 177.
133
church of saints (1 Cor 14:33). Hammett notes that the Scriptures describe the people of
God with “saint” or “holy one” language over sixty times.43 Without question, God
describes his people as holy.
Holiness: Positional or Progressive?
Some disagree whether the holiness of the church speaks to a positional reality conferred
at justification44 or that which the church––and the individuals within––seek
progressively following conversion. Unfortunately, this debate often becomes an either/or
affirmation when both/and realities seem to correspond best with the evidence.45 Though,
without question, the New Testament prioritizes Christ’s work in creating a holy
people,46 this chapter affirms as well a gradual process believers ought to pursue.47
Gregg Allison carefully balances Christ’s work and our progressive pursuit of
holiness: “In response to and always in dependence upon this divine initiative and
foundation for sanctification, the church aims at perfect holiness by pursuing greater and
greater purity.”48 In Paul’s second epistle to the Corinthians, he holds to both realities as
well, “Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every
defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God” (2 Cor
43
44
The historical section to come will detail this more specifically.
45
For example, Bruce Demarest writes of sanctification in The Cross and Salvation: The Doctrine
of Salvation (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 1997), 385, “The present chapter considers how the Spirit makes
those who are holy in principle (i.e., positionally sanctified by grace) holy and godly in practice (i.e.,
experientially sanctified in word and deed).”
46
See Peterson, Possessed by God.
47
Demarest calls this the Reformed Evangelical view in The Cross and Salvation, 401.
48
Gregg Allison, Sojourners and Strangers: The Doctrine of the Church (Wheaton, Ill.:
Crossway, 2012), 163.
134
7:1). Peterson notes, after examining the evidence in 1 Corinthians, “Sanctification is
about being possessed by God and expressing that distinctive and exclusive relationship
by the way we live.”49 According to Titus, Christ purchased a people whom he intends to
make holy: “ . . . who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify
for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works” (Titus
2:14).
Wayne Grudem discusses the holiness of the church under the category of more
pure and less pure churches. To determine the purity of the church, he includes behavior,
stating, “Its degree of freedom from wrong doctrine and conduct, and its degree of
conformity to God’s revealed will for the church.”50 Hammett agrees that the holiness of
the church corresponds, in some degree, to the members and their conduct, writing, “Its
holiness is obscured to the degree that unbelievers are present in it, and to the degree that
unbelieving conduct is practiced, even by those who are holy in status.”51 Though the
sanctified Christ makes the church holy by applying the Holy Spirit in regeneration, the
church pursues that which it is by position.
Based on 1 Corinthians 5, Andrew Chester concludes, “That is, there should be an
absolute difference between the community . . . and the world around, and as a Christian
community it should show itself to be completely pure and holy.”52 Although Calvin
affirmed the mixed nature of the church, he agreed with the pursuit of holiness, noting,
49
50
Grudem, Systematic Theology, 873; emphasis mine.
51
135
“The church is holy . . . in the sense that it is daily advancing and is not yet perfect: it
makes progress from day to day but has not yet reached its goal of holiness.”53 New
Testament epistles regularly address the conduct of new believers in light of the gospel
(Rom 12:1–2; Col 3; Eph 4–6; Gal 5). Only the pursuit of ever–increasing church
holiness explains the rationale behind the church discipline passages in the Scriptures.54
Undoubtedly this creates some tension; yet neither reality renders the other void.
Andreas Köstenberger agrees, “Believers, as God’s set–apart people, find themselves in a
somewhat paradoxical situation where they are at the same time holy and yet still must
strive for holiness. We must become what, on the basis of Christ’s sacrifice and union
with him, we already are.”55 In both testaments God expects his people to be distinct
from the world, on display as a contrast community.56
Therefore, should we agree with Alister McGrath’s assertion, “The term ‘holy’ is
theological, not moral”?57 Does the holiness provided by Christ mean that we do nothing
to maintain that holiness? Samuel Jones thinks not, contending, “The glory of the church,
the credit of religion, and the prosperity of Zion, depend, in a high degree, on the
52
Andrew Chester, “The Pauline Communities,” in A Vision for the Church: Studies in Early
Christian Ecclesiology in Honour of J. P. M. Sweet (ed. Markus Bockmuehl and Michael B. Thompson;
Edinburgh: T &T Clark, 1997), 109–110.
53
Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 4.1.17.
54
1 Corinthians 5:6–12; Matthew 18:15–20.
55
Andreas Köstenberger, Excellence: The Character of God and the Pursuit of Scholarly Virtue
(Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2011), 61; emphasis in original.
56
Chapter five will discuss contrast community language in more detail.
57
136
circumspect walk of its professors.”58 God created a people whom he intended to be
distinct from the world.
In the end, both positional and progressive emphases on the church’s holiness find
affirmation in the Scriptures. That which God provided ought to be reflected in the lives
of those he called out. This approach seems to balance the biblical and theological
evidence. God sets apart a people from the world for the world.
In a fashion similar to Old Testament themes, the New Testament Scriptures point
toward this being a corporate holiness. Based on Paul’s prayer for the Thessalonians––
“Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely”––Peterson writes, “‘Entire
sanctification’ in this context does not simply refer to an individual’s spiritual
development but has a corporate dimension. It describes God’s goal for his people,
collectively, as believing communities.”59 Though some might limit holiness to the inner
piety of the individual, Kent Brower and Andy Johnson push back, asserting,
“Throughout the biblical story, however, the people of God are expected to embody
God’s holy character publicly in particular social settings. Hence, holiness is a
theological and ecclesial issue prior to being a matter of individual piety.”60 Since
holiness includes relationship to others,61 it necessitates corporate realities.62
58
Samuel Jones, “A Treatise of Church Discipline and a Directory,” in Polity: Biblical Arguments
on How to Conduct Church Life (ed. Mark Dever; Washington D. C.: IX Marks Ministries, 2001), 139.
59
Peterson, Possessed by God, 66; The text referenced (1 Thess 5:23) employs a plural pronoun
for “you.” For more on the New Testament’s use of plural pronouns and its effect on the church’s mission,
see chapter 2 of this dissertation.
60
Kent Brower and Andy Johnson, “Introduction: Holiness and the Ekklesia of God,” in Holiness
and Ecclesiology in the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), xvi.
61
As evidenced by the plethora of “one–another” commands in the New Testament. For a list of
these, see Mark Dever “The Practical Issues of Church Membership” in Those Who Must Give an Account:
137
Historical Understandings of Local Church Holiness
Theologians disagree concerning the essence of the church’s holiness. Avery Dulles, in
his classic ecclesiological text Models of the Church, describes the holiness of the church
implied in each model. The primary Roman Catholic model between the 15th and mid–
20th century––the Institutional Model––saw holiness as “something characterizing the
Church as a visible society. Hence the concern was not primarily with the interior union
of the faithful with God, but rather with their visible holiness,” chiefly as a society.63
Second, in a slight distinction from that model––where holiness must be seen as a visible
mark of a society––the mystical community model aspires to embody more fully holiness
as the quality of the community.64 Third, in the sacramental model the marks of the
church, including holiness, “ . . . have to be visible qualities of the Church as it actually
exists, or else the Church would not be a sacrament of Christ––a visible expression of his
invisible grace triumphing over human sin and alienation.”65 Finally, in Dulles’
understanding, the servant model would not necessarily demand holiness within the
church but rather the church would catalyze holiness in society.66
A Study of Church Membership and Church Discipline (ed. John Hammett and Benjamin Merkle;
62
Edith Humphrey writes in “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic: Awaiting the Redemption of
Our Body,” in Evangelical Ecclesiology: Reality or Illusion? (ed. J. Stackhouse; Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2003), 143, “Why should we think our being made into his image is an individual affair?”
63
Avery Dulles, Models of the Church (New York: Image, 2002), 119.
64
Ibid., 121.
65
Ibid., 125.
66
Ibid., 128.
138
Historically, Dulles notes that holiness would appear to be the oldest of the four
adjectives describing the church in the Nicene–Constantinopolitan Creed.67 As far back
as the second century, Tertullian emphasized that Christians were a peculiar people.68 So
while most theologians describe the church as holy, the disagreement centers on what
elements or whose behavior makes it so. For example, J. N. D. Kelly notes that fourth
century Catholic Optatus contended that the church was holy, “ . . . not because of the
character of those who belong to it, but because it possesses the symbol of the Trinity, the
chair of Peter, the faith of believers, Christ’s saving precepts, and, above all, the
sacraments themselves.”69 In contrast, Origen noted, “But Christians, so far as possible,
first examine carefully the lives of those wanting to enroll as hearers and test them
privately beforehand.”70 Fourth century Roman Catholic Hilary believed the church to be
a mixed society, preferring Optatus’ interpretation to Origen’s.71 Hippolytus made
analogous Noah’s ark, asserting that both unclean as well as clean animals found refuge
there.72 In summary, theologians did not debate whether the church was holy, as attested
by the inclusion of holiness in the four apostolic marks, but rather what made the church
holy.73
67
Ibid., 115.
68
E. Glenn Hinson, Understandings of the Church (Eugene, Oreg: Wipf & Stock, 1986), 12.
69
J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (New York: HarperOne, 1978), 411.
70
Hinson, Understandings of the Church, 64.
71
Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 410
72
Ibid., 201.
73
139
The Holiness of the Church and Augustine
The primary debate concerning the essence of the church and its holiness occurred
between Augustine and the Donatists.74 The disagreement hinged upon the Catholic
Church’s inclusion of the traditores, those who surrendered copies of the Scriptures
during the Diocletian persecution.75 The Donatists maintained that any inclusion of
unholy members––the traditores––invalidated the church and its ministry.76
However, against the Donatists, Augustine argued that the church’s holiness
depends on Christ alone, seemingly dismissing the character of the local community.77
Based on the parable of the wheat and tares, he contended that the visible church’s nature
might be described as corpus permixtum, a body of both believers and unbelievers.78
Speaking of the latter he writes, “Therefore, whether they seem to abide within, or are
openly outside, whatsoever is flesh is flesh, and what is chaff is chaff, whether they
persevere in remaining in their barrenness on the threshing–floor, or, when temptation
befalls them, are carried out as it were by the blast of some wind.”79
While the Donatists sought visible holiness in local congregations, Augustine
argued for ecclesial holiness as presently invisible. Of the church, he wrote, “Now it has
74
See G. G. Willis, Saint Augustine and the Donatist Controversy (London: SPCK, 1950).
75
The Donatists also expressed a particular concern about the priests and bishops who eventually
became traditores.
76
Hammett, Biblical Foundations, 89. In particular, the Donatists questioned the efficacy of the
sacraments performed by priests and bishops that subsequently became traditores.
77
Hinson, Understandings of the Church, 17-18.
78
Jonathan Leeman, “A Congregational Approach to Unity, Holiness, and Apostolicity,” in
Baptist Foundations, Church Government for an Anti–Institutional Age (ed. Mark Dever and Jonathan
Leeman; Nashville: B&H Academic, 2015), 341.
140
multitudes without number, both good and bad, but after the resurrection it will have only
the good, and a fixed number of those.”80 Gerald Bray notes that, according to Augustine,
the church on earth instituted an open–door policy.81
In the end, Augustine’s corpus permixtum prevailed, enabling the significant
growth of the medieval institution in the days to come.82 Augustine understood the
patristic marks of the church––in particular holiness––to be qualities of the institutional
Catholic Church more than the essence of local churches.83 In fact, Optatus later
contended that if unity and catholicity remain as ecclesiologically vital as holiness, and if
the Catholic Church determines unity, the Donatists do not so much divide the church as
sever themselves from it.84
The Holiness of the Church and the Reformers
One of the chief distinctions between the Magisterial Reformers and those of the Radical
Reformation involved this same question. For example, Luther sought the purity of the
gospel preached more adamantly than the purity of the church in which it was preached.85
In his commentary on Galatians, he contends that the church remains holy “ . . . even
79
Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists in Nicene And Post–Nicene Fathers: Augustine:
The Writings Against the Manichaeans, and Against the Donatists (ed. Philip Schaff; Peabody, Mass.:
Hendrickson, 2004), 4:422.
80
Augustine, Sermons on the Liturgical Seasons (trans. Sister Mary Sarah Muldowney;
Washington, D. C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1959), 300–301.
81
Gerald Bray, The Church: A Theological and Historical Account (Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2016), 139.
82
Ibid., 139.
83
Roger Haight, Christian Community in History: Historical Ecclesiology, vol. 1 (London:
Bloomsbury Academic, 2004), 261.
84
Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 412.
141
where fantastical spirits do reign, if only they deny not the Word and Sacraments.”86 The
Lutheran Augsburg Confession followed suit, stating, “In this life many false Christians,
hypocrites, and even open sinners are mixed in among the godly.”87 That confession goes
on to condemn the efforts of the Donatists.88 In general terms, the Magisterial Reformers
sought to purify the center of the church––the gospel––more than the circumference of
the church.89
Though Calvin concerned himself somewhat with the purity of the church, he
accepted the mixed nature of the church.90 Similar to Augustine, Calvin appealed to the
parable of the wheat and tares, writing of the Radical Reformers, “They are vainly
seeking a church besmirched with no blemish.”91 He, disparagingly, equated the
Anabaptists with the Donatists.92 Concerning the circumference, Calvin writes, “For here
we are not bidden to distinguish between reprobate and elect––that is for God alone, not
for us, to do.”93 According to him, they sought this holiness out of pride and a false
opinion of holiness.94
85
Paul Avis, The Church in the Theology of the Reformers (Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 1981),
17-18.
86
Martin Luther, A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, rev. ed. (Westwood, N. J.:
Fleming H. Revell, n.d.), 40.
87
Philip Schaff, The Evangelical Protestant Creeds, vol. 3 of The Creeds of Christendom With a
History and Critical Notes (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 12.
88
Ibid., 12.
89
90
Ibid., 40.
91
Calvin, Institutes, 1028.
92
Ibid., 1027.
93
Ibid., 1015.
94
Ibid., 1030.
142
Calvin’s marks of the church corroborate an emphasis on the center of the church
over the circumference.95 He writes, “Wherever we see the Word of God purely preached
and heard, and the sacraments administered according to Christ’s institution, there it is
not to be doubted, a church of God exists.”96 Nothing in that delineation determines who
belongs inside or outside the church.
To further explain, many of the Magisterial Reformers saw local church holiness
in eschatological terms, namely, something hoped for more than presently realized.97
Avis comments, “If the Reformers were asked what they made of the credal (sic) marks
of the Church––unity, holiness, catholicity, apostolicity–– . . . they would stress much
more than Roman Catholic or Orthodox theologians that these are eschatological
dimensions of the Church and to one degree or another unrealised on earth.”98 To be fair
to Calvin, the law required the citizens of Geneva to attend church, a reality that certainly
affected his visible notions regarding ecclesiology.99 Avis goes further, connecting
eschatological hopes with the notion of the invisible church, “Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli
aimed at the purification of the Church, distinguishing between the invisible Church of
the elect, known only to God, and the visible Church which will always be imperfect.”100
95
Avis contends that Calvin placed discipline in the bene esse of the church rather than its being.
See The Church in the Theology of the Reformers, 35.
96
Calvin, Institutes,1023.
97
Veli–Matti Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology: Ecumenical, Historical and Global
98
Avis, The Church in the Theology of the Reformers, 8; emphasis in original.
99
Harro Höpfl, The Christian Polity of John Calvin (New York: Cambridge University Press,
1982), 199.
100
Avis, The Church in the Theology of the Reformers, 54; The previous chapter argued that the
“Invisible Church” category proves to be largely unhelpful from a Free Church perspective.
143
Since many eschatological realities remained invisible, some aspects of the church’s
holiness would as well.101
Initially, Philip Melanchthon agreed with the Magisterial Reformers’ emphases,
noting, “The Church, or the true people of God, is bound to the gospel. Where the gospel
is truly acknowledged, there are some who are holy.102 He too maintained the mixed
nature of the essence of the church.103 Yet his later writing Examen Ordinandorum
(1554) subtly introduced a form of discipline as the third mark of the church.104 The door
Melanchthon cracked, Martin Bucer threw open. Bucer wrote, “There cannot be a church
without ein Bann (excommunication).”105 Following Melanchthon and Bucer, discipline
became broadly accepted as the third mark of the church. John Knox wrote in Old
English, “As that no common–wealth can flourische or long indure witout gude lawis,
and sharpe execution of the same; so neathir can the churche of God be brocht to puritie,
neathir yit be retained in the same, without the ordour of Ecclesiasticall Discipline.”106 In
this framework, the essence of the holiness of the church not only pertains to the holiness
of its head––Jesus Christ––but also to those whom the holy Jesus gathered together into
local churches.
101
For a more sympathetic reading of invisible church realities, see Schwöbel, “The Creature of
the Word,” 129–132.
102
Melanchthon, Loci Communes (1555), Melanchthon on Christian Doctrine, (ed. D. L.
Manschreck; New York, 1965), 270.
103
104
Ibid., 27.
105
David Wright, ed., Common Places of Martin Bucer (Abingdon, Eng: Sutton Courtenay Press,
1972), 31.
106
John Knox, The Works of John Knox, Volume 4: Writings from Frankfurt and Geneva (ed.
David Laing; Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2004), 266.
144
The Holiness of the Church and the Anabaptists
The Radical Reformers followed this logic to its natural end, affirming the purity of the
gospel preached but insisting further that the gospel’s purity necessitated pure
communities. Dietrich Philips listed seven ordinances of the church that articulate much
of Anabaptist thinking during this era. For example, of the fourth ordinance––evangelical
separation––he noted, “If open sinners, transgressors, and the disorderly are not excluded,
the whole congregation must be defiled, and if false brethren are retained, we become
partakers of their sins.”107 To comprehend something of the Anabaptist insistence,
Anglican theologian Paul Avis accused this ecclesiological ideology of taking the
exclusivity of the church’s membership more seriously than the purity of the word.108 In
the Radical Reformers’ ecclesiology, church membership sought to reflect the holiness of
the church.109
Menno Simons agreed, writing, “The true congregation of Christ is those who are
truly converted, who are born from above of God, who are of a regenerate mind by the
operation of the Holy Spirit through the hearing of the Word of God, and have become
the children of God.”110 To the holy nature of its members, Simons added holy living as a
mark of the church.111 Concerning the Anabaptist, Free–Church tradition, Kärkkäinen
107
Dietrich Philips, “The Church of God,” in Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers (ed. George
Williams and Angel Mergal; Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster Press, 1957), 246.
108
109
See Nathan Finn, “A Historical Analysis of Church Membership,” in Those Who Must Give an
Nashville: B&H Academic, 2012), 63–67.
110
Menno Simons, Complete Writings (ed. J. Wenger; Scottdale, Penn.: Herald Press, 1956), 300.
111
145
states, “Holy living has always been of great concern to the ethically oriented mentality
of the Free churches.”112 Anabaptist theologians assign the holiness of the church to the
visible church, not only the eschatological elect.
Theological Understanding of Local Church Holiness
Positional Holiness Expressed in Local Churches
John Hammett argues that corpus permixtum gained popularity due to the conversion of
Constantine, Augustine’s interpretation of the parable of the wheat and tares, and infant
baptism.113 Though employed by esteemed theologians such as Augustine and Zwingli,
the parable of the wheat and tares falls short of serving as a convincing apologetic for a
mixed church body. Concerning that parable, John Dagg writes, “The field is the world,
and not an organized society in the world. The command was given that the tares and
wheat should be permitted to grow together until the harvest, which is the end of the
world. Then the King will sit in judgment on the whole world, and not on a particular
society in it.”114 The corpus permixtum––mixed group––is the world, not the church.115
Infant baptism only exacerbates the confusion, seemingly opening the door for a
partial––or implicit––membership to those who have not yet believed. In fact, Michael
Horton argues that infant baptism underscores “ . . . the ‘mixed’ character of the body of
112
Ibid., 67.
113
114
John Leadley Dagg, A Treatise on Church Order (The Baptist Distinctives Series, no. 44;
Paris, Ark.: The Baptist Standard Bearer, 2006), 141; emphasis in original.
115
146
Christ at present, which subverts overrealized eschatologies.”116 He contends that those
attempting to define the church in terms of a regenerate membership “elide” the
distinction between the invisible and visible church.117 The Reformed Confessions, he
notes, define the visible church as believers and their children, unbelieving or not.118
While Horton’s argument depends upon Old Testament covenantal continuities,
Peter Gentry and Stephen Wellum make plain some of the distinctions between Old
Testament Israel and the New Testament Church, arguing that––while Israel by nature
existed as a mixed group––the New Covenant promises in Jeremiah (Jer 31:33–34)
anticipate a community characterized by regeneration.119 Nevertheless, credobaptists
share culpability in confusing the issue. As Charles Deweese notes, weak baptismal
practices led Baptists toward an unregenerate membership in recent days.120 However,
ideally, from the credobaptist perspective a proper understanding of believer’s baptism
protects the holiness of the local church.121
Baptist ecclesiology––proceeding in part from Radical Reformation emphases––
expresses the visible holiness of the church by pursuing a regenerate church membership.
Nineteenth century Baptist Samuel Jones laments the lack of scrutiny in this aspect of
116
Michael Horton, People and Place: A Covenant Ecclesiology (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster
John Knox Press, 2008), 186.
117
Ibid., 217. See this author’s critique of invisible church notions in chapter three.
118
Ibid., 177.
119
Peter Gentry and Stephen Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant: A Biblical–Theological
Understanding of the Covenants (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2012), 688.
120
Charles Deweese, A Community of Believers: Making Church Membership More Meaningful
(Valley Forge, Pa.: Judson Press, 1978), 14–15.
121
R. Stanton Norman, More Than Just a Name: Preserving Our Baptist Identity (Nashville:
Broadman and Holman, 2001), 94; Hammett, Biblical Foundations, 99.
147
church life, contending that, “ . . . they should be careful in the admission of members.
Let there be pretty clear evidence of a work of grace. Slackness, or inattention here, has
been the bane of the church, in all ages.”122 Bruce Ashford and Danny Akin write, “The
church is holy because her members have been justified by faith in Christ, and this
holiness is manifested optimally in the practice of regenerate church membership.”123
Regenerate membership serves as the hallmark or centerpiece of Baptist ecclesiology.124
Hammett lays out a straightforward biblical rationale for seeking regenerate
church membership in local churches. The theologians earlier in this chapter, such as
Augustine and Calvin, argued that the universal, invisible church certainly proves to be
holy. Hammett agrees; then he posits, “If the universal church is composed of all
believers, it seems that the goal of local churches should be to come as close to that
standard as possible.”125 Second, due to the discipline passages throughout the New
Testament, the Scriptures clearly encourage seeking holiness at the local church level.126
Third, as pointed out earlier in this chapter, the Scriptures use terms like “saints” to
describe New Testament believers. As yet another example, when Paul writes the
Philippians, he begins, “To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are at Philippi” (Phil 1:1). It
seems far–fetched that God would inspire the Apostle Paul to call the unregenerate
122
Jones, “A Treatise of Church Discipline and a Directory,”139.
123
Discipline (ed. John Hammett and Benjamin Merkle; Nashville: B&H Academic, 2012), 193; emphasis in
original.
124
John Hammett, “The What and How of Church Membership,” in Baptist Foundations, Church
Government for an Anti–Institutional Age (ed. Mark Dever and Jonathan Leeman; Nashville: B&H
Academic, 2015), 197.
125
148
“saints.” Fourth and finally, the book of Acts repeatedly gathers only those who believe
into churches (Acts 2:41; 4:4; 11:21; 14:21–23).127
The New Testament images of the church imply certain characteristics concerning
the membership in the church. For example, the body of Christ image necessitates a
certain composition of the membership (Eph 1:22–23). John Freeman writes that, “ . . .
membership in the church should depend upon, follow and express a previous personal
relation to Him as the incorporating and directing head. To admit to the body those who
are not joined to the Head by a living faith, is to commit a mischievous incongruity.”128
The image of the church as Temple of the Holy Spirit implies the same, as Hammett
asserts that “ . . . the church is holy by virtue of the Holy Spirit indwelling and
sanctifying each member of the church. This underscores one of the requirements for
church members . . . that church members must be regenerate, those actually indwelt by
the Spirit.”129 One can neither call someone a part of the other dominant image––The
People of God––when that individual remains God’s enemy (Rom 5:10). If holiness only
becomes communicable when one lives in relationship to the holy God,130 then
regenerate membership seems to be the natural expression of the holiness of the
church.131
126
Passages like 1 Cor 5:11, Matthew 18, Galatians 6.
127
128
John D. Freeman, “The Place of Baptists in the Christian Church,” in Baptist World Congress,
London, July 11–19, 1905 Authorised Record of Proceedings (London: Baptist Union Publication
Department, 1905), 27–28.
129
Hammett, “Church Membership, Church Discipline,” 23.
130
131
Some might object to this pursuit by stating that no one knows for sure if God saves another
person. However, no regenerate church proponent this author knows of considers the local church’s
149
Progressive Holiness Encouraged in Local Churches
Further, biblical faithfulness necessitates that holy conduct follow a holy membership.
Though the New Testament speaks of holiness in a positional sense, it also admonishes
believers to live worthy of the calling to which they have been called (Eph 4:1). Jesus
encouraged his disciples not only to learn his commands, but also to be careful to observe
them (Matt 28:19–20). The author of Hebrews admonishes those believers to strive for
the holiness without which “ . . . no one will see the Lord” (Heb 12:14).
Those made positionally holy will subsequently pursue holiness in a progressive
sense. In fact, positional holiness makes progressive holiness possible. Allison writes,
“Affirming the purity and unity of the church means affirming that the church, which is
holy and one, is directed at and directs itself toward perfect holiness and oneness and
pursues this end by means of increase in purity and maintenance of unity.”132 In his first
letter to the church at Corinth, Paul writes about the status of this church, in contrast to
what they used to be: “But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in
the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor 6:11, emphasis
mine). Peterson notes, “The language of sanctification here refers quite specifically to the
separation from a godless lifestyle that has come about by being attached to the Father
through the redemptive work of the Son.”133 Though at regeneration the sanctified Christ
makes the church holy by means of the Holy Spirit, the church pursues that which it is by
judgment to be infallible. In fact, the practice of church discipline seems to assume that local churches
would occasionally be fallible in their judgment. However, that practice also assumes the church should
pursue a holy membership.
132
133
150
position (2 Cor 7:1).134 Union with a consecrated Christ creates a consecrated people,
both positionally and progressively.
Missiological Impact of Local Church Holiness
Holiness and Mission in the Scriptures
Jesus connects holiness and mission as he prays for the church in John 17, interceding,
“Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, so I have
sent them into the world” (John 17:17–18). According to Andreas Köstenberger, John 17
describes Jesus’ sending of a set apart people.135 Richard Bauckham explains the
rationale, “God makes them holy, dedicated to him, not in order to remove them from the
world, but in order to send them into the world to make God known.”136 Peterson simply
states: “Mission is clearly the goal of sanctification in John 17.”137
Peter makes the same argument in his first epistle. After admonishing the
believers to “ . . . abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your
soul,” he tells them that their conduct ought to be honorable so that the Gentiles “ . . .
may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation” (1 Pet 2:11–12).
Wayne Grudem notes that the believers’ good pattern of life––“abstaining from the
134
Gregg Allison, Sojourners and Strangers, 163, writes, “In response to and always in
dependence upon this divine initiative and foundation for sanctification, the church aims at perfect holiness
by pursuing greater and greater purity.”
135
Andreas J. Köstenberger, The Missions of Jesus and the Disciples According to the Fourth
Gospel: With Implications for the Fourth Gospel’s Purpose and the Mission of the Contemporary Church
136
Richard Bauckham, “The Holiness of Jesus and His Disciples in the Gospel of John,” in
Holiness and Ecclesiology in the New Testament (ed. Kent E. Brower and Andy Johnson; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2007), 111.
137
151
passions of the flesh”––intends to lead to salvation for those who observe.138 Based on
that same Petrine text, Wells notes, “It is not that they are challenged to cross the divide
between private devotion and public witness; it is that there is no divide. Holiness is not a
matter of personal faithfulness; it is a community identity which necessarily involves
standing out and being different.”139 Peter laid the foundation for this earlier in the letter,
exhorting the elect exiles, “Be holy, for I am holy” (1 Pet 1:16). Tom Schreiner makes
plain the connection between holiness and mission in that text: “The minimal reference to
evangelism (and dialogue) is not just because his primary concern is the church’s survival
in persecution (though this is a factor) but because he also sees the starting point as
holiness in the covenant people.”140
Elsewhere the Apostle Paul notes that the Philippians, in being blameless and
innocent, “ . . . shine as lights in the world, holding fast to the word of life” (Phil 2:15–
16). For the unbelieving world, seeing the blamelessness of these communities intends to
corroborate the message of the gospel.141 God set apart the people of God to display his
character in every aspect of their lives.142 As they embody his character in their lives,
living out their sanctification, then “ . . . something of God’s holiness is revealed to the
138
Wayne Grudem, 1 Peter (TNTC; Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2009), 79.
139
140
Tom Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude (NAC 37; Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman, 2003), 81.
141
James Ware, Paul and the Mission of the Church: Philippians in Ancient Jewish Context
(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 248ff. For a different interpretation than Ware’s, see Thompson,
The Church According to Paul, 164.
142
152
world.”143 God displays his manifold wisdom through communities of holy people (Eph
1:4; 3:10).
Holiness and Mission in History
When churches lose their distinctiveness, they confuse the gospel. Presbyterian Philip
Ryken laments the truth of recent days, that “ . . . the church is ineffective in its witness
to the world. We lack the kind of personal and corporate holiness that would recommend
the truth of the gospel to our culture.”144 Mark Dever points out the hypocrisy within his
own denomination, lamenting, “According to one recent Southern Baptist Convention
study, the typical Southern Baptist Church has 233 members, only 70 of whom are
present at the typical Sunday morning worship service.”145 Though Baptist ecclesiology
infers regenerate church membership, recent practices contradict Baptist theology.146
Historically––and more positively––John Mark Terry contends that the early
church grew in part due to its distinctiveness, noting, “Christianity prospered because of
the ethical standards of the early church. This is not to say that the churches or believers
were perfect, but their lives were so different from their pagan neighbors’ lives that they
attracted notice.”147 Roger Gehring agrees, “The attractive community life of the first
143
Ibid., 25.
144
Phillips, Ryken, and Dever, The Church, 63.
145
Mark Dever, 9 Marks of a Healthy Church (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2004), 148.
146
In 2015, 36.6 percent of Southern Baptist church members attended a weekly worship service
on average. See Carol Pipes, “ACP: More churches reported; baptisms decline,” June 2016, n.p. [cited 15
Aug 2016]. Online: http://www.bpnews.net/46989/acp-more-churches-reported-baptism-worship-numbers-
decline.
147
John Mark Terry, “The Ante–Nicene Church on Mission,” in Discovering the Mission of God:
Best Missional Practices for the 21st Century (ed. Mike Barnett; Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic,
2012), 218.
153
Christians drew others into their midst. . . . They stand in striking contrast to customary
religious life otherwise encountered at the time, and ultimately this is one of the main
reasons the first Christians were so attractive to others around them.”148 For the sake of
others, they lived in contrast to others.
In more recent history, from 1790 to 1860 when Baptist churches maintained
some of their highest rates of discipline––as an expression of local church holiness––they
also grew twice the rate of the population.149 John Freeman noted in 1905, “This principle
of a regenerated Church membership, more than anything else, marks our distinctiveness
in the Christian world today.”150 A holy membership matters for mission.
The Holiness of the Local Church as a Display of the Gospel
Focusing on inward realities, such as cultivating holiness within local churches, appears
to be disconnected from mission. However, the mission of the church––that which it
does––proceeds from its being.151 Of this inevitable procession, G. C. Berkouwer notes,
“Her commissions arise from what she is.”152 James Thompson agrees, contending that
Paul’s understanding of the church’s mission is predicated on the church’s identity as a
148
2004), 94.
149
Gregory Wills, Democratic Religion: Freedom, Authority, and Church Discipline in the
Baptist South: 1785–1900 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997) 36.
150
Freeman, “The Place of Baptists in the Christian Church,” 27.
151
A gathering of theologians considering the Believers’ Church concluded, “We have found
ourselves agreed that the mission of the church in the world is to work out her being as a covenant
community in the midst of the world.” In “Report of the Findings Committee” of the 1967 Louisville
Conference “The Concept of the Believers’ Church,” in The Concept of the believers’ Church (ed. James
Leo Garrett; Scottdale, Pa.: Herald, 1969), 320; emphasis mine.
152
154
people separated from the world.153 The holiness of the church––its separation from the
world––compels it toward the world.154
To further explain, the details concerning the inner life of local churches––
including matters of holiness––intend to attest to the message the church proclaims,
making audible truths visible to unbelievers.155 In fact, John Howard Yoder contends that
the medium actually becomes an aspect of the message: “The distinctness of the church
of believers is prerequisite to the meaningfulness of the gospel message.”156 Stanley
Hauerwas connects holiness and mission clearly, asserting, “For the church is finally
known by the character of the people who constitute it, and if we lack that character, the
world rightly draws the conclusion that the God we worship is in fact a false God.”157 To
underscore this point, Eckhard Schnabel includes aspects of social behavior in his
definition of the mission of the church.158 While the previous chapter argued for the
missiological significance of local church unity, this one describes the missiological
significance of local church holiness.
153
Thompson, The Church According to Paul, 164–165.
154
See Berkouwer, The Church, 391. See also Jonathan Leeman, The Church and the Surprising
Offense of God’s Love: Reintroducing the Doctrines of Church Membership and Discipline (Wheaton, Ill.:
Crossway, 2010), 122.
155
Mark Dever, “The Church,” in A Theology for the Church (ed. Daniel L. Akin; Nashville:
B&H Academic, 2007), 767.
156
John Howard Yoder, “A People in the World: Theological Interpretation,” in The Concept of
the Believers’ Church: Addresses from the 1968 Louisville Conference (ed. James Leo Garrett Jr.;
Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1969), 259.
157
Stanley Hauerwas, The Hauerwas Reader (Durham, N. C.: Duke University Press, 2001), 385.
158
Eckhard J. Schnabel writes, “The term ‘mission’ or ‘missions’ refers to the activity of a
community of faith that distinguishes itself from its environment in terms of both religious belief (theology)
and social behavior (ethics) . . . and that actively works to win other people to the content of faith and the
way of life of whose truth and necessity the members of that community are convinced.” In Paul the
Missionary: Realities, Strategies and Methods (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2008), 22; emphasis in
original.
155
Positional Holiness and the Display of the Gospel
Corpus Permixtum displays a unifier other than the gospel.159 However, if church unity
communicates gospel realities to an unbelieving world,160 regeneration must precede that
picture. To the degree a church retains and displays unregenerate members, to that degree
will the church be less holy.161 Ashford and Akin conclude, “Church membership and
discipline, therefore, are not disconnected from the church’s witness. Indeed, it is difficult
to overstate the significance of ecclesiology for mission.”162
Ashford and Akin go on to address this concern by pointing out the connection––
a direct link––between regenerate membership and mission, asserting, “This belief
[regenerate membership] is the center of Baptist ecclesiology and is directly linked to the
purposes of the church and her mission.”163 Leeman too argues for the missiological
efficacy of a regenerate membership, writing, “Congregationalism, when combined with
the safety of regenerate church membership, best propagates a church’s evangelistic work
and witness.”164 Hammett agrees, contending that the recovery of regenerate, meaningful
church membership should be top priority for Baptist churches today due to the effect it
would have on corporate witness.165
159
Ashford and Akin, “The Missional Implications,” 202.
160
As chapter three attempted to argue.
161
Grudem, Systematic Theology, 873.
162
163
Ibid., 194; emphasis mine.
164
for an Anti–Institutional Age (ed. Mark Dever and Jonathan Leeman; Nashville: B&H Academic, 2015),
22.
165
Hammett, Biblical Foundations,114.
156
The intersection of holiness and the mission of the church mainly concerns
establishing what subsection of humanity displays the truths of the gospel with their lives.
Leeman makes his case, “Insofar as the gospel presents the world with the most vivid
picture of God’s love, and insofar as church membership and discipline are an
implication of the gospel, local church membership and discipline in fact define God’s
love for the world.”166 To simply state the missiological significance: the unregenerate do
not display the truths of the gospel. A regenerate membership, including only those called
out by the gospel, promotes the local church as a holy community.167 Healthy
membership practices contribute to both the holiness of the local church and the
missiological display of that holy church.
Progressive Holiness and the Display of the Gospel
Both testaments contend that individuals living in isolation fail to progress in holiness.168
As many of the commands in the New Testament center upon relationships, holiness
necessarily involves corporate realities. Therefore, if holiness necessitates relational
interaction, and holiness proves to be missiological, then the missional effectiveness of a
group of holy people surpasses that of the individual.
Not only should missions be a matter of corporate identity first,169 so must
holiness. Brower and Johnson agree, “God’s sanctifying grace calls for and enables an
ethical response within an inherently communal framework. That is, God’s call to
166
Leeman, The Church and the Surprising Offense of God’s Love, 17.
167
Chester, “The Pauline Communities,” 109–110.
168
See James Samra, Being Conformed to Christ in Community: A Study of Maturity, Maturation
and the Local Church in the Undisputed Pauline Epistles (New York, N. Y.: T&T Clark, 2008).
157
holiness comes to a people/community, not to isolated individuals.”170 When Peter
echoes the oft–repeated words from Leviticus, he carefully chooses the second person
plural pronoun, addressing the church of God, “You all shall be holy, for I am holy” (1
Pet 1:16). The work of the singular holy one makes possible the practice of the holy in
plurality. While the Old Testament lays the groundwork for this understanding, the New
Testament continues this emphasis upon a corporate holiness.
Leeman explains further, that “ . . . the church is to go into the world, but is it to
go as a united and distinct people, a people who are marked off by God’s name.”171 Jesus
outlined this kind of distinct communal life in the Sermon on the Mount, calling the
messianic community the light of the world.172 From an examination of the Gospel
material, Köstenberger concludes, “The character of the messianic community will be
essential to its present and future mission.”173 The book of Acts continues in describing,
not individuals living on mission, but communities of believers––distinct from the world–
–living on mission together.174
While regenerate membership expresses the positional holiness of a local church,
169
Chapter two makes this its chief contention.
170
Brower and Johnson, “Introduction: Holiness and the Ekklesia of God,” xxii; emphasis in
original.
171
Leeman, The Church and the Surprising Offense, 123; emphasis in original.
172
John Piper, What Jesus Demands from the World (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2006), 357.
173
Andreas Köstenberger, “The Church According to the Gospels,” in The Community of Jesus: A
Theology of the Church (ed. Kendell Easley and Christopher Morgan; Nashville: B&H Academic, 2013),
62.
174
Goheen writes that in A Light to the Nations, 131, that “ . . . the story told in Acts . . . is an
account of how ecclesial communities that corporately embody the gospel (like the one in Jerusalem) are
spread throughout the world.”
158
discipline within the body protects and pursues progressive holiness within a local
church. In other words, the progressive corollary of a positionally holy membership is the
practice of church discipline. Al Mohler asserts that further neglect of functional church
discipline will only speed up the declension of the church into moral dissolution.175 Tom
Schreiner agrees, contending that removing the unrepentant sinner from membership
preserves the holiness of the church.176 Furthermore, before those more drastic ecclesial
measures, the primary goal of church discipline––restoration––certainly pursues the
progressive holiness of the local church (Gal 6:1).
However, for this membership to be missiological, the pursuit of progressive
holiness avoids an avoidance of contact with the unbelieving world.177 In fact, the
Scriptures demand interaction. Referencing the discipline text in 1 Cor 5:9–10, Christoph
Stenschke asserts, “Despite all calls to personal holiness and warnings to disassociate
from immoral people professing to be believers, Christians are not to withdraw from the
world, but are to mix with the unbelievers around them.”178 Based on that same text,
Chester describes Paul’s intent, “His vision instead is that they should shine in the
175
R. Albert Mohler, “Church Discipline: The Missing Mark,” in Polity: Biblical Arguments on
How to Conduct Church Life (ed. Mark Dever; Washington D. C.: Center for Church Reform, 2005), 43.
176
Thomas Schreiner, “The Biblical Basis for Church Discipline,” in Those Who Must Give an
177
See John 17:15–18.
178
159
darkness, and show clearly at all times the absolute difference between themselves and
secular society.”179
Leeman concurs, positing just one of the missiological implications of discipline,
“Insiders and outsiders need to know that some actions and perhaps some individuals do
not belong to God.”180 Schreiner agrees, “If the church tolerates blatant sin in its midst,
then sin will spread like an infection, and the church will lose its witness to the world.”181
Reflecting on primarily 19th century Baptists––a period of unprecedented growth for that
denomination––Greg Wills contends that churches faithfully practicing biblical church
discipline believed God would bless them with both revival and conversions.182 Their
distinctiveness led to missiological effectiveness.183
A holy people living with and for one another puts on display, not the individual
or the group’s intrinsic willpower, but the gospel’s efficacy in transformation. Bruce
Ashford and Danny Akin agree, “The testimony of the church is not to the moral
uprightness of its members but to the power of God’s gospel to change lives.”184 As an
ostensive sign, the church’s holiness attests to the gospel itself. John Webster notes, “ . . .
the church simply points. It is not identical or continuous with that to which it bears
179
Chester, “The Pauline Communities,” 110.
180
Leeman, The Church and the Surprising Offense, 292.
181
Schreiner, “The Biblical Basis for Church Discipline,” 126.
182
Gregory Wills, “A Historical Analysis of Church Discipline,” in Those Who Must Give an
183
Wills, Democratic Religion, 36.
184
160
witness, for otherwise its testimony would be self–testimony and therefore false.”185 Like
John the Baptist, the church functions rightly as it bears witness to another.186
Conclusion
The holy God creates a holy people, whom he sets apart from the world for the good of
the world. Though the essence of the holiness of the church continues to be debated, the
Scriptures speak to both positional and progressive holiness. The people of God should
live in contrast to the people of the unbelieving world.
The practice of regenerate church membership protects this visible community.
Ecclesial holiness within local congregations points the unbelieving world to both the
power of the gospel to change lives and the God in whom believers are being
progressively transformed into imaging.
What God intended for Israel to be––a light to the nations––he accomplished in
the creation of the church through the death of his Son. Gerhard Lohfink asserts that in
Jesus we see God’s action to, “ . . . restore or even re–establish his plan of having a holy
people in the midst of the nations.”187 Though it is this, mission is not only geographic
expansion. Goheen writes, “Mission, properly understood, is the role of God’s chosen to
live as a contrast people and thus to draw the surrounding nations into covenant with
God.”188 Holy local churches fulfill this aspect of centripetal mission.189
185
John Webster, “The Visible Attests the Invisible,” in The Community of the Word: Toward an
Evangelical Ecclesiology (ed. Mark Husbands and Daniel Treier; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2005),
106.
186
Karl Barth, God in Action (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1936), 107.
187
Lohfink, Jesus and Community, 123.
188
161
The holiness of the church intends to be a display of the holiness of God. Chris
Morgan writes, “The visible church is exhorted to be ever more holy and faithful––
maintaining unity, living in accord with holiness, teaching truth, and embodying love.
The church is to live up to its high calling, and, in so doing, it showcases God.”190
Ashford agrees, writing, “The church is a shop window for God. For those who are
‘window shopping,’ who want to see Christ and his gospel, the church is God’s chosen
means to display them.”191 Protecting and maintaining the holiness of the church through
a regenerate membership “cleans the glass” so that God and his gospel might be clearly
seen in the local church.192
The author of creation intricately designed that which would visually represent
the redemptive truths of the gospel. Without question, until the eschaton the book will
remain better than the film. However, until then, the church aims to picture that which
God inspired.
189
See chapter two for a fuller explanation of this concept.
190
Morgan, “The Church and God’s Glory,” 234
191
of the Church (ed. Kendell Easley and Christopher Morgan; Nashville: B&H Academic, 2013), 255.
192
Hammett, “The What and How of Church Membership,” 189fn24.
162
CHAPTER 5
THE LOCAL CHURCH AS COUNTERCULTURE:

A CONTEXTUALIZED CONTRAST COMMUNITY
Do not love the world. Love the world.1 Those two ideas capture the tension between
Christ’s affections for the world and his caution toward it, a tension Richard Niebuhr
labels “the enduring problem.”2 Because the Bible markedly distinguishes the church and
the unbelieving world from one another while admonishing the church to influence that
world, debate ensues. The essence of the debate––the enduring problem––concerns how
the people of God reflect their maker’s love for the world while disdaining those aspects
of the world that oppose him.
While some who argue for centripetal mission potentially lead the church toward
introversion or separatism,3 this chapter attempts to contextualize the united, holy church
for the good of the unbelieving world. Based on the countercultural model of
1
My friend Mike Beaulieu first juxtaposed these ideas in this form to the author, though certainly
many have done so before based on 1 John 2:15 and Jesus’ love for the world expressed in John 3:16. See
Richard Mouw, Called to Holy Worldliness (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1980), 33. For John’s use of
the word “world”, see Andreas Köstenberger, A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters: Biblical Theology
of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 281–282; 454.
2
H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (New York: Harper & Row, 1951), 1.
3
William Dyrness, The Earth is God’s: A Theology of American Culture (Faith and Cultures;
Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 2004), 75; Paul Bowers, “Church and Mission in Paul,” JSNT 44 (1991):
101.
163
contextualization,4 the local church most effectively lives on mission when it remains
both distinctive and engaged. As a distinctive social reality, it becomes, in some sense, its
own culture. As a distinctive cultural reality, it counters the broader culture.
This chapter will contend that the countercultural model of contextualization best
embodies the corporate aspect of the church’s mission.5 This model not only challenges
individuals to contextualize, it forces those individuals to be concerned for their fellow
church members’ contextualization, including that which is intrinsic to both local church
unity and holiness.6 It will be argued that the countercultural model challenges the inner
life of the local church to use the language and forms of the dominant culture but
corporately critique those elements that contradict God’s creational design. Therefore,
this model best embodies the corporate aspect of the mission of the church.
The health of the local church’s inner life––including unity and holiness––
distinguishes the church from the unbelieving world in biblically countercultural fashion.
4
Stephen Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology (Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis Books, 2002).
Though most theologians do not fit perfectly within any model, this author depends heavily upon Bevans’
categories. Because no context is the same as another, there are varieties within the countercultural model.
Furthermore, one countercultural theologian might disagree with another on precisely that which needs to
be countered within a particular context. However, the missiologists cited positively in this chapter write
about communities of Christ–followers that contrast the broader culture together. Otherwise, he or she
would not fit the category Bevans describes and this author appeals to.
5
This does not mean that the countercultural model serves as the only model or even the best
model for every aspect of mission in every culture or every age. No contextualization model––divorced
from the other models––perfectly guides the faithful Christian response to every cultural context. For more
reading, other works on contextualization include David Hesselgrave and Edward Rommen,
Contextualization: Meanings, Methods, and Models (Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey Library, 2000); Dean
Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament: Patterns for Theology and Mission (Downers Grove,
Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2005); David Clark, To Know and Love God: Method for Theology (Wheaton, Ill.:
Crossway, 2003).
6
If unity is missiological––as chapter three contends––an individual believer must be united
rightly to other believers.
164
Missiologists often label these countercultural churches “contrast communities.”7 The
balance of the chapter will assert contrast communities’ dependence upon both local
church unity and holiness. Contrast necessitates holiness; community necessitates unity.
Insofar as this united and local church remains engaged with the aspects of the broader
culture needing countering, it fulfills the corporate aspect of the mission of the church by
displaying the gospel to the world.
Countercultural Model of Contextualization
Creation and Contextualization
The first issue to be discussed in the conversation on contextualization concerns the
degree to which intrinsic goodness or perversion marks the created order. One’s theology
of creation drives him or her to a particular position on contextualization.8 The pole at
one end of the spectrum borders on Gnosticism, separating the world into spiritual and
physical realms. Concerning that polarity, Albert Wolters asserts, “It is difficult to
overemphasize the radical nature of the importance of the biblical condemnation of the
Gnostic tendency.”9 However, the Neo-Platonic thought of Plotinus subtly influences
much of Western theology today, remaining an ever–present danger in our thinking on
culture. Michael Goheen and Craig Bartholomew describe the fallacy within this
Platonic, Gnostic soteriology, noting, “For Plotinus, salvation was the soul’s release from
7
For a biblical and theological argument for the New Testament church as a contrast community,
see Michael Goheen, A Light to the Nations: The Missional Church and the Biblical Story (Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic, 2011); see also Gerhard Lohfink, Jesus and Community (Freiburg: Herder Verlag, 1982).
8
Bruce Ashford, “The Church and Its Cultural Context,” Lecture at Southeastern Baptist
Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, N. C.: August 2014.
165
its bodily prison, allowing it to ascend to a superior, invisible, spiritual realm.”10 In this
flawed framework, the created world must be rejected in totality due to its radical
perversion.11
The other end of the spectrum seemingly considers the created order untarnished
by the fall of man. Niebuhr labels this answer to the enduring problem the “Christ of
Culture” model.12 Tensions between the church and the world, in this model, serve as
merely an indication of the church’s misunderstanding of Christ.13 Stephen Bevans
details the logical outcome to this model, which he labels the anthropological model:14
“This does not mean that the gospel cannot challenge a particular context, but such a
challenge is always viewed with suspicion that the challenge is not coming from God as
such, but from a tendency of the one (western, Mediterranean) contextual perspective to
impose its values on another.”15 Rather than being suspicious of cultural norms, this
model questions that which the gospel foists upon the world.
After landing on a position concerning the ontological nature of creation, to
answer these cultural questions one must settle his or her convictions concerning the
effect grace has upon nature.16 The Gnostic reality believes that grace remains against
9
Albert Wolters, Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview (Grand
10
Michael Goheen and Craig Bartholomew, Living at the Crossroads: An Introduction to
Christian Worldview (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 75.
11
Niebuhr, Christ and Culture, 45–82.
12
Ibid., 83.
13
Ibid., 91.
14
The model for contextualization that most closely correlates with Niebuhr’s “Christ of Culture”
model.
15
Bevans, Models, 54.
16
See conversation in Goheen, Living at the Crossroads, 62.
166
and opposes nature. Two other common understandings argue that grace remains above
or alongside nature; grace fulfills or exists side by side with nature, respectively.17 The
final view maintains that grace infuses nature. Goheen explains, “Here, grace is seen as a
healing power that infuses creation and heals and restores all of it from the sin that
corrupts it.”18 Theologians of this persuasion believe salvation to be both restorative and
comprehensive.19 Wolters explains, “Redemption is not a matter of an addition of a
spiritual or supernatural dimension to creaturely life that was lacking before; rather, it is a
matter of bringing new life and vitality to what was there all along.”20 In that framework,
cultural realities––including both communication and communities––can be faithfully
redirected.
Theologians, proceeding from their understanding of the gospel, generally lean
toward one of––or a combination of––the grace/nature positions outlined above.21 To
summarize thus far, proper church contextualization depends on one’s conviction
concerning the potential effect of grace upon what one considers to be the nature of
creation.
17
Ibid., 62.
18
Ibid., 62.
19
Ibid., 51. See also J. Richard Middleton, “A New Heaven and a New Earth: The Case for a
Holistic Reading of the Biblical Story of Redemption,” Journal for Christian Theological Research 11
(2006): 73–97; Michael Williams, As Far as the Curse is Found: The Covenant Story of Redemption
(Phillipsburg, N. J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2005).
20
Wolters, Creation Regained, 71.
21
Though many, including Niebuhr, dispute the helpfulness of these classifications, Niebuhr
categorizes Tertullian as belonging to the Gnostic–leaning Christ against Culture position while listing
Abelard and Albert Ritschl as affirming the Christ of Culture position. See Niebuhr, Christ and Culture,
51–64, 91, 94. However, Niebuhr admits that no person or group ever conforms completely to any of these
types in ibid., 44. The choice of historical figures confirms this, as Augustine fits within and contradicts the
conversionist model in ibid., 216. Bevans, Models, 61–69, lists Robert Hood and Vincent Donovan as
belonging to the anthropological model.
167
The following pages lean upon the study of missiologists who advocate
countercultural aspects of contextualization, though less upon those who affirm an
ontologically negative understanding of creation.22 If creation remains ontologically
good, though misdirected by the fall, then one more positively views the potential of
contextualization. Wolters makes these distinctions by using the categories of structure
and direction, explaining that “ . . . structure denotes the ‘essence’ of a creaturely thing,
the kind of creature it is by virtue of God’s creational law. Direction, by contrast, refers
to a sinful deviation from that structural ordinance.”23 Theologians who affirm this
position maintain that the gospel differentiates between structure and direction,
redirecting that which has been perverted directionally.24
This chapter attempts to unpack how the holy and united church contextualizes
the gospel of grace to the unholy and divided context in which it serves. Living in the
crossroads of two often diametrically–opposed stories––the dominant cultural story and
the biblical story––creates narratival tension. Wolters and Goheen note this inherent
challenge and our role in embracing it, writing, “The more the church avoids this tension,
or is oblivious to it, the more it is in the danger of accommodating itself to the idolatry of
the world. To embrace the tension, and to seek to resolve it in a way that does not
compromise the gospel, is the goal of contextualization.”25 Whether it realizes it or not,
22
Though this reality will be discussed in detail later in the chapter, see Michael Goheen,
Introducing Christian Mission Today: Scripture, History, and Issues (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity
Press, 2014), 265.
23
Wolters, Creation Regained, 88; emphasis in original.
24
Bruce Ashford, “The Gospel and Culture,” in Theology and Practice of Mission: God, the
Church, and the Nations (ed. Bruce Ashford; Nashville: B&H Academic, 2011), 115.
25
168
the church does this in the life of the corporate body, affirming elements of the created
order that reflect the creator while critiquing aspects that contradict. Each church lives
out the mission of the church corporately, to either the good or ill of the context
surrounding it.
Contextualization
Since no local church is transcultural, New Testament churches serve a specific context.
Lesslie Newbigin notes, “A Christian congregation is defined by this twofold relation: it
is God’s embassy in a specific place.”26 When the Scriptures use the term ekklesia, it
often qualifies it in terms of the place where it gathers.27
However, though the local church is not transcultural, the gospel is. Paul Hiebert
writes, “The gospel belongs to no culture.”28 In other terms, no cultural form rightly
claims the gospel as its own in exclusion from other cultures.29 Yet Hiebert continues,
“On the other hand, it must always be understood and expressed within human cultural
forms.”30 In fact, translation is inevitable. Goheen asserts, “It is not a matter of whether
the gospel is shaped by culture; the only question is whether the contextualization of the
gospel is faithful or unfaithful.”31 Bevans states this even more strongly, “There is no
26
Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 229.
27
28
Paul Hiebert, Anthropological Insights for Missionaries (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), 30
29
According to Acts 15, not even Israelite culture.
30
Hiebert, Anthropological Insights, 30.
31
169
such thing as ‘theology’; there is only contextual theology.”32 The gospel must be
translated into the cultural context it intends to reach.
Cultural context actually makes theology possible. Kevin Vanhoozer writes,
“Culture sets the stage, arranges the scenery, and provides the props that supply the
setting for theology’s work.”33 To add to the complexity, cultural context never assumes
a posture of neutrality. The theologian’s challenge comprises affirming those aspects of
culture that point to God’s creational design while at the same time critiquing those that
contradict it. As an example of the latter, Goheen notes, “Each culture tells and lives out
a world–story that is to some degree incompatible with the gospel.”34
As they attempt to apply the gospel to a particular context, theologians and
churches open the complicated discussion concerning contextualization. David
Hesselgrave and Edward Rommen state, “There is not yet a commonly accepted
definition of the word contextualization, but only a series of proposals, all of them vying
for acceptance.”35 The many and various contexts seemingly correlate to the many and
various definitions of contextualization.
Though no agreed upon definition arises from the significant literature,
missiologists continue attempting to define it. Dean Fleming considers contextualization
to be “ . . . the dynamic and comprehensive process by which the gospel is incarnated
32
Bevans, Models, 3.
33
Kevin Vanhoozer, The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical–Linguistic Approach to Christian
Theology (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2005), 129.
34
Goheen and Bartholomew, Living at the Crossroads, 7.
35
Hesselgrave and Rommen, Contextualization, 35.
170
within a concrete historical or cultural situation.”36 A more popular–level definition,
though far from unhelpful, comes from Tim Keller, “It is giving people the Bible’s
answers, which they may not at all want to hear, to questions about life that people in
their particular time and place are asking, in language and forms they can comprehend,
and through appeals and arguments with force they can feel, even if they reject them.”37
The difficulty in definitional clarity often arises due to the inherent dangers of the task.
Mark Noll and David Wells note the danger, “This interpretive journey from word
to world is fraught with peril even as it is ripe with potential. Bridges built between
God’s word and our world are susceptible of carrying traffic in both directions.”38
Rather than transforming the message––compromising its truth––or transporting the
message––dismissing the context––the faithful contextualizer translates the message.
David Clark uses that language, writing, “Transformers fail because they are not faithful
to the gospel. Transporters fail because they are culturally naïve. That leaves us with the
category of translators.”39
Setting a commonly accepted definition aside, Bevans’ work outlines various
models of contextualization.40 Instead of gospel and culture, he prefers to speak of gospel
and context.41 The most common model––the translation model–– attempts to
36
Flemming, Contextualization in the New Testament, 19.
37
Tim Keller, Center Church: Doing Balanced, Gospel–Centered Ministry (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2012), 89; emphasis in original.
38
Mark Noll and David Wells, “Introduction: Modern Evangelicalism,” in Christian Faith and
Practice in the Modern World (ed. M. Noll and D. Wells; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 15–16.
39
Clark, To Know and Love God, 57
40
Bevans, Models. For a thoughtful rationale for using models to do theology, see Avery Dulles,
Models of the Church (New York: Image, 2002), 7ff.
41
Bevans, Models, xvii.
171
decontextualize the gospel from its contextual garb before re–contextualizing it in the
receptor culture. Bevans explains, “The first step, then, in contextualizing a particular
Christian doctrine or practice is to strip it of its wrappings––the contextual husk––in
order to find the gospel kernel. Once the ‘naked gospel’ has been revealed, one then
searches the ‘receptor situation’ for the appropriate terms or action or story to rewrap the
message.”42 David Clark calls this method the decode/encode model.43 This model
centers on the propositional nature of revelation.44
The second model delineated by Bevans––the anthropological model––functions
as the opposite of the translation model. In Wolters’ framework of structure and
direction, direction remains relatively unaffected by sin. Bevans explains,“ The central
and guiding insight of the anthropological model: human nature, and therefore the human
context, is good, holy, and valuable. The anthropological model would emphasize that it
is within human culture that we find God’s revelation.”45 This contextualization model
mirrors Niebuhr’s model “Christ of Culture.”46
The praxis model, as one might assume, stresses orthopraxy over that of
orthodoxy.47 Bevans writes that “ . . . the key presupposition of the praxis model is the
insight that the highest level of knowing is intelligent and responsible doing.”48 Bevans’
synthetic model attempts to synthesize the models discussed so far, along with one other
42
Ibid., 40.
43
Clark, To Know and Love God, 111.
44
Bevans, Models, 44.
45
Ibid., 56.
46
Niebuhr, Christ and Culture, 83–115.
47
Bevans, Models, 72.
172
model.49 This might also be labeled the dialogical model.50 The final model, other than
the one focused on within this chapter, Bevans labels the transcendental model. In this
existential framework, the person’s own religious experience serves as the starting point
for contextualization, thereby largely placing this model outside the bounds of
conservative scholarship.51
Theologians in all these models––cultural and contextual––tend to emphasize
certain tenets to the exclusion of others. As an example––if this model exists in reality52
––Niebuhr’s Christ against Culture paradigm de–emphasizes the doctrine of creation,
resurrection, and new creation.53 In stark contrast, the anthropological model outlined by
Bevans emphasizes the goodness of creation while seemingly ignoring any hint of
hamartiology.54 As a result of the imbalances among theologians––and maybe as an
argument for humility in this discussion––no one model perfectly summarizes at all times
the Christian response to the culture that surrounds it.55 However, for the advance of the
corporate aspect of the mission of the church, Bevans’ final model appears to most
faithfully navigate the tension between church and world.
48
Ibid., 73.
49
Ibid., 88.
50
Ibid., 95.
51
Ibid., 104.
52
Niebuhr notes that Tertullian sounds peculiarly Roman when he makes his case against Rome.
In Christ and Culture, 70–72
53
Ibid., 81.
54
Bevans, Models, 56; Niebuhr, Christ and Culture, 112.
55
Keller, Center Church, 225.
173
Countercultural Model of Contextualization
The final model addressed in Bevans’ book56––the countercultural model––assumes a
missionary encounter between the church and the world.57 This model, however, should
not be confused with the separatist framework of Christ against Culture described by
Niebuhr when he writes, “That world appears as a realm under the power of evil; it is the
region of darkness, into which the citizens of the kingdom of light must not enter; it is
characterized by the prevalence in it of lies, hatred, and murder; it is the heir of Cain.”58
Though no believer could consistently abide by the description offered in that chapter,59
the countercultural model proposed by Bevans and this author unquestionably falls
outside those bounds.
Bevans begins his sketch of the model: “A first thing to be said about the term
countercultural model is that it is not anticultural.”60 Though occasionally
misrepresented, countercultural theologians argue that the gospel must be expressed in
cultural forms understandable to those in the broader, unbelieving world. Lesslie
Newbigin, possibly the countercultural exemplar, says that the gospel “ . . . has to be
communicated in the language of those to whom it is addressed and has to be clothed in
56
Bevans, Models, 117–138.
57
Lesslie Newbigin, Foolishness to the Greeks: The Gospel and Western Culture (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1986), 1.
58
Niebuhr, Christ and Culture, 48.
59
Ibid., 70-72.
60
Bevans, Models, 118; emphasis in original.
174
symbols which are meaningful to them.”61 Many countercultural theologians hold to the
ontological goodness of creation.62
Countercultural theologians often refuse to accept the separatist category. James
Davison Hunter explains why: “The very word ‘sectarian,’ the neo–Anabaptists contend,
presupposes an acceptance of the standards of the dominant culture. The church, then,
only withdraws from responsibility as the world understands it. By existing as an
alternative humanity living a different way of life, it constitutes a fundamental challenge
to the ways of the world.”63 Nevertheless, misunderstandings of the countercultural
position persist due to the rhetorical flourish of some writers within the countercultural
schema. For example, Stanley Hauerwas and William Willimon strongly contend, “As
Jesus demonstrated, the world, for all its beauty, is hostile to the truth.”64 However, for
temperance, a few pages earlier those authors plainly state that Christians have no choice
but to live in and among the world, though Christians retain the right to choose how to do
61
Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, 141.
62
Michael Goheen contends that Newbigin is not anti–cultural, in “‘As the Father Has Sent Me, I
Am Sending You’: J. E. Lesslie Newbigin’s Missionary Ecclesiology” (PhD diss., Interuniversitair Instituut
voor Missiologie en Oecumenica: Utrecht, Netherlands; 2000), 330–370. Even more specifically, note
Michael W. Goheen, “Is Lesslie Newbigin’s Model of Contextualization Anticultural?” Mission Studies 19,
no. 2 (2002): 136–158. See also George Hunsberger, “The Newbigin Gauntlet: Developing a Domestic
Missiology for North America,” in The Church Between Gospel and Culture: The Emerging Mission in
North America (ed. G Hunsberger and C. Van Gelder; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 7. Goheen
explicitly states his aversion to the anticultural stance in Introducing Christian Mission, 298. See also
Wolters, Creation Regained, 48–51.
63
James Davison Hunter, To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, & Possibility of Christianity
in the Late Modern World (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), 166.
64
Stanley Hauerwas and William Willimon, Resident Aliens: A provocative assessment of culture
and ministry for people who know that something is wrong (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1989), 47.
175
so.65 In summation, because cultures do not exist in monolithic forms,66 countercultural
theologians refuse to respond monolithically.67
To further clarify this point, John Howard Yoder points out Niebuhr’s
inconsistencies. In the section on cultural separatists, Niebuhr devotes one sentence to the
cultural efforts––or his perceived lack thereof––of the Mennonites, noting, “The
Mennonites have come to represent the attitude most purely, since they not only renounce
all participation in politics and refuse to be drawn into military service, but follow their
own distinctive customs and regulations in economics and education.”68 Yoder points out
that this sentence assumes culture to mean the majority culture rather than the “artificial,
secondary environment” he defines it as earlier in the book.69 Yoder pushes back, writing
lengthy chapters in response to this one sentence, contending, “The argument is
inconsistent because the criticism toward this minority group is precisely that it has a
culture of its own, namely its own ‘economics and education.’ When free–church
Christians are culturally productive (agriculture, family, schools, literature, trade) this is
65
Ibid., 43.
66
67
John Howard Yoder makes this contention in, “How H. Richard Niebuhr Reasoned: A Critique
of ‘Christ and Culture,’” in Authentic Transformation: A New Vision of Christ and Culture (eds. G.
Stassen, D. M. Yeager, and J. Yoder; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1996), 55; 69; See also Goheen,
Introducing Christian Mission, 308–309. As in all theological frameworks, some theologians pen sentences
that seem to hint at Niebuhr’s “Christ against Culture” category. For example, in describing the
principalities and powers, Hendrikus Berkhof writes in Christ and the Powers (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press,
1962), 30, “They still undergird human life and society and preserve them from chaos. But by holding the
world together, they hold it away from God, not close to Him.” Though this author affirms other sentences
John Howard Yoder writes, this author disavows the sentence in “The Otherness of the Church,” in The
Royal Priesthood (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1998), 64, that the, “ . . . world signifies . . . not creation
or nature or the universe but rather the fallen form of the same, no longer conformed to the creative intent.”
68
Yoder, “How H. Richard Niebuhr Reasoned,” 56.
69
Ibid., 32.
176
taken to mean they are ‘against culture’ as Niebuhr sees it.”70 In distinction from
Niebuhr’s categorical straw–man, the countercultural model takes context seriously.
The countercultural model does not stand in opposition to all expressions of
culture,71 though it opposes those elements within culture that contradict the purposes of
God for humanity.72 Goheen argues for a two–sided stance for Christians within their
cultural context. The first side demands solidarity and participation. He notes, “The
gospel speaks an affirmative word, a ‘yes’ to human culture.”73 He explains this
statement in more detail elsewhere, arguing that the resurrection of Jesus serves as the
affirmation of culture while the crucifixion makes plain the gospel’s “no” to its
perversion.74 Balanced statements like these clearly place this framework outside the
cultural separatist camp, while chastening the unbridled optimism of cultural
accommodationists.75
For the other side to solidarity and participation, the countercultural model
maintains that some aspects of the broader culture clearly contradict biblical norms,
demanding the church’s separation and rejection.76 Goheen writes, “Since idolatrous
religious beliefs shape every aspect of Western culture, the Christian community must
70
Ibid., 56.
71
Paul Hiebert, “The Gospel in Our Culture: Methods of Social and Cultural Analysis,” in The
Church Between Gospel and Culture: The Emerging Mission in North America (ed. G. Hunsberger and C
Van Gelder; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 156.
72
Newbigin, Foolishness to the Greeks, 4.
73
74
Goheen, “‘As the Father Has Sent Me,” 341.
75
Bevans, Models, 124.
76
Craig Van Gelder, “Missional Context: Understanding North American Culture,” in Missional
Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America (ed. Darrell Guder; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1998), 46–76.
177
also say no and reject the development that has taken place in the West. It is precisely the
second side––faithful cultural engagement––that must be stressed in Western culture. . . .
It is precisely the countercultural side of the gospel that must be recovered.”77 As one
scholar simply noted, good contextualization offends.78 The countercultural model takes
context seriously, seriously enough to counter it.
Local Church as Counterculture
The local church counters its context mainly by embodying an alternative culture. Robert
Louis Wilken critiques Niebuhr’s lack of ecclesial awareness in navigating the enduring
problem of culture, noting that his understanding of culture might be as skewed as his
understanding of Christ.79 He points out the glaring cultural omission, “Christ entered
history as a community, a society, not simply as a message, and the form taken by the
community’s life is Christ within society. The Church is a culture in its own right. Christ
does not simply infiltrate a culture; Christ creates culture by forming another city, another
sovereignty with its own social and political life.”80 The able critique of Niebuhr
notwithstanding,81 Wilken’s assertion prompts questions as to whether he hijacks the
77
78
Darrell Whiteman, “Contextualization: The Theory, the Gap, the Challenge,” International
Bulletin of Missionary Research 21, 1 (January 1997): 2.
79
Describing Christ, Niebuhr writes in Christ and Culture, 14, that “ . . . the impossibility of
saying anything about this person which is not also relative to the particular standpoint in church, history,
and culture of the one who undertakes to describe him.”
80
Robert Louis Wilken, “The Church as Culture,” First Things, April 2004. [cited 8 Sept. 2014]
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2004/04/the-church-as-culture; emphasis mine. Thanks to Josh Smith for
pointing out this article to the author.
81
Craig Carter agrees with Wilken, writing, “Niebuhr’s doctrine of the church is weak in that he
does not view the church as being able to bear a collective witness to the Lordship of Christ.” In Rethinking
Christ and Culture: A Post–Christendom Perspective (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2006), 67.
178
term “culture.” Similar to the incessant debate concerning contextualization––a debate
exacerbated by this reality––definitions of culture vary.
For a narrow, but broadly accepted definition of culture by evangelicals,82 Paul
Hiebert writes that culture is “ . . . the more or less integrated systems of ideas, feelings,
and values and their associated patterns of behavior and products shared by a group of
people who organize and regulate what they think, feel, and do.”83 If the
anthropologically–minded ecclesiologian accepts Hiebert’s definition, the local church
certainly shares patterns of behavior.84 Biblical local churches also organize what they
think.85 Furthermore, the local church’s organized ideas regulating what they think and
do––their shared patterns of belief and behavior––do not necessarily describe the broader
human culture. Therefore, if followers of Christ fail to share core beliefs or behavior with
the broader, unbelieving culture––and those shared realities help define culture according
to Hiebert’s definition––then Wilken might not be hijacking the term.
Further, Lesslie Newbigin, borrowing shamelessly from the Random House
Dictionary, defines culture as, “ . . . the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of
human beings and transmitted from one generation to another.”86 He nuances this
dictionary definition elsewhere, distinguishing between surface–level culture and the
82
Bruce Ashford notes that this is perhaps the most oft–quoted definition by evangelical
missiologists in “The Gospel and Culture,” 111.
83
Hiebert, Anthropological Insights, 30.
84
The holiness of the church argued for in chapter four would imply this.
85
The theological dimension of unity in chapter three would imply this.
86
Lesslie Newbigin, “Christ and the Cultures,” Scottish Journal of Theology 31, no. 1 (1978): 9;
George Hunsberger, Bearing the Witness of the Spirit: Lesslie Newbigin’s Theology of Cultural Plurality
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 13; Bevans, Models, 176; Goheen, “As the Father Has Sent Me,” 341.
179
foundational beliefs that shape it.87 When describing in the abstract those foundational
beliefs, Newbigin simply states, “I am speaking, obviously, about religion.”88 Therefore,
if a sum total of “ways of living” proceed from foundational beliefs transmitted from one
generation to another, the Random House Dictionary could be describing more than it
realized.
Bruce Ashford defines culture in a broad sense, as “anything that humans produce
when they interact with each other and with God’s creation.”89 Niebuhr originally
proposed Ashford’s emphasis on interaction, asserting that anything defined as culture
carries an intrinsic sociality.90 While Ashford would not reduce the genesis of the church
to the product of humanity or even interaction between humans, he explicitly includes
participation in religions as a part of culture.91 Concerning the church’s genesis, John
Webster asserts it as the necessary implicate of the gospel, a “creaturely counterpart to
the fellowship of love which is the inner life of the Holy Trinity.”92 He further contends
that this fellowship with God manifested itself not simply as an announcement, but “as
manifestation it is limitlessly potent and creative; it generates an assembly, a social space
(we might even say: a polity and a culture).”93 While the gospel creates the church, the
87
Goheen, “As the Father Has Sent Me,” 341.
88
89
Bruce Ashford, Every Square Inch: An Introduction to Cultural Engagement for Christians
(Bellingham, Wa.: Lexham Press, 2015), 13.
90
Ibid., 32.
91
Ibid., 13.
92
John Webster, “The Church and the Perfection of God,” in The Community of the Word:
Toward an Evangelical Ecclesiology (ed. Mark Husbands and Daniel Treier; Downers Grove, Ill.:
InterVarsity, 2005), 75.
93
Ibid., 76.
180
church’s humanity––especially their relational interaction one to another––creates a
culture.
D. A. Carson notes that genuine Christians, as a subset of the broader culture,
form a distinct and identifiable part of the broader culture.94 Though local churches do
not encompass the entirety of a culture, believers’ interactions with one another and
God’s creation form distinct subsections of each culture. Furthermore, subcultures––
though often used pejoratively––need not always carry negative connotations.95 As
authors delineate the particulars of organizational culture96 or class culture,97 then
ecclesiologists employ the language of church as culture.98 Hauerwas and Willimon
agree, noting, “The church is a colony, an island of one culture in the middle of
another.”99
To think even more eschatologically about the question, Carson notes, “We await
the return of Jesus Christ, . . . Until that day, we are a people in tension. On the one hand,
we belong to the broader culture in which we find ourselves; on the other, we belong to
the culture of the consummated kingdom of God, which has dawned upon us.”100 God
94
D. A. Carson, Christ and Culture Revisited (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 63
95
Ibid., 63.
96
Edgar Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership (San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey–Bass,
2010).
97
J. D. Vance, Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis (New York:
HarperCollins, 2016).
98
Kevin Vanhoozer describes culture as both a work and a world of meaning. It is a world
because “cultural texts create a meaningful environment in which humans dwell both physically and
imaginatively.” In Kevin Vanhoozer, Everyday Theology: How to Read Cultural Texts and Interpret
Trends (eds. K. Vanhoozer, C. Anderson, and M. Sleasman; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 26.
Local churches might be described as a “world” where believers dwell for shaping purposes, though not the
only world shaping them.
99
Hauerwas and Willimon, Resident Aliens, 12.
100
Carson, Christ and Culture Revisited, 64; emphasis mine.
181
calls the church to embody in the here and now––in their thinking and doing––what the
world is called to in the eschatological sense.101
The church as a social reality becomes a culture––sharing ideological and
behavioral aspects––always intending to be visible before the broader world. J. H.
Bavinck, in fact, defines culture as religion made visible.102 Yoder affectionately calls the
new humanity a pulpit,103 explaining elsewhere, “The believing body of Christ is the
world on the way to its renewal; the church is the part of the world that confesses the
renewal to which all the world is called. The believing body is the instrument of that
renewal in the world, to the (very modest) extent to which its message is faithful.”104 In
summary, not only must the gospel be contextualized for a particular culture, but if the
church emerges from the gospel, the local church must be contextualized as well.105 The
contextualized church engages culture, in this model, by embodying a counterculture
before the world.
Counterculture and the Corporate Aspect of the Church’s Mission
This chapter contends that certain cultural models, and by extension contextualization
models, emphasize the role of the individual to the exclusion of the corporate body of
101
John Howard Yoder, The Priestly Kingdom: Social Ethics as Gospel (Notre Dame, Ind.:
University of Notre Dame Press, 1984), 92.
102
J. H. Bavinck, The Impact of Christianity on the Non-Christian World (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1949), 57.
103
John Howard Yoder, For the Nations: Essays Evangelical and Public (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1997), 37.
104
John Howard Yoder, Body Politics: Five Practices of the Christian Community Before the
Watching World (Nashville: Discipleship Resources, 1997), 78.
105
Bevans and Goheen agree that revelation, in many cultural models, relies too heavily upon
propositional truth alone. This chapter agrees with an emphasis on propositional truth, though advocates as
182
Christ. Lois Barrett accuses Niebuhr of making this mistake, writing, “ . . . Niebuhr’s
analysis has no real place for the church. His primary actor is the individual Christian,
who must make choices concerning Christ and culture. By implication, the church is
simply a collection of individual Christians.”106 The same Enlightenment influences that
confuse ecclesiology and mission107 lead contextualization astray.
David Clark critiques the most pervasive contextualization method, advocated
earlier in this chapter as the translation model. He points out the weakness of depending
too heavily upon the translator (singular) alone. Labeling this model a form of
principlizing, he states that “ . . . principlizing obscures the fact that any articulation of
the allegedly transcultural principles still reflects the culture of the translator.”108 The
translation model, as described by Hesselgrave and Clark, de–emphasizes the role of the
community in contextualization. In many of its descriptions, an individual alone can
accomplish the decode/encode method.
However, Clark’s dialogical method necessitates a plurality of perspectives.
While he does not explicitly critique the individualism often found in the translation
model, he employs ecclesial and corporate language in describing the dialogical model,
writing, “In the end, however, contextualization places responsibility for theologizing––
for interpreting and applying Scripture to particular contexts––in the hands of the church
well the embodiment––and added credibility––of propositional truth within a social reality called the local
church. Bevans, Models, 44; Goheen, Introducing Christian Mission Today, 284.
106
Lois Barrett, “Missional Witness: The Church as Apostle to the World,” in Missional Church:
A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America (ed. D. Guder; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998),
115.
107
The introduction in chapter two makes this case.
108
Clark, To Know and Love God, 112.
183
of those particular cultures. . . . Contextualized theology happens best when each people
group takes responsibility for ‘self–theologizing.’”109 The seven steps he proposes within
the dialogical contextualization method use, without exception, plural language.110
Like the dialogical model proposed by Clark––and arguably more so––the
countercultural model of contextualization eschews individual attempts at
contextualization.111 The model’s stress upon corporate realities prevents such
isolationism.112 Goheen writes, “It emphasizes the communal dimensions of the
missionary witness of the church. There is a reaction against a reduction of mission to the
calling of individuals in culture characteristic of Christendom. It stands against a neglect
of the church as a community that embodies the life of the kingdom together.”113 To
underscore the corporate nature of this framework, the countercultural model compels
one believer to concern himself or herself with the contextualization of his or her fellow
believer.114
In other words, the church discerns together the structure God built into
creation.115 Wolters and Goheen note, “In every cultural product, institution, and custom
109
110
Ibid., 114.
111
Bevans, Models, 122, writes, “The gospel encounters or engages the human context, say the
practitioners of the countercultural model, by its concretization or incarnation in the Christian community,
the church.”
112
Inagrace T. Dietterich, “A Particular People: Toward a Faithful and Effective Ecclesiology,” in
The Church Between Gospel and Culture: The Emerging Mission in North America (ed. G. Hunsberger and
C. Van Gelder; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 368–369.
113
114
Though the dialogical model seems to be more corporately informed than the translation
model, the countercultural model takes a more active role in regard to others’ efforts at contextualization
than the dialogical.
115
184
is something of the good of God’s creational structure.”116 Bruce Ashford agrees,
contending that the church must look backward as it fulfills its missionary calling,
asserting, “The church’s mission includes discerning God’s creational design in every
area of life, ascertaining the idolatrous misdirection in those areas, and seeking renewal
and restoration.”117 Therefore, to connect this chapter with the missiological significance
of local church unity, one question the corporate body asks themselves to enable
meaningful contextualization might be: “What is God’s creational design for unity, in
particular its relational dimension?” If God’s intention for human community points
toward shalom–esque unity, the church endeavors to be a foretaste of that which is to
come.118 An isolated individual can hardly accomplish this endeavor.
As a corporate body attempting to contextualize, the church fills existing cultural
forms, like comm(unity), with its own meaning. Goheen writes, “All cultural forms, and
not just language, can be transformed and filled with new meaning by the gospel.”119
Using speech–act theory, Kevin Vanhoozer puts forward a cultural methodology,
“Cultural agents can use the locutions of popular culture to perform new illocutionary
and perlocutionary acts. We can speak our meaning with their language.”120
Based on the use of logos in John 1, Newbigin agrees with Vanhoozer’s
methodology, noting, “‘John’ freely uses the language and the thought–forms of the
116
Ibid., 137.
117
of the Church (eds. K. Easley and C. Morgan; Nashville: B&H Academic, 2013), 257; Goheen, A Light to
the Nations, 193.
118
Lesslie Newbigin, Signs Amid the Rubble: The Purposes of God in Human History (ed.
Geoffrey Wainwright; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 106.
119
185
religious world for which he writes. . . . Yet ‘John’ uses this language and these thought–
forms in such a way as to confront them with a fundamental question and indeed a
contradiction. The logos is no longer an idea in the mind of the philosopher or the mystic.
The logos is the man Jesus.”121 This models for us a critical acceptance of cultural forms,
often in order to fill them with renewed meaning. T. M. Moore writes, “In a sense, all
culture is a gift from God. The challenge to us is in learning how to take what is good in
contemporary culture, reclaim and retool it, and put it to work in a Christian framework
for the sake of forging new culture.”122 Therefore, to contextualize faithfully, the church
community models rightly the relational realities––for example, unity––the world
seeks.123
Countercultural contextualization aims at creating an alternative community
rather than alternative isolated believers. In this countercultural model, grace infuses
nature within our relationships. If, as Niebuhr posits, a non–negotiable element of culture
remains its sociality,124 then any influence upon culture should itself contain social
aspects. If social realities inform culture and the church aims to affect cultural structures,
then the church must present the world with an alternative social reality.125
120
Vanhoozer, Everyday Theology, 56; emphasis in original.
121
122
T. M. Moore, Culture Matters: A Call for Consensus on Christian Cultural Engagement
(Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2007), 16.
123
Veli–Matti Kärkkäinen, An Introduction to Ecclesiology: Ecumenical, Historical and Global
124
Niebuhr, Christ and Culture, 32.
125
See Richard Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to
New Testament Ethics (New York: HarperCollins, 1996), 196.
186
In the end, the church is a culture for good or ill. The countercultural model
challenges the corporate life of the church to be contextualized, using the language and
forms of the dominant culture but critiquing those elements that contradict God’s
creational design. This model not only challenges individuals to contextualize, it forces
individuals to be concerned for their neighbor’s faithful contextualization. Therefore, this
model best embodies the corporate aspect of the mission of the church.
Contrast Communities on Display
The inner life of the church––the church as culture––shapes the corporate, centrifugal
mission of the church. Lois Barrett notes, “The inner, communal life of the church
matters for mission. Instead of separating the work of particular congregational
communities or the church in general into mission and nurture, the total life of the ‘people
sent’ makes a difference to its apostolic witness.”126 Tim Keller agrees, writing, “Most
missional thinkers agree that in our Western Culture, we must be a contrast community, a
counterculture. The quality, distinctiveness, and beauty of our communal life must be a
major part of our witness and mission to the world.”127 Some theologians use contrast
community language128––the fact Keller hints at––when they describe countercultural
realities, Bevans going so far as suggesting renaming it the contrast model.129
This rebranding likely emerges because the countercultural model assumes
missiological significance only to the degree it contrasts itself with the outside world.
126
Barrett, “Missional Witness,” 128; emphasis mine.
127
Keller, Center Church, 260; emphasis in original.
128
Lohfink, Jesus and Community; Goheen, A Light to the Nations.
187
Barrett writes, “If Christian faith makes any difference in behavior, then the church in
conformity with Christ is called to an alternative set of behaviors, an alternative ethic, an
alternative kind of relationships, in dialogue with the surrounding cultures. Its
differentness is itself a witness to the gospel.”130 For the world to notice, the church’s
inner life must distinguish itself from that of the world.
However, to be clear, separation should not be mistaken for the church’s telos.
Gerhard Lohfink clarifies the purpose of the church’s distinctiveness, contending that
“ . . . the idea of church as contrast–society does not mean contradiction of the rest of
society for the sake of contradiction. Still less does church as contrast–society mean
despising the rest of society due to elitist thought. The only thing meant is contrast on
behalf of others and for the sake of others.”131 God sets apart a people from the world for
the world.
Although many aspects of the church’s inner life might be detailed, the remainder
of this chapter will briefly discuss the foundational nature of local church unity and
holiness for contrast communities. Simply stated: Contrast necessitates holiness; biblical
community necessitates unity. Since unbelievers often read local churches like texts,132
missiological faithfulness necessitates that these inner realities correspond with God’s
purpose for contrast communities. The unity and holiness of the church––centripetal
129
Bevans, Models, 119.
130
Barrett, “Missional Witness: The Church as Apostle to the World,” 119; emphasis mine.
131
Lohfink, Jesus and Community, 146; emphasis in original.
132
An assertion made by Joseph Hellerman, When the Church Was a Family (Nashville: B&H
Academic, 2009), 138–139.
188
mission realities––sets the church apart from the world for the good of the world,
fulfilling in part the corporate aspect of the mission of the church.
Contrast Necessitates Holiness
Though various characteristics of contrast communities might be elucidated, this section
focuses on contrast communities’ dependence upon local church holiness. As argued
earlier, the holiness of the church intends to be a display of the holiness of God. God
separates a people from the world so that the world might no longer be separated from
him. While the Old Testament law by itself could not form people into a contrast
community,133 Jesus’ holy life made possible a holy people.134 The argument for the
holiness of the church in chapter four doubles as an argument for contrast between
contrast communities and the world.
Chapter four contended that holiness necessitates relationship to the holy one,
implying a regenerate church membership.135 Therefore, if regenerate membership
expresses local church holiness, the argument for maintaining membership in chapter
four doubles as an argument for maintaining contrast. Holiness within contrast
communities points the unbelieving world both to the transformative power of the gospel
and the God in whom believers find themselves progressively transformed into
133
134
135
David Peterson, Possessed by God: A New Testament Theology of Sanctification and Holiness,
NSBT 1 (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1995), 17.
189
imaging.136 The degree to which a church is holy––set apart as a contrast community––
actually shapes its mission to the world.
Finally, a missiological local church holiness corresponds with the corporate
aspect of the mission of the church. In a Free–Church framework, if the congregation as
a corporate body determines membership137––a membership argued to be intrinsically
missiological––then the pursuit of regenerate membership by the body fulfills in part the
corporate aspect of the mission of the church. The local church employs the
countercultural model of contextualization as they maintain a holy membership. As
argued earlier, countercultural contextualization best embodies the corporate aspect of the
mission of the church, intending to foster an alternative community rather than
autonomous believers.
Community Necessitates Unity
As chapter three argued, the oneness of the people of God endeavors to portray the
oneness of their God,138 corroborating the unifying work of the gospel in tangible, visible
communities. Dismissing commonalities regarding ethnicity, socioeconomic background,
or other sociologically homogenous unit, the barrier–destroying unity in the local church
stands in contrast to that which the world offers. Barrett highlights this aspect, noting,
“An important task of the church is to discern what are those key points at which to be
136
Ibid., 25.
137
Based on a congregational interpretation of Matthew 18. See Hammett, Biblical Foundations,
147–148; Jonathan Leeman, Don’t Fire Your Church Members: The Case for Congregationalism
(Nashville: B&H Academic, 2016).
138
Gregg Allison, Sojourners and Strangers: The Doctrine of the Church (Wheaton, Ill.:
Crossway, 2012), 168–169.
190
different from the evil of the world. For some the key point will be authentic community
in the face of the individualism of the dominant culture.”139 Bosch agrees, noting that
contrast communities stand out in a broader culture that continually manifests an
“insatiable desire for self–gratification.”140 Keller details the church’s countercultural
response, “To the self–absorbed culture we say, ‘You must lose yourself––in service to
Christ and others––to truly find yourself.’”141 In North America, church unity remains
distinct.142 The community of contrast community necessitates biblical unity.
Rather than believers achieving unity through their efforts, God grants the church
unity,143 charging them to maintain the gift (Eph 4:3). Chapter three argued that the local
church maintains unity in ways the universal church does not, mainly in movements from
“faith to order.”144 The author further contended that each movement toward order
maintains a dimension of local church unity. Affirmed doctrinal statements maintain the
theological dimension of unity. Church membership––and the ordinances that govern that
membership––maintains visible unity. Local church leadership maintains organizational
unity. And finally, covenantal relationships maintain relational unity.145
139
Barrett, “Missional Witness: The Church as Apostle to the World,” 127.
140
David Bosch, Believing in the Future: Toward a Missiology of Western Culture (Harrisburg,
Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1995), 57.
141
Keller, Center Church, 259.
142
See chapter two for an analysis of North American individualism.
143
Everett Ferguson, The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1996), 406.
144
for an Anti–Institutional Age (ed. Mark Dever and Jonathan Leeman; Nashville: B&H Academic, 2015), 5.
145
See other categories in Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears, Vintage Church: Timeless Truths
and Timely Methods (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2008), 137–140.
191
While chapter three described this more exhaustively, the visible dimension of
church unity deserves some application in a section on the display of contrast community.
Church membership, governed by the ordinances, makes the church visible.146 Jonathan
Leeman contends, “Through baptism and the Lord’s Supper, a church hangs signs on
God’s people that say, ‘Jesus Representative.’”147 Though Miroslav Volf writes, “The
boundary between those who belong to the church and those who do not should not be
drawn too sharply,”148 both contrast and community depends upon careful boundaries.
If the mission of the church “bears primarily a communal character,”149 then
disunity adversely affects its mission.150 Within contrast communities, it matters not
whether the disunity manifests itself relationally, theologically, or organizationally,
visible disunity contradicts self–described community. Therefore, if the maintenance of
unity can be argued to be missiological151 and the Scriptures emphasize the corporate
aspect of mission––that which believers undertake together152––as the church eagerly
maintains the theological, visible, organizational, and relational dimensions of unity, the
local church employs the countercultural model of contextualization. The maintenance of
those dimensions intends to shape community within contrast communities, fulfilling an
integral part of the corporate aspect of the mission of the church.
146
Jonathan Leeman, Political Church: The Local Assembly as Embassy of Christ’s Rule
(Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2016), 362.
147
Ibid., 15.
148
Miroslav Volf, After Our Likeness, The Church as the Image of the Trinity (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1998), 148n84.
149
Herman Ridderbos, “The Kingdom of God and Our Life in the World,” International
Reformed Bulletin 28 (January 1967): 11–12.
150
151
Chapter three argues this position.
192
Contrast Communities on Display
While the countercultural model only becomes missiologically significant as the local
church contrasts itself with the outside world, the degree of contrast between church and
world matters little if the world never observes the contrast. For the Free Church’s
consideration of its mission, invisible notions of the church contribute little.153 When
Barrett describes an alternative community, she contends they function in dialogue with
the surrounding cultures.154
However, Bosch notes that the Enlightenment bifurcated between facts and
values––considering the first true and the second a matter of taste––subsequently
assigning religion to the latter category.155 Goheen further explains the privatizing effect
of this Post–Enlightenment rationalistic idolatry, insisting, “Truth claims that cannot meet
this scientific standard are relegated to the realm of mere values, preferences, tastes, and
opinions: they may be privately held, but they must not be proclaimed as public truth.”156
As the influence of these notions grew, Goheen argues that the Western Church neglected
to emphasize the missionary encounter between church and world––failing to criticize
humanism’s secular ideology––instead settling for the privatized version of Christianity
the Enlightenment insisted upon.157
152
Chapter two describes in more detail the corporate aspect of mission.
153
See chapter three for an emphasis upon the visible church.
154
Barrett, “Missional Witness: The Church as Apostle to the World,” 119.
155
Bosch, Believing in the Future, 5.
156
Goheen and Bartholomew, Living at the Crossroads, 97.
157
Goheen, Introducing Christian Mission Today, 221; See also Goheen, “‘As the Father Has
Sent Me,” 197
193
In a Post–Enlightenment culture, the privatized faith of one individual added to
another’s often equals the privatized faith of a community. Therefore, where some
countercultural––or contrast community––practitioners fail concerns zeal in connecting
the distinctive church to the world.158 While some limit the corporate aspect of mission to
centripetal mission alone,159 centripetal mission done faithfully leads inevitably to
corporate centrifugal mission. In fact, this dissertation argues that the former shapes the
latter.
Contrast Communities Display Kingdom Realities
Chapter three asserted that local church unity displays the unifying work of the gospel,
manifesting the horizontal reconciliation purchased by Christ (Ephesians 2). Similarly,
chapter four contended that local church holiness displays the transformative power of
the gospel, distinguishing God’s people from the unbelieving world. While the visible
displays should not be seen as mutually exclusive, this section asserts that the
countercultural local church––or contrast community––displays aspects of the coming
kingdom.
Paul Minear wrote, “The most central, all-embracing unifying theme running
throughout the Scriptures is that of the coming kingdom.”160 In fact, kingdom themes
recur so often that David Bosch asserts, “The reign of God is undoubtedly central to
158
Admittedly, few countercultural theologians would knowingly write sentences affirming
sectarianism. However, the application of the model by practitioners might not be so consistent. Bevans,
Models, 125, writes, “The danger is that the community focuses on its own integrity, the quality of its
community, the authenticity of its worship and does not move into the world.”
159
194
Jesus’ entire ministry. It is, likewise, central to his understanding of his own mission.”161
Therefore, to discuss mission without discussing kingdom, to some degree, yields an
inadequate discussion. At the intersection of missiology and ecclesiology, a robust
doctrine of the kingdom of God tempers theological over–emphases.162 Neither the
kingdom nor the church asserts its primacy, only the king, who works through the church
to point to his kingdom.
Russell Moore argues that, as recently as the past few decades, evangelicals
arrived at a consensus regarding the present state of the kingdom, expressed in
theological terms as inaugurated eschatology.163 Simply speaking, inaugurated
eschatology describes the kingdom as inaugurated––somewhat already––though not yet
consummated. This definition reflects the teaching of Jesus in the Gospels. Jesus spoke as
if the kingdom of God, in some sense, already arrived with his advent (Luke 17:21; Mark
1:15; Matt 4:17). Yet, the balance of the New Testament makes clear that the powers and
principalities of this world have not yet bent the knee to his rule in toto.
The canon portrays a day of final consummation where all things––good and evil––
render proper honor to this king in either salvation or judgment. (1 Cor 15:27–28; Luke
22:28–30; Revelation 19–22).
160
Paul Minear, Images of the Church in the New Testament (Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster
Press, 1960), 124.
161
David Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (Maryknoll,
N. Y.: Orbis Books, 1991), 31.
162
Kimberly Samuel, “The Community of Mission: The Church,” in Theology and Practice of
Mission: God, the Church, and the Nations (ed. Bruce Ashford; Nashville: B&H Academic, 2011), 70.
163
Russell Moore, The Kingdom of Christ: The New Evangelical Perspective (Wheaton, Ill.:
Crossway, 2004), 146.
195
The theologian’s thesaurus should not find church and kingdom synonymous.164
Yet Lohfink notes the connection between the kingdom and ecclesial display, “The rule
of God evidently presupposes a people, a people of God, in whom it can become
established and from whom it can shine forth.”165 Acknowledging the already of the
kingdom, the redeemed church presently shares some characteristics of Christ’s
consummated reign.166 In other words, as citizens of the kingdom faithfully embody what
it means to live under the king’s rule, the church serves as a sign or foretaste of the
coming kingdom.167
However, the stark distinction between building the kingdom and pointing to the
kingdom must be noted. As the church’s life submits to the king, it points to royal
obligations. James Davison Hunter explains, “Such work may not bring about the
kingdom, but it is an embodiment of the values of the coming kingdom and is, thus, a
foretaste of the coming kingdom.”168 If the kingdom is only future and therefore
inconspicuous on this earth, no impetus for ecclesial display remains. However, if the
kingdom arrived in part already, the church endeavors to make that reality conspicuous.
Sean Cordell illustrates it this way:
Perhaps we find a helpful analogy in the opening of a business. When you see a
vacant building in a shopping center begin to get tables, chairs, kitchen
equipment, food, and servers, and finally the manager hangs the sign that says,
“Restaurant Now Open for Business,” you know you are looking at a restaurant.
164
Contra Scot McKnight, Kingdom Conspiracy: Returning to the Radical Mission of the Local
Church (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2014), 206; see George Eldon Ladd, The Gospel of the Kingdom:
Scriptural Studies in the Kingdom of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 117.
165
Lohfink, Jesus and Community, 27; emphasis mine.
166
Moore, The Kingdom of Christ, 79.
167
Ibid., 136.
168
Hunter, To Change the World, 234.
196
There are signs that a restaurant is coming and then finally that the restaurant has
opened. Likewise there are signs that the kingdom is inbreaking and there will be
a time when it is fully realized.169
As the people of God embody kingdom citizenship, they become something of a display
people where humanity––even unbelieving culture–– might glimpse something of the
coming kingdom.170 Contrast communities make these spiritual realities visible.
Contrast Communities On Display Locally
However, as if the world suffers from near–sightedness, the clearest glimpses of kingdom
realities necessitate some degree of proximity. The New Testament church modeled this.
Rather than employing a strategy of diffusion, New Testament believers thought it better
to plant themselves and their missiological efforts in a limited area over an extended
period of time.171 To see aspects of the future kingdom displayed within countercultural
communities, churches wed multiple seasons to geographical nearness.172
James Davison Hunter’s To Change the World helpfully approximates the cultural
tensions between distinctiveness and engagement, prioritizing the church’s locality.
Admitting the challenges of faithfulness in a culture permeated with difference173 and
169
Sean Cordell, “The Gospel and Social Responsibility,” in Theology and Practice of Mission:
God, the Church, and the Nations (ed. Bruce Ashford; Nashville: B&H Academic, 2011), 100–101.
170
Samuel, “The Community of Mission: The Church,” 65.
171
John Mark Terry, “Paul and Indigenous Missions,” in Paul’s Missionary Methods: In His Time
and Ours (ed. R. Plummer and J. M. Terry; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2011), 162.
172
Robert Martin–Achard describes mission as, “a matter of presence––the presence of the
People of God in the midst of mankind and the presence of God in the midst of His people.” In A Light to
the Nations: A Study of the Old Testament Conception of Israel’s Mission to the World (trans. J. Smith;
London: Oliver & Boyd, 1962), 79.
173
By difference he simply means the amount of diversity pervading our world, in particular this
country.
197
dissolution,174 he diagnoses the American milieu as, “ . . . an irresolvable and unstable
pluralism––the collision and conflict of competing cultures––[pluralism] is and will
remain a fundamental and perhaps permanent feature of the contemporary social order,
both here in America and in the world.”175 While intellectual prejudices play a part in this
dissolution, he attributes much of the blame to the explosion of communication
technologies. When reality becomes blurred by media, “The net effect is that all content
is trivialized.”176 Diversity and dissolution proceed in an indissoluble relationship.
In this context, Hunter stresses the need for the embodiment of truth: “For the
Christian, if there is a possibility for human flourishing in a world such as ours, it begins
when God’s word of love becomes flesh in us, is embodied in us, is enacted through us
and in doing so, a trust is forged between the word spoken and the reality to which it
speaks; to the words we speak and the realities to which we, the church, point.”177 The
Christian community provides an embodied alternative to the trivialization of truth,
corroborating the spoken word.
In a development of––and divergence from––Niebuhr’s categories, Hunter
submits “Defensive Against,” “Relevance To,” and “Purity From” the world/unbelieving
culture. Like this chapter, both “defensive against” and “purity from” esteem the church’s
distinctiveness. However, unlike this chapter, the latter insists that nothing affects those
174
By dissolution he means that basic assumptions about reality have been deconstructed by
various causes.
175
Hunter, To Change the World, 202.
176
Ibid., 209. See also Tim Challies, The Next Story: Life and Faith after the Digital Explosion
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 138–175; and Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death (New York:
Viking, 1985).
177
Hunter, To Change the World, 241; emphasis mine.
198
outside influences while the former continues to fight the culture wars in unbiblical
ways.178 “Relevance to” describes the historically liberal stream of Christianity that
lowers standards of holiness in order to accommodate culture.179 According to Hunter, all
three of these approaches fail to answer the challenges of difference and dissolution
rightly. This author agrees.
Rather than those categories, Hunter’s proposes a cultural model entitled “Faithful
Presence Within.” Faithful presence finds its exemplar in the person and work of Christ
––primarily the Incarnation––effectively answering both difference and dissolution.180 In
Christ, God pursues us, identifies with us, and offers us life.181 Hunter argues that to the
degree Christ shows himself faithfully present to us, so we should be to him through
participating in a worshipping community, asserting in part the preeminence of church
life: “Only by being fully present to God as a worshiping community and as adoring
followers can we be faithfully present in the world.”182
Furthermore, being faithfully present necessitates a healthy church culture.183 He
notes, “If for whatever reason, the culture of a local parish . . . does not express and
embody a vision of renewal restoration that extends to all of life then it will be impossible
to ‘make disciples’ capable of doing the same . . . In formation, it is the culture and the
178
One example would be seeing all difference as danger. See ibid., 219.
179
Ibid., 213–218.
180
Ibid., 241.
181
Ibid., 242.
182
Ibid., 244. For an even more explicitly communal application of Hunter’s notion, see David
Fitch, Faithful Presence: Seven Disciplines that Shape the Church for Mission (Downers Grove, Ill.:
InterVarsity, 2016).
183
Hunter writes in Ibid., 227, “Healthy formation is impossible without a healthy culture
embedded within the warp and woof of community.”
199
community that gives shape and expression to it that is the key.”184 Hunter believes the
local church constitutes a culture, for good or ill.
To further connect Hunter’s model to this chapter’s emphases, his plea for faithful
presence extends to those both inside and outside the church.185 Faithful presence to those
inside shapes community within contrast communities. Faithful presence to those outside
displays the contrast. Furthermore, while the countercultural community can be nothing
but distinct in a pluralistic culture, “ . . . antithesis is not simply negational.”186
Therefore, while Willimon and Hauerwas note that “ . . . the confessing church
finds its main political task to lie, not in personal transformation of individual hearts or
the modification of society, but rather in the congregation’s determination to worship
Christ in all things,”187 this chapter argues that the congregation’s determination to
worship Christ in all things––including the issues of local church holiness and unity––
contributes to both the personal transformation of individual hearts and some measure of
influence upon the culture. In short, grace within community infuses nature rather than
merely opposes it.188
Hunter’s model emphasizes not only faithful presence, but faithful presence
within. Affecting the broader world begins with affecting the world near. He clarifies that
“ . . . the call of faithful presence gives priority to what is right in front of us–the
community, the neighborhood, and the city, and the people of which these are
184
185
Ibid., 244.
186
Ibid., 235.
187
Willimon and Hauerwas, Resident Aliens, 45.
200
constituted.”189 A theology of faithful presence necessitates that the church first direct its
attention to the people and places they know directly.190 Though this could easily be
inferred from his argument,191 Hunter makes plain the local church’s role, insisting,
“Christians must cultivate tension with the world by affirming the centrality of the church
itself and the parish or local congregation in particular.”192
In his recent book, The Fractured Republic, Yuval Levin makes a similar case.
Concerning countercultural realities’ role within the broader culture, he notes, “All sides
in our culture wars would be wise to focus less attention than they have been on
dominating our core cultural institutions, and more on building thriving subcultures.”193
In essence, as the broader culture continues to decline in importance,194 Levin encourages
“emphasizing the needs and well-being of one’s near–at–hand community first and
foremost.”195 His argument prioritizes locality as the most effective way to influence the
broader world, noting, “Focusing on your own near–at–hand community does not involve
a withdrawal from contemporary America, but an increased attentiveness to it.”196
Though much of his argument relates primarily to political realities, he contends that a
188
Fitch writes that faithful presence is “how God has chosen to change the world” in Faithful
Presence, 10.
189
Ibid., 253.
190
Ibid., 253.
191
Conversely, Fitch thinks Hunter’s argument might actually encourage churches to promote
isolated efforts. See Faithful Presence, 13.
192
193
Yuval Levin, The Fractured Republic: Renewing America’s Social Contract in the Age of
Individualism (New York: Basic Books, 2016), 165; thanks to fellow PhD cohort member Trevin Wax for
pointing me to this resource and argument.
194
Ibid., 174.
195
Ibid., 176.
196
Ibid., 178.
201
focused subculture necessitates embodiment in actual, living communities he calls
congregations.197
Missiologists assert the priority of locality198 because missional efficacy depends
largely upon faithful and meaningful contextualization, where local churches “present the
supracultural message of the gospel in culturally relevant terms.”199 Meaningful
contextualization necessitates studying the local church’s cultural surroundings rather
than assuming monolithic factors. Bruce Ashford writes, “In seeking to proclaim the
gospel in a way that is meaningful, we listen to the questions that a culture asks,
acknowledge the categories within which it thinks, and learn the language that it
speaks.”200 In other words, living in a different zip code might imply a slightly different
contextualization of the gospel. However, in a local church, members and leaders live
and serve within the context the church desires to affect, better enabling thoughtful
corporate contextualization. While first making abundantly clear his disdain for
congregationalism, George Hunsberger asserts that mission takes form best locally in
what he deems “congregationism.”201 David Bosch concludes his work on Western
Missiology by stating, “In the context of the secularized, post–Christian West our witness
will be credible only if it flows from a local, worshiping community.202
197
Ibid., 180–181.
198
See Lesslie Newbigin, “What is a ‘Local Church Truly United’?” Ecumenical Review 29, no. 2
(1977): 119.
199
Hesselgrave and Rommen, Contextualization, 1.
200
Ashford, “The Gospel and Culture,” 122.
201
George Hunsberger, “Sizing Up the Shape of the Church,” in The Church Between Gospel and
Culture: The Emerging Mission in North America (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 343.
202
Bosch, Believing in the Future, 59; emphasis in original.
202
Conclusion
Chapter two argued for an emphasis on the corporate aspect of the mission of the church.
Chapters three and four presented the missiological significance of local church unity and
holiness, respectively. This chapter attempted to connect that holy and united church to
the unbelieving world, arguing that if the countercultural model of contextualization best
embodies the corporate aspect of the mission of the church described in chapter two and
contrast communities depend upon both local church holiness and unity, then those inner
life realities––holiness and unity––actually end up shaping the corporate aspect of the
Unfortunately, missiologists in the West often presume upon faithful
contextualization. Bosch makes that assertion and then follows it with a few questions:
Somehow we still believe that the gospel has been (has always been?) properly
indigenized and contextualized in the West. However, as we now know, the West
has largely turned its back on the gospel. Was it perhaps because the gospel was
never properly contextualized? Or perhaps overcontextualized, so much so that it
has lost its distinctive character and challenge?203
Newbigin agrees, capturing the seemingly paradoxical emphases of this chapter, “The
Church is for the world against the world. The Church is against the world for the
world.”204 This regularly adjusting205 contextual posture of discernment206––affirming
and challenging the broader culture––allows believers both to imitate God in loving the
203
Ibid., 58.
204
Newbigin, “What is a ‘Local Church Truly United’?,” 119.
205
Bosch notes in Transforming Mission, 498, “There is no such thing as missiology, period.
There is only missiology in draft.”
206
See Andy Crouch, Culture Making: Recovering Our Creative Calling (Downers Grove, Ill.:
IVP Books, 2008), 93, for a distinction between cultural gestures and cultural postures.
203
world while simultaneously obeying God’s command not to love the world.207 Tension
inevitably arises between these two cultural gestures, forcing believers to regularly
depend upon one another in order to contextualize faithfully. Therefore, more than the
other contextualization models, the countercultural model encourages holy and united
believers living within contrast communities to contextualize together.
207
See Allison, Sojourners and Strangers, 463.
204
CHAPTER 6
MODELS FOR ECCLESIOLOGICAL AND MISSIOLOGICAL EFFECTIVENESS
The world must see contrast communities to note contrast. Therefore, for this
dissertation’s application in a North American context, the question abides as to how the
local church might practically unite together in holy and united congregations while,
concurrently, keeping their collective social networks open for the purpose of engaging
unbelievers together. What methodology cultivates both the church as a believing
culture––the corporate and centripetal aspects of the church’s mission––while countering
the broader unbelieving culture in a missionary methodology both corporate and
centrifugal? In other words, how might the unbelieving world observe in their context
this distinct local church unity and corresponding holiness? This chapter contends that
Missional Community methodology1––to the degree it displays local church unity and
holiness for centrifugal purposes––facilitates the corporate aspect of mission described
above.
1
Mike Breen and Alex Absalom, Launching Missional Communities: A Field Guide (Myrtle
Beach, S. C.: Sheriar Press, 2010).
205
Furthermore, based on Rodney Stark’s assertion that open networks contributed to
much of the early church’s missionary effectiveness,2 this chapter argues that closed
membership realities need not inhibit mission as long as the church pursues open
networks together. David Bosch captures some of this tension by writing, “It is true that
the Christian community is exclusive and has definite boundaries, but there are ‘gates in
the boundaries.’”3 While the church should employ strictly closed networks for the
purpose of membership, it also ought to intentionally pursue open social networks
together for the advance of God’s mission. Missional Communities facilitate these
missiological open networks, enabling the world to view both contrast and community.
However, because Missional Communities pursue open networks and the
unbelieving world regularly views their corporate life, the health of local church unity
and holiness––inner life realities––ends up shaping the corporate aspect of its mission to
the world. In other terms, if Missional Community methodology appears to faithfully
enact the corporate aspect of centrifugal mission in North America, its missiological
effectiveness depends largely upon centripetal realities. The community must be
attractive––giving clear displays of the gospel’s effect––to be effective for mission.
2
Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became
the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries (New York: HarperOne, 1996), 20.
3
David Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (Maryknoll, N. Y.:
Orbis Books, 1991), 137; In this section, Bosch draws from Wayne Meeks, The First Urban Christians:
The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983), 84–107.
206
Throughout this final chapter, local churches that employ a Missional Community
methodology will be consulted.4 The chapter will include as well the conclusion of the
dissertation, reviewing the thesis and this author’s argumentation for it.
Missional Communities and Open Networks
Mike Breen defines a Missional Community as “a group of approximately 20 to 40
people who are seeking to reach a particular neighborhood or network of relationships
with the good news of Jesus.”5 Mainly drawing from a house church rationale,6 this
methodology encourages differing subsections of one local church to plant their lives
together in the neighborhood in which they live intentionally for the purpose of mission.7
In fact, in his book entitled Launching Missional Communities, Mike Breen states, “The
New Testament’s instruction and pattern reveal a church that can be called a household of
people on mission.”8 Functionally, like the early house churches, these larger–than–small
4
This author interviewed Dr. Todd Engstrom at The Austin Stone Community Church in Austin,
Texas; Chris Gonzalez at Missio Dei Communities in Tempe, Arizona; Brad Dunlap at Mercy Hill Church
in Memphis, TN; and Shane England at Resonate Church in Nashville, TN. Information about these
fellowships may be found here: http://austinstone.org/; http://missiodeicommunities.com/;
http://www.mercyhillmemphis.org/ and http://weareresonate.org/, respectively. The author also attended a
few of Mercy Hill Church’s Missional Community gatherings where Dunlap led, observing up close and
interviewing some members of their church about Missional Communities.
5
Mike Breen, Leading Missional Communities (Pawleys Island, S. C.: 3 Dimension Ministries,
2013), 6. An earlier definition from Breen was a bit more descriptive, “A group of anything from twenty to
more than fifty people who are united, through Christian community, around a common service and witness
to a particular neighborhood or network of relationships” in Mike Breen and Alex Absalom, Launching
Missional Communities: A Field Guide (Myrtle Beach: S. C.: Sheriar Press, 2010), 18.
6
Breen and Absalom, Launching Missional Communities, 33.
7
Breen discourages Missional Communities disconnected from a broader church community. See
Leading Missional Communities, 82. Though the local churches that employ this methodology might not
subscribe to the exact numbers in the definition above, it will be assumed that a Missional Community
constitutes a smaller portion of the church––not the entire body–– that gathers together regularly to live
within and reach a certain unbelieving area of the local church’s community. As mentioned in the first
chapter, if a local church were small enough––for example, 30 to 50 members––the entire church body
might be considered a Missional Community. However, this chapter assumes a larger congregation.
8
207
groups9 engage in intentional outreach to their common neighborhood or network of
relationships.10 While Missional Communities must not be fundamentally equated with
house churches for ecclesiological reasons,11 their comparable size, geographic focus,
and missiological function sustain the argument of this chapter.
House Churches and Missional Communities
To argue the biblical precedent for or corporate emphasis of Missional Communities, one
should begin with the prevalence of New Testament house churches.12 Del Birkey asserts,
“If you had asked another for directions to a church in any important city of the first–
century world, you would have been directed to somebody’s private home.”13 Both the
Scriptures and historical enquiry attest to this truth.
9
Small groups generally are considered to be 8–12 people. See Peter Wagner, Your Church Can
Grow (Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1981), 111. In fact, Breen laments the missiological
weakness of a small group, “We discovered that the small groups (cells) that wanted to maintain a
missional outlook were ‘small enough to care but not big enough to dare’” in Breen and Absalom,
Launching Missional Communities, 16. He goes on to write that the logistics for missionary endeavors
overwhelmingly burden a small group of people while 20 to 50 people find these same tasks manageable.
10
For another definition of Missional Communities, Brad Watson writes, “A missional
community is a way to organize the church to gather and send groups of people on a common mission” in
Sent Together: How the Gospel Sends Leaders to Start Missional Communities (Lexington, Ky.: GCD
Books, 2015), 68.
11
This chapter will touch on some of these issues, though space will not allow a thorough
deconstruction of Breen’s argument. For example, Breen equates the extended family (οἶκος) to a church.
However, when Paul said household, he did not necessarily mean church. See David Horrell, “From
Adelphoi to Oikos Theou: Social Transformation in Pauline Christianity,” Journal of Biblical Literature
120, no. 2 (June 1, 2001): 295.
Nevertheless, the Missional Community methodology can be partially affirmed missiologically
without embracing all the written ecclesiology––in particular Breen’s––behind it.
12
Wolfgang Simson, Houses that Change the World: The Return of the House Churches
(Emmelsbüll, Germany: C&P Publishing, 1999), 40–78; Rad Zdero, The Global House Church Movement
(Pasadena, Calif: William Carey Library, 2004), 17–58; C. Kirk Hadaway, Francis M. DuBose, and Stuart
A. Wright, Home Cell Groups and House Churches: Emerging Alternatives for the Urban Church
(Nashville, Broadman Press, 1987).
13
Del Birkey, The House Church: A Model for Renewing the Church (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald
Press, 1988), 40.
208
For example, in the book of Colossians, Paul writes, “Give my greetings to the
brothers at Laodicea, and to Nympha and the church in her house” (Col 4:15, ESV).
Elsewhere Paul mentions the same unification of house and church, “Greet Prisca and
Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, who risked their necks for my life, to whom
not only I give thanks but all the churches of the Gentiles give thanks as well. Greet also
the church in their house” (Rom 16:3–5). Paul mentions this same house church in his
letter to the Corinthians, “The churches of Asia send you greeting, Aquila and Prisca,
together with the church in their house, send you hearty greetings in the Lord” (1 Cor
16:19). Elsewhere, Paul writes, “To Philemon our beloved fellow worker and Aphia our
sister and Archippus our fellow soldier, and the church in your house” (Phlm 1:1-2).
Birkey argues for house churches in Jerusalem, Philippi, Ephesus, Laodicea, and Troas as
well.14
This practice continued for hundreds of years until the conversion of Constantine
in the fourth century. Stark writes, “The claim that Constantine ‘built’ the church must be
taken literally, in that he immediately launched an immense church–building program all
across the empire. When Constantine came to power, Christians had very few churches as
such, and most of those they did have were ‘private dwellings converted for the purpose,’
many of them having been apartment houses.”15 For the first 300 years following Christ’s
resurrection, the churches that celebrated his life primarily worshiped in homes.16
14
Ibid., 40–53.
15
Rodney Stark, The Triumph of Christianity: How the Jesus Movement Became the World’s
Largest Religion (New York, N. Y.: HarperOne, 2011), 172.
16
2004), 1; J. D. Payne, Missional House Churches: Reaching Our Communities with the Gospel (Colorado
Springs, Co.: Paternoster, 2007), 11.
209
However, in his important work on church planting, Stuart Murray asks probing
questions of the house–church movement’s relevance for today:
The fact that Christians in the first century frequently met in homes is
irrefutable, but this does not require us to do the same. Questions need to
be asked before drawing such a conclusion: Why did they meet in homes?
How comparable are the “households” of the New Testament with the
suburban semidetached houses in which contemporary cell groups meet?
Are meetings in homes perceived in our context in the same way as they
were in the first century?17
Therefore, even if it can be established that first–century churches met in homes––to
agree with Murray––that reality alone fails to necessitate application for the 21st century
New Testament church. Nor does it, for the purposes of this chapter, necessitate
employing Missional Community methodology within a local church based largely on
house church realities.
However, if various house groups in a city occasionally all met together,18 some
historical precursor to the function of Missional Communities may be found.19 John
17
Stuart Murray, Church Planting: Laying Foundations (Scottsdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 2001),
152.
18
John Hammett, “What Makes a Multi–Site Church One Church,” Great Commission Research
Journal 4, no. 1 (Summer 2012), 104, reminds that Paul always employs the singular for the church in the
same city while using the plural for groups of Christians scattered over a larger area such as a province.
19
1 Corinthians gives us the clearest evidence for multiple homes in one city housing church
gatherings that occasionally all met together. Paul wrote the Romans from Corinth and noted, “Gaius, who
is host to me and to the whole church, greets you” (Rom 16:23; emphasis mine). However, believers
gathered in other homes in Corinth as well. According to the book of Acts, Titius Justus opened his home
for Paul to do ministry while in Corinth (Acts 18:7). Roger Gehring argues that Priscilla and Aquila opened
their home in Corinth as they did in Ephesus and Rome. In the workshop–style house Aquila used to run
his tentmaking business Gehring postulates in House Church and Mission, 136, “In such a room or in the
shop itself, about twenty believers could have assembled for a house church meeting.” Eckhard Schnabel
writes, “The comment that Stephanas and his household ‘devoted themselves to the service of the saints’ (1
Cor 16:15) suggests that Christians were meeting in his house, that he was responsible for a house church.”
in Eckhard Schnabel, Early Christian Mission: Paul and the Early Church (2 vols.; Downers Grove, Ill.:
InterVarsity Press, 2004), 1303. Gordon Fee agrees, “It may be that Stephanas’ house also served as one of
the places of meeting. . . .” In Gordon Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1987), 831. Gehring suggests Crispus (Acts 18:8) as a potential homeowner and leader of a
house church meeting in Corinth as well. He states in House Church and Mission, 142, “If our conclusions
are correct, then in Corinth there existed a plurality of house churches, which gathered quite often in
210
Hammett suggests the possibility, “Perhaps there were both house church meetings in
some of these cities, and occasional larger group meetings of all the Christians in the
city.”20 The various house church gatherings would be somewhat equivalent to the
function of Missional Communities, ecclesiological nuance notwithstanding.21 The large
group meeting would then be similar to a Sunday gathering for worship.22
Concerning the size of these house church meetings, the dimensions of New
Testament homes limited the number of believers who could gather. Robert Banks
explains, “The entertaining room in a moderately well–to–do household could hold
around thirty people comfortably––perhaps half as many again in an emergency. . . . A
meeting of the ‘whole church’ may have reached forty to forty–five people.”23 Breen
seems to pick up on this when he sets the numbers for Missional Communities between
different homes, alongside the whole church at that location, which met less often but regularly.” Gaius,
Titius Justus, Priscilla and Aquila, Stephanas, and Crispus all opened their home to various house group
meetings. All these house church gatherings occasionally worshiped together at Gaius’ home (1 Cor 14:23;
Rom 16:23).
20
21
Gregg Allison writes of 1 Corinthians 16:23 in Sojourners and Strangers: The Doctrine of the
Church (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2012), 314n, “The word ‘whole’ is redundant if ekklesia always means
an assembly of all of the church’s members. Paul’s use of the expression ‘the whole church’ clearly implies
the existence of an assembly in which not all of the church’s members are meeting.” However, the
ecclesiological danger might be labeling each Missional Community a House Church, as Norman
Community Church in Norman, OK chooses to do. See Breen and Absalom, Launching Missional
Communities, 102. This author’s statement concerning that danger assumes a church large enough for
multiple Missional Communities, as does this chapter. In a church small enough for only one Missional
Community, labeling the Missional Community as a House Church causes no ecclesiological issues
according to this author. However, in larger congregations, if each Missional Community is called a house
church, the label might inadvertently foster the notion that each Missional Community by itself constitutes
an autonomous church, without consideration of the other church members whom they covenant with
relationally.
22
Even though the large group might not have met as often as weekly in the first century.
23
Robert Banks, Paul’s Idea of Community: The Early House Churches in their Historical Setting
211
20 and 40 people.24 This size gathering constitutes a mid–sized community.25
However, while an argument may be made for the prominence of first–century
house churches and the size of those communities living on mission together, those
arguments fail if considered ecclesiologically analogous.26 Instead, this chapter uses the
size, function, and geographical focus of house church gatherings as a model for
Missional Communities.27 The 20 to 40 people living on mission together seems to
provide an example, though not a prescriptive one, for engaging in corporate mission
today. The reality that house groups, mainly in Corinth, all met together provides some
rationale for Missional Communities functioning within the framework of a local church.
With the right biblical rationale––and a few ecclesiological qualifications––Missional
Communities seem to be a faithful methodology for local mission.
24
Breen, Leading Missional Communities, 6; Breen and Absalom, Launching Missional
Communities, 20.
25
Ed Stetzer and Mike Dodson describe mid–sized communities as between 17 and 70 people in
Ed Stetzer and Mike Dodson, Comeback Churches: How 300 Churches Turned Around and Yours Can Too
(Nashville: B&H, 2007), 152.
26
As a bad example of this, Breen unequivocally equates house churches and Missional
Communities. For example, Breen quotes (with quotation marks) James Dunn, “Leading New Testament
scholar James Dunn comments on Romans 16:3–16: ‘The groupings indicate at least five different
Missional Communities in Rome (v. 5, 10, 11, 14, 15)’” in Launching Missional Communities, 35. Yet
when reading Dunn’s commentary on Romans this author read that “ . . . the groupings indicate at least five
different house churches in Rome (vv 5, 10, 11, 14, 15.)” in James Dunn, Romans 9–16 (ed. Ralph Martin;
WBC 12; Dallas, Tex.: Word Publishers, 1988), 891; emphasis mine. Breen haphazardly misquotes Dunn
by using Missional Community language when in fact Dunn wrote of house churches.
27
As opposed to the oikos rationale Breen employs. He believes the New Testament uses this term
to describe a sociological reality––made up of the householder’s family, slaves, and network of
relationships––as well an architectural one. See Breen and Absalom, Launching Missional Communities, 33
and Tim Keller, Gospel in Life: Grace Changes Everything (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 81. James
Jeffers disagrees with this analysis, writing, “The early Christian congregations found value in borrowing
from both voluntary associations and Greco–Roman households, but the nature of the churches was not
fundamentally changed as a result. The early congregations were more complex than the analogy of a
household can reveal.” In James Jeffers, The Greco–Roman World of the New Testament Era: Exploring
the Background of Early Christianity (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 87. Robert Banks
considers this kind of oikos rationale to be an oversimplification of the reality in Paul’s Idea of Community,
38.
212
Missional Communities and Corporate Mission
Though Breen suggests both inward and upward dimensions of a Missional Community
for forty pages of his book,28 the outward aspect defines the structure.29 However, not
only is it missional in intention,30 Missional Communities highlight the corporate aspect
of the church in mission. Jeff Vanderstelt––recognized practitioner of Missional
Communities within Soma churches31––defines Missional Communities with explicitly
corporate language: “a family of missionary servants sent as disciples who make
disciples.”32 Vanderstelt writes, “We’ve found it important to also identify a collective
mission––a missional focus. Too often, groups primarily talk about being on mission, but
then the leaders leave the group meeting and find themselves alone on mission.”33
Another Soma church in Nashville––Resonate Church––makes this corporate aspect
unequivocal, “We will not put on evangelistic missions outside the context of a Christian
community.”34
Drawing from the writings of Rodney Stark, Lesslie Newbigin, and others
consulted in this dissertation, Todd Engstrom, Pastor of Missional Communities at The
28
Breen and Absalom, Launching Missional Communities, 137–175.
29
Hence the adjective used to describe the community, “missional.”
30
See Michael Goheen, Introducing Christian Mission Today: Scripture, History, and Issues
(Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2014), 83, on the distinction between everything in the church
having a missionary dimension but not everything having a missionary intention. Missional Communities
make clear their missionary intention.
31
Soma is a family of churches that emphasize Missional Communities. See wearesoma.com
32
Jeff Vanderstelt, Saturate: Being Disciples of Jesus in the Everyday Stuff of Life (Wheaton, Ill.:
Crossway, 2015), 194; emphasis mine.
33
34
Their website continues, “We are committed to communicating the gospel message in the
context of a gospel community. As we build relationships with people and share the gospel message, we
want to introduce them to Christian community. We want people to experience church as a network of
relationships rather than a meeting they attend or a place they enter.” “Mission and Vision,” Resonate
Church; n.p. [cited 3 December 2016]. Online: http://weareresonate.org/about/vision-beliefs
213
Austin Stone Community Church in Austin, Texas, emphasizes the corporate aspect of
mission, “We must gather for worship AND gather for mission.”35 For practical purposes,
he notes, “In order to embody the church in unique cultures in our city and be effectively
mobilized for mission to our entire city, this means that we must have smaller, nimble
communities who are uniquely expressing the gospel in their neighborhoods, workplaces,
and networks of people.”36 In his doctoral work, Engstrom argues for the importance of
the corporate aspect of mission as well.37
Rather than the individualistic mission so often preferred by Post–Enlightenment
believers, Missional Communities argue for community as a prerequisite to mission. Brad
Watson makes the corporate element clear, writing, “A missional community is a way to
organize the church to gather and send groups of people on a common mission.”38 Since
individualistic mission often produces individualistic disciples, the corporate aspect of
mission needs to be emphasized.
If salvation creates community,39 Missional Communities living together on
mission corroborate the communal dimensions of the gospel in their life together.40
Corporate worship might not display the relational dimension of unity implied in the
35
Todd Engstrom, “A Theological Reason for Missional Communities,” n.p. [cited August 13,
2016]. Online: http://toddengstrom.com/2013/03/04/a-theological-reason-for-missional-community/ For
more on The Austin Stone’s transition and implementation of Missional Communities, see Reggie McNeal,
Missional Communities: The Rise of the Post–Congregational Church (San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey–Bass
Publishers, 2011), 105–114.
36
Engstrom, “A Theological Reason for Missional Communities,”; emphasis mine.
37
Todd Engstrom, “Missional Community as a Model for Integrated Discipleship in an American
Context” (D. Ed. diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2014), 57.
38
Watson, Sent Together, 41.
39
Joseph Hellerman, When the Church Was a Family (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2009), 124.
40
In John Hammett, “The Mission of the Church as a Mark of the Church,” Journal for Baptist
Theology and Ministry 5, no. 1 (Spring 2008): 31–40, Hammett includes fellowship in his description of the
214
one–anothers,41 but Missional Communities living together in an unbelieving context
might. Breen writes, “It should come as no great surprise to discover that we will usually
be most effective missionally when we go with others.”42
To return to an earlier reference,43 Missional Communities facilitate the scattered
church together and the gathered aspect of corporate mission. The local church––due to
its covenantal nature––remains spiritually united even when physically scattered.
Therefore, if the Scriptures speak often of mission in the corporate sense––and the church
continually remains united in mandate––then the local church should participate in
mission endeavors together. Missional Communities appear to emphasize and facilitate
this corporate aspect of mission.
Missional Communities and Local Mission
This methodology affirms the local church emphasis of this dissertation as well. While
Missional Communities prioritize the corporate aspect of mission, for believers to
practically gather for mission they necessarily need to share geographical proximity.
House–to–house evangelism appears to mark the New Testament witness.
Michael Green writes that “ . . . it is very noticeable that the home provided the most
natural context for gossiping the gospel. . . . In the urban insulae where people lived in
41
For a list of these biblical texts instructing believers concerning their relationships with one
another, see Mark Dever “The Practical Issues of Church Membership” in Those Who Must Give an
42
43
See chapter three of this dissertation.
215
close proximity to one another in small apartments, it was easy for the gospel to spread
up and down the block.”44 The geographic focus of New Testament house churches––
sharing a common mission––leads Missional Communities to do the same.45 Missional
Communities find a specific culture, geographic area, or network of local relationships to
pour the gospel and their corporate lives into regularly.46 Breen asserts that “ . . . the
church needs to move and seep into every crack and crevice of our culture. A Missional
Community is an extended family of people on mission together, seeing the Gospel come
to life and incarnated in whatever crack or crevice of society they find themselves in (i.e.,
mission context).”47 From the roots of this geographic focus, fruit grows.48 Ed Stetzer
makes this case, arguing for narrowing the lens of missiological endeavors: “Focusing is
essential because it enables the congregation to concentrate its light, enabling
accomplishments and successes in a way that diffusion of light cannot.”49
As believers invest their lives in particular areas, cultures, or relationships, this
quasi–house church methodology naturally leads to mission opportunities. Eckhard
Schnabel underscores this truth when he describes the household on mission, writing,
“The success of the early Christian mission and the life of the new churches was closely
connected with the private house. In the ancient world the Greek term oikos described the
‘house as living space and familial domestic household,’ and as such it became the ‘base
44
Michael Green, Evangelism in the Early Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970), 24.
45
Watson suggests neighborhood, a people, or a network as the common mission for Missional
Communities in Sent Together, 68–71.
46
47
Ibid., 40.
48
A Missional Community, according to Breen, ibid., 20, “ . . . has a defining focus on reaching a
particular neighborhood or network of relationships.”
49
Ed Stetzer, Planting Missional Churches (Nashville, Tenn.: B&H Academic, 2006), 151
216
of missionary work.”50 Sowing the seeds of the gospel regularly in one location,
particularly where one lives, multiplies gospel contacts. Gehring agrees, “We can assume
that the ancient oikos served as a source of evangelistic contacts, with its built–in network
of relationships reaching far beyond the immediate family to servants, friends, clientele,
and business associates.”51 If Missional Communities plant themselves locally in the
same way house churches did, over time they accomplish the same ends.
In the first–century pagan society, house churches living out the gospel together
attracted unbelievers. Gehring explains, “Because of the small size of house churches, it
was possible to maintain a family–like atmosphere and practice brotherly love in a very
personal and concrete way. Thus they became very attractive to outsiders.”52 He
contends, “Their unaffected way of relating, their brotherly love, their sense of
togetherness as members of the body of Christ, from which a mutual concern for one
another grew . . . all of this stimulated the interest of their fellow citizens and presumably
led them to ask the members of these house churches why they were the way they
were.”53 If the Christian’s relationship to other Christians points to the truths of gospel
reconciliation,54 then a group of people ends up being more missiologically attractive
than an individual.
Some describe this approach as a shift to an incarnational methodology. Stetzer
describes incarnational with these terms, “By incarnational we mean it does not create
50
Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 1301.
51
52
Ibid., 117.
53
Ibid., 189.
54
As Jesus’ prayer for unity in John 17:21 suggests.
217
sanctified spaces into which unbelievers must come to encounter the gospel.”55 Gehring
agrees, “Because Christian church members meet where they and others also live out
their daily lives, entering the church does not involve entering (what is perhaps perceived
to be) uniquely sacred space.”56 In other words, the Missional Community goes to the
unbelieving community together rather than asking the unbelieving community to come
to its gathering space.
Missional Communities take the attraction––its people––to the community.57 The
Soma School teaches this, “The issue really isn’t about whether we are for or against
attraction. The issue regards the source and means of the attraction.”58 After describing
the people of God as a display people similar to the argument of chapter five, that
document teaches, “The attraction was never merely an event, but the glory of God being
displayed in the everyday life of God’s people.”59
This methodology also affirms the countercultural emphasis on local presence in
the preceding chapter. Brad Dunlap, Missional Community Practitioner and Pastor of
Mercy Hill Church in Memphis, TN, notes the impact of geographical presence, “It’s
given us real influence among non–believers because they see us being committed for the
long haul. Outsiders view us as people who are concerned for the health and well–being
55
Stetzer, Planting Missional Churches, 162.
56
57
Of course, some use attractional in a pejorative sense, decrying an emphasis on the
attractiveness of church events. See Chapter two of Jared Wilson, The Prodigal Church: A Gentle
Manifesto Against the Status Quo (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2015). Stetzer bifurcates as well in Planting
Missional Churches, 162, stating, “The missional church is incarnational, not attractional, in its
ecclesiology.” This author emphasizes transformed and united people as the attraction.
58
Soma School Notes, “Everyday Gospel Rhythms: Attractional/Missional Church,” Used by
permission, Copyright: wearesoma.com.
59
Ibid.
218
of our city and neighborhood and specific lives.”60 Without being anti–cultural, Mercy
Hill endeavors to live faithfully within their local context as distinct followers of Christ.61
Missional Community locality answers contextualization’s questions as well.
Through prolonged engagement, the Missional Community develops more significant
relationships with the individuals to whom they minister, thereby receiving better clarity
concerning needs within that local culture. David Clark writes, “In sum, discerning
theological contextualization addresses the concerns that arise in particular cultural
contexts.”62 When churches attempt to reach entire multi–cultural cities with one
approach, they aim to fail. However, as the members of a Missional Community better
know specific local needs, the better meaningful contextualization occurs.
In the New Testament era, the location of the house church perpetually
proclaimed the message. Missional Communities seek the same. Breen describes
Missional Communities gathering multiple times a month in the group’s context for
mission.63 Therefore, outsiders who observe the life of a group not only see how the
gospel transforms the life of an individual, he or she observes how the gospel transforms
relationships between individuals. Furthermore, the unbelievers who observe this
community do so over a period of time––in one geographic location––which
subsequently leads to greater credibility. Missional Communities endeavor to embody the
message within a particular culture, corporately and locally.
60
Brad Dunlap, “Evaluating Unity and Holiness in the Life of Missional Communities,” 20
September 2016.
61
Dunlap writes in “Evaluating Unity and Holiness,” of their distinctiveness, “Many of us
wouldn’t normally hang out together but have a great deal in common because of Jesus.”
62
David Clark, To Know and Love God (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2003), 122.
63
219
Missional Communities and Visible Mission
However, for the church community to be attractive, unbelievers must observe it.64 In an
ideal world, Missional Communities that both prioritize the corporate aspect of mission
and focus those corporate efforts locally inevitably will be visible.65 To say this more
clearly, groups of believers gathering regularly in one spot typically fail to hide.
Therefore, if one way the contextualized church engages culture is by embodying an
alternative culture before the world,66 Missional Communities make this embodiment
visible by putting their membership on display.
This becomes especially true as Missional Communities meet in “Third Places,”
to employ the term Engstrom uses. While the local church and the home constitute the
two other places, a “Third Place” serves as neutral ground, “where non–Christians can
interact with members of a missional community.”67 He describes this Third Place
setting, writing, “Various non–believing friends of the Christians are brought in and are
embraced as friends by the community as a whole. The hope is that each believing
member of the community would know each other’s non–Christian friends.”68 He
outlines three core components of a Third Place: neutral ground for non–Christians,
natural to the rhythms of life, and regularly practiced over the course of time.69 As
64
If local church unity and holiness remain inconspicuous, the united and holy church remains
unfaithful to its mission.
65
In fact, in chapter three this dissertation noted that Baptists place an emphasis on visibility
because of locality.
66
Chapter five made this contention.
67
Engstrom, “Missional Community as a Model,” 93.
68
Ibid., 94.
69
Ibid., 94. As examples, he lists parks, restaurants, and sports events. For an example of an
Austin Stone Missional Community that met at a coffee shop in order to reach international students, see
this video: http://www.vergenetwork.org/2011/05/16/missional-community-austin-stone-films/
220
Missional Communities gather corporately for the purpose of mission within their
unbelieving context, inevitably their gathering makes the church––at least a subset of it––
visible.70
Missional Communities Facilitate Open Networks
As local believers gather corporately for the purpose of mission––within these visible
Missional Community structures––they often facilitate what Stark describes as open
networks.71 In his seminal work, The Rise of Christianity, Stark endeavors to explain how
and why the early church grew at a forty percent decadal growth rate.72 Though it sounds
paradoxical, at the most foundational level he contends that Christianity led to the rise of
Christianity. He then explains, “Let me state my thesis: Central doctrines of Christianity
prompted and sustained attractive, liberating, and effective social relations and
organizations.”73 In other words, the doctrines held by the church created a social
environment conducive to missiological growth.
Though his study outlines various sociological explanations for this growth, he
writes, “The basis for successful conversionist movements is growth through social
networks, through a structure of direct and intimate interpersonal attachments. Most new
religious movements fail because they quickly become closed, or semiclosed networks.
That is, they fail to keep forming and sustaining attachments to outsiders and thereby lose
70
Of course, this doesn’t have to be in “Third Places.” This author attended one of Brad Dunlap’s
Missional Communities at Mercy Hill in Memphis that met in a home. However, that Missional
Community intentionally made their corporate life visible to the neighborhood. In just a brief time, this
author observed this reality.
71
Each of the local churches that employ Missional Community methodology consulted in this
study affirmed Stark’s premise concerning open networks.
72
221
the capacity to grow.”74 Throughout his work, Stark argues that the early church regularly
created and maintained open networks––intimate interpersonal attachments––with
unbelievers.
Of course, sociologists define these “networks” differently. For example, David
Smilde writes, “Networks are simply concrete social relationships that provide the basic
units of social structure.”75 Robert Putnam, in his groundbreaking account of American
community Bowling Alone, uses social capital as a synonym for network. He defines
social capital as referring “ . . . to connections among individuals––social networks and
the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them.”76
Regardless of the term used, networks and social capital both struggle with the
same foundational question, namely, to what degree can networks thrive in and around
outsiders? Putnam writes, “Of all the dimensions along which forms of social capital
vary, perhaps the most important is the distinction between bridging (or inclusive) and
bonding (or exclusive).”77 According to Putnam, exclusive or bonding social capital is
good for maintaining and strengthening ourselves. Conversely inclusive, or bridging,
social capital gets ahead by generating broader identities. He writes, “Bonding social
capital constitutes a kind of sociological superglue, whereas bridging social capital
73
74
Ibid., 20, emphasis in original.
75
David Smilde, “Relational Analysis of Religious Conversion and Social Change: Networks and
Publics in Latin American Evangelicalism,” in The Conversion of a Continent: Contemporary Religious
Change in Latin America (ed. Timothy J. Steigenga and Edward L. Cleary; Piscataway, N. J.: Rutgers
University Press, 2007), 94.
76
Robert Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York,
N. Y.: Simon and Schuster Paperbacks, 2000), 19.
77
222
provides a sociological WD–40.”78 Though admittedly a broad generalization, exclusive
groups focus inwardly while inclusive groups––true to the term––embrace some
outsiders.
Closed Networks
The local church wrestles with the same questions concerning networks. Sociologists and
theologians often describe the church community as mainly consisting of the closed
variety, prioritizing exclusive bonding social capital. In The Transformation of American
Religion, Alan Wolfe asserts, “Of course religious people join together with others, they
are likely to argue, but the others with whom they join tend to be remarkably like
themselves.”79 In his book Souls in Transition, Christian Smith analyzed the sociological
realities of scores of 18 to 24 year–olds. This age group considers their networks to be of
upmost importance, as Smith notes, “Much of their lives appear to be centered on
creating and maintaining personal relationships.”80 Later in his analysis he characterizes
the nature of those sought–after relationships, writing, “Thus, again, for every group
under consideration, the close friendship networks of emerging adults appear to be
relatively homogenous with regard to beliefs about religion.”81 According to Wolfe and
Smith, many evangelicals spend their social capital on closed networks.
As chapter four argued, the Scriptures’ pervasive use of insider and outsider
language points to a form of church membership in the first–century, demanding some
78
Ibid., 23.
79
Alan Wolfe, The Transformation of American Religion: How We Actually Live Our Faith
(Chicago, Ill: The University of Chicago Press, 2003), 37.
80
Christian Smith, Souls in Transition: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of Emerging Adults
(New York, N. Y.: Oxford University Press, 2009), 73.
223
measure of exclusion in church networks. Furthermore, in recent local history, closed
networks prompted a degree of missiological growth.82 For example, Stark and Rodney
Finke write in The Churching of America, “Over the past two hundred–plus years of
American history it has been the costly sects that have shown the most rapid growth.”83
He goes on to explain the connection between costly sect and exclusivity: “Exclusion
results when high costs make membership sufficiently unattractive so as to chase away
the apathetic, and in doing so make the rewards of belonging far more intense.”84
Likewise, in The Rise of Christianity, Stark contends, “Membership in an expensive
religion is, for many people, a ‘good bargain’.”85 High requirements for membership, and
its commensurate exclusion, meet the Christian’s spiritual needs. Exclusive groups, or
closed networks, create a heightened sense of belonging for those within the group.
Open Networks
However, radically closed ecclesiological networks affect mission negatively as well.
Wolfe notes, “When the obligation to witness conflicts with the need for solidarity and
identity, the obligation to witness is likely to be sacrificed.”86 Subsequently, over time
fellowship with church members often takes precedence over fellowship with those
outside the church. Rather than compromise the unity of the group for the sake of the
outsider, exclusivity prevails.
81
Ibid., 130.
82
See chapter four on missiological membership.
83
Roger Finke and Rodney Stark, The Churching of America, 1776–2005: Winners and Losers in
Our Religious Economy (Piscataway, N. J.: Rutgers University Press, 2005), 249.
84
Ibid., 250.
85
86
Wolfe, The Transformation of American Religion, 191.
224
Though Stark considers costly membership a bargain, one of his chief arguments
for the unprecedented rise of Christianity emanates from the early church’s ability to
meet the interpersonal needs of humanity outside the church. Stark contends, “Successful
movements discover techniques for remaining open networks, able to reach out and into
new adjacent social networks.”87 Stark notes later in the book, that “ . . . in order to offer
plausible accounts of Christianity’s rise, we need to discover mechanisms by which
Christians formed attachments with pagans.”88
For one example, Stark describes the Christian community consistently meeting
the physical needs of pagans racked with deadly epidemics. While the emperor Julian
implored the pagan world to do the same, Stark describes his admonishments as landing
on deaf ears, “ . . . for all he urged pagan priests to match these Christian practices, there
was little or no response because there were no doctrinal bases or traditional practices
for them to build upon.”89 In fact, in his Easter letter, Dionysius claimed that the pagans
categorically abandoned their fellow pagans.90 However, as Christians took care of these
pagans––to their personal physical detriment–– pagans were more likely to have
interpersonal attachments to Christians when the epidemic passed.91 Selfless love and
sacrificial service in the midst of catastrophic tragedy fostered these open networks. The
doctrines of the early church buttressed their countercultural practice. Christianity gave
rise to Christianity.
87
88
Ibid., 115.
89
Ibid., 88. emphasis in original
90
Ibid., 83.
91
Ibid., 93.
225
For another example, Stark mentions the role of women in the early church.
Though admitting no direct evidence, he postulates that women converted to Christianity
more often than did men. He claims, “The ancient sources and modern historians agree
that primary conversion to Christianity was far more prevalent among females than
among males.”92 From that truth, he argues that males often were secondary conversions
won through the speech and conduct of their wives.93 He suggests, “We need to discover
how Christians managed to remain an open network, able to keep building bonds with
outsiders, rather than becoming a closed community of believers. A high rate of
exogamous marriage is one such mechanism. And I think it was crucial to the rise of
Christianity.”94 Without question, believers living before unbelievers in the home
functioned as a common open network.
Finally, Stark cites the urban chaos that permeated cities like first–century
Antioch. He recounts the horrific conditions: “Any accurate portrait of Antioch in New
Testament times must depict a city filled with misery, danger, fear, despair, and hatred.”95
Yet, in the midst of these circumstances, the Christian community offered a true sense of
belonging for the oppressed. Stark summarizes, “To cities filled with the homeless and
impoverished, Christianity offered charity as well as hope. To cities filled with
newcomers and strangers, Christianity offered an immediate basis for attachments. To
cities filled with orphans and widows, Christianity provided a new and expanded sense of
92
Ibid., 100.
93
Peter mentions this possibility when he writes, “Likewise, wives, be subject to your own
husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of
their wives–when they see your respectful and pure conduct” (1 Pet 3:1–2).
94
95
Ibid., 160.
226
family.”96 The Christian community, exclusive as it was, did not exclude itself from the
larger pagan community. The pagans’ plight attracted the charity of the church; the
church’s charity attracted the pagans’ affections. Open networks materialized.
Though membership remained a closed network, significant interaction between
insiders and outsiders––open networks––helps explain the missiological growth the early
church experienced. Rather than either/or, Stark seems to describe early church networks
as both closed and open, depending on the network. The inclusivity or exclusivity of a
network proceeds from its goals, consequently determining much of its effectiveness.
Missional Communities seek to facilitate this network balance. Breen’s definition
depicts a network of believers united around a particular mission field, explicitly
mentioning a broader network of relationships. In other words, a Missional Community
might be described as believers living on mission together, intentionally seeking open
networks.97
Chris Gonzalez, Missional Community practitioner and Pastor at Missio Dei
Communities in Tempe, AZ, contends that local churches––and their traditional
structures––often demand every bit of relational capital to maintain insider relationships.
However, he notes, “Missional Communities force people to look outside the church for
how they invest their relational capital. Each Missional Community is intentionally
96
Ibid., 161.
97
227
formed around an outside network.”98 In fact, Missional Communities exist to love,
serve, and make disciples of outsiders.99
Dunlap notes that the inclusion of outsiders becomes a cultural norm within
Missional Communities. He writes, “Covenanting around a specific mission means that
each Missional Community changes their schedules and rhythms of life in order to make
space for relationships with outsiders.”100 Since the group does this rather than the
individual alone, Dunlap’s sentence embodies both the corporate aspect of mission and
the pursuit of open networks.
Corporate Open Networks Facilitate Belonging
Though admittedly drawing largely from historical speculations, The Rise of Christianity
argues sociologically, giving significant credence to the role of open networks in the
process of conversion. Based on the widely–affirmed sociological control theory of
deviant behavior, Stark notes, “Conversion to new, deviant religious groups occurs when,
other things being equal, people have or develop stronger attachments to members of the
group than they have to nonmembers.”101 Sociologically, if an individual gains more
from belonging to a group than not belonging, this theory suggests they convert.
Some scholars see similar realities in the New Testament. Charles Wanamaker
describes the effect of belonging in his commentary on Thessalonians, “Conversion
occurs when an individual is inducted into an alternative social world through a process
98
Chris Gonzalez, “Evaluating Unity and Holiness in the Life of Missional Communities,” 7
October 2016.
99
Ibid.
100
Dunlap, “Evaluating Unity and Holiness.”
101
228
of socialization that on the one hand undermines or symbolically annihilates the social
world from which he or she has come and on the other replaces it with the new one of the
group into which the person is being inducted.”102 He argues that this process of
socialization corresponds with the experience of the first–century Thessalonians
receiving the ministry of the Apostle Paul and his fellow missionaries.103 Furthermore, he
declares the networks of Thessalonica to be open, or inclusive.104 Open networks
facilitate belonging.
The contemporary emerging church sang this refrain as well. However, what
Stark sociologically calls the theory of deviant behavior, they described as belonging
before believing.105 According to Jim Belcher, the emerging church dislikes the “ . . .
traditional church’s insistence that belief (adherence to certain doctrines) must precede
belonging (being part of the community). In their experience in the postmodern
environment, people come to faith after first belonging. Thus belonging precedes
believing.”106 Hugh Halter strongly agrees, saying somewhat haphazardly that belonging
actually causes conversion.107
Though this author refuses to assert that belonging causes believing in an ex
opere operato sense, the authors who affirm this could be describing an effective
102
Charles Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text
(NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 14.
103
Ibid., 14.
104
Ibid., 15.
105
For a critique of this methodology, see Jonathan Leeman, Political Church: The Local
Assembly as Embassy of Christ’s Rule (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2016), 104.
106
Jim Belcher, Deep Church: A Third Way Beyond Emerging and Traditional (Downers Grove,
Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2009), 94.
107
Hugh Halter and Matt Smay, The Tangible Kingdom: Creating Incarnational Community (San
Francisco, Calif.: Jossey–Bass, 2008), 98.
229
methodology with imprecise theological language. Simply, radically closed networks
imply an antagonism toward outsiders.108 Closed networks restrict any sense of belonging
to the insider.109 However, open networks facilitate some measure of belonging for the
outsider.110
Belonging Facilitates Believing
Furthermore, open networks––causal or not––increase the probability of multiple
exposures to the gospel, including its transformative and uniting effects. Outsiders must
come into contact with insiders in order to be recruited into any particular movement,
whether church or country club. David Snow, Louis Zurcher, and Sheldon Ekland–Olson,
all sociologists, agree, “Our findings indicate that the probability of being recruited into a
particular movement is largely a function of two conditions: (1) links to one or more
movement members through a preexistent or emergent interpersonal tie; and (2) the
absence of countervailing networks.”111 Open networks allow the outsider to preview the
network into which he or she might eventually belong.
Smilde describes the engagement between believers and their close unbelieving
friends, writing, “In this situation, evangelicals who live with non–evangelicals tend to
engage the latter in a low–intensity but persistent way by continually providing
108
Wolfe compares closed networks to partisan bickering and intrinsic narrowness, writing in The
Transformation of American Religion, 191, “Like those attracted to a political cause, fundamentalists are
characterized by closeness within the group and suspicion of those outside it.”
109
True or not, Paul Avis asserts that the Anabaptists refused all associations with unbelievers in
Paul Avis, The Church in the Theology of the Reformers (Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 1981), 58.
110
Ed Stetzer and David Putman, Breaking the Missional Code: Your Church Can Become a
Missionary In Your Community (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2006), 105, write, “Discipleship
involves participation in community prior to conversion.”
230
evangelical conceptualizations of the situations and dilemmas the non–evangelical
confronts.”112 When unbelievers live in consistent contact with a believer, pressing
questions about the gospel get answered regularly––often indirectly––through observing
the life of a believer.113 Snow, Zurcher, and Ekland–Olson concur again, “We argue that
initial and sustained participation is largely contingent on the countervailing influence of
alternative networks and intensive interaction with movement members.”114 Open
networks––and the interaction they facilitate––serve as a looking glass for the outsider
into the profound, life–transforming effect the gospel has on the life of the insider.115
The effect only compounds when one considers an unbeliever coming into contact
with a group of believers, rather than merely an individual.116 Doug McAdam and
Ronnelle Paulsen assert, “Ties to individuals may well mediate the recruitment process,
but they appear to do so with special force and significance when the tie is embedded in a
broader organization or collective context linking both parties to the movement in
question.”117 Alvin Reid and Mark Liederbach describe the conversion process118 of an
unbeliever, noting,“ . . . there is often the need for a life–altering process to take place
even before conversion. Often this will involve the nonbeliever being around and among
111
David Snow, Louis Zurcher, and Sheldon Ekland–Olson, “Social Networks and Social
Movements: A Microstructural Approach to Differential Recruitment," American Sociological Review 45,
no. 5 (October 1980): 798.
112
Smilde, “Relational Analysis of Religious Conversion and Social Change,” 99.
113
Provided the believer seeks to follow Christ.
114
Snow, Zurcher, and Ekland–Olson, “Social Networks and Social Movements,” 795; emphasis
mine.
115
The missiological significance of local church unity and holiness chapters three and four
discussed.
116
This is the missiological display of local church unity.
117
Doug McAdam and Ronnelle Paulsen “Specifying the Relationship Between Social Ties and
Activism” American Journal of Sociology 99, no. 3 (November 1993): 663.
231
believers, seeing the Christian worldview, experiencing it, and learning a new way to live
even as he or she is still trying to understand and embrace the full impact of the gospel
message.”119 The horizontal dimensions of the gospel, between one person and another,
help confirm the veracity of the vertical dimensions, between a person and God.
Though this author refuses to argue that belonging, or open networks, cause
salvation, we may assert that they contribute a certain holism to the spoken gospel.120
Outsiders often evaluate the gospel based on the community it creates.121 Therefore, the
church endeavors to display a unifying love in the midst of diversity and hate. Jesus told
the disciples: “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for
one another” (John 13:34–35). For the unbelieving world to see this love within diversity,
unbelievers must come into close contact with the community. Tim Keller concurs, “A
missional church must be, in a sense, ‘porous.’ That is, it should expect nonbelievers,
inquirers, and seekers to be involved in most aspects of the church’s life and ministry – in
worship, small and midsize groups, and service projects in the neighborhood.”122 Open
networks make this kind of interaction and belonging possible.
118
For an argument of conversion as a process, see John Stott, Christian Mission in the Modern
World (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2008), 172.
119
Mark Liederbach and Alvin Reid, The Convergent Church: Missional Worshipers in an
Emerging Culture (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2009), 248.
120
This author hedges on arguing for an intrinsic effectiveness to open networks or belonging. In
the end, open networks only give unbelievers more access to the gospel’s proclamation via lips and
promotion with lives. Of course, access to the gospel does not necessarily mean more conversions.
However, since the Spirit uses the gospel spoken within relationships––open interpersonal networks––the
church needs to create as many as possible. Thanks to Dr. Alvin Reid and Dr. Phil Newton for aptly and
warmly critiquing my argument in this regard.
121
Hellerman, When the Church Was a Family, 138–139.
122
Tim Keller, Center Church: Doing Balanced, Gospel–Centered Ministry in Your City (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 274. Interestingly, in ibid., 209, when Keller describes the countercultural
model of contextualization advocated in the previous chapter, he writes that counterculturalists affirm that
belonging precedes believing
232
Jim Belcher argues for a third way between the emergent emphasis on belonging
and the traditionalist emphasis on believing. Drawing from the example of Jesus with
those who followed him, he argues that “. . . though Jesus was in favor of inviting people
into the community, he also challenged them to know whether or not they were truly
following him.”123 For example, Jesus warns the crowds following him after the feeding
of the five thousand, “ . . . Truly, truly, I say to you, you are seeking me, not because you
saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. Do not labor for the food that
perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to
you” (John 6:26–27). Belcher argues that while Jesus spent time with outsiders, he spent
that time calling for their repentance. Belonging provided the environment for the means
toward believing.
Furthermore, those churches that affirm a regenerate church membership124
already practice some measure of belonging before believing, whether they admit it or
not. At nearly every Baptistic church in North America, the unbelieving children of
believing parents sit in the church’s pews, attend its small groups, and participate in
mission projects week in and week out. Therefore, if the Free Church wants a model for
how to incorporate outsiders without compromising membership standards, it might
observe members’ unbelieving children. In a healthy church of this persuasion, these
children receive love, a qualified inclusion, while regularly hearing the gospel in both
spoken words and the corroboration of a visible gospel community. While included, at no
123
Belcher, Deep Church, 101; emphasis in original.
124
See chapter four for a lengthy discussion of this reality.
233
point do they become members apart from belief in the gospel. These local churches keep
some networks closed and others open.125
Therefore, Alan Hirsch and Michael Frost present a false dichotomy when they
bifurcate centered–set and bounded–set churches. They write, “The attractional church is
bounded set. That is, it is a set of people clearly marked off from those who do not belong
to it. Churches thus mark themselves in a variety of ways. Having a church membership
roll is an obvious one.”126 In their mind, centered-set constitutes the biblically missional
modus operandi. They list three options for the relationship between the edges, such as
boundaries, and the center, the ideological unifier, of the church: hard at the edges; soft at
the center (bounded–set); soft at the center, soft at the edges; and hard at the center, soft
at the edges (centered–set).127 The false presupposition that guides this dichotomy is that
all networks within the church are equal.
Conversely, churches should be hard at the center and hard at the edges, an option
Frost and Hirsch fail to even mention. Rather than bifurcation, a strong ideological
unifier creates strong boundaries. Jonathan Leeman agrees, “Could it be, however, that
the advocates of the centered–set church are presenting us with yet another either/or,
when what we want is a both/and.”128 Union with Christ, the ideological unifier in the
church, functions as the determinant for membership. Bounded–set ideologies, while not
soft at the center, provide us with a good model for church membership. Centered–set
125
Presbyterians and Baptists do this differently, of course, though this dissertation comes from a
Baptist perspective.
126
Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch, The Shaping of Things to Come: Innovation and Mission for
st
the 21 –Century Church (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003), 47.
127
Ibid., 206–207.
234
ideologies, with soft edges, give us a paradigm for how to do intentionally missionary
small groups, like the Missional Communities advocated in this chapter.129 Of the
contemporary church, James Thompson writes, “This church has both sharp boundaries
that separate it from the dominant culture and doors that permit the church to have an
impact on the larger society.”130
Missiology exegetes the Scriptures, exegetes the culture, and plots a way forward.
Since cultures continually change, missiology continually shifts. David Bosch writes,
“There is no such thing as missiology, period. There is only missiology in draft.”131 If
open networks facilitate outsiders hearing the gospel more holistically and subsequently
becoming involved in a local church, the church must endeavor to establish and maintain
open networks. Furthermore, open networks not only facilitate hearing a more holistic
gospel, they facilitate multiple hearings of the gospel itself.132 Therefore, to observe one
kind of network to the exclusion of the other negates the intrinsic nature of the church as
both exclusive in makeup and inclusive in mandate. The question is not: closed networks
or open networks. The question is: which networks should be open and which should be
closed.
128
Jonathan Leeman, The Church and the Surprising Offense of God’s Love (Wheaton, Ill.:
Crossway, 2010), 134.
129
Every participant in a Missional Community need not be a member of the church. However,
interestingly, Chris Gonzalez prioritizes the discipleship of Missional Communities to such a degree that he
requires participation in a Missional Community in order to be a member of Missio Dei Communities in
“Evaluating Unity and Holiness.”
130
James Thompson, The Church According to Paul: Rediscovering the Community Conformed
to Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014), 174; emphasis mine.
131
132
Gonzalez in “Evaluating Unity and Holiness,” writes that in our, “ . . . (post–?) Christian
culture, you have a lot of people who assume they are Christians because they were born here. It (Missional
Communities) gives us an opportunity to share the gospel and to call them to conversion into the biblical
story.”
235
The conclusion to this part of the chapter is this: the church should employ strictly
closed networks for the purposes of membership and intentionally open networks for the
mission of God. Closed networks protect the purity of the church. Open networks
advance the cause of the church. Missional Communities seem to be a methodology that
potentially emphasizes both.133
Missiological Models for Ecclesiological Effectiveness
Though many definitions of effectiveness might be appealed to, this author chose to
follow Matt Perman’s version, “More important then efficiency is effectiveness ––
getting the right things done.”134 Therefore, what defines ecclesiological effectiveness in
this argument? Simply, the ecclesiologically effective church gets the right thing done by
striving to maintain its nature as united and holy.
The larger scope of this argument contends that this ecclesiological effectiveness
actually shapes the effectiveness of missiological endeavors. Therefore, what constitutes
missiological effectiveness?135 Since conversions ultimately depend upon the sovereign
work of the Holy Spirit, this author defines missiological effectiveness as the local
church’s accurate portrayal of the gospel’s implications in its communal life for the
133
Provided the local church of which the Missional Community belongs takes membership
seriously.
134
Matt Perman, What’s Best Next: How the Gospel Transforms the Way You Get Things Done
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014), 13.
135
What is the “right thing” for furthering God’s mission through the local church?
236
purpose of mission.136 There is no dichotomy; ecclesiological effectiveness ends up being
missiologically effective.137
Therefore, Missional Communities not only function as a faithful methodology
for the corporate aspect of mission described in this dissertation, they also prove the
thesis. To further explain, because Missional Communities practice open networks and––
by nature of the Missional Community structure––their corporate lives are clearly on
display, the missiological effectiveness of Missional Communities depends in large part
on the health of local church unity and holiness. Because the alternative contradicts the
message, these inner life realities end up shaping the corporate aspect of the mission of
the church.
To restate the matter, if Missional Community methodology appears to faithfully
enact the corporate aspect of centrifugal mission in North America, the effectiveness of
Missional Communities depend upon centripetal realities. That is, the community must
136
This dissertation’s thesis stated this: The health of the local church’s inner life shapes the
corporate aspect of the mission of the church because united and holy congregations accurately display the
gospel to the world.
137
However, this author’s definition of effectiveness does not imply that numbers fail to matter.
This author further contends that Missional Communities effectively involve all church members, rather
than an elite few, in ongoing mission opportunities. Reggie McNeal argues in Missional Renaissance:
Changing the Scorecard for the Church (San Francisco, Calif: Jossey–Bass, 2009), 69, that churches ought
to measure missionary effectiveness by the number of church members engaged in missionary service. As
mentioned in footnote 123, Gonzalez requires participation in a Missional Community in order to be a
member of Missio Dei Communities. Dunlap requires the same at Mercy Hill. Vanderstelt makes clear that
every member of a Missional Community participates in missionary endeavors together in Saturate, 241. In
fact, they define that missionary endeavor in the Missional Community covenant they sign. Further,
McNeal measures missionary effectiveness as the number of growing relationships with people who are not
Jesus followers in Missional Renaissance, 160. The earlier section of this chapter argued that Missional
Communities effectively create open networks for this specific aim.
Yet, if those definitions fail to appear effective, The Austin Stone details in multiple video
testimonies conversions from the faithful laboring of their Missional Communities. They detail two from
one Missional Community in this video: http://www.vergenetwork.org/2011/05/16/missional-community-
austin-stone-films/. They detail six in this video: http://www.vergenetwork.org/2012/04/23/missional-
community-baptism-storyframe/. The author included conversion stories from the other studied local
churches in this chapter as well.
237
be attractive for it to be compelling. Though this author remains convinced that Missional
Community methodology puts on display the local church community more effectively
than traditional methodologies,138 he contends that an emphasis on local church unity and
local church holiness might make those Missional Communities even more faithfully
effective in North America.
United Missional Communities
If belonging before believing depends on multiple exposures to gospel realities––both in
proclamation and in corporate embodiment––then the health of local church unity ought
to be pursued within Missional Communities. As something of a microcosm of the local
church, Missional Communities encumbered by division contradict the gospel they
proclaim. Local church unity displays the horizontal reconciliation purchased in the
gospel.
As they regularly argue for cultivating the inner life of the church, Missional
Community authors and practitioners demonstrate the importance of a unified
community. For example, members of each Missional Community at Jeff Vanderstelt’s
congregation sign a covenant that states, “We are children of God who love one another
as family.”139 Breen uses oikos terminology to describe the familial nature of Missional
Communities, writing, “This is not a fad or the latest church growth technique or a new
name for cell groups. It is rediscovering the church as oikos, an extended family on
138
This author makes this contention based on Missional Communities prioritizing intentionally
visible gathering of corporate believers in local “Third Place” settings rather than church buildings alone.
139
Vanderstelt, Saturate, 239. Another question from that section clarifies this covenantal
commitment, “What actions will we commit to in order to express our love for one another as brothers and
sisters (think of the one–another passages)?”
238
mission where everyone contributes and everyone is supported.”140 In an oft–viewed
video Soma Communities produced to explain Missional Communities,141 Vanderstelt
states, “I think that one of the most powerful apologetics of the gospel is when a group of
people love one another . . . live in unity together . . . in the midst of a broken, dark,
depraved world.”142
Chapter three in this dissertation described the theological, visible, organizational,
and relational aspects of unity. While these aspects contribute to and overlap with one
another, the Missional Community practitioners consulted for this dissertation
emphasized the relational aspect more than the others. Engstrom writes that The Austin
Stone puts on display the relational aspect of unity “through the depth of love expressed
in the relationships of Missional Communities.”143 Dunlap notes that the relational
aspects of unity are on display as their Missional Community eats, recreates, cares,
supports, and share all within view of the unbelieving community they continue to share
the gospel with.144
However, the relational aspect of unity depends upon the other aspects, beginning
with theological unity. Gonzalez writes that as one of their Missional Communities serve
homeless people in their context, the Missional Communities’ ethnic diversity145 and
140
Breen, Leading Missional Communities, 5.
141
On YouTube alone, the views exceed 60,000.
142
http://www.acts29.com/whats-a-missional-community-jeff-vanderstelt-and-the-story-of-soma/
143
Todd Engstrom, “Evaluating Unity and Holiness in the Life of Missional Communities,” 8
August 2016.
144
145
He lists white, black and Hispanic in this one Missional Community in Gonzalez, “Evaluating
Unity and Holiness.”
239
socio–econonomic diversity146 witnesses to the unity of the local church before the
world.147 Of course, theological unity made possible this multi–ethnic relational unity.
Conversely, a lack of theological unity cultivates the opposite. For example, Engstrom
notes that when a “wolf” snuck in and led a Missional Community for a time, a lack of
theological unity within one of their Missional Communities created an adverse effect on
those who held to the faith.148
Within Missional Communities, the other aspects of unity mentioned in chapter
three protect and promote relational unity as well. For example, the visible aspect of
unity––maintained by the ordinances––communicates to the Missional Community who
they join with in covenant membership. Organizational unity––primarily an agreed–upon
leadership––promotes order while protecting other aspects of unity, including seeking to
prevent relational strife. When Missional Communities failed to biblically handle conflict
at The Austin Stone, Engstrom states that missiological witness was hindered.149
The maintenance and mission of membership need not be dichotomized, even
within Missional Communities. So, while The Austin Stone practices the exclusivity of
regenerate church membership,150 the relational unity of their Missional Communities
bore missiological fruit. Engstrom writes, “In my Missional Community, we have seen
three women come to Christ, two of whom were won by the authentic relationships. The
third was later brought into the family because she was friends with the other two.”151
146
In ibid., he lists homeless, middle–class, and working poor.
147
Ibid.
148
Engstrom, “Evaluating Unity and Holiness.”
149
Ibid.
150
He explicitly states this in ibid.
151
Ibid.
240
Dunlap writes that the Lord chose to use their Missional Communities to facilitate a
measure of belonging––and eventually believing––for those previously distrustful,
uncommitted, and uninvolved.152 Missional Communities enable these kind of open
networks, facilitating an acceptable measure of belonging before believing that keeps
intact membership realities. Engstrom writes, “When we say belong before believe, we
mean they can participate in the relationships and life of the community in everything
except the Lord’s Supper.”153
United Missional Communities testify to the power of the gospel to reconcile
divided humanity. While corporate worship services make visible the local church’s
theological unity, unbelievers must come to the building to see anything of it. Missional
Community methodology, however, takes local church unity to the unbelieving context.
Therefore––as anything less would contradict the message––Missional Communities
must be united to be missiologically faithful and effective.154
Holy Missional Communities
Likewise, because Missional Communities emphasize visible mission, the unbelieving
context views the community’s holiness as well. Not unlike a divided Missional
Community, an unholy Missional Community contradicts the transformative power of the
gospel.
Missional Community practitioners know this as well. Vanderstelt defines the
church as “the people of God saved through the person and work of Jesus Christ for his
152
153
Ibid.
241
purposes in the world.”155 Though their Missional Community gatherings might be a
mixed group, the lines for membership demand clarity. In fact, each Missional
Community member at Vanderstelt’s congregation answers a question on baptism.156
With discipleship at the core of the strategy, growth in holiness proves to be
foundational for the Missional Community methodology.157 This includes the practice of
church discipline for those living unholy lives. Gonzalez indicates that Missio Dei
Communities practice church discipline.158 Engstrom writes, “Church discipline is an
unfamiliar, if not written–off practice. It is, however, something that is faithfully
practiced at The Austin Stone.”159 Mercy Hill Church––led by Dunlap––practices both
regenerate church membership and church discipline.160 Dunlap emphasizes that the
holiness of God is on display in the way Missional Community members relate to both
insiders and outsiders.161
However, holiness does not necessitate isolation. As chapter four argued, God
separates a people from the world for the good of the world. Vanderstelt says in the video
referenced above that “ . . . they don’t think they have to remove themselves from the
154
Furthermore, Missional Communities pursue open networks together. To do so, they must be
united.
155
Vanderstelt, Saturate, 39.
156
Ibid., 239.
157
Missio Dei Communities pursued the Missional Community methodology because, “ . . . we
were not effectively making disciples of our people or the people outside the church” in Gonzalez,
“Evaluating Unity and Holiness.” Dunlap writes that his congregation chooses to employ Missional
Community methodology because the structure helps to disciple the entire church family, rather than select
members alone in Dunlap, “Evaluating Unity and Holiness.”
158
Gonzalez, “Evaluating Unity and Holiness.” Though Missio Dei Communities affirms a
paedobaptist ecclesiology, they draw lines in other places concerning inclusion and exclusion.
159
160
161
In ibid., Dunlap writes, “We truly believe that we are always revealing Jesus to those who
don’t know him in the way that we live, interact, love, and serve.”
242
world to be sanctified because they believe the gospel is powerful enough to sanctify
them in the middle of a broken world.”162 Engstrom writes that “our people live life
marked by repentance, but do so in range of those who are not in Christ.”163
This missional holiness––an engaged counterculture––proves to be attractive.
Gonzalez writes that one individual became a believer after first being drawn to the
holiness of a particular church member.164 As the countercultural model of
contextualization best embodies the corporate aspect of mission, countercultural
Missional Communities display local church unity and holiness within unbelieving
contexts in North America. Therefore, holy Missional Communities––made up of
followers of Christ following Christ together ––further the corporate aspect of the
mission of the church. Unholy Missional Communities do the opposite.
Conclusion to Chapter Six
This chapter began by arguing that Missional Community methodology facilitates the
corporate, local, and visible aspects of mission described earlier in this dissertation.165
Then, appealing to Rodney Stark’s missiologically effective open networks, the chapter
attempted to demonstrate that churches should and could maintain closed networks for
membership while pursuing open social networks for mission. Again, Missional
Communities appear to put the former on display for the good of the latter.
162
http://www.acts29.com/whats-a-missional-community-jeff-vanderstelt-and-the-story-of-soma/
163
164
Gonzalez, “Evaluating Unity and Holiness.”
165
Chapter two outlined the corporate aspect, three and five the visible aspect, and chapters three
through five the local aspect.
243
Yet, the missiological effectiveness of putting the local church’s membership on
display depends in large part on the degree to which the membership of the church
manifests the uniting and transformative power of the gospel. Therefore, local church
unity and holiness end up shaping the corporate aspect of the church’s mission. Though
this would necessarily affect other implementations of the church’s mission, this chapter
emphasized how it shapes Missional Community methodology in particular.
Conclusion
Chapter one stated the thesis of this dissertation, namely that the health of the local
church’s inner life shapes the corporate aspect of the mission of the church because
united and holy congregations accurately display the gospel to the world. Though listing
the number of inner life realities within a local church would prove extensive, this
dissertation focused on local church unity and holiness. The balance of the first chapter
defined key terms within the thesis166 while making clear some of the assumptions behind
the author’s argument.167
Chapter two sought to emphasize the corporate aspect of the church’s mission.
After briefly critiquing Western individualism’s affect on the gospel, ecclesiology, and
missiology in North America, the chapter argued for a robustly corporate interpretation of
each. This section primarily contended that an individualistic understanding of the gospel
and the church truncated the corporate aspects of the church’s mission. More pointedly
stated, the mission of the church is first the mission of the church corporate.
166
Some examples include local church, church health, and the corporate aspect of the church’s
mission.
167
Some examples include the participants, nature, and breadth of the mission of the church.
244
Unfortunately, while those conditioned by Post–Enlightenment Western
individualism read into New Testament texts their own presuppositions, nearly all the
New Testament commands concerning mission address the church as a corporate body or
speak to believers in the plural.168 Therefore, if God sends communities of believers on
mission together, communal mission demands the integration of centripetal and
centrifugal realities. In fact, centripetal realities shape the centrifugal aspects of God’s
mission the church undertakes together.
Chapter three addressed the first missiologically significant inner life issue in this
dissertation, namely, local church unity. The corporate aspects of mission argued for in
chapter two depend largely upon local church unity. In essence, while the united God
created a united church by the gospel, he gave the church the task to maintain that unity
(Ephesians 4:3). This maintenance, this chapter maintains, proves to be patently
missiological.
Then, drawing upon the biblical material and historical understandings of church
unity, the chapter noted four dimensions of unity the local church maintains for the
purpose of shaping corporate mission. Theological unity on the local church level––
primarily maintained by doctrinal affirmations––guards the unity of the church while
ensuring the church attempts to evangelize the unbelieving world with the same truths.
Visible unity on the local church level––membership realities maintained through
properly observing the ordinances––shapes the corporate mission of the church by
clarifying whom exactly a believer shares life and mission with. Organizational unity on
168
Plural pronouns (you all) interpreted in a singular sense (you) contribute to this
misunderstanding.
245
the local church level––primarily maintained by an affirmed common leadership––shapes
the corporate mission of the church by pursuing order and occasionally handling conflict
or division. Relational unity on the local church level––maintained and encouraged by
the covenantal nature of church membership––shapes the corporate mission of the local
church by putting on display gospel reconciliation before the watching world.
Further, this chapter connected local church unity with the gathered and scattered
forms of the church. This emphasis might be described as the scattered church together or
the gathered aspect of corporate mission. Because local church unity continues beyond
the gathered worship service––as an expression of ongoing covenantal relationships––the
scattered church remains together. While discussing local church unity, this chapter also
placed an emphasis upon the visible nature of the local church over and above invisible
church notions. Visible ordinances create a visible membership. Furthermore, because
North Americans often observe local church members and their relationship to other
members, the church cannot help but be a visible reality.169 Therefore, if local church
unity implies that covenant obligations continue in the church’s scattered forms and the
church by nature exists as a visible entity, local church unity must be missiological.
God intends that his people display his character before the unbelieving world. To
that end, chapter four addressed the second missiologically significant inner life issue in
this dissertation, namely, local church holiness. While the Old Testament pointed to this,
the life of Christ and the indwelling Holy Spirit make the New Testament church
positionally holy. God separates a people from the world for the good of the world.
169
If the world does not observe the church, is the church even engaged with its mission field?
246
The chapter then argued that the local church ought to seek that which Christ
made a positional reality. After briefly surveying the historical understandings of local
church holiness, this author took the Free Church––primarily Baptistic––position on local
church holiness expressed by a regenerate church membership. The regenerate church,
pursuing holiness together, manifests the transformative power of the gospel. Therefore,
the pursuit of a holy church ends up being missiologically significant. In short, the
unregenerate do not display the truths of the gospel.
Chapter five sought to contextualize the holy and united local church for the good
of the unbelieving world, arguing that the countercultural model of contextualization best
embodies the corporate aspect of mission advocated in this thesis. More specifically,
when local churches intend to create a counterculture, their united aim demands that one
church member be concerned for another church member’s faithful and meaningful
contextualization.
Drawing upon the countercultural model, this chapter emphasized a
distinctiveness that simultaneously prioritized engagement. As chapters three and four
contended, the local church pursues a distinctive and united culture. However, as this
distinctive culture engages the world, it necessarily counters those aspects of the broader
culture that contradict God’s creational design. Therefore, as holy and united church
members contextualize together, they fulfill to a more significant degree the corporate
aspect of mission by displaying gospel realities to the world.
Missiologists often label these countercultural churches “contrast communities.”
247
Yet, contrast necessitates holiness. Likewise, community necessitates unity. Therefore, in
line with the thesis’ chief contention, these inner life realities actually shape the corporate
aspect of the local church’s mission.
This final chapter argued that the Missional Community methodology takes these
missiological abstractions and applies them within local churches. Missional Community
methodology facilitates the church as a culture––both the corporate and centripetal
aspects of the church’s mission––engaging the unbelieving world. However, in a fashion
similar to chapter five’s argument, Missional Communities depend upon inner life
realities––in particular unity and holiness––corroborating the truths of the gospel. In
other words, the centripetal mission of the church will inevitably affect the corporate
aspects of its centrifugal mission, for good or ill. In conclusion, because united and holy
congregations accurately display the gospel to the world, the health of the inner life of a
local church shapes the corporate aspect of its mission to the world.
248
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adam, Karl. The Spirit of Catholicism. New York: Crossroad: 1997.
Alexander, T. Desmond. From Eden to the New Jerusalem: An Introduction to Biblical

Theology. Grand Rapids, Kregel, 2008.
Allen, Roland. Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962.
Allison, Gregg. Sojourners and Strangers: The Doctrine of the Church. Wheaton, Ill.:
Crossway, 2012.
––––––. Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine. Grand Rapids,

Zondervan, 2011.
Althaus, Paul. The Theology of Martin Luther. Translated by R. Schultz. Philadelphia,

Pa.: Fortress Press, 1966.
Ashford, Bruce, ed. Theology and Practice of Mission: God, the Church, and the
Nations. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2011.
––––––. “The Church in the Mission of God.” Pages 237–260 in The Community of
Jesus: A Theology of the Church. Edited by Kendell Easley and Christopher
Morgan. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2013.
––––––. Every Square Inch: An Introduction to Cultural Engagement for Christians.

Bellingham, Wa.: Lexham Press, 2015.
––––––. “The Gospel and Culture.” Pages 109–127 in Theology and Practice of Mission:
God, the Church, and the Nations. Edited by Bruce Ashford. Nashville: B&H
Academic, 2011.
––––––. “The Church and Its Cultural Context.” Lecture at Southeastern Baptist
Theological Seminary, Wake Forest, N. C.: August 2014.
Ashford, Bruce and Danny Akin. “The Missional Implications of Church Membership
and Church Discipline.” Pages 189–204 in Those Who Must Give an Account: A
Study of Church Membership and Church Discipline. Edited by John Hammett
and Benjamin Merkle. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2012.
249
Augustine. On Baptism, Against the Donatists in Nicene and Post–Nicene Fathers:
Augustine: The Writings Against the Manichaeans, and Against the Donatists.
Edited by Philip Schaff. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2004.
––––––. De Trinitate. Translated by Edmund Hill. The Works of Saint Augustine. New
York: New City Press, 1991.
––––––. Homilies on the Gospel of John and on the First Epistle of John in Nicene and
Post–Nicene Fathers. Vol. 7. Edited by Philip Schaff. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1956.
––––––. On the Catechizing of the Uninstructed. In Nicene and Post–Nicene Fathers.

Vol. 7. Edited by Philip Schaff. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956.
––––––. “Sermon 272.” Pages 297–298 in Works of St. Augustine, vol. 7. Edited by John
E. Rotelle. Translated by Edmund Hill. Hyde Park, N. Y.: New City, 1993.
––––––. The Fathers of the Church: Saint Augustine Sermons on the Liturgical Seasons.
Translated by Sister Mary Sarah Muldowney. Washington, D. C.: The Catholic
University of America Press, 1959.
Avis, Paul. The Church in the Theology of the Reformers. Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and
Stock, 1981.
Bacon, Dan. “Should Mission Boards Send Teams as Well as Individuals?” Evangelical
Missions Quarterly 14, no. 2 (April 1, 1978): 95–99.
Badcock, Gary. The House Where God Lives: Renewing the Doctrine of the Church for
Today. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.
Bailey, Marcia Barnes. Choosing Partnership, Sharing Ministry: A Vision for New
Spiritual Community. Herndon, Va.: Alban Institute, 2007.
Banks, Robert. Paul’s Idea of Community: The Early House Churches in their Historical
Setting. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.
Bannerman, James. The Church of Christ. Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth, 2015.
Barrett, C. K. The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and
Notes on the Greek Text, 2nd ed.. Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster Press, 1978.
Barrett, Lois. “Missional Witness: The Church as Apostle to the World.” Pages 110–141
in Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America.
Edited by Darrell Guder. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
250
––––––. Building the House Church. Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1986.
Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics, vol. 4. Edited by G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance.

Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956.
––––––. God in Action. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1936.
Bauckham, Richard. “The Holiness of Jesus and His Disciples in the Gospel of John.”
Pages 95–113 in Holiness and Ecclesiology in the New Testament. Edited by Kent
E. Brower and Andy Johnson. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.
––––––. Bible and Mission: Christian Witness in a Postmodern World. Grand Rapids:
Baker, 2003.
Bauer, Nancy. “Benedictine Monasticism and the Canonical Obligation of Common

Life.” JCD diss., The Catholic University of America, 2003.
Bavinck, Herman. Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation. Vol. 4 of Reformed
Dogmatics. Edited by John Bolt. Translated by John Vriend. Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2008.
Bavinck, John Herman. An Introduction to the Science of Missions. Philadelphia, Pa.:

Presbyterian and Reformed, 1960.
––––––. In the Beginning: Foundations of Creation Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker

Books, 1999.
––––––. The Impact of Christianity on the Non-Christian World. Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1949.
Beale, G. K. A New Testament Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011.
––––––. “Eden, the Temple, and the Church’s Mission in the New Creation.” Journal of
the Evangelical Theological Society 48, no.1 (March 2005): 5–31.
Belcher, Jim. Deep Church: A Third Way Beyond Emerging and Traditional. Downers
Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2009.
Bell, David. “Tracts to Christ, An Evaluation of American Gospel Tracts.” PhD diss.,
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2005.
Bell, G. K. A. Documents on Christian Unity. 2nd Series. London: Oxford University

Press, 1930.
251
Bellah, Robert N., Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and Steven M.
Tipton. Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life.
Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 2007.
Bellarmine, Robert. On the Marks of the Church. Translated by Ryan Grant. Post Falls,
Idaho: Mediatrix Press, 2015.
Berkhof, Hendrikus. Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Study of the Faith.

Translated by Sierd Woudstra. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.
––––––. Christ and the Powers. Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1962.
Berkouwer, G. C. The Church. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976.
––––––. Man: The Image of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962.
Bevans, Stephen. Models of Contextual Theology. Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis Books, 2002.
Bevans, Stephen B., and Roger P. Schroeder. Constants in Context: A Theology of

Mission for Today. Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis Books, 2004.
Birkey, Del. The House Church: A Model for Renewing the Church. Scottdale. Pa.:
Herald Press, 1988.
Blauw, Johannes. The Missionary Nature of the Church: A Survey of the Biblical
Theology of Mission. New York: McGraw–Hill Book Company, 1962.
Bloesch, Donald. The Church: Sacraments, Worship, Ministry, Mission. Downers Grove,
Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2002.
Blomberg, Craig. Matthew. NAC. Nashville: Broadman, 1992.
Blocher, Henri. In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis. Translated by David
G. Preston. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1984.
Bock, Darrell L. Acts. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.
Bolsinger, Tod. It Takes a Church to Raise a Christian: How the Community of God
Transforms Lives. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2004.
Bonhoeffer, Dietrich. Life Together/Prayerbook of the Bible. Vol. 5 of Dietrich

Bonhoeffer Works. Translated by Daniel Bloesch and James Burtness. Edited by
Geoffrey Kelly. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2005.
252
––––––. Sanctorum Communio: A Theological Study of the Sociology of the
Church. Translated by Reinhard Krauss and Nancy Lukens. Edited by Clifford
Green Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1998.
Bosch, David. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission.

Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis Books, 1991.
––––––. Believing in the Future: Toward a Missiology of Western Culture. Harrisburg,

Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1995.
Bowers, Paul. “Church and Mission in Paul.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament
44 (1991): 89–111.
––––––. “Paul and Religious Propaganda in the First Century,” Novum Testamentum 22,
no. 4 (1980): 316–323.
Bray, Gerald. The Church: A Theological and Historical Account. Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2016.
Breen, Mike and Alex Absalom. Launching Missional Communities: A Field Guide.
Myrtle Beach. S.C.: Sheriar Press, 2010.
Breen, Mike. Leading Missional Communities. Pawleys Island, S. C.: 3 Dimension

Ministries, 2013.
Bridges, Jerry. True Community: The Biblical Practice of Koinonia. Colorado Springs,
Colo.: Navpress, 2012.
Brower, Kent and Andy Johnson. “Introduction: Holiness and the Ekklesia of God.”
Pages xvi– xxiv in Holiness and Ecclesiology in the New Testament. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.
Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text. New
International Greek Text Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.
Brueggeman, Walter. Genesis. Interpretation. Atlanta. Ga.: John Knox Press, 1982.
Bund Evangelisch–Freikirchlicher Gemeinden in Deutschland. Rechenschaft vom

Glauben. Vol. 2, no. 7 (1977).
Bush, Troy Lennon. “Effective Church Planting: A Qualitative Analysis of Selected

Church Planting Models.” PhD diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary,
1999.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Vol. 1. Edited by John T. McNeill.
Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006.
253
––––––. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Vol. 2. Edited by John T. McNeill.
Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006.
––––––. A Harmony of the Gospels: Matthew, Mark, and Luke Volume III and The
Epistles of James and Jude. Edited by D. Torrance and T. Torrance. Translated by
A. W. Morrison: Grand Rapids: 1972.
––––––. “Psychopannychia.” Pages 413–490 in Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts

and Letters, Vol. 3. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983.
––––––. Tracts and Treatises. Edited by T. F. Torrance. Translated by H Beveridge.

Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958.
Carey, William. An Enquiry in the Obligations of Christians, to Use Means for the
Conversion of the Heathens. Leicester: Ann Ireland m. fl., 1792.
Carson, D. A. “Conclusion: Ongoing Imperative for World Mission.” Pages 176–195 in

The Great Commission: Evangelicals and the History of World Missions. Edited
by Martin I. Klauber and Scott M. Manetsch. Nashville: B&H, 2008.
––––––. The Gospel According to John. Pillar New Testament Commentaries. Grand
––––––. “Why the Local Church is More Important than TGC, White Horse Inn, 9
Marks, and Maybe Even ETS.” Themelios 40, no. 1 (April 2015): 1–9.
––––––. Love in Hard Places. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2002.
––––––. “Evangelicals, Ecumenism, and the Church.” Pages 347–386 in Evangelical

Affirmations. Edited by Kenneth Kantzer and Carl F. H. Henry. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1990.
Carson, D. A., and John D. Woodbridge. Scripture and Truth. Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 1992.
Carter, Craig. Rethinking Christ and Culture: A Post–Christendom Perspective. Grand

Rapids: Brazos Press, 2006.
Caruthers, Ken. “The Missionary Team as Church: Applied Ecclesiology in the Life and
Relationships between Cross-Cultural Church Planters.” PhD Diss., Southeastern
Baptist Theological Seminary, 2014.
Catechism of the Council of Trent. Translated by Jeremy Donovan. Baltimore: Lucas

Brothers, 1829.
254
Chadwick, Owen. ed. Western Asceticism. The Library of Christian Classics Vol. 12.
Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster Press, 1958.
Challies, Tim. The Next Story: Life and Faith after the Digital Explosion. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2011.
Chan, Simon. Liturgical Theology: The Church as Worshiping Community. Downers

Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2006.
Charnock, Stephen. The Existence and Attributes of God. Evansville, Ind.: Sovereign
Grace Book Club, 1958.
Chester, Andrew. “The Pauline Communities.” Pages 105–120 in A Vision for the
Church: Studies in Early Christian Ecclesiology in Honour of J. P. M. Sweet.
Edited by Markus Bockmuehl and Michael B. Thompson. Edinburgh: T &T
Clark, 1997.
Chester, Tim and Steve Timmis. Total Church: A Radical Reshaping around Gospel and
Community. Wheaton. Ill.: Crossway Books, 2008.
Chiavone, Michael L. “The Unity of God as Understood by Four Twentieth Century

Theologians: Karl Rahner, Millard Erickson, John Zizioulas, and Wolfhart
Pannenberg.” PhD Diss., Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2005.
Chun, Doo-Seung. “Unity and Mission: Moravian Case Study and Implications for the
Mission Associations of Local Churches in Korea.” DMiss diss., Fuller
Theological Seminary, 2003.
Clark, David K. To Know and Love God. Edited by John Feinberg. Wheaton. Ill.:
Crossway, 2003.
Clapp, Rodney. A Peculiar People: The Church as Culture in a Post–Christian Society.

Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1996.
Clowney, Edmund P., and Gerald Lewis Bray. The Church. Downers Grove, Ill:
InterVarsity Press, 1995.
Coleman, Doug. “The Agents of Mission: Humanity.” Pages 36–47 in Theology and
Practice of Mission: God, the Church, and the Nations. Edited by Bruce Ashford.
Nashville: B&H Academic, 2011.
Cook, Henry. What Baptists Stand For. London: Kingsgate Press, 1947.
Copan, Victor. Saint Paul as Spiritual Director: An Analysis of the Concept of the
Imitation of Paul with Implications and Applications to the Practice of Spiritual
Direction. Colorado Springs, Colo.: Paternoster Press, 2007.
255
Cordell, Sean. “The Gospel and Social Responsibility.” Pages 92–108 in Theology and
Costas, Orlando E. The Integrity of Mission: The Inner Life and Outreach of the Church.
New York: Harper & Row, 1979.
Crouch, Andy. Culture Making: Recovering Our Creative Calling. Downers Grove, Ill.:
IVP Books, 2008.
Cyprian. “The Unity of the Catholic Church.” Pages 119–142 in Early Latin Theology:
Selections from Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose and Jerome. Edited by S. L.
Greenslade. Louisville, Ky.: The Westminster Press, 1956.
––––––. “Epistle 68.” Pages 372–375 in the Ante–Nicene Fathers, vol. 5. Edited by
Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Buffalo: The Christian Literature
Company, 1886.
Dagg, John Leadley. A Treatise on Church Order. The Baptist Distinctives Series, no. 44.
Paris, Ark.: The Baptist Standard Bearer, 2006.
Davis, John Jefferson. “’Teaching Them To Observe All That I Have Commanded You’:
The History of the Interpretation of the ‘Great Commission’ and Implication for
Marketplace Ministries.” Evangelical Review of Theology 25, no. 1 (Jan 2001):
65–80.
Delbanco, Andrew. The Real American Dream: A Meditation on Hope. Cambridge,

Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999.
Demarest, Bruce. The Cross and Salvation: The Doctrine of Salvation. Wheaton, Ill.:
Crossway, 1997.
Dever, Mark. “The Church.” Pages 766–857 in A Theology for the Church. Edited by
Daniel L. Akin; Nashville: B&H Academic, 2007.
––––––. 9 Marks of a Healthy Church. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2004.
––––––. The Gospel and Personal Evangelism. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2007.
––––––. The Church: The Gospel Made Visible. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2012.
––––––, ed. Polity: Biblical Arguments on How to Conduct Church Life. Washington,
D. C.: Center for Church Reform, 2005.
256
––––––. “The Practical Issues of Church Membership.” Pages 81–104 in Those Who
Must Give an Account: A Study of Church Membership and Church Discipline.
Edited by John Hammett and Benjamin Merkle. Nashville: B&H, 2012.
Dever, Mark and Paul Alexander. Deliberate Church: Building Your Ministry on the
Gospel. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2005.
Deweese, Charles. A Community of Believers: Making Church Membership More

Meaningful. Valley Forge, Pa.: Judson Press, 1978.
––––––. Baptist Church Covenants. Nashville, Broadman, 1990.
DeYoung, Curtis Paul, Michael O. Emerson, George Yancey, and Karen Chai Kim.
United By Faith: The Multiracial Congregation as an Answer to the Problem of
Race. New York: Oxford, 2003.
Downes, Martin. “Entrapment: The Emerging Church Conversation and the Cultural
Captivity of the Gospel.” Pages 224–244 In Reforming or Conforming? Post–
Conservative Evangelicals and the Emerging Church. Edited by Gary Johnson
and Ronald Gleason. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2008.
Driscoll, Mark and Gerry Breshears. Vintage Church: Timeless Truths and Timely
Methods. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2008.
Driver, John. Images of the Church in Mission. Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1997.
Dubose, Francis. God Who Sends: A Fresh Quest for Biblical Mission. Nashville:
Broadman Press, 1983.
Dulles, Avery. Models of the Church. New York: Image, 2002.
Dunlap, Brad. “Evaluating Unity and Holiness in the Life of Missional Communities.”
September 20, 2016.
Dunn, James D. G. The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon. New International
Greek Text Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
––––––. Romans 9–16. Edited by Ralph Martin. Word Biblical Commentary 12.
Dallas, Tex.: Word Publishers, 1988.
Durnbaugh, Donald. “Summary of Believers’ Church Affirmations.” Pages 322–323 in

The Concept of the Believers’ Church: Addresses from the 1968 Louisville
Conference. Edited by James Leo Garrett Jr. Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1969.
Dyrness, William. The Earth is God’s: A Theology of American Culture. Faith and
Cultures. Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 2004.
257
Elmer, Duane. Cross–Cultural Conflict: Building Relationships for Effective Ministry.
Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2002.
Emerson, Michael O., and Christian Smith. Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and
the Problem of Race in America. New York: Oxford Press, 2000.
Engstrom, Todd. “Missional Community as a Model for Integrated Discipleship in an

American Context.” D. Ed. diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary,
2014.
––––––. “Evaluating Unity and Holiness in the Life of Missional Communities.”

August 8, 2016.
––––––. “A Theological Reason for Missional Communities.” No pages. Cited

August 13, 2016. Online: http://toddengstrom.com/2013/03/04/a-theological-
reason-for-missional-community/
Evans, Robert. One and Holy: The Church in Latin Patristic Thought. Eugene, Oreg.:
Wipf and Stock, 2010.
Fee, Gordon. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. New International Commentary on the
New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.
Ferguson, Everett. The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today. Grand
Finn, Nathan. “A Historical Analysis of Church Membership.” Pages 53–80 in Those

Who Must Give an Account: A Study of Church Membership and Church
Discipline. Edited by John Hammett and Benjamin Merkle. Nashville: B&H,
2012.
––––––. “Baptism as a Prerequisite to the Lord’s Supper.” Center for Theological

Research, September 2006. Pages 1–16. Cited 9 August 2016.
Online:
http://www.baptisttheology.org/baptisttheology/assets/file/baptismasprerequistefo
rsupper.pdf
Fitch, David. Faithful Presence: Seven Disciplines that Shape the Church for Mission.
Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2016.
Flemming, Dean. Contextualization in the New Testament: Patterns for Theology and
Mission. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2005.
Flett, John. The Witness of God: The Trinity, Missio Dei, Karl Barth, and the Nature of
Christian Community. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.
258
Flew, R. Newton. Jesus and His Church: A Study of the Idea of Ecclesia in the New
Testament. Carlisle, U. K.: Paternoster Press, 1998.
Forsyth, P. T. The Church, The Gospel, and Society. London: Independent Press, 1962.
Freeman, John D.. “The Place of Baptists in the Christian Church.” Pages 22–29 In the
Authorised Record of Proceedings of the Baptist World Congress, London, July
11–19, 1905. London: Baptist Union Publication Department, 1905.
Frost, Michael and Alan Hirsch. The Shaping of Things to Come: Innovation and Mission
for the 21st–Century Church. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003.
Gaines, Darrell Grant. “One Church in One Location: Questioning the Biblical,
Theological, and Historical Claims of the Multi–Site Movement.” PhD diss.,
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2012.
Garrison, David. Church Planting Movements: How God is Redeeming a Lost World.
Midlothian. Va.: WIGTake Resources, 2004.
Gehring, Roger W. House Church and Mission. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers,
2004.
Gentry, Peter. “Speaking the Truth in Love (Eph 4:15): Life in the New Covenant
Community.” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 10, no. 2 (Summer 2006):
70–87.
Gentry, Peter and Stephen Wellum. Kingdom Through Covenant: A Biblical–Theological

Understanding of the Covenants. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2012.
George, Timothy. Galatians. New American Commentary 30. Nashville: Broadman and
Holman, 1994.
––––––. Faithful Witness: The Life and Mission of William Carey. Christian History
Institute, 1998.
––––––. “The Nature of God: Being, Attributes, and Acts.” Pages 176–241 in A
Theology for the Church. Edited by Daniel L. Akin. Nashville: B&H Publishing,
2007.
––––––. Theology of the Reformers. Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2013.
––––––. “The Priesthood of All Believers.” Pages 85–96 in The People of God: Essays
on the Believers’ Church. Edited by Paul Basden and David Dockery. Nashville:
Broadman, 1991.
259
Gifford, James. “Union with Christ: A Third Type of Perichoresis.” PhD diss.,
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2003.
Gilbert, Greg and Kevin DeYoung. What is the Mission of the Church?: Making Sense of
Social Justice, Shalom, and the Great Commission. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway,
2011.
Gioia, Luigi. The Theological Epistemology of Augustine’s De Trinitate. Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 2008.
Glasser, Arthur. Announcing the Kingdom: The Story of God’s Mission in the Bible.
Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003.
Goheen, Michael. A Light to the Nations: The Missional Church and the Biblical Story.
––––––. “‘As the Father Has Sent Me, I Am Sending You’: J. E. Lesslie Newbigin’s
Missionary Ecclesiology.” PhD diss., Interuniversitair Instituut voor Missiologie
en Oecumenica. Utrecht, Netherlands, 2000.
––––––. Introducing Christian Mission Today: Scripture, History, and Issues. Downers
Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2014.
––––––. “Is Lesslie Newbigin’s Model of Contextualization Anticultural?” Mission

Studies 19, no. 2 (2002): 136–158.
Goheen, Michael and Craig Bartholomew. Living at the Crossroads: An Introduction to

Christian Worldview. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008.
––––––. The Drama of Scripture: Finding Our Place in the Biblical Story. 2nd Edition.
Goheen, Michael and Margaret O’Gara, eds. That the World May Believe: Essays on
Mission and Unity in Honour of George Vandervelde. Lanham, Md.: University
Press of America, 2005.
Gonzalez, Chris. “Evaluating Unity and Holiness in the Life of Missional Communities.”
October 7, 2016.
Gonzalez, Justo. The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Dawn of
the Reformation. Vol. 1. Peabody, Mass.: Prince Press, 2006.
––––––. The Story of Christianity: The Reformation to the Present Day. Volume 2.
Peabody, Mass.: Prince Press, 2006.
260
Greear, J. D. “Mission to Postmoderns.” Pages 277–292 in Theology and Practice of
Mission: God, the Church, and the Nations. Edited by Bruce Ashford. Nashville:
B&H Academic, 2011.
Greenslade, S. L. “Cyprian: General Introduction.” Pages 113–118 in Early Latin

Theology: Selections from Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose and Jerome. Edited by
S. L. Greenslade. Louisville, Ky.: The Westminster Press, 1956.
––––––. “On the Unity of the Church: Introduction.” Pages 119–123 in Early Latin
Theology: Selections from Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose and Jerome. Edited by
S. L. Greenslade. Louisville, Ky.: The Westminster Press, 1956.
Grenz, Stanley. Theology for the Community of God. Nashville: Broadman and Holman,
1994.
––––––. The Social God and the Relational Self: A Trinitarian Theology of the Imago
Dei. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.
Green, Michael. Evangelism in the Early Church. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994.
Greidanus, Sidney. The Modern Preacher and the Ancient Text: Interpreting and
Preaching Biblical Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.
Griffith, Benjamin. “A Short Treatise Concerning a True and Orderly Gospel Church.”
Pages 93–112 in Polity: Biblical Arguments on How to Conduct Church Life.
Edited by Mark Dever. Washington D. C.: IX Marks Ministries, 2001.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.
––––––. 1 Peter. Tyndale New Testament Commentary. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP
Academic, 2009.
Guder, Darrell. “Missional Connectedness: The Community of Communities in Mission.”

Pages 248–268 in Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in
North America. Edited by Darrell Guder. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
Hadaway, C. Kirk, Francis M. DuBose, and Stuart A. Wright. Home Cell Groups and
House Churches: Emerging Alternatives for the Urban Church. Nashville,
Haight, Roger. Christian Community in History: Historical Ecclesiology, vol. 1. London:

Bloomsbury Academic, 2004.
Halter, Hugh and Matt Smay. The Tangible Kingdom: Creating Incarnational
Community. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey–Bass, 2008.
261
Hamilton Jr., James. God’s Glory in Salvation Through Judgment: A Biblical Theology.
Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2010.
Hammett, John. Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary

Ecclesiology. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005.
––––––. “From Church Competence to Soul Competence: The Devolution of Baptist

Ecclesiology.” Journal for Baptist Theology and Ministry 3, no. 1 (Spring 2005):
145–163.
––––––. “Church Membership, Church Discipline, and the Nature of the Church.” Pages
7–30 in Those Who Must Give an Account: A Study of Church Membership and
Church Discipline. Edited by John Hammett and Benjamin Merkle. Nashville:
B&H Academic, 2012.
––––––. “What Makes a Multi–Site Church One Church.” Great Commission Research
Journal 4, no. 1 (Summer 2012): 95–107.
––––––. “The What and How of Church Membership.” Pages 181–198 in Baptist
Foundations, Church Government for an Anti–Institutional Age. Edited by Mark
Dever and Jonathan Leeman. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2015.
––––––. “The Mission of the Church as a Mark of the Church.” Journal for Baptist
Theology and Ministry 5, no. 1 (Spring 2008): 31–40.
Hammett, John and Thomas White. “Church Membership and Discipline.” Page 165 in
Baptist Foundations: Church Government for an Anti–Institutional Age. Edited
by Mark Dever and Jonathan Leeman. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2015.
Hansen, G. Walter. Galatians. InterVarsity Press New Testament Commentary. Downers

Grove. Ill.: InterVarsity, 1994.
Hart, D. G. and John Muether. Worship with Reverence and Awe: Returning to the Basics
of Reformed Worship. Phillipsburg, N. J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2002.
Hauerwas, Stanley. Christian Existence Today: Essays on Church, World, and Living in
Between. Durham, N. C.: The Labyrinth Press, 1988.
––––––. The Hauerwas Reader. Durham, N. C.: Duke University Press, 2001.
––––––. A Community of Character: Toward a Constructive Christian Social Ethic.

Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981.
––––––. Sanctify Them in the Truth: Holiness Exemplified. Nashville: Abingdon Press,
1998.
262
Hauerwas, Stanley and William Willimon. Resident Aliens: A provocative assessment of
culture and ministry for people who know that something is wrong. Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1989.
Hays, J. Daniel. From Every People and Nation: A biblical theology of race. Edited by
D. A. Carson. New Studies in Biblical Theology. Downers Grove, Ill.:
Hays, Richard. The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to
New Testament Ethics. New York: HarperCollins, 1996.
Hellerman, Joseph. When the Church was a Family. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2009.
Heo, Seong Sik. “Missional Debate: An Interpretive Study of Lesslie Newbigin’s

Theological Debates with Diverse Partners.” PhD Diss., Princeton Theological
Seminary, 2013.
Hesselgrave, David J. Planting Churches Cross–Culturally. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000.
Hesselgrave, David and Edward Rommen. Contextualization: Meanings, Methods, and

Models. Pasadena. Calif.: William Carey Library, 2000.
Hiebert, Paul. Anthropological Insights for Missionaries. Grand Rapids: Baker Books,
1985.
––––––. Transforming Worldviews: An Anthropological Understanding of How People

Change. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008.
––––––. “The Gospel in Our Culture: Methods of Social and Cultural Analysis.” Pages
139–157 in The Church Between Gospel and Culture: The Emerging Mission in
North America. Edited by George Hunsberger and Craig Van Gelder. Grand
Hinson, E. Glenn. Understandings of the Church. Eugene, Oreg: Wipf & Stock, 1986.
Hoad, Jack. The Baptist: An Historical and Theological Study of the Baptist Identity.
London: Grace Publications Trust, 1986.
Hoekendijk, J. C. The Church Inside Out. Edited by L. A. Hoedemaker and Pieter

Tijmes. Translated by Isaac C. Rottenberg. Philadelphia, Pa.: The Westminster
Press, 1966.
Höpfl, Harro. The Christian Polity of John Calvin. New York: Cambridge University
Press, 1982.
263
Horrell, David. “From Adelphoi to Oikos Theou: Social Transformation in Pauline
Christianity.” Journal of Biblical Literature 120, no. 2 (June 1, 2001): 293–311.
Horner, David. When Missions Shapes the Mission: You and Your Church Can Reach the
World. Nashville: B&H, 2011.
Horton, Michael. People and Place: A Covenant Ecclesiology. Louisville, Ky.:

Westminster John Knox Press, 2008.
Howard, James M. Paul, the Community, and Progressive Sanctification: An Exploration

into Community–Based Transformation Within Pauline Theology. Studies in
Biblical Literature Vol. 90. New York: Peter Lang, 2007.
Howell, Don. “Mission in Paul’s Epistles: Genesis, Pattern, and Dynamics.” Pages 63–91
in Mission in the New Testament: An Evangelical Approach. Edited by William
Larkin and Joel Williams. Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis Books, 1998.
House, Paul. “God Walks with His People: Old Testament Foundations.” Pages 1–34 in
The Community of Jesus: A Theology of the Church. Edited by Kendell Easley
and Christopher Morgan. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2013.
Hudson, Winthrop. “Shifting Patters of Church Order in the Twentieth Century.” Pages
196–218 in Baptist Concepts of the Church: A Survey of the Historical and
Theological Issues which Have Produced Changes in Church Order. Edited by
Winthrop Hudson. Chicago, Ill.: The Judson Press, 1959.
Humphrey, Edith. “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic: Awaiting the Redemption of Our
Body.” Pages 135–160 in Evangelical Ecclesiology: Reality or Illusion? Edited
by John Stackhouse. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003.
Hunsberger, George. “Evangelical Conversion toward a Missional Ecclesiology.” Pages

105–134 in Evangelical Ecclesiology: Reality or Illusion?. Edited by John
Stackhouse. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003.
––––––. Bearing the Witness of the Spirit: Lesslie Newbigin’s Theology of Cultural
Plurality. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
––––––. “The Newbigin Gauntlet: Developing a Domestic Missiology for North

America.” Pages 3–25 in The Church Between Gospel and Culture: The
Emerging Mission in North America. Edited by George Hunsberger and Craig
Van Gelder. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.
Hunsberger, George and Craig Van Gelder, eds. The Church Between Gospel and
Culture: The Emerging Mission in North America. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1996.
264
Hunter, James Davison. To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of
Christianity in the Modern World. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Husbands, Mark and Daniel J. Treier, eds. The Community of the Word: Toward an
Evangelical Ecclesiology. Downers Grove. Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2005.
Ignatius. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians. Pages 66–72 in vol. 1 of The Ante–
Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. 1885–1887.
10 vols. Repr. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994.
Irenaeus. Against Heresies. Pages 309–567 in vol. 1 of The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited
by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. 1885–1887. 10 vols. Repr. Peabody,
Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994.
Jamieson, Bobby. Going Public: Why Baptism is Required for Church Membership.
Nashville, B&H Publishing, 2015.
Jeffers, James S. The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era: Exploring the
Background of Early Christianity. Downers Grove. Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1999.
Jenkins, Philip. The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity. New York:
Oxford, 2002.
Johnson, Dennis. Him We Proclaim: Proclaiming Christ From All The Scriptures.
Phillipsburg. N. J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2007.
Jones, Samuel. “A Treatise of Church Discipline and a Directory.” Pages 137–160 in

Polity: Biblical Arguments on How to Conduct Church Life. Edited by Mark
Dever. Washington D. C.: IX Marks Ministries, 2001.
Kaiser, Walter. Mission in the Old Testament: Israel as Light to the Nations. 2nd edition.
Kärkkäinen, Veli–Matti. An Introduction to Ecclesiology: Ecumenical, Historical and

Global Perspectives. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2002.
Keener, Craig. “Some New Testament Invitations to Ethnic Reconciliation.” Evangelical

Quarterly 75:3 (2003): 195–213.
Keller, Tim. Center Church: Doing Balanced, Gospel–Centered Ministry in Your City.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012.
––––––. The Gospel in Life: Grace Changes Everything. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
2010.
Kelly, J. N. D. Early Christian Doctrines. New York: HarperOne, 1978.

265
Kennedy, D. James. Evangelism Explosion. Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 1977.
Keown, Mark. Congregational Evangelism in Philippians: The Centrality of an Appeal

for Gospel Proclamation to the Fabric of Philippians. Paternoster Biblical
Monographs; Carlisle, U. K.: Paternoster, 2008.
Kistemaker, Simon. Acts. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990.
Knox, John. The Works of John Knox, Volume 4: Writings from Frankfurt and Geneva.
Edited by David Laing. Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2004.
Koivisto, Rex. One Lord, One Faith. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1993.
Köstenberger, Andreas. “The Missions of Jesus and the Disciples According to the
Fourth Gospel.” PhD diss., Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1993.
––––––. Excellence: The Character of God and the Pursuit of Scholarly Virtue.
––––––. “The Church According to the Gospels.” Pages 35–64 in The Community of
Jesus: A Theology of the Church. Edited by Kendell Easley and Christopher
––––––. A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters: Biblical Theology of the New
Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009.
Köstenberger Andreas J., and Peter T. O’Brien. Salvation to the Ends of the Earth: A
Biblical Theology of Mission. Edited by D. A. Carson. New Studies in
Biblical Theology. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2001.
Kraus, Norman C. The Authentic Witness: Credibility and Authority. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1978.
Kromminga, John. All One Body We: The Doctrine of the Church in Ecumenical
Perspective. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970.
Küng, Hans. The Church. Garden City, N. Y.: Image Books, 1976.
––––––. Theologie in Aufbruch: Eine ökumenishce Grundlegung. Munich: Kaiser Verlag,

1987.
Ladd, George Eldon. The Gospel of the Kingdom: Scriptural Studies in the Kingdom of
God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959.
Larkin, William J. and Joel F. Williams, eds. Mission in the New Testament: An
Evangelical Approach. Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis Books, 1998.
266
Latourette, Kenneth Scott. The Great Century in Northern Africa and Asia, 1800–1914.
Vol. 6 of A History of the Expansion of Christianity. New York: Harper & Row,
1944.
Leeman, Jonathan. The Church and the Surprising Offense of God’s Love: Reintroducing
the Doctrines of Church Membership and Discipline. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway,
2010.
––––––. “A Congregational Approach to Unity, Holiness, and Apostolicity.” Pages 333–

365 in Baptist Foundations, Church Government for an Anti–Institutional Age.
Edited by Mark Dever and Jonathan Leeman. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2015.
––––––. “A Congregational Approach to Catholicity: Independence and

Interdependence.” Pages 367–380 in Baptist Foundations, Church Government
for an Anti–Institutional Age. Edited by Mark Dever and Jonathan Leeman.
––––––. “Introduction––Why Polity?” Pages 1–24 in Baptist Foundations: Church

Government for an Anti–Institutional Age. Edited by Mark Dever and Jonathan
Leeman. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2015.
––––––. Don’t Fire Your Church Members: The Case for Congregationalism. Nashville:
B&H Academic, 2016.
––––––. Political Church: The Local Assembly as Embassy of Christ’s Rule. Downers
Legrand, Lucien. Unity and Plurality: Mission in the Bible. Translated by R. Barr.
Maryknoll, N. Y.: 1988.
Levin, Yuval. The Fractured Republic: Renewing America’s Social Contract in the Age
of Individualism. New York: Basic Books, 2016.
Liederbach, Mark and Alvin Reid, The Convergent Church: Missional Worshipers in an
Emerging Culture. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2009.
Little, Christopher R. Mission in the Way of Paul: Biblical Mission for the Church in the
Twenty–First Century. SBL. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 2005.
Lohfink, Gerhard. Jesus and Community: The Social Dimension of Christian Faith.
Translated by J. Galvin. Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1982.
Lumpkin, William. Baptist Confessions of Faith. Philadelphia, Pa.: The Judson Press,
1959.
267
Luther, Martin. A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, rev. ed..
Westwood. N. J.: Fleming H. Revell, n.d.
Maring, Norman. “The Individualism of Francis Wayland.” Pages 71–105 in Baptist

Concepts of the Church: A Survey of the Historical and Theological Issues which
Have Produced Changes in Church Order. Edited by Winthrop Hudson. Chicago,
Ill.: The Judson Press, 1959.
Marshall, I. Howard. “Who Were the Evangelists?” Pages 251–264 in The Mission of the
Early Church to Jews and Gentiles. Edited by Jostein Adna and Hans Kvalbein.
Tübingen, Germany: 2000.
Marshall, Colin and Tony Payne. The Trellis and the Vine: The Ministry Mind–Shift that
Changes Everything. Kingsford NSW, Australia: Matthias Media, 2009.
Marti, Gerardo. “Fluid Ethnicity and Ethnic Transcendence in Multiracial

Churches.”Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 47 (March 2008): 11–16.
Martin–Achard, Robert. A Light to the Nations: A Study of the Old Testament Conception
of Israel’s Mission to the World. Translated by J. Smith. London: Oliver & Boyd,
1962.
McAdam, Doug and Ronnelle Paulsen. “Specifying the Relationship Between Social Ties
and Activism.” American Journal of Sociology 99, no. 3 (November 1993): 640–
668.
McBeth, Leon. The Baptist Heritage: Four Centuries of Baptist Witness. Nashville:
McBrien, Richard. Catholicism. New York: HarperCollins, 1994.
McDermott, Michael. “The Biblical Doctrine of Koinonia.” Biblische Zeitschrift 19, no. 1
and no. 2 (1975): 64–77 and 219–233.
McGavran, Donald. Understanding Church Growth. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.
McGrath Alister. Christian Theology: An Introduction. 4th edition. Marlton, Mass.:

Blackwell Publishing, 2007.
McKinion, Steve. Life and Practice in the Early Church: A Documentary Reader. New
York: New York University Press, 2001.
McKnight, Scot. Kingdom Conspiracy: Returning to the Radical Mission of the Local
Church. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2014.
268
McNeal, Reggie. Missional Communities: The Rise of the Post-Congregational Church.
San Francisco. Calif.: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 2011.
––––––. Missional Renaissance: Changing the Scorecard for the Church. San Francisco.
Calif.: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 2009.
Melanchthon, Philip. Loci Communes (1555), Melanchthon on Christian Doctrine.

Edited by D. L. Manschreck. New York, 1965.
Meeks, Wayne. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul. New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1983.
Merkle, Benjamin. “Paul’s Ecclesiology.” Pages 56–73 in Paul’s Missionary Methods: In

His Time and Ours. Edited by Robert Plummer and John Mark Terry. Downers
––––––. “The Meaning of Ekklhsia in Matthew 16:18 and 18:17.” Bibliotheca Sacra,
no. 167 (2010): 281–291.
––––––. “The Biblical Basis for Church Membership.” Pages 31–52 in Those Who Must
Give an Account: A Study of Church Membership and Church Discipline. Edited
by John Hammett and Benjamin Merkle. Nashville: B&H, 2012.
––––––. 40 Questions About Elders and Deacons. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2008.
Metzger, Will. Tell the Truth: The Whole Gospel to the Whole Person by Whole People.
Middleton, J. Richard. “A New Heaven and a New Earth: The Case for a Holistic
Reading of the Biblical Story of Redemption.” Journal for Christian Theological
Research 11. (2006): 73–97.
Milne, Bruce. We Belong Together: The Meaning of Fellowship. Downers Grove, Ill:
Minear, Paul. Images of the Church in the New Testament. Philadelphia, Pa.:
Westminster, 1975.
Merrill, Eugene. Everlasting Dominion: A Theology of the Old Testament. Nashville:

B&H Academic, 2006.
“Mission and Vision,” Resonate Church. No pages. Cited 3 December 2016. Online:
http://weareresonate.org/about/vision-beliefs.
269
Mohler, R. Albert. “Church Discipline: The Missing Mark.” Pages 43–62 in Polity:
Biblical Arguments on How to Conduct Church Life. Edited by Mark Dever.
Washington D. C.: Center for Church Reform, 2005.
Moltmann, Jurgen. “Freedom and Community in an Age of Individualism and

Globalization.” International Congregational Journal 11, no. 1. (Summer 2012):
13–20.
––––––. The Church in the Power of the Spirit. New York: Harper & Row,
1977.
Moore, Russell. The Kingdom of Christ: The New Evangelical Perspective. Wheaton, Ill.:
Crossway, 2004.
Moore, T. M. Culture Matters: A Call for Consensus on Christian Cultural Engagement.

Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2007.
Morgan, Christopher. “The Church and God’s Glory.” Pages 213–236 in The Community
of Jesus: A Theology of the Church. Edited by Kendell Easley and Christopher
Mouw, Richard. Called to Holy Worldliness. Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1980.
Müller, Roland. The Messenger, The Message, The Community: Three Critical Issues for
the Cross–Cultural Church–Planter. Osler, Sask.: CanBooks, 2006.
Mullins, E. Y. The Axioms of Religion: A New Interpretation of the Baptist Faith.

Philadelphia, Pa.: Judson Press, 1908.
Murray, Stuart. Church Planting: Laying Foundations. Scottsdale, Pa.: Herald Press,
2001.
Neill, Stephen. A History of Christian Missions. Rev. for the 2nd ed. The Pelican History
of the Church. Vol. 6. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books,
1986.
Nelson, Ricky. “The Relationship Between Soteriology and Evangelistic Methodology in

the Ministries of Asahel Nettleton and Charles G. Finney.” PhD diss.,
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1997.
Newbigin, Lesslie. The Open Secret: An Introduction to the Theology of Mission. Grand
––––––. Foolishness to the Greeks: The Gospel and Western Culture. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1986.
270
––––––. The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.
––––––. Signs Amid the Rubble: The Purposes of God in Human History. Edited by
Geoffrey Wainwright. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.
––––––. “How Should We Understand Sacraments and Ministry?” Paper written for
the Anglican–Reformed International Commission, a consultation jointly
mandated by the Anglican Consultative Council and the World Alliance of
Reformed Churches, meeting in Woking, London, January 10–15, 1983.
––––––. The Household of God. New York: Friendship Press, 1954.
––––––. “Christ and the Cultures.” Scottish Journal of Theology 31, no. 1
(1978): 1–22.
––––––. “What is a ‘Local Church Truly United’?” Ecumenical Review 29, no. 2 (April
1977): 115–128.
Newton, Phil and Matt Schmucker. Elders in the Life of the Church: Rediscovering the
Biblical Model for Church Leadership. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2014.
Nicholls, Bruce J. Contextualization: A Theology of Gospel and Culture. Vancouver,

Canada: Regent College Publishing, 2003.
Niebuhr, Richard. Christ and Culture. New York: Harper & Row, 1951.
Nissen, Johannes. New Testament and Mission: Historical and Hermeneutical

Perspectives. Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang, 2004.
Noll, Mark. The New Shape of World Christianity: How American Experience Reflects
Global Faith. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2009.
Noll, Mark and David Wells. “Introduction: Modern Evangelicalism.” Pages 1–23 in
Christian Faith and Practice in the Modern World. Edited by Mark Noll and
David Wells. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.
Norman, R. Stanton. More Than Just a Name: Preserving Our Baptist Identity. Nashville:
Broadman and Holman, 2001.
Norman, R. Stanton, Ed Stetzer, and Daniel Akin. The Mission of Today’s Church:
Baptist Leaders Look at Modern Faith Issues. Nashville: Broadman & Holman,
2007.
O’Brien, Peter. The Letter to the Ephesians. Edited by D. A. Carson. The Pillar New
Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.
271
––––––. Gospel and Mission in the Writings of Paul: An Exegetical and Theological
Analysis. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995.
Oddy, Jeremy P. “Christian Fellowship: A Theological Study of Koinonia in the Local

Church.” Guided Research Report, Wake Forest, N. C.: Southeastern Baptist
Theological Seminary, 2004.
Okholm, Dennis J., ed. The Gospel in Black & White. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity
Press, 1997.
Osborne, Grant R. The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical

Interpretation. Rev. and expanded 2nd ed. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press,
2006.
Ott, Craig and Gene Wilson. Global Church Planting: Biblical Practices and Best
Practices for Multiplication. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011.
Ott, Craig, Stephen Strauss, and Timothy Tennent. Encountering Theology of Mission:
Biblical Foundations, Historical Developments, and Contemporary Issues. Grand
Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010.
Pannenberg, Wolfhart. The Church. Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster Press, 1983.
Parushev, P. R. “Salvation.” Page 353 in Dictionary of Mission Theology: Evangelical

Foundations. Edited by John Corrie. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press,
2007.
Payne, J. D. Missional House Churches: Reaching Our Communities with the Gospel.
Colorado Springs. Colo.: Paternoster, 2007.
––––––. Discovering Church Planting: An Introduction to the Whats, Whys, and Hows of
Global Church Planting. Colorado Springs. Colo.: Paternoster, 2009.
––––––. “Mission and Church Planting.” Pages 200–210 in Theology and Practice of
Mission: God, the Church, and the Nations. Edited by Bruce Ashford. Nashville,
B&H Academic, 2011.
Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine,

Vol. 4: Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300–1700). Chicago, Ill.: The
University of Chicago Press, 1984.
Peters, George. A Biblical Theology of Missions. Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1972.
Peterson, David. Possessed by God: A New Testament Theology of Sanctification and

Holiness. NSBT 1. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1995.
272
Philips, Dietrich. “The Church of God.” Pages 226–260 in Spiritual and Anabaptist
Writers. Edited by George Williams and Angel Mergal. Philadelphia, Pa.:
Westminster Press, 1957.
Phillips, Richard, Philip Ryken, and Mark Dever. The Church: One, Holy, Catholic, and
Apostolic. Phillipsburg, N. J.: P&R Publishing, 2004.
Piper, John. Bloodlines: Race, Cross, and the Christian. Wheaton. Ill.: Crossway, 2011.
––––––. Let the Nations be Glad. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993.
––––––. What Jesus Demands from the World. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2006.
Pipes, Carol. “ACP: More churches reported; baptisms decline.” June 2016. No pages.
Cited 15 Aug 2016. Online: http://www.bpnews.net/46989/acp-more-churches-
reported-baptism-worship-numbers-decline.
Pitts, William. “The Relation of Baptists to Other Churches.” Pages 235–250 in The
People of God: Essays on the Believers’ Church. Edited by Paul Basden and
David Dockery. Nashville: Broadman, 1991.
Plummer, Robert. “The Church’s Missionary Nature: The Apostle Paul and His
Churches.” PhD Diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2001.
Pocock, Michael, Gailyn Van Rheenen and Douglas McConnell. The Changing Face of
World Missions: Engaging Contemporary Issues and Trends. Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic, 2005.
Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves to Death. New York: Viking, 1985.
Powell, Samuel M. and Michael E. Lodahl. Embodied Holiness: Toward a Corporate

Theology Of Spiritual Growth. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1999.
Putnam, Robert. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New
York: Simon and Schuster Paperbacks, 2000.
Pratt, Zane, M. David Sills and Jeff K. Walters. Introduction to Global Missions.
Nashville: B&H Publishing, 2014.
Reeder, Harry and David Swavely. From Embers to a Flame: How God Can Revitalize
Your Church. Phillipsburg, N. J.: P&R Publishing, 2004.
Ridderbos, Herman. “The Kingdom of God and Our Life in the World.” International
Reformed Bulletin 28 (January 1967): 2–13.
273
Rommen, Edward and Gary Corwin. Missiology and the Social Sciences: Contributions,
Cautions and Conclusions. Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey Library, 1996.
Samra, James. Being Conformed to Christ in Community: A Study of Maturity,

Maturation and the Local Church in the Undisputed Pauline Epistles. New York:
T&T Clark, 2008.
Samuel, Kimberly. “The Community of Mission: The Church.” Pages 60–75 in Theology
and Practice of Mission: God, the Church, and the Nations. Edited by Bruce
Ashford. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2011.
Sanders, J. Oswald. Spiritual Leadership: Principles of Excellence for Every Believer.

Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1994.
Schaeffer, Francis. The Mark of the Christian. Downers Grove. Ill.: InterVarsity, 1970.
––––––. The Church Before the Watching World: A Practical Ecclesiology. Downers
Grove, Ill.: Inter–Varsity Press, 1971.
Schaff, Philip. The Evangelical Protestant Creeds. Volume 3 of The Creeds of

Christendom With a History and Critical Notes. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983.
Schein, Edgar. Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey–
Bass, 2010.
Schleiermacher, Friedrich. The Christian Faith. Edited by H. R. Mackintosh and J. S.

Stewart. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1928.
Schnabel, Eckhard J. Paul the Missionary: Realities, Strategies and Methods. Downers
Grove. Ill.: InterVarsity Press Academic, 2008.
––––––. Early Christian Mission: Paul and the Early Church. 2 vols.
Schreiner, Thomas. 1, 2 Peter, Jude. NAC 37. Nashville: Broadman, 2003.
––––––. “The Lord’s Supper in the Bible.” Pages 131–144 in Baptist Foundations:
Church Government for an Anti–Institutional Age. Edited by Mark Dever and
Jonathan Leeman. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2015.
––––––. “The Biblical Basis for Church Discipline.” Pages 105–130 in Those Who Must
Give an Account: A Study of Church Membership and Church Discipline. Edited
by John Hammett and Benjamin Merkle. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2012.
274
Schwöbel, Christoph. “The Creature of the Word.” Pages 110–155 in On Being the
Church: Essays on the Christian Community. Edited by Colin Gunton and Daniel
Hardy. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1989.
Scoutieris, Constantine. “The People of God—Its Unity and Glory: A Discussion of John
17:17-24 in the Light of Patristic Thought.” Greek Orthodox Theological Review
30 (Winter 1985): 399–420.
Shaw, Perry W. H. “The Missional–Ecclesial Leadership Vision of the Early Church.”

Evangelical Review of Theology 37, no. 2 (April 2013): 13–139.
Shelley, Bruce. “Denominations––Divided We Stand.” Christianity Today. (September 7,

1998).
Shenk, David W., and Ervin R. Stutzman. Creating Communities of the Kingdom: New
Testament Models of Church Planting. Scottsdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1988.
Shenk, Wilbert. Write the Vision: The Church Renewed. Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press
International, 1995.
Siedentop, Larry. Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism.

Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2014.
Simons, Menno. Complete Writings. Edited by J. Wenger. Scottdale, Penn.: Herald Press,
1956.
Shelley, Bruce. Church History in Plain Language. Dallas, Tex.: Word Publishing,
1995.
Simson, Wolfgang. Houses that Change the World: The Return of the House Churches.
Emmelsbüll, Germany: C&P Publishing, 1999.
Smilde, David. “Relational Analysis of Religious Conversion and Social Change:

Networks and Publics in Latin American Evangelicalism.” Pages 93–114 in The
Conversion of a Continent: Contemporary Religious Change in Latin America.
Edited by Timothy J. Steigenga and Edward L. Cleary. Piscataway, N. J.: Rutgers
Smith, Christian. Souls in Transition: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of Emerging
Adults. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Smith, James K. A. Imagining the Kingdom: How Worship Works. Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2013.
––––––. You Are What You Love: The Spiritual Power of Habit. Grand Rapids: Brazos
Press, 2016.
275
Smyth, John. “Principles and Inferences Concerning the Visible Church.” Pages 249–268
in The Works of John Smyth, vol 1. Edited by W. T. Whitley. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1915.
Snow, David, Louis Zurcher, and Sheldon Ekland–Olson. “Social Networks and Social
Movements: A Microstructural Approach to Differential Recruitment." American
Sociological Review 45, no. 5 (October 1980): 787–801.
Snyder, Howard. “The Marks of Evangelical Ecclesiology.” Pages 77–104 in Evangelical

Ecclesiology: Reality or Illusion?. Edited by John Stackhouse. Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic, 2003.
Soma School Notes. “Everyday Gospel Rhythms: Attractional/Missional Church.” Used

by permission. Copyright: wearesoma.com.
Stark, Rodney. The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement
Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries.
New York: HarperOne, 1996.
––––––. Cities of God: The Real Story of How Christianity Became an Urban
Movement and Conquered Rome. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2006.
––––––. The Triumph of Christianity: How the Jesus Movement Became the
World’s Largest Religion. New York: HarperOne, 2011.
Stark, Rodney and Roger Finke. The Churching of America, 1776–2005: Winners and
Losers in Our Religious Economy. Piscataway. N. J.: Rutgers University Press,
2005.
Steigenga, Timothy J. and Edward L. Cleary, eds. The Conversion of a Continent:

Contemporary Religious Change in Latin America. Piscataway. N. J.: Rutgers
Stenschke, Christoph W. “Paul’s Mission as the Mission of the Church.” Pages 74–94 in
Paul’s Missionary Methods: In His Time and Ours. Edited by Robert L. Plummer
and John Mark Terry. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2012.
Stetzer, Ed. Planting Missional Churches. Nashville: B&H Publishing, 2006.
Stetzer, Ed and Mike Dodson. Comeback Churches: How 300 Churches Turned Around
and Yours Can Too. Nashville: B&H Publishing, 2007.
Stetzer, Ed and Thom Rainer. Transformational Church: Creating a New Scorecard for
Congregations. Nashville: B&H, 2010.
276
Stiles, J. Mack. Evangelism: How the Whole Church Speaks of Jesus. Wheaton, Ill.:
Crossway, 2014.
––––––. Marks of the Messenger: Knowing, Living, and Speaking the Gospel. Downers
Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2010.
Stott, John R. W. The Message of Acts. Bible Speaks Today. Downers Grove, Ill.:
––––––. Christian Mission in the Modern World. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 2008.
––––––. The Message of Ephesians. Bible Speaks Today. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP,
1979.
Strong, A. H. Systematic Theology. Philadelphia, Pa.: The Judson Press, 1946.
Tennent, Timothy. Invitation to World Missions: A Trinitarian Missiology for the

Twenty–First Century. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2010.
Terry, John Mark. “Paul and Indigenous Missions.” Pages 160–174 in Paul’s Missionary
Methods: In His Time and Ours. Edited by Robert Plummer and John Mark Terry.
––––––. “The Ante–Nicene Church on Mission,” Pages 205–219 in Discovering the

Mission of God: Best Missional Practices for the 21st Century. Edited by Mark
Barnett and Robin Martin. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2012.
Terry, John Mark, Ebbie Smith, and Justice Anderson. Missiology: An Introduction.
Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1998.
The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles in Ante–Nicene Fathers: Lactantius, Vanantius,

Asterius, Victorinus, Dionysius, Apostolic Teaching and Constitutions, 2 Clement,
Early Liturgies. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody,
Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994.
Thobois, Jules. La Mission d’Evangeliser. Paris: Les Carnets De Croire Et Servir, 1962.
Thompson, Alan. One Lord, One People: The Unity of the Church in Acts in its Literary
Setting. New York, N. Y.: T&T Clark, 2008.
Thompson, James. The Church According to Paul: Rediscovering the Community

Conformed to Christ. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2014.
Thomson, John B. The Ecclesiology of Stanley Hauerwas: A Christian Theology of

Liberation. Surrey, United Kingdom: Ashgate, 2003.
Tidball, Derek. Ministry by the Book: New Testament Patterns for Pastoral Leadership.
277
Van Dam, Cornelis. The Elder: Today’s Ministry Rooted in All of Scripture. Phillipsburg,
N. J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2009.
Van Engen, Charles. Mission on the Way: Issues in Mission Theology. Grand Rapids:
Baker Books, 1996.
––––––. God’s Missionary People: Rethinking the Purpose of the Local Church. Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991.
Van Gelder, Craig. The Essence of the Church: A Community Created by the Spirit.
Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000.
––––––., ed. The Missional Church in Context: Helping Congregations Develop
Contextual Ministry. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.
––––––. “Missional Context: Understanding North American Culture.” Pages 46–76 in

Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America.
Edited by Darrell Guder. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.
Van Gelder, Craig and Dwight J. Zcheile. The Missional Church in Perspective:
Mapping Trends and Shaping the Conversation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2011.
Vance, J. D. Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis. New York:
HarperCollins, 2016.
Vanderstelt, Jeff. Saturate: Being Disciples of Jesus in the Everyday Stuff of Life.
Vanhoozer, Kevin. Everyday Theology: How to Read Cultural Texts and Interpret
Trends. Edited by Kevin Vanhoozer, Charles Anderson and Michael Sleasman.
––––––. The Drama of Doctrine: A Canonical–Linguistic Approach to Christian

Theology. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 2005.
Vischer, Lukas, and Ulrich Luz. Unity of the Church in the New Testament and Today.
Volf, Miroslav. After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity. Grand
Wagner, Peter C. Our Kind of People: The Ethical Dimensions of Church Growth in
America. Atlanta. Ga.: John Knox Press, 1979.
Wagner, Peter. Your Church Can Grow. Eugene. Oreg.: Wipf and Stock Publishers,
1981.
278
Wanamaker, Charles. The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek
Text. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1990.
Ware, Bruce. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance.
Ware, James Patrick. “’Holding Forth the Word of Life’: Paul and the Mission of the
Church in the Letter to the Philippians in the Context of Second Temple
Judaism.” PhD diss., Yale University. 1996.
––––––. Paul and the Mission of the Church: Philippians in Ancient Jewish Context.
––––––. The Mission of the Church: In Paul’s Letter to the Philippians in the Context of
Ancient Judaism. Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2005.
Watson, Brad. Sent Together: How the Gospel Sends Leaders to Start Missional
Communities. Lexington, Ky.: GCD Books, 2015.
Webster, John. “The Church and the Perfection of God.” Pages 75–95 in The Community
of the Word: Toward an Evangelical Ecclesiology. Edited by Mark Husbands and
Daniel Treier. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2005.
––––––. “The Visible Attests the Invisible.” Pages 96–113 in The Community of the
Word: Toward an Evangelical Ecclesiology. Edited by Mark Husbands and
Daniel Treier. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2005.
Wells, Jo Bailey. God’s Holy People: A Theme in Biblical Theology. Sheffield, England:
Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.
Wellum, Stephen. “Baptism and the Relationship Between the Covenants.” Pages 97–162
in Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ. Edited by Thomas
Schreiner and Shawn Wright. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2006.
Whiteman, Darrell. “Contextualization: The Theory, the Gap, the Challenge.”

International Bulletin of Missionary Research 21, no. 1 (January 1997): 2–7.
Whitfield, Keith. “The Triune God: The God of Mission.” Pages 17–34 in Theology and
––––––. “The Mission of Doctrine: An Evangelical Appropriation of the Missio Dei as a

Key for Systematic Theology.” PhD diss., Southeastern Baptist Theological
Seminary, 2013.
279
Wilhoit, Jim. Spiritual Formation as If the Church Mattered: Growing in Christ Through
Community. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008.
Wilken, Robert L. The Christians as the Romans Saw Them. 2nd ed. New Haven, Conn.:
Yale University Press, 2003.
––––––. “The Church as Culture,” First Things. April 2004. Cited 8 September
2014. Online: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2004/04/the-church-as-culture.
Williams, Michael. As Far as the Curse is Found: The Covenant Story of Redemption.
Phillipsburg, N. J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2005.
Willis, G. G. Saint Augustine and the Donatist Controversy. London: SPCK, 1950.
Wills, Gregory. Democratic Religion: Freedom, Authority, and Church Discipline in the
Baptist South: 1785–1900. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
––––––. “A Historical Analysis of Church Discipline.” Pages 131–156 in Those Who

Must Give an Account: A Study of Church Membership and Church Discipline.
Edited by John Hammett and Benjamin Merkle. Nashville: B&H Academic,
2012.
Wilson, Jared. The Prodigal Church: A Gentle Manifesto Against the Status Quo.
Wilson, Jonathan. Why Church Matters: Worship, Ministry, and Mission in Practice.
Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2006.
Witherington III, Ben. The Paul Quest. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1998.
––––––. The Letters to Philemon, the Colossians, and the Ephesians: A Socio–Rhetorical
Commentary on the Captivity Epistles. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.
Wolfe, Alan. The Transformation of American Religion: How We Actually Live Our
Faith. Chicago, Ill: The University of Chicago Press, 2003.
Wolters, Albert. Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview.

Wright, Christopher J. H. The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative.
Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2006.
––––––. The Mission of God’s People: A Biblical Theology of the Church’s Mission.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010.
280
Wright, David. ed., Common Places of Martin Bucer. Abingdon, England: Sutton
Courtenay Press, 1972.
Wright, N. T. The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is. Downers
––––––. The New Testament and the People of God. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press,
1992.
Yoder, John Howard. The Royal Priesthood: Essays Ecclesiological and Ecumenical.
Scottsdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1998.
––––––. “A People in the World: Theological Interpretation.” Pages 250–283 in The

Concept of the Believers’ Church: Addresses from the 1968 Louisville
Conference. Edited by James Leo Garrett Jr. Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1969.
––––––. Body Politics: Five Practices of the Christian Community Before the
Watching World. Nashville: Discipleship Resources, 1997.
––––––. For the Nations: Essays Evangelical and Public. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1997.
––––––. “How H. Richard Niebuhr Reasoned: A Critique of ‘Christ and Culture.’” Pages
31–90 in Authentic Transformation: A New Vision of Christ and Culture. Edited
by Glen Stassen, D. M. Yeager, and John Howard Yoder. Nashville: Abingdon
Press, 1996.
––––––. The Priestly Kingdom: Social Ethics as Gospel. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of
Notre Dame Press, 1984.
––––––. Theology of Mission: A Believers Church Perspective. Edited by Gayle Koontz

and Andy Alexis–Baker. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2014.
Zdero, Rad. The Global House Church Movement. Pasadena, Calif: William Carey
Library, 2004.
Zeller, Eric. “Intertextuality in 1 Peter 2:9–12: Peter’s Biblical–Theological Summary of

the Mission of God’s People.” PhD diss., Dallas Theological Seminary, 2013.
281

Attractional Church The Impac

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Attractional Church The Impac

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SOUTHEASTERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

WAKE FOREST, NORTH CAROLINA

ATTRACTIONAL CHURCH: THE IMPACT OF THE INNER LIFE OF

A LOCAL CHURCH ON CORPORATE MISSION IN NORTH AMERICA

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY

Student Name: Joseph Matthew Sliger Student ID# 000-227915

ATTRACTIONAL CHURCH: THE IMPACT OF THE INNER LIFE OF

This Dissertation has been approved.

Date of Defense: April 21, 2017

Major Professor: John S. Hammett

2nd Faculty Reader: Keith S. Whitfield

External Reader: Michael Goheen

Ph.D. Director: Charles L. Quarles

The acknowledgments, appealing to experience, emphasize the corporate aspect of

the possibility of balancing life as a husband/father/pastor/PhD student, then kept me

church to the degree he has. When I think of a pastor, I think of Phil.

school. Their ceiling was my floor. Thanks Mom and Dad.

As a 10–month old, I met Josh Smith. Not only is he my first–cousin, he grew up

a friend, I think of Josh.

realities I oversaw contribute to South Woods’ mission in Memphis? This dissertation is

think of South Woods Baptist Church.

I want to thank my fellow elders at South Woods––Dr. Tommy Campbell, Jim

been impossible. Thank you!

their missiological brains.

Speaking of Memphis, I wrote nearly every word of this dissertation at a coffee

great coffee and great company.

Everything I hoped for in a seminary, I found at Southeastern. To begin, while a

Greear, and Ed Stetzer––pushed me both intellectually and spiritually. Thanks Dr.

together. I learned much from each of you.

critique it, and sharpen it.

yet firm. When I think of a scholar, I think of Dr. Hammett.

Without really a close second, I dedicated this dissertation to my wife. Though

think of a Christian, I think of Julie.

ultimately bring glory to you.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................... xiv

DEDICATION ................................................................................................................. xix

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1

Statement of Thesis .......................................................................................................... 1

Assumptions Concerning the Mission of the Church ...................................................... 7

The Participants in the Mission of the Church.............................................................. 7

The Nature of the Mission of the Church ..................................................................... 9

The Breadth of the Mission of the Church.................................................................. 12

Chapter Summaries ........................................................................................................ 15

CHAPTER 2: CORPORATE MISSION AND THE INNER LIFE OF THE LOCAL

The Corporate Mission of the Local Church ................................................................. 22

Individualism and America ......................................................................................... 22

Individualism and Authority ....................................................................................... 26

The Inner Life of the Local Church ............................................................................... 29

The Corporate Nature of Salvation ............................................................................. 30

and the Church's Corporate Mission ........................................................................... 38

Biblical Argument for Mission ................................................................................... 41

Biblical Argument for Corporate Mission ................................................................. 48

Centripetal and Centrifugal Mission ........................................................................... 54

CHAPTER 3: THE UNITY OF THE LOCAL CHURCH AS A DISPLAY OF THE

Biblical Understanding of Local Church Unity ............................................................. 67

The Nature of God and Church Unity......................................................................... 67

The Gospel and Church Unity .................................................................................... 69

New Testament Images of Church Unity.................................................................... 74

Historical Understandings of Local Church Unity ........................................................ 78

Theological Understanding of Local Church Unity....................................................... 92

Theological Unity ....................................................................................................... 95

Visible Unity ............................................................................................................... 97

Organizational Unity ................................................................................................. 101