Death to Life as One Church Brighton

Early up and off on Sunday morning to Brighton, seaside town of 250,000 which is in man respects culturally similar to Austin, Texas. In fact, the community has unofficially adopted "Keep Brighton Weird" as a tag line. One t-shirt was seen with the tag line on the front, and on back, "I'm doing my part!"

Greater Brighton is one of the most unchurched towns in Britain, with about 54% of its residents claiming atheism. In this environment, Dave Steell and family sensed God's leading to serve the Gloucester Baptist Church, a dwindling center city congregation. Within a brief period of having come to Brighton, Dave had a vision that Gloucester Baptist and another dying church, Florence Road Baptist, might come together to become one new church.

Space does not allow me to describe the entire process that led to the new church, but our team was privileged to worship with One Church Brighton, a part of the Body of Christ in the city. Where there were formerly two congregations that were close to death, the decision was in fact made to die. From the death of the two, one new church has been birthed.

For one year, the two congregations met together, heard the stories of those who were members of both congregations as Steell interviewed them week after week during worship. Then, on Easter Sunday, the formal launch of the new church saw the property filled with worshippers. While some members of the former congregations were not able to "make the journey" to become part of a new church, most have remained. Additionally, during the year of preparation for starting One Church, others who were not part of either church have come to identify One Church as their faith community.

Today, there is the critical mass for a healthy winsome church meeting at the Florence Road facility each week for worship and teaching. The center city facility, formerly Gloucester Place, is used for offices and public meetings of the community. Because of its location, plans are for it to become a ministry center for the city.

Our team had lunch with Dave Steell to hear him tell the story of two churches dying so that One Church could be born as a new healthy infant, with a vibrant future ahead. Just hearing the story brought us great hope.

Across America there are many places where the potential exists for similar death to life stories to be written. Pray for One Church Brighton, for Pastor Dave Steell and his family, and for the faithful congregations who are investing themselves to love Brighton in fresh ways. Pray for their effective service to the diverse and spiritual distant population of the city to which they have committed their lives.

MissionShift 1.2: Reacting to Eitel

In reading Dr. Keith Eitel’s Response to Van Engen, I respectfully submit that the professor succumbed to the “ready, shoot, aim” school. At points in his chapter, I questioned that we had read the same essay. Again, as mentioned yesterday, the Van Engen assignment in MissionShift, was to review the historic use of the term “mission” by the Christian church through the centuries. The essay is titled “Mission” Defined and Described. Yet, Eitel casting of Van Engen’s desired outcome is “to affirm the term missional but to do so with some distinct and emphatic qualifications.” Later, “The essential focus of the essay is to dissect the historical pieces of postmodernity’s preference for the term missional and look at what is inside.” This direct miss in acknowledging Van Engen’s assignment, in my opinion, results in more of a personal rant than a response.

From his unusual opening paragraphs, which introduce an anonymous “missionary” bowing before a Shiva, the author sets out without regard for the essay to which he was supposedly responding. Five paragraphs into his “response” before referencing Van Engen’s work, Eitel writes: “Missional methods or models used to engage a given culture with the gospel reflect an underlying set of assumptions about what missionaries are commissioned to do. Something seems awry with the Shiva sham described above. Are there limits to what Christians can say or do when being relevant? How does being relevant translate into being missional or even just doing missions?”

Interestingly Eitel consistently uses the term “missions” rather than “mission.” Based upon his use of phrases like “or even just doing missions,” one might assume that missions is an operation originating from human cause. That is, “missions” is something man does, rather than an attribute of God in which the church is invited to participate. He warns, “Unless believers set hermeneutical measures in place that will safeguard the integrity of the gospel message itself, missions will falter.” While I certainly agree with the importance of hermeneutics, I doubt that God’s capacity to accomplish mission will falter based upon man’s initiative. Is the purpose of the Sovereign God really that fragile? Not only do I view Eitel’s perception of mission as reductionist, his understanding of missio Dei is similarly limited, “…that Jesus alone is the Sender and the Church is sent out into the world” in his words “comprises the missio Dei.” There is more breadth to God’s reign, and depth in His creative and redemptive work than Eitel indicates as “comprising” the missio Dei.

I affirm Eitel’s concern that methods employed in mission need to operate within biblical boundaries; the means employed in mission must be compatible with the desired end. “If the outcome undermines, destroys, threatens, or contradicts the message we wish to communicate, then we have surpassed biblical boundaries and lost touch with Christ’s mission entrusted to His Church.” But I do not agree with his assessment that Van Engen “…concludes that David J. Bosch and others …shifted the mission world’s focus” that “set the stage for the current identity crisis among those who are engaging in missions or claiming to be missional.” Eitel appears to distrust new methods, reflective thinking, and creative tension regarding mission, “We live in a time of dangerous creativity in missionary circles.”

He subsequently identifies the work of Alan Hirsch, as an example of what Eitel calls “a bipolar attitude” that affirms the truth of the Bible while also encouraging relativistic flirtation with cultural modes of thought and action. Eitel quotes a familiar Hirsch passage warning of the threat of any mission expression that blends “religious pluralism and philosophical relativism” saying “the challenge must drive us closer to our original message, not further from it.” Immediately following this quote Eitel dismissively concludes, “…while the sentiment is right, the DNA will breed theological error.” Interestingly, this section of his “response” to the Van Engen essay introduces subject matter which was totally absent from the essay.

My experience with missional church practitioners, those seeking to be the Body of Christ expressed with relevance through a missional posture, does not match the characterizations afforded by Eitel. He writes, “Leadership is suspect if they claim to know truth especially if it is deemed biblical since truth is personally derived. Highly individualized theological opinions are each considered valid and real even if they may conflict with the Bible.” And concludes, “If being missional means relationships that entail little or no intentional and verbal proclamation of the gospel, service without concern for eternal destiny of human souls, or finally relevance without responsibility for truth, then let us simply reaffirm the Great Commission and be willing to keep on telling the old, old story to everyone that wills to listen. The result may be godly disciples and New Testament churches…”

My heart aches when I read those words and reflect on brothers and sisters who are seeking to live as authentic disciples of Jesus interacting with cultures of people who have no knowledge of that old story. Through serving, loving, and listening; through investing deeply in the lives of those without Christ, they seek opportunity to be heard. Their lives validate the message that their lips profess. I would rather affirm a generation which lives with the tension of “dangerous creativity” than to live in pernicious malaise.

Glorify Your Father

I’ve been preaching through I Peter, looking for, among other things, the missional elements in this blunt and powerful epistle. From that perspective 2:12 looked like a gimme. How much more missional can you get than to exhort your readers to “live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us?”

With their usual genius for discovering the obvious, the commentaries all note the similarity between Peter and Jesus in the Sermon On the Mount, where our Lord commands his followers to “let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven” (Matt. 5:16). But then I found two difficulties in interpretation. 1) What is the missional point of a life of good deeds if the poor, benighted pagans don’t wake up and recognize their source before the judgment day? And, 2) What kind of good deeds will cause unbelievers to look past the doer in order to praise the Father in heaven?

Fortunately, I was able to dispose of the first difficulty rather quickly. “The reference to glorifying God suggests that the salvation of Gentiles is in view,” writes Thomas Schreiner in the New American Commentary Series (volume 37, page 124). “Typically, in the New Testament people glorify God or give him glory by believing.” In other words, those who see the Christian’s good works and believe in Jesus while still alive will bring glory to God on the judgment day.

But that still left me wondering how to serve in such a way that unbelievers recognize and praise God. After much prayer I decided to look to Jesus as my example and teacher (I can hear the chorus of “duhs” already). Here is what I found.

• When seeking to serve in such a way that people praise God for it, those whom we serve have to believe that we are serving them only because they are loved. And for that to happen they have to believe that they are loved and accepted as they are. This is not impossible. The gospels tell us that Jesus was a “friend” of “sinners,” using a word that means hardened sinners, people devoted to sin. Yet Jesus found a way to befriend such people. He was good to them because he is good, like God, who “sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Matt. 5:45). To be like Jesus we have to learn the indifference of true love. We have to learn to love without the slightest concern for who is being loved, or for what benefits may come back to us. Only then will the world recognize God in us. And by the way, isn’t that Jesus’ main point in the last few verses of Matthew 5?

• In a related matter, the people we serve must become convinced that only the love of God can explain our commitment (II Cor. 5:14). They need to know, for instance, that we are not looking for their votes. Nor are we trying to get them to attend our church. We must be very clear that we are not trying to sell them anything or make a reputation for ourselves. If the slightest hint of an ulterior motive crops up they may go ahead and accept what we are offering, but they will not glorify the Father in heaven.

• Our service must be infused with a level of joy, peace, hope and other godly character qualities that can only be explained by a vital relationship with God. No one ever served God without stirring up opposition somewhere. This was especially true for the first generation of Christians who, in the persons of Peter and John, could not even heal a lame man by the temple gate without getting themselves thrown into jail. But at their trial even the priests had to admit that Jesus had made a difference in their lives: “When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus” (Acts 4:13).

• Our service must be done from the heart as an act of worship. Worship and service are two sides of the same coin. We worship God as we serve him, and we serve him in worship. This matters because it balances the first point, the one that says we should be true friends with unbelievers. Without the focus on God provided by worshipping him, we risk failing to give a clear call to unbelievers to repent and believe in Jesus as Saviour and Lord. We can easily fall into the trap of serving sinners in such a way as to enable them to maintain their life of sin and rebellion.

• Our service must have an element of sacrifice about it. (See the second point above.) But let me offer a warning. Here is where Jesus’ admonitions to give in secret and pray in secret (Matt. 6:1-6) become relevant. The moment someone realizes we’re making a great sacrifice we risk losing the ability to point them to God. It’s possible they will remain impressed by what we’re doing for them, but our ultimate purpose may be lost.

I have become convinced that a missional approach is necessary if we are serious about building Christ’s Kingdom in North America. We must commit our very existence to the proposition that all intellectual arguments for faith notwithstanding, people will not believe unless they perceive the presence of God in the work we are doing. Even Jesus was driven to this extremity as he defended his divinity before his own disciples: “Just believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me. Or at least believe because of the work you have seen me do” (John 14:11, NLT).

This must become the goal of our lives; that people would come to believe in Jesus because of the work they see us do. No other form of evangelism will succeed with any degree of consistency.

Go and Be

Often it is children and youth who lead the way, forging pathways toward a missional culture. Perhaps B.J. Thomas had it right when he sang, “God bless the children everywhere, for they haven’t yet learned not to care.” Caring for the needs of others is a reflection of the heart of God. Allowing His heart to guide actions is basic to authentic Christianity.

I am encouraged when I hear stories of children and youth being pacesetters in pursuit of God’s mission. I thank God for the Christ following adults who are encouraging those children and youth. As an example of how children and youth are showing compassion, consider what is happening at South Memorial Drive Church of God. The congregation’s children recently spent a day putting together gift baskets and delivering them to shut-in and elderly persons in their community. Their ministry has taken the name Servanthood Unwrapped. I love it! I am pretty sure those receiving baskets loved having children in their homes for a brief visit. I am also sure that the actions of these children brought joy to God’s heart.

Not to be left out, the church’s youth commissioned themselves as the Blue Crew. Once a month they are impacting the community in tangible ways; visiting nursing homes, raking leaves, removing trash, etc. Once again, the focus is on meeting needs of others in the Spirit of Jesus Christ.

Another phrase of Thomas’ song captures my imagination every time I hear it. “We must not let time age the soul, may the child stay in us all.” I believe children can be carriers of caring, preventing the soul-aging of adults in their world. Interestingly enough, in the same town where these children and youth are seeking to live out the mission of God in concrete ways, the Four-Square Church recently closed their morning worship service so that their congregation could complete community projects on Sunday morning. “You mean they didn’t have church?” someone might ask. No, these churches are learning a valuable lesson. It is more important to “BE church” than to “HAVE church.” Think about it…Go and Be!

Nilson Fanini --- Mission was His Mission

Nilson Fanini passed away last Saturday in Bedford, Texas. He was in the US to celebrate the birth of a baby to his dear daughter. When I learned of his illness and subsequent death, I remembered the spiritual legacy God has carved out through his life.

Fanini was the long time pastor of First Baptist Church, Niteroi, Brazil, a missional church long before the term had ever become a buzz word. Dr. Fanini’s life and vision had global impact via ministry that radiated out from Primeira Igreja Batista to the favelas of Niteroi, where the poorest of the poor lived. Through ministries of early childhood education and family medical clinics, the impact of Fanini’s vision was felt in his city.

His church developed training processes and theological education for church planters. Fanini believed in starting indigenous churches among the various people groups of Brazil and throughout the nations. A man of vision and wisdom, Fanini was called upon to provide guidance and leadership to Baptists around the world through the Baptist World Alliance.

The thing I remember most clearly was his response to a question I posed in his office a few years ago when he graciously hosted group of pastoral leaders from Texas who spent a week observing and learning strategic mission insights that God had given Fanini. In a season when churches were being encouraged to develop their own mission statements, I asked Dr. Fanini, “What is the mission of First Baptist Church?” He paused for a moment, looking somewhat taken aback, and responded, “God’s mission is our mission.” Well said.

Fanini died in Texas. He ministered in Brazil. He touched the world. But His passion was the Kingdom of God. Please join me in praying for the family of Dr. Nilson Fanini. A memorial service will be held this Saturday at Iglesia Bautista Getsemani in Fort Worth, Texas where my friend Julio Guarneri is pastor. How appropriate, Fanini’s memorial service will be held in a church whose Kingdom vision is as big as the world!