Posts tagged ‘Missional’

I cannot recall any text in the New Testament that indicates that every “local church” is to have its own vision. The idea that every church should have a vision statement came from the business world, as every business needs to know what it is about. The church is not a business, at least God never intended for it to be a business. So, why do churches have visions statements?

“Where there is no vision, the people perish.” (Proverbs 29.18a KJV)

This half of a verse of Scripture taken out of its context is pretty much the source of the idea that every church should have a vision statement. After all, we don’t want our churches to perish. Let’s look at this verse so we can understand why using it as a proof-text for having church vision statements is completely wrong.

Here is the verse, in its entirety, in three other translations. Seeing the different ways this verse has been translated will help us ask the questions necessary to understand the verse.

Proverbs 29.18

“Where there is no vision, the people are unrestrained, but happy is he who keeps the law.”(NASB)

“Where there is no revelation, the people cast off restraint; but happy is he who keeps the law.” (NKJV)

“Where there is no revelation, the people cast off restraint; but blessed is he who keeps the law.” (NIV)

The first phrase of this verse is translated “Where there is no vision” and also “Where there is no revelation”. Why is this so? Duane Garrett, in his commentary on Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs, explains, “The word of “revelation” is commonly associated with the visions of the prophets and stands for the importance of prophetic exhortation to the community here.” The word means “vision”, but refers to prophetic visions that are revelations from God. This is why some translations use the word “vision” while others use the word “revelation”.

We see this type of vision in the New Testament when Peter was on the roof top of Simon the Tanner in Joppa (Acts 10.9-23). This vision was God’s revelation to Peter which came to him in a state of ecstasy. In Peter’s case, the revelation from God was that the idea that a non-Jew was “unclean” was no more, but that all men could have communion together in Christ.

Where Old Testament prophets are concerned, the visions they received from God were often revelations from God to call His people to repentance. We see time and again in the Old Testament that God’s people would go astray. The prophets called the people back when they had wandered away from God and His plan. The ministry of the prophets was largely to call the wayward people of God back to faithfulness.

Revelation or prophetic vision is placed alongside the Law of God in Proverbs 28.18. To more easily understand the whole verse in English we need to switch the order of the two halves. The one who abides by God’s Law will be happy or blessed. When one goes astray it is the vision, God’s revelation to the prophet, which God uses to call the wayward back. So, where there is no vision, no prophetic utterance, the wayward one lives a life of unrestraint, he perishes. Duane Garrett summarizes the idea in this way, “Social harmony and restraint cannot be achieved without the exhortations of the prophets and the teaching of the law.”

The word “vision” in this text has nothing to do with visionary leadership or vision statements in “local churches.” Rather, it has everything to do with the ministries of the teachers and the prophets. We have already read in Ephesians 4.11 that God gave some apostles, some prophets, some evangelists and some pastors and teachers to the church in order to have a complete and healthy church. So, when understood correctly, Proverbs 29.18 can very well apply to the ministries of the prophets and teachers in the church today.

Let me restate that Proverbs 29.18 has nothing to do with “visionary leadership” in the church. It has everything to do with the combined ministries of the prophets and teachers – two of the five gifts of God to the church.

I cannot recall any text in the New Testament that indicates that every “local church” is to have its own vision. This idea, to me, is akin to “There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death (Proverbs 14.12 NIV). When each local church has its own vision the result is what we see in many places today – “churches” looking inwardly rather than outwardly; churches that are more like social clubs than rescue centers. What is the result? Little to no harvest of lost souls. Where is the grain of wheat that falls to the ground, dies and then results in an increase of 30, 60 or 100? Where is the Christian who reproduces himself 30 times in his lifetime? He should be the least productive person in the church!

To the contrary, we have buildings that we erroneously call churches where people can come and sit on comfortable benches or in comfortable chairs and listen and then do nothing. Sinfully, the “church” finds this to be acceptable behavior for “little Christs”. The vision statement of your church may permit such taking of the Lord’s name in vain, however, the God-given vision of the apostle permits no such thing. The vision of the apostle is a vision to reach a people or a place and his function, along with the other four, is to equip the saints to do the reaching.

Robert Banks, in his book, Paul’s Idea of Community, described the church in this way:

The community at Corinth is not said to be part of a wider body of Christ or to be a ‘body of Christ’ alongside numerous others. It is ‘the body of Christ’ in that place. This suggests that wherever Christians are in relationship there is the body of Christ in its entirety, for Christ is truly and wholly present there through his Spirit (12.13). This is a momentous truth.

God’s design for the church in a place is not to have factions, or denominations, but to have unity. In the same way, God’s design is not for each “church” to have a vision which seems right in its own eyes, but to have an interdependent relationship with the apostle God has called to that place and to whom God has given a vision, burden, strategy and stewardship of the gospel for that place or people.

Every believer has the responsibility of making disciples (Matthew 28.18-20). However, God calls some people to go into other cultures to make disciples. The mission field is wherever someone is not yet a disciple. Being a missionary is not about travelling to another country. Nonetheless, God calls some men and women to do just that in order to make disciples. This calling is not the call to be an apostle in the Ephesians 4 sense of the word. Not all who are called are apostles.

The call of the apostle is a little different, or maybe a lot different.

The call to a place or a people is often thought of in current mission circles to relate to unreached people groups or unreached cities. I do not believe it is limited to that. I believe the apostle’s function is needed everywhere that there are unreached people, not only where there are unreached people groups. If you want to see why I think that, you can read my article “Our Mission,” which explains my understanding of the Great Commission.

We see this idea of being called to a people or peoples in Peter (Galatians 2.8) and Paul (Romans 11.13 and Galatians 2.8). Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles (non-Jewish peoples). Peter was the apostle to the Jews (a people). Yet, Paul almost always started his work in a new city in the Jewish synagogue (where there was one) and Peter was sent by God to Cornelius, a Gentile. So, we cannot derive that an apostle to a people only works with that people group, but that his primary focus is making disciples among that people.

At a certain point in the history of the church in the Book of Acts, almost all of the apostles left Jerusalem. Only James remained there. From this I derive that his calling as an apostle was to the city of Jerusalem, or perhaps that it extended from Jerusalem into the surrounding region. I do not have a specific verse of Scripture to quote to prove that statement, but that is how I see the situation. There are, in the world today, apostles who state their calling to be within a certain region (or city) and to all the people(s) who reside there, rather than having a call to a specific people within that region (or city). I do not state that in order to use the experience of today to “prove” what I think was the reality of the church then. To the contrary, I want to show that one claiming to be an apostle to a city or a region today is not outside the bounds of Scripture in making that claim.

There should be no confusion about the call of the apostle to a people or place in comparison to a man who has the title of “pastor” or even “apostle” within the hierarchy of the institutional church. The apostle in Ephesians 4 has a ministry that is far larger than any single church. That is not to say that an apostle might not actually hold such employment, but a true apostle will find great frustration in such a position. It must also be clearly understood that the call of the apostle is not the call to climb the leadership ladder of an organization, moving from one place to the next to get ahead in his career as a minister. However, it may occur that an apostle will end up at the head of an organization which ministers within a city or region or among a people or even all the peoples of the world.

Wolfgang Simson cites John Knox of Scotland as an apostle in the history of the church. And, it may be that John Wesley, with his “the world is my parish” thinking, was an apostle. The apostle’s calling will be to a city or region, or to a people.

The call of the apostle will be accompanied by a burden for that place or that people. “John Knox, the reformer of Scotland, an apostolic man, once prayed: ‘God, give me Scotland or I die!’ (Simson, Houses That Change the World, p. 122).” When I heard Simson teach this he followed this statement up by saying that God gave Knox Scotland, and then he died.

When Jesus sent Ananias to Saul (Paul) He explained that Saul would be His instrument to carry the gospel to the Gentiles and the Jews. Jesus also told Ananias that He would show Paul how much he would suffer for His name (Acts 9.15-16). Paul suffered, but yet he had an unquenchable thirst to press on to carry the gospel further to reach Gentiles who had not yet been reached. An apostle today will suffer to get the gospel to the people or place to which he has been called by God. The apostle will weep over that people or place, will sweat to see to it that the gospel penetrates and sticks, will bleed to see Christ made known and disciples made – blood, sweat and tears, and sufferings beyond those are the reality of the apostle. The apostle will be poured out like a drink offering to reach the place or the people with the good news of Jesus Christ (Philippians 2.17 and 2 Timothy 4.6).

I am still processing through one more idea related to the apostle’s burden. Paul consistently wrote about remembering almost every church he planted in his continued prayers. Is this kind of prayer indicative of an apostle? Many people pray seriously and devote a lot of time to prayer. However, the continuous prayer for churches that have been started and the believers who have been discipled may be another characteristic of the apostle’s burden for a people or a place.

I have seen and heard people today claim to be apostles, but few who have been willing to shed their own blood to make the gospel known. I have, however, met a few who are so burdened for the people or place of their calling that “blood, sweat and tears” is not an understatement.

The word apostolos means “sent one”. So, from that we derive that an apostle is one who is sent. But, the word apostle also has a range of meanings in the New Testament and we’ll have to begin to take a look at those meanings if we are to understand who apostles were in the New Testament and who apostles are today.

Paul wrote to the followers of Jesus in Corinth and told them that they were ambassadors of Christ (2 Corinthians 5.20). I believe that the description “ambassadors” applies to all the followers of Jesus in all times and in all places. So, there is a sense in which all followers of Christ are sent ones, apostles, though I do not know any text of Scripture that uses the term apostle in reference to all the followers of Jesus. Regardless, that is not how the word apostle is used in Ephesians 4.11-13, as it is clear not all followers of Christ are in view in that description.

We’re really trying to come to an understanding of the meaning of the word apostle in Ephesians 4.11-13, And God gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the followers of Jesus for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.

There are some people who believe that the word apostle as it is used in Ephesians 4.11-13 finds its modern fulfillment in the sending of missionaries. They reason that missionaries are the “sent ones” of churches today. Again, they grab the general meaning of the word apostle and try to fit it to the post-Reformation reality of the church. I am a missionary, but I am not an apostle in the Ephesians 4 sense of the word. Where Ephesians 4 is concerned, I am a teacher, but I am also a cross-cultural missionary. Most of the missionaries that I know are evangelists, pastors and teachers, but very few are apostles as we read about them in Ephesians 4 (and I have yet to meet any who are prophets). So, I do not agree with those who see missionaries today as all being equivalent to the apostles that God has given to the church in order to have a complete and healthy church.

We find the word apostle used in many texts in the New Testament, but the word is not always used to indicate the same thing. Let’s look at a few examples.

The word apostle is applied to Jesus in Hebrews 3.1. Jesus was certainly one sent. However, Jesus was not an apostle in the Ephesians 4.11-13 sense of the word apostle.

Jesus chose twelve men to be His disciples. The word “apostle” is sometimes used in reference to these twelve men. The ministry of the twelve and their unique relationship with Jesus leads me to believe that the apostles referred to in Ephesians 4 are not apostles in the same sense as the twelve apostles (and Matthias and Paul). The key to understanding this will be to understand that the New Testament refers to more than 14 men as apostles.

In fact, there are 22 people in addition to Jesus who are referred to as apostles in the New Testament. Here’s the list:

Paul – many Scriptures, but Rom. 11:13 “to the Gentiles”
Peter – many Scriptures, but I Peter 1:1, Matthew 10:2
Andrew – Matthew 10:2
James (son of Zebedee) – Matthew 10:2
John – Matthew 10:2
Philip – Matthew 10:2
Bartholomew – Matthew 10:2
Thomas – Matthew 10:2
Matthew – Matthew 10:2
James (son of Alpheus) – Matthew 10:2
Thadeus – Matthew 10:2
Simon the zealot – Matthew 10:2
Judas Iscariot – Matthew 10:2
Matthias – Acts 1:26
Barnabas – Acts 14:14
James (Jesus’ brother) – Galatians 1:19
Epaphroditus – Philippians 2:25
Andronicus – Romans 12:7
Junia (a female apostle) – Romans 16:7
Cephas – may also be Peter I Cor. 9:5, but is not necessarily Peter
Silas – I Thessalonians 2:6
Timothy – I Thessalonians 2:6

I have no way to speculate about how many apostles actually existed in the New Testament era. I do find the following text to be interesting though.

For I [Paul] delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also (1 Corinthians 15.3-8).

In I Corinthians 15:3-8 Paul refers to Jesus appearing to Peter and then to the Twelve after His resurrection and before His ascension. In the same context, Paul states that Jesus appeared to James and then to all the apostles. Paul stated that Jesus had already appeared to the Twelve and Paul goes on to refer to all the apostles. That he referred to both seems to indicate two different groups. I believe the two different groups are the Twelve (a group of apostles that would include Matthias and Paul) and then the Ephesians 4 type of apostles. I believe the first type is no longer with us, but that the later type of apostles remain and minister among us today.

Please check back soon, as I plan to explain my understanding of the ministry of apostles today.

I have just added an article entitled “Our Mission” to the articles page.

This is an article that I wrote as part of the study on Acts that I use for discipleship, leadership training and training church planters. I find it important for the people around me to understand what is going on in my head when I talk about “our mission” and the work here. It was originally written in Portuguese and I translated it into English to post here.

Since I watched the Verge2010 Conference on the Live Stream, I realize that there are churches and leaders in the US who share many of the same ideas I’ve expressed in this article. However, this is my own explanation of what I believe the Great Commission really means.

You can read the article by clicking this link “Our Mission“. Or, you can read it from the articles page and see what other articles are there too.

Also, I’d like to say thanks to the folks at Verge2010 for making the Live Stream available, and for free at that, to those who could not be there live! That was extremely cool of them!