gospel-filled mission
- Filed under: Gospel, evangelism, incarnational, missional living, orthopraxy, relationships, social justice
- Date: Feb 4,2009
My new friend, Art Rogers, reprinted Michael Frost’s four “P’s” of missionality (love that word). I’ll re-re-print them here:
Proximity – We must be in the lives of those needing the Gospel. It is not something you can do from the sideline or as a tourist.
Presence – We must live incarnationally, revealing the presence of God to those not looking for Him otherwise.
Powerlessness – We must disavow the political, material and temporal leverage that the institutional church has long represented and coveted. It has discredited us and eschewing it commends us to those previously disillusioned.
Proclamation – We must openly declare that Jesus is the reason that we are living as servants, abstaining from worldly power struggles. People don’t need “good people” they need the Gospel.
Art asked for thoughts. Here was my response:
i think it’s pretty strong. many “missional” folks leave out proclamation. great to see that…
on the proclamation front, people like frost and his buddy, hirsch, show they are thoroughly evangelical. unfortunately, they are still on the margins of much of evangelicalism. i see their prophetic influence slowly seeping out, but there is much work to be done…
i do want to say that we need to be careful how we define proclamation though. we typically do this: proclamation = preaching. that’s a slice but not exclusively what it is. proclamation is an all-of-life, “giving a reason for the hope..,” verbal proclamation of our faith. at the appropriate, discerning time…
the one thing i would add is the impetus of the declaration that Jesus is the reason we are living as servants isn’t first because we are resisting worldly power struggles but we are servants because the cross was the fullest expression of service. We serve because Jesus’ obedience to the Father was the ultimate act of service. i’m afraid if we don’t do that, people will not see the gospel as the impetus, rather an apple for apples trade off – service vs. power struggles. i hope that makes sense…
i understand that early in conversation, it may be helpful to use the apple for apples idea as a gateway, but we have to be careful to expand the idea at the most appropriate time so we model the gospel as the prism they need to look at all things, especially mission.
i would say it this way: gospel-less service is merely activism but gospel-filled service is mission!
