Can Unbelievers Fulfill
the Missio Dei?
I recently read about some of the homeless
in Philadelphia. Two different groups attempted
to come alongside a charitable organization to help these people. On the one hand, churches in the greater
Philly area raised some money to buy them some things, one of which was
microwave popcorn. On the other hand, the
mafia showed up and handed out brand new bicycles to kids, a turkey to each family,
and gave thousands of dollars to the organization. After considering the fact that these people
had no microwaves, let alone electricity, the author wrote, “I thought to
myself, I guess God can use the mafia, but I would like God to use the church.”[1]
This raises an important
question. Can unbelievers fulfill the
purpose of the church and please the Lord?
Keller seems to answer yes and no.
He would ultimately say no, of course.
But he repeatedly affirms the necessary balance of remaining in the center
of the Word mandate and the Deed mandate (see the previous and next section). Yet unbelievers regularly perform the Deed
mandate. Keller is burdening the church
with a mandate that doesn’t require the Holy Spirit. Not only are these two—Christians and the
world—at odds, lacking any harmony or shared passion (2 Cor. 6:14-7:1), but
those who don’t have Christ or His Spirit cannot do anything beneficial in the
spiritual sense. Jesus said, “I am the vine, you are the branches; he who abides in Me
and I in him, he bears much fruit, for apart from Me you can do nothing” (Jn
15:5). Whatever the unbeliever can do—no
matter how beneficial it is because of common grace—can’t be called
‘fruit.’ And Paul said, “For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the
Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward
God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Rom 8:6-8). Whatever the unbeliever does accomplish, it
is never submissive to God’s authority or pleasing to Him.
It
appears impossible to avoid one of two implications. If the church is called to fulfill a task
that unbelievers can and do already you are left with two options. Either a)
the church ought to focus on what cannot biblically be called fruit, submission,
or anything pleasing to God, or b) unbelievers don’t need the church, the
gospel, or Christ’s Spirit to accomplish half of the missio Dei! The former is
too preposterous to consider, and the latter leaves you wandering, “Why should
the church focus on this so-called social mandate?” Let the spiritually dead take care of that
work, because not only can they, but they will be able to do a better job of
it. Why wouldn’t we take care of what
the church alone can be a part of by God’s special
grace—the evangelization of souls?
Are the ‘Word’ and
‘Deed’ Mandate Compatible?
What is concerning in these
quotes is the fact that there is nothing uniquely Christian in the call to
influence culture. There is nothing
distinctively spiritual about channeling value into the community (331), or the
influence on society that goes beyond the gospel because “evangelism is not
enough” (185).[2]
What I mean by that is that, due to a
shared Kuyperian view of common grace, natural man has been given the ability
to make society better, via music, art, publishing, medicine, politics,
etc. Then, this area of natural ability
called ‘cultural renewal’ or ‘cultural transformation’ is raised up as the missio Dei, the legitimate mandate for
the church’s focus in this world. In
fact, Keller believes that the cultural
mandate and the gospel mandate are equal in importance and can co-exist:
Although
these factors [evangelism and cultural renewal/social justice] are mutually
strengthening, the specialists and proponents of each element will almost
always pit them against the others.
Thus, evangelists may fear that a social justice emphasis will drain
energy, attention, and resources from evangelism. (82)
I
am arguing that a church can robustly preach and teach the classic evangelical
doctrines and still be missional. That
is, it can still have a missionary encounter with Western culture and reach and disciple unchurched,
nontraditional nonbelievers in our society. (271)
Beyond the cultural mandate’s lack
of biblical merit, the assertion that both emphases can coexist is quite
interesting. They aren’t compatible for
one simple reason—the work that Christ is
doing in the world makes His servants hated by the world, while the work of
cultural betterment is both pursued and praised by the world. Of course these two can’t coexist. What Christian isn’t going to gravitate
toward cultural work, away from bold and unaccepted evangelism, when God is
equally pleased by cultural work (according to CC’s theological vision) that is applauded by the world?
Keller’s theological vision seems
to be at odds with foundational Christianity.
Christ never teaches that following His word will make us attractive to
the world, but rather that we will be hated by the world.
If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it
hated you. If you were of the world, the
world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you
out of the world, because of this the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A
slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also
persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also. But all these things they will do to you for
My name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me. (John 15:18-21)
Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will
be persecuted. (2 Tim. 3:12)
[Paul was] strengthening the souls of the disciples,
encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying, “Through many
tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God.” (Acts 14:22)
The true mission of the church, and
truly following Christ will never be popular, attractive, or accepted by the
world. However, social work that
relieves a city’s tax expense is not only accepted and praised by the world,
but it is also pursued by the unbelieving philanthropists in all walks of
life. Certainly such a popular endeavor
is not compatible with a fidelity to Christ that will always be despised by the
world. Compromising the great commission
by addition comes with a terrible cost.
A pastor in South Africa recently
commented that he hasn’t heard of a single missionary from the States who has
come there to do church planting in the last five years. Each missionary has been focused on mercy
ministry. Of course, it sounds plausible
that these two goals (‘word’ and ‘deed’) could coexist, but that plausibility
is denied by the texts above. TO BE CONTINUED
Article written by Pastor Jon Anderson. Jon is a pastor at Grace Immanuel Bible Church and a PhD student at Southern Seminary. His forthcoming dissertation will be on presuppositional hermeneutics.
[1] Shane Clairbourne, The Irresistible Revolution: Living as an Ordinary Radical (Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2006), 63.
This anecdote is for illustrative purposes, and not intended to put
Clairbourne and Keller in the same camp.
They diverge widely in many areas.
[2] There are times in the book where Keller affirms that
we need to be infusing a Christian worldview into movies and music. In these instances, he explains that without
a Christian flavor of culture “pretty soon the most basic concepts of
Christianity will be so alien that no one will even understand me when I
preach” (185—the “I” here is another pastor, and Keller is referencing this
with affirmation). However, this leads to
another set of doctrinal convictions about the sufficiency of the gospel and
the transcendence of the gospel’s power to speak to man from above his cultural
trappings.
