Missional is not a Tame Lion 2

Amen to Michael Frost for his two big points about how evangelism operates today:

When the contemporary evangelical church tries to present what it believes is the core message of the Bible, it nearly always does so in individualized terms,

and it nearly always does so by presenting the message of Jesus as being about personalized benefit either in this world or the next (p. 42).

Michael Frost, in his new book, Road to Missional, The: Journey to the Center of the Church (Shapevine), is flat-out right.

Evangelism today is about “me” and it is about “what I get.” Now I have a question for you:

How many passages in the Old Testament can you list where you think the passage is actually teaching personal salvation? (I doubt Gen 15:6 is one, since it is later in Abe’s life, but you might not agree.) Seriously, how often does this topic actually come up? Any suggestions why it doesn’t?

He’s asking what happens to evangelism when the church becomes missional. He presses against the emerging sorts when he says this: “Those who claim to be missional but who never find themselves in a relational place where they can proclaim the lordship of Jesus to a friend [I like how Frost says this], even if that proclamation occurs over several conversations over a period of time, are hardly missional at all” (43).

Then Michael Frost observes something I wish more would recognize. Many today don’t like the Four Spiritual Laws. Some are saying such folks lack courage when that is not the problem (as I see it). The problem is that the 4SL don’t do what they think the gospel is supposed to do, they don’t tell the message of God they believe, and they don’t lead to the kingdom enough. So Frost speaks of a desperate need for a “new, more missional understanding of evangelism.” But…

The paradigm — this is SMcK not Frost — most use assumes the validity of the soterian gospel, or the 4SL approach, and what is wanted is a different paradigm and therefore an entirely different approach. The soterian gospel is aimed at a decision; the missional approach at a radical change in life. One creates the saved, the other creates kingdom people. The crying need today is an evangelism strategy that focuses on the latter and says good-bye to the former. There are thousands, perhaps millions (I’m not even trying to exaggerate), who don’t want the former and who want the latter. [See my The King Jesus Gospel: The Original Good News Revisited.]

Frost believes a missional approach combines community, relationship and words. I agree with him though I’d say evangelism, or better, gospeling, is the words while the only viable context for gospeling is community and relationships.  Evangelism is a slow cooker, not a micowave.

Frost looks at James Choung’s four circles (designed for good, damaged by evil, restored for better, sent together to heal, and someone has added another: set everything right). OK, that’s the redemptive theme and it tries to connect to the kingdom theme. That’s fine, but I would press this differently: focus more on the Story of Jesus who is King, Lord and Savior, and from that christology we find the proper gospeling approach. In other words, there’s an expansion here of the “benefits to me” theme that Frost criticized above … but it is still a benefit approach. Tell the Story of Jesus and the benefits come to those who are awakened to that Story.

Frost is right and he confirms my King Jesus Gospel book — Romans 3:21-26 is not the gospel; Romans 1:1-4 is, and so is 10:8-9. Soterians think Romans 3:21-26 is the gospel. Then Frost goes to 1 Cor 15.

I will be returning to a theme about evangelism Monday, but I want to end with Frost’s three point ending:

1. A missional church announces the reign of God through Christ.
2. A missional church demonstrates the reign of God locally and globally.
3. A missional church embodies mission in the way of Jesus.