Morphing The Church's Mission

L. Dwight Turner

Most observers of the Christian faith as well as all reputable research point to the reality that American Christianity has been in a state of general decline. Even a superficial surfing of the Christian blogosphere will reveal the same trend.

Everywhere folks are commenting on the state of the church and most of these commentaries are less than complimentary. In fact, the more strident of these prophets are highly critical and predict either continued decline or outright doom. Although some of this criticism is overblown and tends to ignore the church’s continued popularity and influence in certain parts of the country, as a whole, these commentaries raise valid issues for the Body of Christ. The question of the day thus becomes: “What can be done to restore the church to its former position of popularity and cultural influence?”

Assessing the purpose of the Church is a timely issue and one subject to much debate, not to mention wailing and gnashing of teeth. As the Christian Church moves forward into the 21st Century, in all quarters theologians, clergy, and laity are all involved in the task of defining the purpose of the Church in general and the role it will play in society in particular.

Nowhere is this discussion more relevant than in the traditional Mainline denominations. Often criticized for being theologically liberal and rigid in structure and function, these denominations have seen a drastic decline in numbers over the past three decades. If these churches are to survive well into the new century, it is obvious that significant change must occur.

I am of the belief that the Church will continue to undergo radical changes over the next decade and these changes will be driven by two primary forces. For most churches, the changes will be brought about by the desire to remain relevant to the post-modern culture in which it finds itself. The second force driving change, for other churches, is survival. Across America, even though some elements of the Christian faith are enjoying growth, others are on the verge of extinction. As mentioned in the preceding paragraph, this critical situation is seen especially in the Mainline denominations such as the United Church of Christ, several types of Presbyterian Churches, the United Methodist Church, the Disciples of Christ, and the American Baptist Church, just to name a few. Unless these denominations make radical alterations to their structure and focus, they may well go the way of the dinosaur.

An exhaustive treatment of the process of redefining the purpose of the Church is beyond the scope of this article. With that caveat, let’s explore a few principles upon which any new mission of the Church must be established.

Underlying all of our efforts as the Body of Christ is the notion of working along with God to establish the “Kingdom.” I can’t stress this notion of Kingdom enough and, if you take a close look at the gospels, neither could Christ. His first public statement was “Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.” After beginning this way, Christ repeatedly stressed that his mission was to inaugurate the Kingdom. As ongoing agents of incarnation, it is now our mission to pick up where Christ left off. This is the foundational mission of the church. Even the great commission is aimed at this and this only: Bringing God’s Kingdom to Earth.

The coming of the Kingdom is really the heart of the gospel. The forgiveness of sins and the work on the cross, although of central significance, is not the heart of the gospel. It is not that which brings life to the body. No, it is the coming of the Kingdom that constitutes the life of the gospel. Unfortunately, the church, especially since the reformation in general and Calvinist theology in particular, has primarily defined the gospel in terms of the remission of sins by the work of Christ. Again, I am not downplaying the importance of this. All I am saying is that it is not the core of the gospel. Jesus repeatedly stressed the coming of the Kingdom. The remission of sins is part of this, but it is far from the whole enchilada.

Part of our mission also involves reintroducing the world to Christ. I don’t mean to say that the world does not know who Christ is. What I am saying is that they don’t really know who Christ is nor have a grasp on just what he said his mission was. Further, I believe it is imperative that the Church begin this process of reintroducing Christ with its own membership.

The fact is, a great many professing Christians don’t have a clue who Christ was and still is.

For over 2,000 years the church, at times mistakenly and at times deliberately, has weakened the image of Christ and smoothed over the rough edges of his message. That way, a person could be a Christian, remain a Christian, and still be comfortable with the status quo. This has nothing to do with what Jesus was really all about. The fact is, Jesus was far more radical and revolutionary than we have been taught to believe. Listen to Bruxy Cavey as he describes what happened when he took the blinders off and got a glimpse of the real Jesus:

I entered a season in my life when I began to realize that the Jesus described in the Bible was far more attractive, exciting, and scandalous than the meek and mild Jesus many churches proclaimed. I was young and beginning to study the Bible for myself and, in the process, came to believe that I held a volatile document in my hands – one that had the potential to destroy all religion from the inside out…The writers of the Gospels – the four biblical books that record the life of Christ – us a fascinating Greek word to describe the effect that Jesus routinely had on his religious audience. They describe Jesus as a “scandalon,” meaning a stumbling block, an offense, a scandal. Their point seems to be that Jesus is a rock, but one you can trip over just as easily as build your life upon. Anyone who holds too tightly to his or her religious preconceptions will sooner or later become offended at Jesus. That is, of course, they do what countless Christians have done and tame the historical Jesus through years of conservative tradition.

As the new century progresses, an increasing number of Christians, especially those involved with what has come to be known as the “Emergent Church,” are coming to see Jesus in a more radical light. Jesus, with his message of the kingdom, was a revolutionary in the real sense of the word.

A third foundation for redefining the Church is the need for a return to “disciple making.” In order to establish new, dynamic and transformative methods of discipleship training, I think it is important to begin with a workable definition of just what a “disciple” is.

From all evidence, it would seem the church at large has lost touch with a crucial element of its mission – disciple-making. Just prior to his ascension, Christ did not tell his inner circle to “go and make converts.” No, he told them to go and make disciples. It is obvious that constructing a workable definition of a disciple is a high priority. Margaret Campbell gives us a great jump-start:

A disciple of Jesus is a person who has decided to live in attentiveness to Jesus. We live in attentiveness in order to become like Jesus on the inside and, thereby, able to do what Jesus would do on the outside. As maturing disciples we progressively learn to live in attentiveness, adoration, surrender, obedience, and thankfulness to God, and all of this, without ceasing. Through the hidden work of transformation, God writes his good way on our minds and hearts and this is very good. By his grace, our hearts are divinely changed. We are progressively conformed to be like Jesus in mind and will and soul and word and deed. What we say and what we do more consistently reflect the glory and goodness of God.

If that isn’t clear enough, let’s listen to George Barna:

True discipleship is about a lifestyle, not simply about stored up Bible knowledge. Often, churches assume that if people are reading the Bible and attending a small group, then real discipleship is happening. Unfortunately, we found that’s often not the case. Discipleship is about being and reproducing zealots for Christ. Discipleship, in other words, is about passionately pursuing the lifestyle and mission of Jesus Christ.

From these two definitions it should be clear that real discipleship, the kind of Jesus-following that makes a difference in a person’s life and the life of others, involves more than wearing a “What would Jesus Do?” bracelet.

Whatever forms the new Christianity may take, I believe it must have at least three primary elements which guide its mission and its practice. First, I see this fresh, new faith as being Creative and Progressive. By these terms I mean that the coming Christianity, while holding firmly to the core truths of its tradition, will, at the same time, find new, creative, and relevant ways in which gospel truths might be transmitted. The Body of Christ, especially in these new wine skins, will remain evangelistic but will be so in a distinctively alternative manner. Put simply, the new faith will attract potential converts through its service and its missional activities. By carrying out its Christ-given mandate to be of service, the faith will increasingly attract new members because of what the church does and what it is, not what it says and what it believes.

Secondly, the fresh, vital forms of the faith will be transformative. As stated at the beginning of this article, many sincere Christians have now sensed that something fundamental and live-giving has been missing from the traditional church for decades. The new faith bodies, small in terms of membership but highly focused in terms of purpose, will be disciple making. Spiritual formation and personal change will be the driving force of these groups of believers. Driven by the inner hunger for more of God that has been divinely placed in every heart, the new Christianity will operate under a growing awareness that God is here, he is there, and he is everywhere. Animated by that truth, the new faith understands that no one need go hungry for God. Instead, disciplines will be taught that assist individuals to become more intimate with God and generally more satisfied in their walk of faith.

Third, the new faith will be incarnational. This simply means that these small groups of consecrated believers will take seriously the Christian call to service – the privilege and the responsibility of being Christ’s hands, feet, and heart here on earth. Put simply, the new faith will have a proactive heart of service and compassion. Given the Lord these groups follow, there could be no other choice.

Taken as a whole, this trio of vital elements will give the new Christianity a solid foundation upon which to operate as the 21st Century unfolds. This fresh approach to the faith should continue to evolve as we, as the Body of Christ, encounter our changing culture in a proactive manner. Being proactive is essential, I think. For too long the Church has been reactive. This is not longer an option. Given the nature and the shifting realties of the rapidly changing world in which we find ourselves, we must proactively anticipate trends before they manifest and thereby be ready to offer the faith to our culture in ways that are consistently relevant.

Christ told us to go into all the nations and make disciples. Further, he showed us by the example of washing his disciples’ feet that we are called to nothing less than the ministry of the towel. We are not leaders, gurus, or swamis. Instead, we are servants. This, my friend, is the incarnational aspect of the disciple making church. In addition, we are now ready to put these realities into new wineskins and get on with the business at hand: helping establish the kingdom on earth.


Without doubt, the new century presents both great challenges and vital opportunities for the Body of Christ. In some ways, these challenges and opportunities are highly unique, mostly because of the complexity of post-modern culture and the rapidity of social change in the contemporary world. Any new definition of the Church’s purpose and mission must take these factors into account. This reality means that the new wineskins that come to house the 21st Century Body of Christ must possess an inordinate flexibility and fluidity. What works this year may not work next year.

In closing, it is noticed that many people are asking the question, “Can the Church survive in these post-Christian times, even if it redefines itself, its mission, and its purpose?”

It can not only survive; it can thrive.

© L.D. Turner 2008/ All Rights Reserved