This is nothing more than Emergent Church language. Wake up LCMS pewsitter, this stuff is coming to a town near you!!

MM

An even better analogy to this kind of separation between church and “the kingdom” would be: “I believe in building up relationships (sounds creative, fresh), not in building up marriage (sounds institutional-rigid, old).” And indeed, I’ve heard many a pastor say: the church is all about relationships. That’s, of course, not wrong, given that in the church, by its proclamation of the word and administration of the sacraments, we get into a right relationship with God and, thereby, our neighbor. Yet it seems that these divinely ordained means of relationship-building are not primarily in view when “relationships” as the end-all and be-all of the church is discussed.

In fact, it is somewhat reminiscent of the age-old Roman Catholic criticism of Lutherans: “You don’t promote good works, we do.” Why would that be so? Because you only speak about faith; you speak about justification by faith alone; you don’t make good works a factor in man’s salvation. Hmmm. How about: Lutherans are keenly interested in good works, but are more keenly interested in, first of all, making the tree good so that it might bear good fruit that truly deserves that name and doesn’t just look good on the outside?

Same applies to the relationship focus: given that we are sinners by nature, you can’t just focus on the desired result (“relationships”); just also must focus, even focus primarily (not: exclusively), on the means that get you there.

Where does this divorce of kingdom and church come from? The Enlightenment / liberal study of the “life of Jesus” in the 18th/19th/20th century might be place to start looking for an answer. The researchers in this camp were typically in favor of Jesus and his radical proclamation of “the kingdom of God” but had often very little positive to say about “what came later,” namely, the church. The former was new, creative, and practical (like “relationships”) while the latter was perceived as a rigid institution, weighed down with bloodless metaphysics, dogmas, clergy, liturgy, an often troublesome history, etc. (right, just like marriage).

If this sounds like some form of extreme Pietism (focus on common “practical Christianity” instead of divisive doctrines), that’s probably no accident. It also, sad to say, sounds pretty much like what leading Nazis thought a national Protestant Christianity should look like (long on love and short on doctrine, for “doctrine divides and service unites,” as was formulated in 1925 at an ecumenical conference in Sweden), as R. Steigmann-Gall in his fine book on “The Holy Reich” has recently pointed out.

French religious thinker and ex-priest, Alfred Loisy (1857-1940), e.g., famously stated in his book The Gospel and the Church (p. 166): “Jesus foretold the kingdom, and it was the church that came.” Now, for him, that was a historical necessity (so not all bad), but the split is there, and we can see how others might view less kindly what came after what Jesus expected.

Great article. I really look forward to the follow up. As a former Baptist minister, the Holy Spirit through the Word didn’t bring me into the truth of Lutheranism so I could simply be another “non-denominational” kind of guy. On the flip side, I’m not going to toss aside the positive things I learned and experienced by God’s Grace when I was a Baptist, either, but it all took place in the context of “the church.” To be Biblical, it can’t be otherwise. I would also support the concept that “To be truly Biblical is to be truly ‘Lutheran.’” If I didn’t think so, I wouldn’t be here. Blessings,
Randy

If the comment is being made that a person has no interest in building up the church – then yes, I agree that this is a problem. However – in the circles that I’ve been around and in the literature I’ve read – the comment doesn’t include the lack of a desire to build up the church – but instead a desire to put more focus on reaching the lost.

For me to describe what my interest is in ministry, I would say it’s “building up the kingdom” moreso than “building up the church.” But this is the way I understand these statements: I see that there has been SO much focus on church-building that essentially caters to make existing parishioners happier, more comfortable, etc. and really is based on the concept of just drawing in more Christians. Which is fine – we need to have places for Christians to worship. However, when I think kingdom-building, that usually denotes to me, more of a focus on reaching the unbeliever. So for me personally, if, God-willing I make it out of the seminary, I would rather not be at a church that solely exists so the members are happy and we keep pulling in more and more Christians – I would rather be at a church that is focused more outwardly focused.

Here’s my disclaimer – my desire is just that – that’s where my passion for ministry is. I think it is good to have churches that are very focused on taking care of the flock – and if that’s what I’m called to do – cool. But if it were up to me, well, read the previous paragraph.

I guess in the end it’s just semantics – how one group views “church” and “kingdom” and what they are saying about it.

Ok – I reread my last sentence and wanted to add a little note on that: Yes I agree that it can be very dangerous if you start going down the path of “I’m about the kingdom, not the church” – so I’m not saying that the whole issue is just semantics. I guess my intention was to say that some of us use similar terms and phrases but have totally different meanings behind it.

Pastor McCain wrote:
“Coming soon: Reflections on the oft-heard comment in our circles, ‘We just want to make people Christians, not Lutherans.’”
What? And miss out on all the real fun? ; )

Pastor McCain wrote: “Coming soon: Reflections on the oft-heard comment in our circles, ‘We just want to make people Christians, not Lutherans.’”

This false dichotomy is something I struggle with in my ministry. Just recently I’ve been accused (by a lifelong Lutheran) of talking too much about Luther and “Lutherism.” As if somehow focusing on Lutheranism means NOT focusing on Christianity (i.e. the two are not synonymous… but are in fact somehow different)… Oh, and “Pastor, since the name Lutheran turns people off, shouldn’t we stop using it and just talk about Christianity?” Anyway, my point is: enough of this “coming soon” language… let’s hear it!

I would rather not be at a church that solely exists so the members are happy and we keep pulling in more and more Christians – I would rather be at a church that is focused more outwardly focused.

Hmmm. Solely exists so the members are “happy?” The New Testament tells us that the believers were of one heart and mind and steadfast in the breaking of bread and the prayers.

The Church, the “ekklesia” — “called out” of the world to be the Body of Christ in space and time. Called to preach the whole counsel of God, baptize and offer the body and blood of Christ to those who have been instructed.

The “Kingdom of God” sometimes becomes so ethereal it is lost in the clouds. Whether a congregation is made up of 50 or 2000, the mandate is the same. The Church is the outpost from which true mission flows.

As Martin Luther put it so well:

I believe that there is upon earth a little group and congregation of pure saints, under one head, even Christ, called together by the Holy Ghost in one faith, one mind and understanding, with manifold gifts, yet agreeing in love, without sects or schisms. I am also a part and member of the same: a sharer and joint owner of all the goods which it possesses, brought to it and incorporated into it by the Holy
Ghost by having heard and continuing to hear the Word of God.

I never understood the correct differentiation between KINGDOM and CHURCH. I learned it correctly while attending an Eastern Orthodox Bible study, and is something that orthodox Protestant Christianity also teaches.

The Church is part of God’s Kingdom.
The Church here on Earth is called the Militant Church.
The Church in Heaven (God’s Presence) is called Triumphant Church.

Being “missional” should mean having a desire to reach the lost. But unless we have solid church communities, what do we bring the lost to ? A relationship to Jesus without His Church ??

Jesus said … (only 2 places mention the word church – 3 times in the Gospels):

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my CHURCH, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.” – Matthew 16:18

“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the CHURCH; and if he refuses to listen even to the CHURCH, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” – Matthew 18:17

MM correctly points out that the language employed is Emergence Church gibberish. The whole idea of growing the “kingdom of God” and not “the church” is grounded in anti-institutional and anti-authoritarian liberalism. The same sort of propoganda is found in the bumperesque saying, “I am a Christ follower and not a Christian”. When I hear this sort of talk I can almost detect wafts of patchouli in the air and hear chants of “Stick it to the man!”

Lutheranism is Biblical Christianity.

@Christine
I agree with your comments about what the church is and it’s mission and all of that. However, my comment about being at a church that “solely exists to make sure the members are happy” is directed at a very real tendency of some congregations to be very closed off to anything beyond themselves. Maybe if I am talking about those things, I should say “congregation” instead of church.

My desire to do more outward ministry is not to the exclusion of taking care of the flock on the inside. I’m talking about a congregation who takes the attitude that “we have Jesus here, so people should come to us instead of us going to them” attitude.

@Matthew Christians

I know what you mean Matthew. I grew up Lutheran in the St. Louis area, then moved to Springfield, MO where the majority of people I know are Assemblies of God or Baptist. I have been told I bring up Luther and Lutheranism way to much from my Baptist and AG friends. I have even been told, I may not be saved because I have not had a distinctive “born again experience.” Also, I have been told I need to get re-baptized, I could go on and on… but I am getting off topic.

My wife who grew up AG, did not like my constant Luther quotes, Lutheran books, and Luther the movie at first. However, once we sat down more and more and discussed topics in the Bible, she started seeing things some what differently. She does not have the same exact beliefs as I do, but she respects “Lutheranism” in a different way now. She told me she was worried at first that I put Luther to “high up” and the focus should be on Jesus. I agreed that Jesus is the focus and Lutherans compared to other denominations probably have the most focus on Jesus compared to others, but I told her that even AG got their doctrine from someone or some people. Maybe that wasn’t the best answer but its all I could think of at the time.

I think the point I am trying to make is, Lutheranism to me is encapsulated within Christianity. I am not putting Lutheranism above Christianity. A lot of people down here say I am to into “Religion.” That it’s all about following Christ and not a religion. Yet, I am simply stating my doctrinal beliefs. I don’t plan on hiding being Lutheran to appease the others around me. I want to make Christians Lutherans, so they have sound doctrine to follow.

-Patrick

Ever notice what happens to small “emergent Christian groups” when they attract enough participants and are no longer small? They rent places to meet and pray in. They become–horrors!—churches! Personally, I dislike the ambience of the back room of an IHOP restaurant or Holiday Inn. I also find it less than an efficient and enlightening use of my time to discuss theology with (or get counseling from) a 23 year-old group leader whose totality of training is a few months use of an NIV study bible an a stint as a summer bible camp counselor for pre-K children. Call me patriarchal, traditionalist, sexist, call me whatever, but I prefer to speak to a trained older, mature pastor who has some credentials and has been beaten up a bit by life. And I don’t want the prayer service interrupted by a lost and bewildered waitress holding a tray of hotcakes and sausages.

@Christine

Very nicely put!!! Pastor McCain, you should put this quote somewhere permanently on your blog. She has just sumerized what it means to be “missional” and it didn’t cost a dime!

MM

I skimmed through some of the comments, I didn’t see anyone bring this up (if I missed it my apologies) so here’s my thoughts.

You are right it is a false dichotomy, however, I think that there is much of a confusion over terminology, and our confessions even get at this as we distinguish the kirche from ecclesia (to muddle two languages into the vernacular). I think, when I hear people say this is a genuine frustration with the left hand kingdom, “institutional” church that to them has essentially become something of a country club or lodge. What they actually desire is the ecclesia when they say they want to “build up the kingdom of God.” In other words, they are wanting those who hold the faith to grow in their understanding, to learn more, to care about that in Christ they are a new creation. They also desire that the Church continue to preach repentance and forgiveness of sins to all.

Maybe this falls under people learning to incorrectly speak from pastors who should know better. In some cases, the right desire is there, but it is poorly articulated.