Sunday, July 23, 2006

WHY I AM NOT MISSIONAL Part Two (evangelistic vs. missional)

In my last blog entry I said I am not "missional" because "missional" is unbiblical. In the understanding of some, the term means basically the same as lifestyle evangelism without the evangelism. (Of course, for most churches, lifestyle evangelism is a sanctified excuse not to actually say anything anyway, but that is another metanarrative.) Worse still, in the view of some Emergent leaders (I quoted Brian McLaren) the idea of missional is an outright denial of the gospel itself. See my last blog entry.
My second reason for rejecting “missional” as a useful term is that it is a trick. Let me illustrate it with two other terms. The first was one coined by Ronald Reagan or one of his speech writers. In the 1980 presidential election, one ace Reagan’s opponent, Jimmy Carter, had over him was that Reagan was seen by many Americans as war happy, likely to push the nuclear button. In those days the scary term used in our stand off with the Communists was mutually assured destruction. Reagan, however, introduced the term “window of vulnerability” to describe the chance that the US may become a victim of Russian nuclear superiority. The term was so clever and so clear in the mind of anyone who heard it that the news commentators, the majority of which who actually opposed Reagan, began using the term. From that point forward, Jimmy Carter had lost the foreign policy debate. The new term gave a clear mental picture of what Reagan wanted us to worry about.
The second term is more recent, “homophobic.” By the introduction of that one term, pro-sodomy politicos have silenced the majority of Americans who are not pleased with that particular practice. Never mind that most Americans oppose murder and robbery, too, but are never called murderer-o-phobic or thief-o-phobic. Nevertheless, the emotive content of the term “phobic” overcomes all common sense and most, wincing at the threat of being accused of being mentally unbalanced, simply scurry away.
Similarly, “missional” is being used to great effect by the Emergent Obfuscation. The emotive content is very positive for most Christians. We all are in favor of evangelism. Most, however, have not yet realized just how deceptive the Emergents are. So then, this Christian will stick to biblical vocabulary.

Phil Perkins.

Labels: ,

Sunday, July 02, 2006


Following is an article I wrote to my church concerning a preacher that came through and seemed to be Emergent:

Last week, we had a fill-in preacher at our church. He lectured us on being “missional” and defined the term as having to do with the mission of the church.

Here are two questions we should ask ourselves as a church body:

First, where did this new term come from? Since we all know that the earthly mission of the Church is to spread the gospel, why the new moniker for such an old idea? Well, to quote the heretic Brian McLaren, “The term, as I understand it, attempts to find a generous third way beyond the conservative and liberal versions of Christianity so dominant in the Western World.” (McLaren, Brian; A Gernerous Orthodoxy; Zondervan; page 115, emphasis added.) McLaren is referring to the biblical view that the mission of the Church is to evangelize the world and the liberal view that the mission of the Church is to seek left wing social outcomes.

He goes on to explain, “The conservative version is preoccupied with the ‘personal Savior’ gospel…” (ibid.)

Thanks to Mr. McLaren for saving us from the Savior. Thanks to him we now know better than to preoccupy ourselves with Christ and His work on our behalf. I really had no idea how generous it is to withhold the gospel and salvation from eternal hell. How stingy we are going door to door with the gospel, doing VBS, and all such horrible things! What scandal!

Second, should we allow new ideas into our pulpit? “Missional” as used by last week’s speaker is simple human charity—fixing roofs and cars for those in need.* This is a good thing. It’s just not the mission of the church.

While some feel a need to be up to date, God calls us to be throwbacks. According to Jude we are to fight for the faith once delivered to the saints. Our computers, cars, and lifestyles may change, but the laws of nature do not change, math does not change, and Jesus’ blood is still powerful and He is still risen.

And THAT is our message and our sole earthly mission.

Phil Perkins.

*NOTE: This is not McLaren’s definition of “missional.” His definition is very foggy. He vacillates between orthodox language and heretical language. And when he uses orthodox language he uses it heretically. If one is unaware of this trickery, one can read just portions of his book, A Generous Orthodoxy, and find him orthodox or heretical depending on which portion of which page one reads. At any rate the end of chapter five has a rather revealing quote: “More important to me than the hell question, then, is the mission question.” (Emphasis his.) So whatever “missional” means it has little or nothing to do with salvation and the gospel.

Labels: ,

Copyright  ©2007Phil Perkins - All Rights Reserved