Michael Frost can be controversial. What do you think? Is he correct?
data-text=”Saturday Reflection #2 – Michael Frost – The Purpose of the Church” data-url=”http://www.crossconnection.net/2011/07/saturday-reflection-2-michael-frost-purpose-church/”
data-via=”" >
data-via=”" >
scrolling=”no” frameborder=”0″ style=”border:none; overflow:hidden; width:100px; height:27px;” allowTransparency=”true”>
Listening to Michael is like listening to someone who puts the emPHASis on the SYLlable in a way that you don’t.
His thesis: “The purpose of the church is to announce the universal reign of God.”
Missiologists from an earlier generation would see a liberal bias in this, but today I think we get it.
He either said or implied that the gospel is inherent in the announcement of the universal reign of God whereas I would say that the universal reign of God is inherent in the preaching of the gospel. He said something akin to that we are to announce the universal reign of God in Christ and then let the chips lay where they might. I would prefer an emphasis on being agents of reconciliation and not just heralds of another kingdom. Paul saw himself more as an agent of reconciliation than a messenger of the universal reign of God.
Tim,
Agreed. But in effect, the same thing is being said. Same words with different emphasis. But the same words.
It’s interesting that if you listen to Frost and his compatriots they will say that Paul and Jesus are on their side. You listen to Bible teaching pastors they same the same thing. I think Paul and Jesus are on both sides. Sure, this is a reaction to a preach preach preach and do nothing to help anyone except build a building western church mentality. I don’t think they are discounting it, just that they see more involved in the work of the church than preaching (not instead just not enough).
On a side note, I find myself rejecting labels such as liberal/conservative as easy ways to invalidate a position without actually interacting with its content. Not saying that you were doing that Tim.
I think that Frost’s idea has being agents of reconciliation baked into it. He just doesn’t see proclamation (and thus the reconciling of a person to God) as the ONLY type of reconciliation we are to be agents of. It is one of them (and even the primary one) but not the ONLY one.
I like the two fold approach of 1) announcing by speaking, preaching, praising and 2) living an outward example with justice and mercy.
Guys that have one of those accents that is hard to nail down are always a bit cool.