Is "Transforming the World" Biblical?
by Motte Brown on 04/30/2008 at 4:04 PM
Ted just sent me this link from freerepublic.com about the United Methodists changing their mission statement this week at conference.
Previous mission:
The mission of the Church is to make disciples of Jesus Christ.New mission:
The mission of the Church is to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world.Rejected amendment:
The mission of the Church is to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the salvation of souls and the transformation of the world.
Now I don't want to read too much into this. I mean, I'm a marketing guy so I understand wanting a pithy mission statement. But it seems they should have rejected the latter phrase of the rejected amendment, not the former. It's just too man (and earth) centered. You know, how about something like, "... for God's glory."
As freerepublic.com notes,"transforming the world" sounds more like a political agenda than a church mission. And from my experience, it will likely be a leftist political agenda.
Anyway, it appears my optimism about the "conservative governing majority" was a little premature.
1. Tami said the following at 4:27 PM on Apr 30:
I like including the word "transformation," with the following caveats:
* We don't do the transforming.
* God first transforms *individuals* as *they* cooperate with Him. It's not like we can make a magic wand and make them transform into disciples!
So if it said something about the transformation of individuals (which is sort of implied in "making disciples"), then maybe that'd be more apropos. And many Christians have lost sight of the fact that being saved and becoming disciples is *tied to* a transformed life, so reemphasizing that is kind of an interesting idea.
Though, I do have to say that I like the inclusion of both an individually- and globally-focused mission. And of course, God *does* sometimes, in His sovereignty, decide to transform things on a grand scale.
But it does sort of remind me of the 90s, when everyone had the mission statement, "Changing the way the world [fills in the blank]."
2. Rachael said the following at 4:43 PM on Apr 30:
I guess what comes to my mind is how we (Christians) are the salt and light (Matt. 5:13-14).
That said, I do agree that the statement should God's glory in some way. Perhaps the wording could somehow clearly show that it is God who works in us, that transformation happens ultimately because of Him. The wording of the "New Mission" makes it look like the ultimate goal is to transform the world, rather than to be instruments used by and for the glory of God.
3. Kevin said the following at 4:45 PM on Apr 30:
Keep it simple, stupid.
"The mission of the church is to love."
There ya go, sounds much better.
4. Tara said the following at 5:12 PM on Apr 30:
Re Comment #3:
But our mission is so much more than "just to love". The Great Commission is to make disciples. Yes, the Great Commission could fall under "to love" or "transform the world" but those phrases are so generic. We need to be specific about where we stand. It's not just about making the world a happier place--people's souls are at stake!
5. Jacob said the following at 5:16 PM on Apr 30:
"No people ever rise higher than their idea of God. Conversely, the loss of the sense of God's high and awesome character always leads to the loss of a people's highest ideals, moral values, and even what we commonly call humanity, not to mention the loss of understanding of and appreciation for the most essential Bible doctrines." - JM Boice, Whatever Happened to the Gospel of Grace, pg. 151-152
6. Matthew said the following at 7:04 PM on Apr 30:
I don't know where the Methodists are coming from, but doesn't God promise us throughout the Bible that He is transforming the world and will one day bring that to completion? And, if you're not a premillenial dispensationalist, isn't He doing that primarily by the work of the Holy Spirit through His bride, the Church? If they just mean a liberal political agenda, well then it sucks to be them because that isn't going anywhere. But if they really have God's redemption of the world in mind (cf. Romans 8:19-21), then I think that that's a perfectly appropriate addition to a mission statement.
All that said, adding "to the glory of God" would have been even more appropriate.
7. Caleb Woodbridge said the following at 3:54 AM on May 1:
The Gospel is not less than "the salvation of souls", but it is also a great deal more than that.
The mission statement is wrong to leave out "the salvation of souls" because this is the basis for the transformation of the world. The kingdom of God begins by people making Jesus king in their lives, but should work its way out of there, transforming the world as people live in obedience to him.
Paul, speaking of the blessing promised to Abraham, says "When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways" (Acts 3:26). But God's plan is not just to forgive us, but to bless and restore the world.
God's plan of redemption isn't about whisking individual souls off to a disembodied afterlife, but restoring creation and creating a new heavens and a new earth. We will have resurrection bodies in a resurrection creation - it will be like this world, but transformed, brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
This is in fulfilment of the promises made to Abraham that all nations on earth would be blessed through him, and of the promises of the eternal kingdom that grow until the time when the knowledge of the glory of the Lord will cover the Earth as the waters cover the sea.
8. Sarah P. said the following at 6:52 AM on May 1:
Didn't G.K. Chesterton say something like, "Orthodoxy is always radical."? The reason for that is entropy - the world always falls away from the center. So Christianity always tends to revolutionize things.
9. Melissa said the following at 8:27 AM on May 1:
This kind of mission statement falls well into the current obsession with dominionism in the church. As far as I can remember from my reading of scripture, nowhere does it say that we are going to transform and Christianize the entire world before the second coming of Yeshua. On the contrary! According to the words of Jesus, the love of most will grow cold, men will be lovers of self and pleasure, and a false religiosity will arise that denies the power of the cross for salvation and sanctification. True believers will be hated and despised; persecuted and martyred. The idea that we are called to clean up this world and present it to Jesus simply isn't scriptural.
What I read is that we are called not to be attached to this present world that is under judgement and the sentence of decay, but to remain holy before the Lord, and realize that the elements will be burned with fire -- thus living accordingly. To love? Yes. But that love includes making real disciples that will be part of the bride that will be refined and purified through the fire.
10. Allan said the following at 9:13 AM on May 1:
I thought the rejected agreement is a shame. To me as a christian and believer the rejected agreement seems as to be the best mission statement in general not just for the Methodist church but for the whole body of Christ. It's horrible that they went the other way with that one. The salvation of souls IS what causes the transformation in the life of that believer. We aren't transformed or renewed with the mind of Christ until we are saved. I just hope the decision to leave the new mission statement wasn't based on politics or worst yet political correctness instead that it was based on Jesus and the Father's Glory and that it was Holy Spirit inspired. That's my 2 cents for what it's worth.
11. Kate said the following at 1:02 PM on May 1:
Motte, I think the conclusions you reached by "reading into" this statement are more informed by your apparent prior assumptions about the UMC than by what the statement actually says. I guess the point of my response is to challenge those assumptions.
I did not find anything on the UMC's news updates about the conference about this change in mission statement. I suppose the best way of knowing the basis for their statement change would be to review notes from the discussion about it that took place at the conference. Still, I'm pretty sure that the UMC is NOT saying it does not believe in or value salvation by not including that word in the mission statement. Instead I am thinking it's more an issue of redundancy with "disciple of Christ."
Doesn't making disciples of Christ imply salvation? Or in other words, how could somebody be "made into" a disciple of Christ w/out Christ interceding, the person understanding and repenting of their sin, believing in Christ, committing to a Christian life of service, etc? I guess I do not feel like Christ or the transformation of a "born-again" "saved" soul are missing from this statement at all, given my understanding of "disciple of Christ."
Additionally, is a non-believer or somebody who has limited knowledge of Christian terminology (jargon?) who happens upon the mission statement of the UMC going to know what "salvation of souls" means any more than "disciple of Christ?" Is any random person going to assume this is a man-centered leftist political statement, or only if he/she already believes the UMC is this type of organization?
My thought is that "transformation of the world" refers to something like God's Kingdom unfolding on earth as a result of his intervention through disciples/believers who are getting to work, since this statement directly follows the part about disciples of Christ... not a "transformation" based on American "leftist political agendas." It does not say "we are going to transform the whole world into our specific leftist ideal."
There is division in the UMC, with sometimes very loud voices and efforts towards changing the church's stance on homosexuality... but in spite of these, the church has remained firm on this issue in its doctrine: http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=2433457&ct=5315905 If you are going to make a conclusion about the stance of the church on "leftist political agendas" I don't know how you could base it on anything other than this... unless the Book of Discipline was being completely ignored by most congregations throughout the world and most United Methodist pastors started performing same-sex union ceremonies as their congregations cheered. To my knowledge, this is not happening.
Some UMCs have a lot of rainbow flags and LGBT groups who attend marches etc. Some have pastors who privately or publicly support gay marriage and reject large portions of the Bible. Often times politics about this subject (and others) may get in the way of Biblical service, fellowship and education. Yet there are some United Methodists who work against these forces (clearly enough to inform the church's official stance on this issue), many who are unaware of them and carry on with their disciple work as usual, I suspect many who are silently frustrated and unsure of what to do, and others who abandon ship and walk away from the UMC to hopefully pursue Christian work elsewhere, if they are not just leaving church in general.
Additionally, here is one example of a group w/in the UMC working on a the hot topic of abortion, their position being one that may not fit with the "leftist political agenda:" http://www.lifewatch.org/ It will be interesting to keep an eye on the results of their efforts at the conference.
I won't even mention other mission efforts that the UMC does, though the results of these probably have a lot to do with what the UMC envisions as transforming the world.
12. obewan said the following at 1:46 PM on May 1:
Motte asks: "Is transforming the world Biblical?"
I have to say that two verses immediately come to mind:
Romans 12:2.
"Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is --his good, pleasing and perfect will."
John 17:23.
"I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."
I cannot say that their statement is unbiblical as Motte suggests. As the saying goes, people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. The world is watching, and as of late the critics have been suggesting that religion is a bad thing. What about all those anti-Christian books on the New York Times best seller list? What about the so-called association of modern-evangelicalism with the Republican war machine? If the church is all about anti-left-wing political agendas, than are we to assume that the Iraq war is all for God’s glory, or is it about protecting the fuel supply for the wasteful SUV’s that many well meaning conservatives drive to church every Sunday? I would say transforming the world is an important issue as of late – as is salvation of souls. Right wing politics is bringing us increased ethanol production, along with increased food shortages that are pushing millions of innocents closer to starvation. I guess I agree the words for the Glory of God would have helped – if they were more than words.
13. brx said the following at 2:15 PM on May 1:
Sometimes less is more. The new mission statement seems to imply that the United Methodists' conference wants disciples of Jesus Christ, but that they don't trust Christ to give His disciples their purpose.
...sounds like the crusades are starting up again. "Crusade" - what a mean-spirited, anti-social, division inducing word.
Grace, peace, and a cup of cold water.
14. Esther said the following at 5:10 PM on May 2:
I never saw Jesus challenging the political or social structure of his day. Rather, his focus was on the individual, and somewhat on the religious (as it related to individual attitudes and behavior).
Perhaps a better motto would be: Transforming lives by creating disciples of Jesus Christ.
Any improvement in the world will not come by external force- it must come from internal change. Government cannot replace individual morality (which we seem to have forgotten). Nor, may I argue, can a motto, written in committee, have a whole lot of influence on the direction and behavior of an entire church denomination. John Wesley founded the Methodist movement by sincere efforts to change himself and those he knew. He discipled men who followed his lead, and by changing individual lives they influenced many generations. Yes, discipleship may transform the world, but mostly it transforms people. If we know that the world will pass away, and a new one be established, where should our priorities be?
15. Karsten Hain said the following at 7:59 PM on May 2:
I must respond to Esther's comment in which you stated that you didn't see Jesus challenging the political or social structure of his day. While Jesus did not preach open rebellion against the Roman occupiers of the Jewish lands, he certainly did challenge the political and social structures of his day. Politics in ancient Jerusalem centered as much on the synagogue as the ruling Roman government and by getting in the face of the pharisees, throwing tables over in the temple, and indicting the teachers of the law in front of the Jewish public he not only challenged the political system of the day, but completely turned it end over end. As for the social systems, by conversing, in public with single women (taboo since he was a man) as well as Tax Collectors and telling people to take the least position when they deserve the highest, to care for strangers and poor before self, to love the hated Samaritans he gave radically new social directives on earth.
In closing, I will give my opinion on the final question you posed in your response. It is true we know the world will pass away and a new one will be formed, so with that knowledge our priorities should be focused squarely on changing this world to the greatest extent possible. Since the bible tells us we don't know when the second coming of Christ will happen, we need to use the time we have to reach out and change the world that people live in. Jesus told us not to wish someone well and walk on, but to help them in their physical and psychological needs as well as spiritual. Helping people to reach a state of salvation isn't enough (not that anything we as humans can do is "enough"), we are commanded to do more (James 2:15-17). In the world we live in, the world where the hungry have unfilled bellies, the world where the poor get poorer, and the world where the widows mourn without comfort, by commanding us to feed the hungry, comfort the widows and clothe to poor we are commanded to "transform the world".
16. Lee Jagers said the following at 3:53 AM on May 3:
What would John Wesley have thought? I agree with you Motte that "transforming the world" does sound like a political agenda when it stands alone. Yet transformation of the heart is what happens when a soul is saved. I think we Evangelical Christians err when we jump too directly to "saving the soul" if we bypass some of their immediate concrete needs like hunger, water, dignity, etc. I am a premillenial dispensationalist and want to clarify what Matthew touched on when he said "And, if you're not a premillenial dispensationalist, isn't He doing that primarily by the work of the Holy Spirit through His bride, the Church?" We DO believe that's exactly what the Lord is doing now through His bride, the Church. We simply focus with more clarity what's going to happen at "the end." That will be the fulfillment of what we have but a taste of in this Church Age. If you want a picture of a transformed world, take a look at the Millenial Kingdom (which we see as a literal thousand year reign of Christ). To the glory of God. I enjoyed reading your post and the comments. Glad I linked with you.
17. Matthew said the following at 11:43 AM on May 3:
Esther #14 (and I guess also Karsten #15),
Wrapped up in the idea of "this world is going to pass away" is a whole bunch of Gnosticism. If you look carefully in Revelation 21 and 22, you see that God does not bring his cosmic vacuum cleaner and suck all the Christians up to heaven and then destroy the earth, but rather the new Jerusalem descends out of heaven to the earth and creation is renewed. This world was created good and was marred by the Fall; God wants to use us in His redemption of it. This starts with our individual salvation and works outward. We are to care deeply about the physical world and physical needs because God does; anything else is borderline heresy.
When John the Baptist sent his disciples to Jesus to ask if He was the one, He didn't give a particularly theological answer, in fact, He said: "The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor." (Matthew 11:5). If that is how Jesus describes His coming kingdom, we'd better make sure that's on our agenda.
18. Al said the following at 1:49 PM on May 5:
Matthew,
The idea that "the world and its desires pass away" is actually also in 1 John (I think), and Jesus Himself alluded to all things passing away except His word, so I would hesitate to attribute it only to gnosticism. Now I don't think that means creation, even physical creation, will necessarily cease to exist, but it does seem to imply that there will be a passing of the way things are and the brokenness of creation before it will exist anew. Paul also often refers to spiritual bodies as opposed to natural ones, so while Scripture does not endorse the gnostic view that physicality is evil and we are to be unconcerned with physical existence, healing, and renewal, it also does not endorse the concept that the final healed physical state of the kingdom will be arrived at by the church's hands alone through the same existence we are familiar with. That might not be what you are suggesting either, but even Revelation suggests that there may be a "death" of sorts to many aspects of creation we are familiar with, like the stars, before the New Jerusalem is established. Who knows? We might find the dichotomy between the spiritual and the physical to be abolished in the end.
19. Matthew said the following at 2:56 PM on May 5:
Al,
I agree with you-- to think that "the final healed physical state of the kingdom will be arrived at by the church's hands alone through the same existence we are familiar with" is just as wrongheaded as the cosmic vacuum cleaner that I mentioned earlier. It will be interesting to see how it happens when God finally completes the redemption of His creation.
In the meantime, though, it bothers me very much to see the "rapture ready" crowd running around talking about God's beautiful physical creation as meaningless compared to the spiritual realities, which is out-and-out Gnosticism. Like most things, it's a healthy balance.