"A" is for Adventurous

Missionary is becoming a burdensome middle name the more we examine it with these articles. We are called to be Motivated, Impactful, Servant-hearted, Strategic, Intentionally Indigenous, Observant, Nurturing, and, today, we add Adventurous. We are stuck to the paradigm, “It was good enough for Paul; it’s good enough for me.” We are afraid of change and of thinking outside the box. For some, it will always be the Heavenly Highway Hymnal. It is almost unchristian to sing from any other hymnal. Some of you think I am treading on dangerous ground and almost bordering on blasphemy. We are averse to exploring beyond what our predecessors have allowed.

We miss the facts of crucial matters. Take praise, for example. Should we use only classical hymns? Should we use a worship band? Should we allow interpretive dance? Should we allow the lifting of hands? As the list goes on, we miss the point. We get bogged down in the form rather than the content. We miss the fact that Scripture defines what worship is. Form is bringing that definition to life in the church guided by the Word, culture and social common sense. That’s only an example we can apply to other aspects of church life, polity and ministry. Many of us are stuck, plain and simple. Change comes painfully and, a lot of times, with incurred losses. I wonder if you agree.

Instead of coloring outside the lines, many of our churches have become boring. This affects the pastor — we lose them faster than we can find them. It affects the youth — families look for churches that welcome the young people and their quirks without infringing on the teaching of Scripture, although sometimes that happens. It affects the community, which is eager for acceptance and understanding, speaking the truth in love — not compromise.

This brings me to some thorny issues that challenge the missiology of our churches in an ever-changing world. Take homosexuality and the LGBTQ community around us, for example. We tend to lay down the principles of Scripture and distance ourselves from that community. In doing so, we forget that some of our church members — and pastors — are dealing with this issue within their family circles with no clue how to touch the lives of their gay children in a meaningful way, which leaves the road open to their return to Christ. We also forget that they need Christ and the effective work of the gospel through the Holy Spirit. We also forget that when we treat them judgmentally, we are helping in building a wall that will prevent them from responding positively to the message of love. Put the shoe on the other foot. What if it was your sibling, your child or, all of a sudden, your spouse? How would you react? Does that behavior become acceptable because it has affected a dear one?

Then, on the corporate level, what is the church doing to reach that community in your town or city? Is there an effort to understand the causes, the problem and the stigma? We obviously condemn the sin, but is it the only sin prevalent in and around the church? Have other sins become more palatable and acceptable? Apart from acceptable biblical reasons, why is divorce condoned, sometimes repeatedly? Abortion? Cohabitation? Premarital sex? Lip service won’t get the job done, so let’s get beyond it.

The fear here is that, with the passage of time, sin has become more acceptable in the church in general. But here is the clutch — churches that have succumbed to social pressure and tried to justify such sins have lost their moral compass, missionary perspective and zeal. So, the way they would bring people who are prey to sin into the church is simply by condoning and accepting the sinful lifestyle. Unless we think through this issue, some of our churches are going in that direction just as other Baptist and Evangelical denominations have over the last quarter century. Does putting the shoe on the other foot help us devise a missionary approach to reach people addicted to some form of sin without compromising the truth of Scripture while demonstrating the love of Christ to them? I fear sometimes we are burying our heads in the sand and avoiding confronting the issue.

Being adventurous missiologically is inherently risky. The devil is constantly moving the goalposts while the church is still stuck in old methodology and thinking. Adventurous missiology does not mean abandoning the firm and clear premises of Scripture. The foundation should remain firm in the Word; otherwise, we will lose our point of reference. Yet, having a different look for a building does not mean the foundational building rules have changed. Here is the adventure — making our missionary Baptist churches more accepting and understanding of those who live and act differently (and maybe look differently and believe differently) without compromising the Word of God or “distorting it” (II Cor. 4:2) to accommodate a certain interpretation that allows for such behavior to become commonplace and acceptable.

I wonder how many churches are willing to put the shoe on the other foot and take up the Adventure of reaching more of the lost world for Jesus. When we do that, we are true to our middle name. Are you up to it?