# Who is the church for? Believers? Nonbelievers? How?



## Pergamum

?

Tim Keller, “Contextual and Missional” at Urban Plant Life Conference in London, bold is mine:




> A missional church gears *absolutely every single part of its life*–its worship, community, public discourse and preaching education–for the presence of non-believers from the culture surrounding it




What about shut-ins? Widows, orphans, etc, new member classes? Worship (how can unbelievers do this)?

I hate to disagree with Keller, but what's up with this quote?


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

That sort of sound like Furtick, et al.


----------



## J. Dean

Keller is wrong. That's the SAME mentality as the "seeker-sensitive" movment. The church is not for the unbelievers. For that matter, in a strictly technical sense the church is not for believers. The church is for God in that it is to be God-centered.

In EVERY passage of Scripture regarding the church, the overwhelming impression given is that those in the assembly are believers, with rare exception. You do not structure church for the the unbelieving world. The time for the unbelievers to predominantly see the light of Christianity is when we bear witness to that truth in our words and actions as we are in the world.


----------



## Romans922

This seems clear enough: WCF

I. *The catholic or universal Church*, which is *invisible*,* consists of the whole number of the elect*, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of Him that fills all in all.


II. *The visible Church*, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), *consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children*:and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.


III. Unto this catholic visible Church Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, *for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and does, by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.*


----------



## raekwon

I'd have to hear the surrounding context, but on its face, I'd disagree w/ the good Dr.

On the other hand, he says "for the presence of nonbelievers," not for their conversion or anything like that. Taking the quote charitably, he may just be saying that everything that we do should be done with nonbelievers (and the fact that they are among us) in mind.


----------



## Pergamum

I can see that the church benefits the world, but the NT seems to place more of a focus on the Church being for the equipping of the saints and presenting the bride without spot (which of course, will benefit the world..or at least those called out of it). 


So, am I being too picky?


----------



## CharlieJ

Perhaps a better way of phrasing the question is, "For whose benefit does the church exist?" Here, I think some multi-perspectivalism is useful. In one sense, the Church exists for God. He is the ultimate end of all things, and the Church worships him. On the other hand, God doesn't need the Church. So, in another sense, the Church exists for the people in the Church. They are the ones in need of healing, in need of sanctification, in need of mutual support, in need of grace. So, the Church benefits those in the Church. However, The Bible does not conceive of the church as a static community, but as a dynamic, ambassadorial community, enveloping the nations of the earth. So, the Church exists for those outside the Church. They are the one who need the gospel, who need the witness the Church provides, who need the modes of life the Church inculcates.

All three orientations are transcendentals; they can't be reduced to specific actions of the Church. It's tempting to say something like this: worship is for God, teaching is for believers, evangelism is for unbelievers. However, a statement like that insufficiently reflects the mutual interdependence of the three orientations. Rather, a good verse is Matthew 5:16 - "In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven."

"Good works" in Scripture refers mainly to acts of physical assistance and hospitality, and are performed primarily within the believing community. So, who are the recipiants of these good works? The Church. Yet, the Church lives in such a public way ("before others") that outsiders can't help but notice their mode of life and be attracted to it. So, who do these works benefit? Those outside the Church. What is the result of these good works? People "give glory to your Father who is in heaven." So, who do good works benefit? God, the Church, and those outside the Church.

From what I know of Keller, I would interpret him as saying that the Church must always remember that it exists for the benefit of those outside the Church. It cannot become inward-facing.


----------



## J. Dean

CharlieJ said:


> From what I know of Keller, I would interpret him as saying that the Church must always remember that it exists for the benefit of those outside the Church. It cannot become inward-facing.


If you mean by that that the church is to equip believers to live in an unbelieving world, bearing witness and being ready to give an answer for anyone asking to the glory of God, I agree.

But it does not exist for the purpose of _accommodating_ unbelievers. In other words (as I'm sure you agree) the church is not supposed to look more like the world for the sake of appealing to the world.


----------



## Jack K

The church is holy and set apart. Certainly. But it is also militant. This means, in part, that it does not just curl up in its corner of the world and try to hang on, but rather it reaches out into the world and claims territory in the name of Christ.

It is a mistake for any church to neglect either its holiness or its militancy. Reaching out to the unsaved is part of that militancy.

I see the quote as meaning to say that the church must remain aware of the militant part of its character in everything it does, conscious that unbelievers are looking in and that it is engaged in a fight for souls, adjusting all parts of its work and life around this reality—among other things. If this is what the quote means to say, then I can agree with its essence. The phrase "absolutely every single part of its life" probably is too strong, but the notion that a missionary mindset should not be relegated to the occasional meeting of the missions committee is something I can get on board with.

What's the context of the statement? Is this meant to describe the single defining characteristic of the church, or one important characteristic among many? If the statement means to say that the "missional" character of the church must take precendence over everything else, then I can't agree. But if it's saying "missional" (or "militant" to use the old Reformed language) is central enough that it is _one aspect_ of the church that should be woven into nearly everything, then I agree.



J. Dean said:


> That's the SAME mentality as the "seeker-sensitive" movment.



The problem with many "seeker-sensitive" churches is that they pander to the preceived needs of unbelievers and, to top it off, put that pandering above all other things the church should be about. But some churches that rightly react against this do it so strongly that they either hunker down and fail to be militant at all or they reject any tenderness in the way they're militant. They become proud to be prickly.

Whatever else you think of Keller, he has enough savvy to avoid either of these extremes and probably should not be summarily lumped in with the "seeker-sensitive" crowd.


----------



## Fly Caster

Pergamum said:


> ?
> 
> Tim Keller, “Contextual and Missional” at Urban Plant Life Conference in London, bold is mine:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A missional church gears *absolutely every single part of its life*–its worship, community, public discourse and preaching education–for the presence of non-believers from the culture surrounding it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about shut-ins? Widows, orphans, etc, new member classes? Worship (how can unbelievers do this)?
> 
> I hate to disagree with Keller, but what's up with this quote?
Click to expand...


A local church should be concientious to explain and interpret "every single part of its life" to unbelievers, but not to "gear" everything toward them. We are to "gear" everything towards God and His glory.

I once heard Joey Pipa give an illustration that makes the point well. He told how he was visiting a family in a foreign culture where a child's birthday was being celebrated. The language, customs, songs & rituals of the birthday party was foreign to him. But the family did what the church should do-- they explained to Dr. Pipa the meaning and significance of what they were doing, but they did not change anything. If they had, then the party would have been about him and not the child. 

If we gear our worship, etc., toward outsiders, we are putting them in God's place. We are a peculiar people, and if we worship rightly we will conduct ourselves in a manner that unbelievers will not and can not relate too. Our need is not to change, but to make sure that we are always ready to give an explanation for the hope that lies within us, and how that hope works itself out in what we do.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Peairtach

The Church is for God's glory.


----------



## sdesocio

I'd share Keller's sentiment, for two reasons. One, Paul makes it clear that our worship should always keep in mind those who are not a part of our church. Two, Keller is a Calvinist, and when speaking about those outside of the visible church we must also remember that the church is God's plan A for expanding Grace. Meaning that a church should be thinking as much about the "gathering" as it does the "perfecting of the saints." We need to be thinking about those for whom Christ died who have yet to receive that gift. Keller could easily quote from the same place that Rev. Barnes did affirm his need to be understandable in the community. 

At Grace and Peace we use the image of our gatherings be a family meal where there is always room at the table for more friends and guests.


----------



## J. Dean

sdesocio said:


> I'd share Keller's sentiment, for two reasons. One, Paul makes it clear that our worship should always keep in mind those who are not a part of our church. Two, Keller is a Calvinist, and when speaking about those outside of the visible church we must also remember that the church is God's plan A for expanding Grace. Meaning that a church should be thinking as much about the "gathering" as it does the "perfecting of the saints." We need to be thinking about those for whom Christ died who have yet to receive that gift. Keller could easily quote from the same place that Rev. Barnes did affirm his need to be understandable in the community.
> 
> At Grace and Peace we use the image of our gatherings be a family meal where there is always room at the table for more friends and guests.


I don't have a problem with that, provided that those who come to dine are not assumed to be part of the family, nor are they considered part of the family under false pretense (that they are Christians just because they go to church, participate in activities, etc)

---------- Post added at 06:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:27 PM ----------




Jack K said:


> Whatever else you think of Keller, he has enough savvy to avoid either of these extremes and probably should not be summarily lumped in with the "seeker-sensitive" crowd.


I'll take your word for it, Jack, but I'm making my conclusion based upon the supplied quote in the OP.


----------



## AThornquist

If Keller means to say that we should always keep the lost in mind in our services, I would agree. An easy example is how Dever often explains at the beginning of his message what he means by 'verse' and 'chapter' when he tells his congregation what the primary text will be for the sermon. Another example might be explaining to the hearers that the Lord's Table is _only_ to be taken by believers. Also, it can be helpful to give sermon application to both believers and the heathen, the latter receiving a call to faith and repentance. If I were to modify what Keller said then, I would say that in every respect we ought to remember and consider the non-believers, but worship is geared toward believers. Church is for the church, but we seek to persuade the world to join the church in faith by means which do not alter our message or purpose, noting that part of our message and purpose is to obey the LORD in all things He has commanded, such as how we ought to worship.


----------



## Andres

raekwon said:


> Taking the quote charitably, he may just be saying that everything that we do should be done with nonbelievers (and the fact that they are among us) in mind.



I'd still say that's wrong too though.


----------



## py3ak

Without further context all that can be done is to look closely at the statement. And the word "gear" is a pretty strong one. When you speak of something being "geared" towards a particular group, you typically mean that the primary intention is for people in that group to enjoy/profit from it. If other people do as well, that's fine; but if not, the intention was still completed. E.g., toys or activities "geared" towards preschoolers _might_ prove enjoyable for octogenarians as well, but it's not likely to upset anyone if that doesn't turn out to be the case.
So I think the burden of proof is on those who would think that Keller means something less forceful than that, something more along the lines of, "keep the unbelievers always in mind." On the basis of his word choice (and he is a professional communicator), it sounds more like believers might be kept in mind, but serving the unbeliever is predominant.


----------



## Fly Caster

The full context of Keller's remarks can be seen HERE (#3)


----------

