I’ve often heard the following quote thrown around as a litmus test for the local church and its engagement with the local community. I recently went back and forth with some friends about it via facebook. I’ve copied the conversation and I’d love to hear your thoughts on it!
Tim Keller: “If your church was taken out of its community would anyone, other than those attending the church, really care?”
Me: I’m becoming more & more opposed to this line of reasoning. Where do we get that the church is for the city? Jesus is the head of the church, his body. It’s a foundational question: who’s the church for?? Thoughts?
Friend A: Paul – I agree, but as the church we have been called into our cities. If we say we are simply for Jesus – the potential danger is we sit there and tell him how much we love Him and do nothing else. If we are being obedient, we are not simply a church that happens to be in a city, but we are a church that for the city — being salt and light and pointing them to Jesus.
Friend B: my take is that the local church has to dig deep inside and reach out. the church body without seeking the power fo the Holy Spirit, growing deeper inside, and intense connection/discipleship will not produce service/deeds/community influence that will be properly motivated, prove fruitful, or endure. First church in ACTS had that intenseconnection/discipleship/growth (under persecution) reached out under the infilling of the Spirit and changed the world. Service without God’s infilling…
Me: But don’t you agree that Keller’s (and others) statement is implying that if the community does care or notice, in a positive sense, the presence of our churches then somehow we are missing the mark? It’s almost saying that unless our communities are praising our presence that somehow we’ve strayed from what God intended the church to be…It seems that this only works in non-persecuted countries as well. What if the community doesn’t want the church there, so much so that it tries to destroy it? How does Keller’s statement apply to them?
Friend A: I would say that even in persecuted countries — if the church is not reaching out to the society, they are not fulfilling the great commission — did not the early church respond to those who were dying and suffering – and historians even note that how involved the church was in loving and caring for the people, even if it meant their lives?
Friend B: In karnataka indian mission fields when i visited in late nineties- the church plant would seek to hold nursery schools for months w/o many kids coming regularly or under islamic criticism. but they were reaching out.
Me: I get that we should seek the welfare of the orphan and widow, etc. – I’m just not sure that Keller’s quote is helpful for communicating this; we do it not to earn the approval of the city/community. We do it because its God’s commission for the church – who cares the community/city ever cares or notices what we do…We don’t do it for them, we do it as worship to God. Again, it’s not that we should be doing these things. I’m just not sure that this statement and those like it are really helpful.
