The book, Breaking the Missional Code: Your Church Can Become a Missionary in Your Community By Ed Stetzer, and David Putman is used in many seminaries across the land, including Liberty University. This author would argue that Breaking the Missional Code is just one more threat to the unification of Christianity. It propagates the idea that you are to mold your church to reflect the makeup of your community. First, what exactly do these authors mean by Breaking the Code?

“Breaking the code does not mean just finding the best model (or models) for your community. Instead, it means discovering the principles that work in every context, selecting the tools most relevant for your context (which may come from methods and models), and then learning to apply them in a missionally effective manner. It means thinking missiologically, and ‘if we are not focusing on missiology then we are being disobedient to the Great Commission.’[1] According to Mittelberg, ‘For those of us who have our sights set on reaching secular people in our increasingly post-Christian society, we must step back and figure out what our mission field’s cultural landscape looks like.'”[2] (Stetzer and Putman 2006, p. 2)

Ed Stetzer penned an article in the magazine Christianity Today concerning contextualization. “Contextualization involves an attempt to present the Gospel in a culturally relevant way. For this reason, discussions about contextualization are connected to discussions about the nature of human culture; we cannot separate the two.” Culture is the shared beliefs and values of the group: the beliefs, customs, practices, and social behavior of a particular nation, people, or community. Stetzer writes, “The process of contextualization considers these facts about culture. It involves ‘presenting the unchanging truths of the gospel within the unique and changing contexts of cultures and worldviews.’[3] Dan Gilliland offers a full definition of contextualization. He defines contextualization as a tool ‘to enable, insofar as it is humanly possible, an understanding of what it means that Jesus Christ, the Word, is authentically experienced in each and every human situation.’[4] Such a tool is necessary because “while the human condition and the gospel remain the same, people have different worldviews which in turn impact how they interpret themselves, the world and the things you say.’[5]” Stetzer goes on to say, “Contextualization involves an attempt to present the Gospel in a culturally relevant way … Discussions about culture are unavoidable; all people live in a culture of some sort … Contextualization, then, is simply about sharing the Gospel well … Contextualization is an important component of effective Gospel ministry.”[6]

In short, some innocent appearing terms and ideas are not so innocent once we start unpacking them. Before dealing with Breaking the Missional Code and these terms, let us consider another common term, the so-called “seeker-movement” or “seeker-sensitive,” which aims to make churches more accessible and sensitive to the needs of spiritual seekers. The “seeker-movement” or “seeker-sensitive” label is associated with some megachurches in the United States where Christian messages are often imparted by means of elaborate creative elements emphasizing secular popular culture, such as popular music styles. Such churches often also develop a wide range of activities to draw in families at different stages in their lives. Even Stetzer and Putman admit, “A few in the seeker movement have watered down the gospel.”[7] I would venture to say that it is far more than a few. The truth of the matter, it all boils down to only being about the numbers, finding slick ways to reaching those within Satan’s world and being success oriented.[8]

For almost 500 years since the Reformation, Christianity has missed the fact that all churches are to be missional to their community, and now they are looking for ways to make up the ground. This is all good and fine, but it seems that they now want to jump on another boat, `let us be like the world so that we can attract the world.’ This is their version of Paul’s words, “I have become all things to all people that by all means, I might save some.” What if Paul were alive today, and he was on a missionary journey into some African countries, visiting some established congregations, and he saw that in many of these churches, men came to church with several of their wives. Would he become all things and accept polygamy, because it is a part of their culture?

Christians are humbly to share the Good News with all people, not prejudging them based on their race, culture, or background. (1 Cor. 9:22-23) Since the authors, Stetzer and Putman, chose how one dresses as an issue of knowing your mission field, we will address that as well.

While this is true, no church should adopt any changes that would violate Scripture, nor would they water down their values and standards merely to please the world. Of course, we do not want a standard of dress that exemplifies wealth, snobbery, and so on. However, we would not want to wear a standard of dress that exemplifies the world either.

There is a difference between a teen girl wearing something that only half covers her up, and respecting the African cultural Kaba, a popular style of women’s attire. There is a difference between a young man wearing a heavy metal or rap T-shirt to church and respecting the Korean hanbok, a bolero-style blouse, and a long skirt, uniquely proportioned.[9]

Based on the definition of indigenous on pages 91-92, what does it mean for you to be an indigenous church?

The idea behind indigenization is that a church should spring forth out of the soil in which it is planted. It is indigenous in that its leadership, expressions, forms, and functions reflect that of the context. At the same time, it serves as a transforming agent in the very culture that sustains it. When this happens, we can truly say we have an indigenous church.[10]

Breaking the Missional Code seems to be saying, an indigenous church is reflective of its community. It makes the statement, “The churches mentioned throughout this book and Planting Missional Churches, even though very different in terms of form and style, are good examples of indigenous churches.” The idea is that “their style [the church, pastor/leadership] reflects their community.” (Stetzer and Putman 2006, p. 93) Really? I think it would be that the members of the church, who came out of the community, should reflect the image of God.

While more Georgians are finding faith in Christ, statistics indicate that nearly 70 percent of the state’s 8,383,915 residents remain unchurched.” If this is so, then it is important that we ask the question how we can reintroduce people to church and ultimately to Christ. (Stetzer and Putman 2006, p. 90)

The question is the opposite: “how can we reintroduce God’s Word to the people?” This author has stated it repeatedly in his writings and will continue to do so, that we should conform the world to the true Christian, biblical way. “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” (Romans 12:2, ESV)

It must seem that I am setting aside what seems like reasonable ideas within this book and others, but we should see it differently. There are 41,000 different denominations, which call themselves Christian, all believing differently. Many of these so-called Christian dominations are becoming more like the world and less like their Creator. We should not agree with the status quo of where things currently are, but nor should we agree with most of the Breaking the Missional Code either. The whole point can be summed up in this; the whole congregation going into the community must share the Gospel, and evangelize the community. The congregation must first be trained in witnessing, communication, reasoning, and teaching to effectively relate the Word of God to the community. Yes, they need to be able to relate to the community.

Stetzer and Putman write, “Ironically, it is often when we train people to do evangelism that they become less effective in the process.” (p. 122) This is such nonsense, and so untrue, it troubles me the moment my eyes fell on the words. From this comment alone, this book should be set aside for another. Evangelism training is not ineffective; the one who set up the program is ineffective. Jesus spent 3.5 years training his disciples in evangelism.

Luke 6:40 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
40 A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teacher.

Just how effective was Jesus? How effective were his apostles and early disciples? Jesus’ early disciples carried on the work that he had commanded them to accomplish, which ran throughout the Roman Empire, in Asia, Europe, and Africa. (Matt 28:18-20) At the beginning of the second century, there were over a million Christians and estimated to be between 5-7 million by 300 C.E. In fact, the Christians displaced pagan religion as the official religion by 400 C.E.

Stetzer and Putman write, “Too often, we find the models they choose do not line up with the communities they are trying to reach.” (p. 154)

Here again, we start with the fact that the book is seeking to mold the church into the community instead of molding the community into the church. The objective is to convert the community into Christians, not the convert the church into a community pleaser. Have a biblical model, and then learn to reach the cultural milieu(s) that exists within your community.

Stetzer and Putman write, “A biblical church is a contextual church.” (p. 180) What is meant is adapting the church, without violating Scripture, to the local culture. What you have in these authors are missionary minded individuals who are used to the missionary field overseas. There they may have an African village, which has a single culture, or in China, a single Chinese community, or in Jordan, an Islamic community full of Sunni Muslims only, and so on.

However, the Western world is a melting pot of cultures. You could have 20-30 or more cultures within a given community. Which one do you try to make your church mold to, or is it best to have a biblically based church which relates to all cultures, and invites them in, accepting aspects of their culture unless it violates Scripture. Even of the many cultures within a given community, there are those that do not reflect that because we are all individuals.

What if our context has to do with social status? Suppose our community is made up of people with multimillion-dollar homes. Should they waste money by building a church that is reflective of their mansions, costing millions upon millions on the look of the building? Should the pastors wear $5,000.00 suits? Should the pastor avoid sermons on money issues that are reflecting in New Testament teachings, for fear of offending the congregation?

A Biblical Church

• The Bible is their foundation in faith, truth, and practice
• Biblical preaching
• The worship is based on Scriptural principles
• The building is designed based on Scriptural principles
• The music chosen is based on biblical principles
• The education is biblical
• The worldview and lifestyle of its members is biblical
• Its evangelism is patterned after the New Testament
• The pastors and servants are chosen based on Scripture
• The structure of leadership is based on Scripture
• Church discipline is based on Scripture
• Organized and governed based on Scripture
• And so on …

All the while, its members can relate to whoever is in the community. It has an acceptance of cultural aspects is biblical as well. This means that they are welcome to engage in any cultural lifestyle that does not violate Scripture. For example, a woman could wear any type of dress that is relevant to her culture, as long as it is modest. While the book hints at this, many of its statements throughout belie what is truly biblical. Persons struggling with any sin and persons with unbiblical culture can attend the church. Still, they must be working with the pastor to overcome any ongoing sins they are struggling with or any cultural lifestyle that is not harmonizing with God’s Word.

There are literally tens of millions of unbelieving North Americans who have a receptive heart to the biblical truth, the deeper Gospel. They are like low-hanging fruit from the tree of potential disciples; all we have to do is pick them. Some will be easy to bring into the fold; some will have to be reasoned with to overcome their firmly entrenched ideas, while others will have to overcome their criticisms before they start to believe. Let us speak hypothetically but realistically for a minute to give us the real perspective.

In the evangelistic year of 2016, we will say (hypothetically) that there are 10 million potential disciples available to be picked from the tree of humanity. Jehovah’s Witnesses will take about 3-4 million of them, the Mormons will gather up another 2 million, and the Seventh Day Adventists will take between 1-2 million. The Witnesses will go out and win over the easy ones, the ones that have to overcome their false ideas, and the ones that need their criticisms overcome. They will win over the blue-color worker, the teacher, the scientist, the professor, the Muslim, the Jew, the African, the Asian, even the occasional pastor, as they gather up 30-40 percent of the fruit available.

What about so-called true Christianity, i.e. Christendom? Well, let us quote Stetzer and Putman, “This ‘humiliation’ of Christendom has been underway for two centuries. It is no longer appropriate, if it ever was, to speak of “Christian America.” (p. 228). Christendom’s only fruit will take in is maybe less than 50,000 depressed souls that walk into their church looking for hope because they do not go out and win over anyone. They will take in far less than 0.01 percent of the 10 million potential disciples and will only keep a few thousand before they are stolen from the above groups.

Stetzer and Putman write, “Did Jesus Christ not institute the church as his missionary instrument for fulfilling the Great Commission?” (p. 227)

Yes, he did, and this includes all Christians carrying out the Great Commission, not just the pastors. The book makes this point as well.

Stetzer and Putman write, “The heart of the Great Commission is to ‘make disciples.’ Earlier in this book, we described a disciple as one who lives like Jesus lived, loves like Jesus loved, and leaves behind what Jesus left behind.” (p. 227).

In other words, a “learner” or better known as a “Christian” makes another “learner.” If a Christian is to make disciples and this involves making them into “people who are like Jesus,” then that would mean they are to be teachers of potential disciples, helping them as they transform into becoming a Christian disciple.

Stetzer and Putman ask, “How do you turn your church into an army for breaking the unbroken code?”

It is quite simple; make a biblical church that is reflective of the New Testament in principle, with members trained in effectively sharing God’s Word to all sorts of people in their community, proclaiming, teaching, and making disciples, regardless of the culture one is from. Make the maximum number of members in a church be 150, at which point 75 divide and build another church in the same area. This way you are growing away and out from your first local-missional-minded church.

SCROLL THROUGH DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW

BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

BIBLICAL STUDIES / INTERPRETATION

EARLY CHRISTIANITY

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM

TECHNOLOGY

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

CHRISTIAN FICTION