This perspective of a missional church starkly contrasts the typical church today that sees itself as a church that has missions.  In these churches, missions are always done by a specially called person who is a missionary.  Missions is always done in a foreign country.  Missions is a program or ministry that is run by a committee in the church.  The church goes on mission trips, has a missions fund, and has a missions bulletin board in the foyer with a map of the world with colored pushpins in it.  Missions is completely separate from the church and exist out of the church.  The church has missions.

Whereas a missional church understands the opposite—the mission of God has a church.  This perspective changes everything.  This means that the mission field is where the church is.  We are all missionaries.  There is no missions program.  Instead, every program and ministry is a missional program.  The church doesn’t run missions—the mission runs the church.  The church doesn’t have a mission.  The mission has a church.  This is what it means to be a missional church.  Being missional isn’t the next catchy fad, but instead it is being caught up in the mission of God.

The word missional also gets its meaning and understanding from John 20:21 when Jesus tells his disciples, “As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” We must understand that the Father sent Jesus.  God is a missionary God.  God is on a mission to reconcile the entire world to Himself.  Therefore, the Father sent Jesus into the world to usher in the Kingdom of God in order to begin this reconciliation.  This is what theologians call the Missio Dei (Latin for Mission of God).

Jesus then tells his disciples that he is sending them on the same mission.  Jesus calls his church to go into the world and to share that the King has come and that we can be reconciled to the Father.  Being a missional church means that you understand that the church is sent on mission as an instrument and as a sign of the Missio Dei.  Although the word missional has only been used for a few years, the concept has been around since the 1950s.  Darrell L. Guder and Lois Barrett tell us the following:

By mid-century, the emphasis in mission thought shifted toward a theocentric approach that, in contrast, stressed the mission of God (Missio Dei) as the foundation for the mission of the church.  The church became redefined as the community spawned by the mission of God and gathered up into that mission.  The church was coming to understand that in any place it is a community sent by God.  “Mission” is not something the church does, a part of its total program.  No, the church’s essence is missional, for the calling and sending action of God forms its identity.  Mission is founded on the mission of God in the world, rather than the church’s effort to extend itself.[1]

A missional church exists because of and for the mission of God.

---

[1] Darrell L. Guder and Lois Barrett, Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998), 82.

For one of my classes last semester, I had to define what the local church is.  Fo the fun of it, I thought I would share with you what my definition came out to be.

This definition is heavily based on Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears, Vintage Church: Timeless Truths and Timely Methods (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2009), 38. I took a considerable amount of time studying the different elements of their definition and added where I personally thought it might be lacking.  Since I am a member of Mars Hill Church, I wanted to stay as close to Mars Hill Church’s definition of a church and only tweak it a little bit.

The local church is a community of confessing and covenantal believers of Jesus Christ who are organized under Biblically qualified leadership. They regularly gather physically for preaching and worship, and scatter in the unity and power of the Holy Spirit to carry out the mission of God by evangelizing and caring for people everywhere. They observe the Biblical sacraments of baptism and communion, and are disciplined to maintain the purity of the church in order to live out the Great Commandment and the Great Commission to the glory of God.

What do you think?  Would you change anything?  Do you have a working definition of the church?

Of all the ways that Paul presents Jesus’ atonement, he devotes most of his attention to Jesus being presented as the Colossians reconciliation. Colossians 1:19-22 states:

For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him….

Grudem defines reconciliation as “the removal of enmity and the restoration of fellowship between two parties.”[1] It is through Christ that the relationship that God once had with humanity in the Garden of Eden is restored.

Paul tells the Colossians that they were alienated. MacArthur explains that “Apallotrioo (alienated) means ‘estranged,’ ‘cut off,’ or ‘separated.’ Before their reconciliation, the Colossians were completely estranged from God.”[2] There was no relationship between them and God. As we’ve already seen, this wasn’t an estrangement in which God was simply ignoring them though. Instead, they were cut off from God and under His wrath.

This estrangement went two ways though. Paul continues to write that the Colossians were “hostile in mind” (Col 1:21). Stott says, “True, we were ‘God’s enemies,’ hostile to him in our hearts. But the ‘enmity’ was on both sides. The wall or barrier between God and us was constituted by our rebellion against him and by his wrath upon us on account of our rebellion.”[3] The Colossians’ estrangement from God was their choice as they were hostile towards God and chose to do “evil deeds” (Col. 1:21). God in his righteousness could not be in their presence because of their sin and had to separate himself from them.

Paul shows the Colossians are no longer estranged from God though. The relationship has been restored, and it is Jesus who reconciles them by “making peace by the blood of his cross” (Col. 1:20).  Jesus “has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death” (Col. 1:21). Reconciliation happens by the blood of Jesus on the cross. Hendriksen explains what this reconciliation means:

Through the blood of the Son of God’s love peace had been made. He, meaning this Son of God’s love, in his body of flesh (that was the sphere of the reconciliation), and through his death (that was the instrument) had brought about a return to the proper relation between the Colossians and their God. A return, not as if there had been a time, many, many years ago, when these Colossians had been Christians, but rather in this sense, that the establishment of peace between the Father-heart of God and the soul of the sinner is for the latter a going back to the state of rectitude in which God originally created man.[4]

Jesus pays the penalty for their sin and cleanses them from it, allowing the Colossians to have the close, intimate relationship that man once had with God.

In this passage, Paul also speaks of Jesus’ reconciliation of all of creation. This isn’t reconciliation in the same sense that is spoken of for the Colossians. Paul isn’t presenting a doctrine of universalism. Instead, Paul is referencing back to the preeminence of Christ in creation that is stated in verse 16 as Paul says, “For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.” MacArthur clarifies that “there is a sense in which even fallen angels and unredeemed men will be reconciled to God for judgment – but only in the sense of submitting to Him for final sentencing. Their relationship to Him will change from that of enemies to that of the judged.”[5] Paul is speaking of a reconciliation that brings all things under the rule of Jesus Christ.

---

[1] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 1253.

[2] MacArthur Jr., Colossians and Philemon, 60.

[3] Stott, The Cross of Christ, 197-198.

[4] Hendriksen, Phillippians / Colossians / Philemon, 83.

[5] MacArthur Jr., Colossians and Philemon, 59.

In the same way that Paul presents Jesus as their propitiation, he presents to the Colossians that Jesus is their expiation. On the Day of Atonement after the high priest had sacrificed the goat and sprinkled its blood on the mercy seat as Israel’s propitiation, he performed a ceremony with another goat:

And Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins. And he shall put them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who is in readiness. The goat shall bear all their iniquities on itself to a remote area, and he shall let the goat go free in the wilderness (Lev. 16:21-22).

Whereas the first goat paid for the sins of the people, the second goat actually removed those sins from the people. This cleansing from their sin is what we call expiation.

Paul reminds the Colossians that they were “doing evil deeds” (Col. 1:21). The Colossians are reminded of their “old self with its evil practice” (Col 3:9, NASB). They were a people that were marred by their sin, but Paul also reminds them of the expiation of Jesus. Jesus “has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him” (Col 1:22). Through the cross of Christ, their sins are “set aside” (Col 2:14), and they are presented to God as holy. This is only possible because Jesus acted as their expiation, cleansing them from the filth of their sin.

In Paul’s letter to the Colossians, it is clear that he wants them see that Jesus is their propitiation. Wayne Grudem defines propitiation as “a sacrifice that bears God’s wrath to the end and in so doing changes God’s wrath toward us into favor.”[1] This is a concept that would have been familiar to Paul’s Jewish readers in Colossae. Every year on the Day of Atonement, the high priest would offer a goat as a sacrifice for the sins of the people in order to deter the wrath of God.[2]

Paul clearly shows the Colossians that they were under the wrath of God because of their sin. Paul tells them to “put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. On account of these the wrath of God is coming” (Col. 3:5-6). The earthly things that are in them, their sin, will lead to nothing more than the wrath of God. Wright clarifies:

Destruction, indeed, will be the result for those who disregard the warning: because of these, the wrath of God is coming. It is not the case that God happens to dislike this sort of behavior and so has decided as it were arbitrarily, to punish it. On the contrary. ‘The wrath of God’, it hardly needs saying, is not a malicious or capricious anger, but the necessary reaction of true holiness, justice and goodness to wickedness, exploitation and evil of every kind.[3]

Paul wants the Colossians to know that their sin will lead to the wrath of God. On the other hand, Paul doesn’t simply present the wrath of God. He also presents Jesus as their propitiation.

Paul tells them that God the Father is “making peace by the blood of [Jesus’] cross” (Col. 1:20). In the same way that a goat’s blood was offered on the Day of Atonement for the sins of Israel to hold back the wrath of God, it is that Jesus’ blood is offered on the Colossians part to bring peace with God. Unlike the goat’s blood though, Jesus’ sacrifice was done once and for all “by canceling the record of debt…nailing it to the cross” (Col. 2:14). It is through the cross that Jesus becomes a propitiation for the Colossians taking the wrath of God upon himself.

---

[1] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1995), 1252.

[2] Lev. 16:8-9, 15

[3] Wright, Colossians and Philemon, 135.

Paul also connects Jesus’ work on the cross as a victory over sin and the rulers of this world. “Christ was victorious over evil powers in his death, resurrection and ascension. In recent years this emphasis has been particularly associated with the Swedish theologian Gustav Aulén, whose own position has become known as Christus Victor, after the book of the same name.”[1]

Paul presents Jesus as the Colossians’ Christus Victor in his letter when he states that “by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him” (Col. 2:14-15). In one single act on the cross, Jesus took the penalty for the Colossians’ sin and a conquered its power. John Stott makes the connection in these verses for us in his foundational book The Cross of Christ:

Paul here brings together two different aspects of the saving work of Christ’s cross, namely the forgiveness of our sins and the cosmic overthrow of the principalities and powers. He illustrates the freeness and graciousness of God’s forgiveness (charizomai) from the ancient custom of canceling debts. ‘The written code with its regulations, that was against us’ can hardly be a reference to the law itself, since Paul regarded it as ‘holy, righteous and good’ (Rom. 7:12); it must rather refer to the broken law, which on that account was ‘against us and stood opposed to us’ with its judgment.…God frees us from our bankruptcy only by paying our debts on Christ’s cross. More than that He has ‘not only canceled the debt, but also destroyed the document on which it was recorded’.

Paul now moves from the forgiveness of our sins to the conquest of the evil powers…[I]t is surely significant that Paul brackets what Christ did to the ceirographon (canceling and removing it) with what he did to the principalities and powers (disarming and conquering them). The bond he nailed to the cross; the powers he defeated by the cross. It does not seem necessary to insist on the latter being any more literal than the former. The important point is that both happened together.[2]

Paul wanted the Colossians to see that Jesus’ death wasn’t only substitionary death on their behalf to pay their debt, but that his death was also victorious. Through Jesus’ victory on the cross, they now had victory over the power of sin and the rulers and authorities of this world.

---

[1] Steve Jeffery, Michael Ovey, and Andrew Sach, Pierced for Our Transgressions: Rediscovering the Glory of Penal Substitution (Crossway Books, 2007), 139.

[2] Stott, The Cross of Christ, 233-234.

Jesus is also presented to the Colossians as their redemption. Paul tells the Colossians that God the Father “has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins” (Col. 1:13-14). As Jesus has paid for their penalty of sin, he also redeems them from the domain of darkness.

As a slave is redeemed from an evil master, so are the Colossians. They are no longer mastered by sin because of the forgiveness found in the cross. Paul restates it to the Colossians and says, “you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses” (Col. 2:13). In the atonement, Jesus becomes their redeemer.

Paul presents Jesus to the Colossians as their penal substitutionary atonement. Being unable to take care of the penalty of their sins, Jesus substituted himself on the cross for them. Paul writes to the Colossians: “the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross” (Col. 2:14). The Colossians were in debt and deserved the penalty of death and hell.

The New American Standard translation of the Bible says that the certificate of debt was “hostile to us” (Col. 2:14, NASB). “The certificate was hostile to us, that is, it was enough to condemn us to judgment and hell, because ‘cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them’ (Gal. 3:10).”[1] But this debt was set aside when God took out the Colossians’ punishment in Jesus on the cross, thereby making him their penal substitutionary atonement. “As our substitute Christ did for us what we could never do for ourselves: he bore our sin and judgment.”[2]

---

[1] MacArthur Jr., Colossians and Philemon, 112.

[2] John R. W. Stott, The Cross of Christ (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 276.