Two Great Objects

William Wilberforce commented after his Great Change (his conversion to Christ) that up to this point in his life and career, ‘My own distinction was my darling object.’ God began to move in his heart and he accepted a larger commission. ‘God Almighty has laid before me two great objects,’ he wrote in his diary, ‘the suppression of the slave trade and the reformation of manners,‘ which we might call the whole moral climate of the country.

I’ve been wondering if we’d be more likely to build spiritual movements “if our churches and para-churches moved beyond individual/personal transformational mission statements toward mission statements like Wilberforce’s that targeted city/community/country/world transformation.”

As a result of the seeker movement, churches and para-churches adopted mission/vision statements to help focus their impact. That process made sense–the church ought to focus its effort and energy. Willow Creek, a church I love and respect, adopted a keynote mission statement that caught fire and spread. That statement was “to turn irreligious people into fully devoted followers of Jesus Christ.” Other churches and para-churches copied and tweaked this statement or statements like it. The process was helpful–to a certain extent. It certainly helped us focus toward missional ends—we’re not a holy club, we’re to reach the irreligious, we’re to disciple new believers into fully transformed Christ-followers. A lot is captured by that statement…but what is missing?

When I compare such current statements to the commissions driving Wilberforce and the Clapham Sect, I find our statements to be mainly about individual/personal transformation. Now, I think we assume that such individual transformations will lead to better cities, communities, and countries. To better worlds. Yet, I wonder by focusing on individual/personal transformations we lose the power of a mission that goes beyond the individual to a God-sized cause–to a cause that’s rooted in “rescuing” the world.

As Paul Vander Klay argues:

The church is then no longer simply yet another corporation seeking to enlarge it’s religious market share, it is a community of servants who are joyfully and deeply committed to seeing the flourishing of community/city on planet earth at whatever the cost. We don’t seek the supremacy of our organization or party, but we seek the well-being even of the pagan enemies around us. It is the reverse of the Christian culture war. We want our unbelieving neighbors to praise a God they don’t know for the presence of Christians in their city rather than resenting and fearing them in the public square.

I’m wondering, for example, what difference it might make if our missional team leaders on campuses or military bases, in cities and communities, expressed their purpose in communal flourishing terms.

What if we thought like this:

Instead of asking “what manpower, resources, strategies, etc. are needed to reach Campus A (e.g. turning lost students and faculty into Christ-centered laborers) ,” we ask: what manpower, resources and strategies exist on Campus A to bring kingdom change (end of poverty, joblessness, illiteracy or any applicable issue) to within five to ten miles of our location? What if we (as Campus Crusade or other para-church ministry) took responsibility for mobilizing the Christ-followers on our Campus to lead that kingdom change? What if we helped the university to adopt a significant injustice in the world and helped lead students and faculty in the “suppression of that injustice.”

Just a thought.