John C. Nugent

Excellent, excellent!! Nugent clearly explains the who, what, when, where, why, and how it means to live the gospel of the kingdom.
It challenges what many of us were taught, incorrectly, about the church's response to life as a believer.
For myself, a light has clicked on, and am now confronted with the task of "being the better place," which is the calling for all believers to live.
I highly recommend every follower of Christ to read this book and realize the true fullness of kingdom life.… (lisätietoja)

Review of Endangered Gospel:

In attempting transparency, I liked the idea of this book before I read it. In other words, my understanding of what it means to be the church were already moving in the direction that I thought the book would go. And psychological studies have shown that everybody has a bias to affirm evidence of what they already believe, while more easily dismissing evidence that counters their beliefs. I also admit that I usually read books that I’ll probably agree with. With that said, those with a different bias may come to different conclusions. I’m interested in hearing your responses. Nevertheless, with that said, I hope you all find my summary and interaction with Endangered Gospel helpful, challenging, and perhaps enlightening. For me, it has been an important read.

Summary:
John Nugent’s argument is straightforward: “It’s not the church’s job to make this world a better place. (8)” That does not mean the church retreats from the world, but engages it in the best possible way. Rather than try to fix the world, the church is to be the better place that God calls her to be. This is based on two central ideas: 1) Jesus has already made a better place in this world, so it isn’t our responsibility to do so. 2) The role of God’s people is to embrace, display, proclaim this better place. (19) In other words, our primary focus must be to demonstrate and embody the kingdom come (God’s better place) rather than engineer or orchestrate ways to make the world a better place.

Central to his argument is an elevation of the church’s nature and mission. We are called to be a nation of priests, set apart as God’s better place in the world. Nugent draws a strong line between the church and world, “between the specific calling of God’s people and the generic calling of all people. (15)”

He makes this argument through several significant points:

1. “Culture changes from the top down, not the bottom up. (5)” – See Hunter, To Change the World, 1 – 47. In other words, grassroots initiatives are generally short-lived and limited in duration.

2. Throughout the Bible, God’s set apart people are called to a different mission than the rest of humanity. God commissions the powers to have the responsibility and ability to make this world a better place. They do so on God’s behalf and for our own good (43). “The tasks of keeping sin in check, meeting basic needs, and making the world a better place are crucial for human thriving, but they are tasks that God has assigned to ordinary human power structures. (49)”

3. The theme of God’s people having a specific calling, different from the world, runs throughout the Old Testament. For example, Exodus 19 reads, “The whole earth is mine, but you shall be for me a priestly kingdom and a holy nation.” Further, the prophets uniformly testify that God’s people failed to live out the Torah, detailing every misdemeanor and cast the vision for a wholesome alternative. Yet they never fault God’s people for neglecting to make the world a better place. (56).

4. More than any other subject Jesus spoke most often of “God’s kingdom.” And God’s people will seek first God’s kingdom (Mt. 6:33). Yet it is unbiblical to separate the people of God from the kingdom of God (62-63). We are the work of God’s kingdom. “Though many have noted that God rules over all creation, no Israelite prophet, priest, or king ever referred to God’s work among the nations as his ‘kingdom work.’ Rather, it is God’s work as creator and sustainer to preserve his creation and look after all creatures. (63)”

5. The place of God’s kingdom is rooted firmly on this earth, and “though a few phrases… could be misread to suggest an otherworldly view of the kingdom, the basic plot line of Scripture runs sharply against it. (69)” In others, when we ask, “Where is the kingdom of God?” scripture explicitly describes that place here physically on earth.

6. How does God’s kingdom come? It comes as a gift. Through the resurrection, “God communicates with unmistakable clarity that his kingdom does not come through human effort. It is a diving accomplishment from start to finish. (74)”

7. God’s better place is not other-worldly or entirely future. It has already begun and is here. And we are not “the change agents who make this world better… God claims full responsibility for doing so. (76)”

8. I found Nugent’s analysis of the New Testament’s discussion for how the church acts to be a significant paradigm shift. Paul, John, Peter and others speak uniformly of how the church is to love one another, care for one another, forgive one another and be unified, serving one another. However, “by way of contrast, these authors say very little about how believers ought to treat unbelievers…. Scripture is strikingly silent as to how God’s people ought to help out needy unbelievers, improve living conditions for all people…, and speak prophetically to unbelieving institutions. (89)” Simply put, “scripture teaches us to love fellow believers – not all humans in general. (90)”
My first thought after reading this was: “This is insane.” However when you look specifically at the passages that speak of love, they almost all refer to loving one another in the Christian faith and not people everywhere. Chapter 11 alone was worth the cost of the book.

Briefly, to address your objections:
A. “Loving your neighbor as yourself” references Old Testament love of fellow Israelite, and Jesus himself ministered almost exclusively among the Jews, something most of us prefer to ignore.

B. The Good Samaritan? “Samaritans were Jews too,” though treated as inferior. “Jesus was inviting his disciples to reach out to estranged Israelites whom they considered half-Jews. (95)” Kinda like that relative you want to disown.

C. Enemy love? Though the best counter-argument against his thesis, Nugent explains enemy love is not instructed by Jesus or Paul “in some abstract or systematic way” but “teaches us how to love the specific enemy currently exploiting us. (96)” In other words, love of enemy is concrete and not a general principle. It “cannot be equated with the kind of love the New Testament expects believers to show one another. (97)”

D. The “Least of These” from Mt 25? Look at verse 40 – “who are members of my family.” These were fellow believers.

E. “Orphans and widows” from James 1:27? We have to read this passage within the context of the whole book. These verses preview the whole letter’s content, and James does not promote care of them in general but for fellow believers.

F. After reading all this, I initially felt that the gospel was a little shameful and embarrassing. He anticipates this and says, “But here’s the thing: If God is who we say he is… then he knows better than us what is best for this world. If his wisdom seems foolish to us, it is because we have failed to grasp the genius of his perfect plan. It is because we are still thinking like the world and not paying close attention to God’s Word and God’s Spirit. (101)”

To summarize chapter 11, “since loving one another is God’s plan, it must become our highest priority. No more embarrassment. No more second guessing. No more imitating the worldly strategies for making this world a better place. (102)”

9. Nugent’s argument from scripture and retelling the Biblical story through this lense is most important. Yet, he makes the secondary point that our attempts to help people or fix the world rarely entice others to beat down the church’s doors to get in. “Let’s face it,” he says, “We’re not the only ones helping people, and the help we offer seldom impresses. (104)” Take for example the Giving Pledge, spearheaded by Warren Buffet and the Gates, where 40 individuals have pledged $125 billion to help the world. Or look at Effective Altruism, whose exemplary generosity and self-sacrifice to help the poorest around the world is rarely seen in our churches. In sum, “we do not stand out in our generosity to needy causes. Politicians, athletes, actors, and wealthy philanthropists seem just as concerned and far more efficient. (104)”

Reflections and push-backs:

1. First, through this paradigm of church mission (ecclesiology), I loved how we might actually be able to overcome the savior mentality latent within just about every missionary endeavour whether evangelistic or humanitarian. He writes, “Our role is not only to announce that God intends someday to change this world, but to demonstrate that – in a specific sense – he already has. (86)” Again and again, Nugent reiterates that Jesus has already saved the world; he has already begun a new era of world history, and we are the evidence of that change. Therefore, the weight of responsibility to fix the world’s problems are shifted from our shoulders back to God’s - where they belong. This does not make us calloused or blind to the suffering of others, but forces us to trust God to be in charge.

2. A common critique will be the question of how this is possible in Christendom, or even post-Christendom. In other words, if our job as the church is to “love one another,” how do we do that when everyone is in the church? Nugent draws a strong line between Christian and non-Christian, those who are “in” or “out,” which makes perfect sense Biblically. The Old Testament assumes that the Israelites clearly knew who were part of their nation and who were not. And during the first and (maybe) second centuries when the New Testament was written, to be part of the church or not was clear. The lines between “God’s people (aka Israelites/church)” and the “world” were easy to define. Today, it isn’t so easy.

I think this is what Nugent is referring to in the acknowledgements for students “whose imaginations are less constrained by ‘the real world.’ (ix)” Nevertheless, it is a mistake to assume Nugent’s argument as mere idealism, especially as we move more and more to a post-Christendom era here in Western society. And I think the key for navigating a healthy “in” or “out” mentality is raising the bar on church membership with concentric circles of connection and responsibility. Church must be difficult to join and easy to leave. (Unhealthy communities, in general, are the opposite.) For the early church, this was the case - catechesis was a long process, an extended rite of passage, with numerous commitments. To simply pray the Lord’s prayer and be saved or focus solely on the point of salvation is a recipe for “cheap grace” and devaluing the responsibility of being the church. I was surprised Nugent didn’t explore this idea more, especially in discussing discipleship. If the church and its role in the world is as important as Nugent testifies, joining must be taken seriously. I loved this quote - “The strength of our witness depends on the strength of our life together. (124)”

Second, I wished Nugent had spent more time on our definition of “church.” He mentions that “small groups should be integral to church membership. (139)” But I would go further - if the church’s central mission is to love and care for one another well, it seems that there has to be some sort of cap for how that is possible. I cannot love 10,000 people - it is simply impossible. It would be a feat to know their names, much less care for them. Therefore, the form - or model or structure - we have for church must follow function. We have to design our church models to best facilitate loving one another well. An excellent argument for live-in churches can be found in John Alexander’s Being Church, p. 103-154. We cannot assume Sunday morning, brick-and-mortar churches are God-ordained or the best model for living out the church’s mission. It took nearly 300 years for the early church to have much more than house churches - a much smaller group than many churches today.

3. One seeming contraction of thought is the question of whether or not humans can by human effort “fix” the world. In referencing the Tower of Babel in his conclusion, Nugent writes, “If enough of God’s people truly believe in a good cause and are truly united in championing it together, there is nothing we cannot do. (199, italics added)” He states that we could do whatever we set our minds toward, which may actually feel like God’s new creation. However, just a few pages later Nugent writes this: “We are lousy world savers. In fits and spurts we can do some good. But all human efforts to save the world are doomed to fail. (203)” I felt that Nugent may have overstated his point in the conclusion. Human effort can have impressive results that do make the world a better place, but for anything to last must be initiated by God. The struggle is knowing one from the other.

4. One minor frustration was that Nugent is so focused on convincing his readers of his thesis that he sometimes felt repetitive. Personally, I would have preferred a condensed argument with more material and resources on how to move forward. Specifically, I can only remember one church example he recommended, and the bibliography was lacking. It felt like he was hesitant to flesh out the implications of his argument (and thereby lose certain readers). Readers who were convinced of his thesis would appreciate Hauerwas and Willimon’s Resident Aliens, John Alexander’s Being Church, Janzen’s Intentional Christian Community Handbook, Vanier’s Community and Growth, Eberhard Arnold, and most things in the new Monasticism movement.

Implications and application:
1. If you are more connected to your job or a help-the-world-endeavor than you are to a church, you may have your priorities out of order. Church is not like body building; it is more like a football game. Don’t believe the lies of individualism - you need to be deeply connected and committed to a church. Scripture assumes your faith is not a solitary venture.
2. We need higher expectations for church membership, along with a decided focus on discipleship and spiritual formation. Our first concern should not be “saving people,” growth in numbers, or developing a bigger budget even to help people. Churches ought to focus on developing into the full stature of Christ (Eph. 4) and loving one another well (John 13).
3. Churches ought to think through how well their structure or model facilitates deep love for one another. Or is it more for the spiritual consumerist?

In summary, I’m convinced that this is how scripture describes the church - it is to be God’s better place rather than make the world a better place. This is an important change in priority and emphasis. For me this has been a significant paradigm shift in how I think about church mission. But if you already are convinced of this, I’d look elsewhere for implications of this belief. His focus is to give evidence for this point and a few general principles, not to provide next steps.

… (lisätietoja)