Thoughts and Reflections
In Response to the Article entitled “Mission Defined and Described” by Charles Van Egen and subsequent responses to said article.
It was with great anticipation that I dove into the chapters of the book “MissionShift” edited by David Hesselgrave and Ed Stetzer. As a young pastor I have been keenly interested in the movements of the evangelical church towards a greater emphasis on missions. In the SBC where I serve this has been a discussion that has been hotly contested in the past two years beginning with the formulation of the SBC GCR Task Force, the adoption of the recommendations and the resulting conversations (shall I dare say arguments) around what it means, who is impacted, how we respond, and what will this mean for our institutions. Embroiled in the midst of this battle is the lack of unity which should be a symptom of the belief we have in God’s word.
As I entered the pages I found that not only is the battle being waged at the laity and church leadership level, but even those who have devoted much of their lives to the study of such things cannot come to a full agreement on what is meant by mission, our mission, being Missional, being relative, being contextual, etc… It saddens me that, as is indicative of the divisions in the entirety of Christendom, we cannot come to terms with what we have been called to do. However, that being said, in what I have read I believe that there are many valid points from each of the people involved that when taken together I believe can paint somewhat of a clearer picture.
As I am reading this and several other volumes at the same time, it is of course in my nature to compare the words that I find and bounce concepts from one book to the other turning the pieces of the puzzle over in my mind looking for connection points. This book is no different. Pulling from ideas that I have read, studied, and fully believe in, I tried in my mind to connect dots that I saw forming a thread of reality within the essay and responses.
One of the first thoughts that I had, echoed by David Hesselgrave in his response, was of the complexity of the issue. A typical lay person reading this volume would have put it down after the first couple of pages and having to pick up his/her dictionary numerous times. That being said, I also fully believe that there are times when it is the responsibility of those who hold various positions within the church to read, absorb then regurgitate the information in a simplified format. I also believe that like most things in our lives, we have tried to over complicate the matter of missions for the local lay person and a clear, more concise understanding needs to be had at the local level.
In Van Egen’s essay we come face to face quickly with the undeniable depravity of men. It is evident from the historical perspective that what was once the mission of God, has been altered by men throughout the ages to mold it into a self-serving, self-aggrandizing tool that we use to make ourselves feel better. What concerns me more than this is the apparent fact that this has not changed. In Stetzer’s reply he makes this statement “I think about the practice of “short-term missions”, which is so often really Christian tourism in disguise.” The reality that stands so blatantly in our face is that for many short-term missions trip must be accompanied by free days, sightseeing excursions, and ventures that have nothing to do with evangelizing the lost or serving the poor that they just as well should be on a cruise boat. It is a sad indictment when we must advertise mission trips to include the amenities typically found on secular vacations. Once churches go on missions trips it often becomes a statistic that they proudly boast about. Do not misunderstand the biblical reality of celebrating missions, of sharing mission stories and of being cooperative in missions practices exist, but when the focus is that of we went on a mission trip and not what God accomplished in their lives on that trip, and then we have failed to glorify God through our obedience.
The statement quoted by Van Egen from Sidney Rooy “Truly, each generation must define mission anew” speaks volumes to me. I find it frustrating when the “old-guard” believes that the new pups seek to find ways to do missions work without following the strict guidelines set forth in ages past. The thought that drives me is a quote that I have heard Ed and others use many times in the past “What year is it in your church?” To me these two statements are really where we should begin with the discussion of relevant or contextual or emergent or, well you get the picture. The fact is that the people who know the generation the best are those who grew up within the context of that generation. For instance, while there are magnificently written southern gospel songs that truly reach into the heart of the gospel, you will be hard pressed to get me to sit through a concert of completely southern gospel music. It has its place, as does contemporary, hard Christian rock, and the Christian hip-hop that is increasing in popularity. This is an age old discussion that I do not see going away anytime soon (the who's music is biblical discussion) however, when it comes to missions this is one thing that we MUST begin to come to terms with. Face it, the BIBLE is RELEVANT, it always has been and it always will be, however, the METHOD for delivering the message of the gospel is not always relevant.
My Grandfather was a Southern Baptist Preacher for years from the 1940’s to the late 80’s and I can remember the thunder that he brought down from the pulpit. At the time and place he was in ministry (rural South Carolina) someone not attending church was a rare thing. The entire community was centered around church. Times have changed, move 50 years to the present, I am a Southern Baptist Preacher in rural South Carolina, in fact the church I serve is less than 30 miles from the church my grandfather first served, yet the culture could not be more different. In 50 years it is no longer the norm for every family to be in the church, it is no longer the norm for society to be centered around the church, and it is impossible to use the methods that my Grandfather used so many years ago to affect people in the same way. That being said, on my shelf rests his 1945 Oxford Press Schofield King James Bible in the original leather and metal binding, its message is still relevant. The message is the same the methods must change.
I also agree with the fact that we must be guarded so that we do not remove ourselves from biblical authority, something that has been accused of many in recent days (the Emerging Church immediately comes to mind) however, to broadly say that all who are contextually relevant (no matter what denomination) are moving away from biblical authority is a mistake and an over generalization that can have damaging results. Take Southern Baptist for example, we have been labeled many things over the years, yet it cannot be said that Southern Baptist Churches fit this mold. In scripture we learn about lifting up and not putting down, encouraging and exhorting each other and I believe that the same principles must hold true in this instance. While we are correct to use scripture “for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness” we must also do these things in love. So in our attempt to be guarded, we must not guard ourselves to the point of paralysis.
In Eitel’s response I was immediately drawn to the statement in the first paragraph on page 31 where we find:
If the outcome undermines, destroys, threatens, or contradicts the message we wish to communicate, then we have surpassed biblical boundaries and lost touch with Christ’s mission entrusted to his church.
I agree with this statement with qualifications. In the singular example that he gave I fully agree with his sentiment, however, I have seen the usage of this thought pattern to damage the cause of missions. I have known those who will emphatically state that they are to be separated from the world; therefore according to the biblical boundaries as they see it any connection with the world is forbidden. There are those who use certain passages of scripture as a reason not to allow those who are not believers into their homes. So while I wholeheartedly agree to this statement, the doctrines of the believer can make this a subjective truth and therefore open to wide interpretation. I believe that we would be lax not to understand this statement above in terms of the whole counsel of God.
At the conclusion of Eitel’s response he makes this statement:
If being Missional means relationships that entail little or no intentional and verbal proclamation of the gospel, service without concern for eternal destiny of human souls , or finally relevance without truth, then let us simply reaffirm the Great Commission and be willing to keep on telling the old, old story to everyone that wills to listen. The results may merely be godly disciples and New Testament churches, but we could spend our lifetimes accomplishing far less if we are not careful and at the same time being quite trendy in the process.
Again, while it is a biblical imperative that we remain accurate in the gospel, and while we are to live out the gospel through our lives if we simply sit back and retain our aloofness, we will never reach the goal of spreading the gospel to all of the unreached people groups of the world.
I really fell into Guder’s response and resonated on many levels with his passion and words. One of the things that struck me deeply was his response to Wan’s response on overcorrection of individual v. corporate. I agree completely with him in the fact that we must realize that while salvation is a personal experience, the church is the instrument of God’s creation to join with him on His mission to take His message to the ends of His earth. No doubt God does not need the church, be he chose the church.
In conclusion, I find myself in much the same position as Ed, while theologically I fall in line with Eitel and Köstenberger, missiologically I align in many ways with Van Egen and Guder. I fully believe that biblical authority is the basis for all that we do, that without retaining the complete gospel as presented in the scriptures, we are failing those and are as Jesus says of the Pharisees “twice the son of ghenna”. At the same time, based on the biblical scriptures I believe that it is imperative to be contextual relevant. We need to be prepared as Paul was at the Archipelagos, to be relevant to them, to personalize the gospel so that in all areas it is clear, biblically based and complete.
And that is my “View from the Corner”…….
Comments