An important issue to settle for me is 'what IS mission'? That is: does mission include any good work that Christians may do? Is fighting for 'social justice' (whatever that means!) found theologically speaking under the heading of 'mission', and if so, why? What about taking care of the environment?
There are two ways of arguing. One (my preference) is to say that we participate in the mission of God as we call people from darkness into his marvellous light, making disciples of all nations. Paul's mission to the Gentiles, for example, did not seem to have a lot to do directly with 'social justice' - though it certainly had the effect of changing society remarkably in lots of ways as people heard the gospel and responded to it. Neighbour love is, then, an imperative outworking of mission, but it isn't mission in and of itself. Having said this, it is true that the loving actions of Christians may indeed result in others giving glory to God, and that the NT has a lot to say about the coupling of actions to words in mission. Fair enough: but mission refers to the work of God in reconciling the world to himself in Christ. We do 'mission' insofar as we work to this end. Commending the gospel in word and deed is our mission. Question is I guess: does me secretly reducing my carbon footprint (for example) contribute to the mission of God? Has a Christian agency whose aim is alleviating poverty without any other evangelistic consideration have the right to call itself a 'mission' agency? (Note: I am not for a second questioning the importance of such agencies; merely wondering whether 'mission' is the right theological heading for them. Nor am I saying that one ought to preach the gospel without alleviating suffering where it is found. On the contrary).
The alternative position is that almost anything given to Christians to do can be called 'mission' if it seen to be fitting in the purposes of God . So, yes, caring for animals: mission. Alms-giving: mission. Lobbying for fairer laws: mission. Campaigning for fair-trade: mission. In fact almost anything we do having been sent out at 11:00am Sunday until we meet at 10:am the next send can be labelled mission, if it is doing what God wants done.
17 comments:
Michael
Isn't 'making disciples of all nations' a subset of God's mission of bringing about a new creation? This broader view of God's mission gives space for more to be done under the heading of mission doesn't it? I make this comment under the influence of having just seen 'AMazing Grace'.
The key texts for my definition of mission are very standard but I think they yield a view of mission which is less standard. "As the Father sent me, so I am sending you." "Make disciples of all nations, teaching them to obey everything I have taught you."
That is, mission is being sent (mittere) to do the same things Jesus did: heal the sick, drive out demons, raise the dead, feed the hungry, reach out to the outcasts - oh and, preach the gospel. Teaching people not only the bare essentials of the gospel but to obey *everything* Jesus told the disciples to do will include the ministry of signs and wonders as well as the ministry of caring for the poor, because Jesus told his original followers to do these things. We might summarise them under the notion of the kingdom of God.
I don't think it's much of a stretch from there to Fair Trade, campaigning against abortion, etc etc. These are features of the kingdom too.
Come on Seano! If we check the context of the passage you quote, Matt 10:5ff, we find Jesus also says this:
"Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. 7 As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near.' 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons."
So, unless our mission is likewise to the lost sheep of Israel and not the Gentiles...
This mission of the disciples is clearly crucially different to ours. We cannot just read it off in an undifferentiated fashion as applying to OUR mission.
The mission of making disciples will of course result in obedience. I think (as you do I know) that there is such thing as a 'bare essentials of the gospel' without this call to obedience and a demonstration of neighbour love.
It seems to me that Eph 2:10
"For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life."
or even Titus 2:14
"He it is who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity and purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds."
read very much like "mission statements" for the people of God.
Which suggests to me that working for social justice (and I think it's possible to gain a pretty clear idea of what that means), caring for the environment, and working with the poor are part of what it means to live out our purpose or mission.
And I'm interested Michael in the way you argue against reading off the mission of the disciples "in an undifferentiated fashion as applying to OUR mission" while seeming (to me at least) to read off Paul's mission in this way as applying to OUR mission. Am I reading you right?
Kostenberger draws a really helpful distinction between the mission of Jesus and his disciples in John's gospel. in it he rejects Stott's incarnational model of mission and argues for the disciples as witnesses sent to preach faith and salvation in Christ. His definition of mission is pretty tight and picks up the sendingmovement language of John.
Thanks Ben, talking of purpose is a helpful way to think.
HOwever, my comment about 'reading off our mission from the disciples' ' is refering to the texts in which Jesus sends them particularly and explicitly to Israel - as opposed to texts where this is more vague. It is quite specific: so making the equation between that mission and our missional task is actaully missing a salvation-historical step. I woudl of course want to be careful when it comes to PAul, too: that we don't make his role any less unique than it is.
Fair point about the disciples, but you use a statement about Paul's mission - that it didn't "seem to have a lot to do directly with 'social justice'" (an arguable point though given the significance of the collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem for his mission) - to make a similar bracketing move for social justice in the mission of the church.
I've become unsure about what value there is in discussion of "mission" as the overarching and fundamental goal, purpose and activity of Christians, when clear purpose statements like those I've mentioned above (and many more besides) seem to become (in some sense) relegated to a secondary concern, as when you say "Neighbour love is, then an imperative outworking of mission, but it isn't mission in and of itself."
I certainly hear you saying that neighbour love, social concern, is important, even "imperative". But what actually do we gain from the argument that "It's important, but it's not mission" and what do we lose? I think we lose the ability to hear statements like Ephesians 2:10 as mission statements, statements of what the people of God are called/created to be and to do.
Also, just because I'm feeling playfully argumentative...
This appears to be a case of begging the question,
"Fair enough: but mission refers to the work of God in reconciling the world to himself in Christ. We do 'mission' insofar as we work to this end."
Haven't you smuggled your conclusion about what is and isn't mission into your premises.
Also, I don't see that it follows, even on this definition of mission, that social justice, environmental care, alms-giving, etc. are not part of our participation in God's work of reconciling the world to himself in Christ.
Which I suppose is Wright's basic point...
(Hey, I just worked out which Ben this is! Hi!)
I don't think I am doing anything that Wright doesn't do in smuggling in conclusions and what have you!
If social justice etc IS rightly classified as 'mission' then I think it needs careful theological description though, doesn't it? It certainly pre-empts or anticipates the final restoration of all things... for example. What's my concern? I guess - what makes these activities distinctively Christian?
I guess you've put your finger on why I find so many conversations about what qualifies as "mission" unfruitful. I don't really care whether social justice is classified as "mission" or not. What I object to is the line of argument that seems to run,
* "Mission" is the primary task, action, identity of the church and all Christians should be involved in mission.
* Mission does not include social justice, etc., but is only or particularly/primarily a verbal activity with evangelistic intent
* Christians should rightly be concerned for lots of things - including social justice, care for the poor, environmental stewardship - but since these things are not mission, they come under another (and generally lesser) category, such as Christian lifestyle, discipleship, the outworking of mission...
I find the practical outworkings of this troubling. It seems to me that we consistently undervalue social concern because of the claim that it is not mission (or even, not distinctively Christian?).
For example, as you know, the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican church has a mission statement with an associated target of getting 10% of Sydney-siders into "Bible-believing churches". I have no particular problem with the statement or the target, but if we are going to set targets for mission, why is there not a target for a 10% increase in donations to charitable purposes, or a doubling of the number of ministers trained in conflict resolution and peace-building? It seems to me that evangelicals institutionally just do not value these things as highly because we do not view them as mission.
As to your concern about what makes these activities distinctively Chrsitian, isn't concern for social justice, doing good, Christian because it's the walk that God has created us in Christ for?
Just because others can do good, or be concerned for the environment, why would that mean this is not part of what God calls us to be and to do? Aren't we called to reflect the open-handed generosity of God in our own giving and lending? Aren't we called to live out our freedom in Christ by doing good to all?
If Eph 2:10 is a mission or purpose statement for the people of God (and I would argue that it is)then it's something all Christians are called to. I struggle to find comparable passages with as clear direction to all Christians to be involved in what Paul describes as "the ministry of reconciliation." Which is not to say that I do not long for Christ to be proclaimed and responded to wherever and whenever the opportunity arises. Far from it.
And, in fact, I've generally found that as I have many more evangelistically-oriented conversations when I am involved in ministries of social concern than when I am not.
Thanks for the opportunity to rant.
:-)
What are blogs for?
You are right: in a way it is the politics of what is included in 'mission' that is most revelatory. I guess I share the opposite concern: that by including everything Christians do in the direction of the world as mission (and not as 'a consequence' of mission) it is quite frequently proclamation that is first to go, and it is proclamation that gives mission its field of meaning... (or something like that)...
I wrote this comment (edited a bit here) a couple of months ago in response to someone else's similar blog entry. (In retrospect it is a little simplistic, but I'll post it anyway).
-----
I think the modern variation of the social gospel is partly a result of the following trends in the West:
Relativity in religion. “I don't want to preach because that's bigoted.”
A different morality. Our morality is relative, and therefore there is no good vs. evil. As a result it has become something else: nice vs. cruel (trite, I agree). “Therefore the best thing we can do is [to be nice].”
The physical over the spiritual. Plastic surgery over wisdom, image over character, discouraging spanking but allowing certain types of adoption. “Physical needs are no less important than spiritual needs.”
Now over eternity. Actually, all of the above trends are included in this. This has always been a problem for people, but now especially because our society is sterilised and oblivious to death. Thus we neither consider our mortality nor our immortality. We've all heard people say “all religions have the same basic message: love your neighbour, peace”--things that are seen now rather than in eternity.
This isn't to say that the wholistic organisations don't have a very important function; only that we should keep ourselves in check, making sure that in mission we're not being more influenced by our society than we should be.
(whoops, holistic, not wh-)
I think you can go either way with w/holistic.
But, for what it's worth, I'm not advocating a 'social gospel' (though I think there's a danger of advocating an 'anti-social gospel' when you place eternity over now, place the spiritual over the physical etc. - these I think are just unhelpful oppositions and not particularly Biblical) and I think that contemporary evangelical thinking on integral mission is a genuine effort to incorporate Biblical material and emphases that are excluded or relegated to second-class status when you define mission as only verbal proclamation.
Michael - I guess I share the opposite concern: that by including everything Christians do in the direction of the world as mission (and not as 'a consequence' of mission) it is quite frequently proclamation that is first to go, and it is proclamation that gives mission its field of meaning... (or something like that)...
Yes - this is a great and pressing concern, but I'm not sure that ruling deeds of love out of mission is the way to ensure that words stay in. Why not just keep saying (and showing) that both are necessary to our proclamation of, and proleptic participation in, the reign of God?
I'm so glad that you are asking this question. It is a crucial question and we often just presume the answer.
What I loved about Wilberforce was that he never had this dilemma. He could help found CMS and stop the slave trade; Ensure and evangelical was on the First Fleet and abolish the lottery. The priority of word over deed only seem to creep in late in the 19th century.
It is hard to find a proof text to support any view of mission. I like your initial proposal whereby the church's mission takes its scope from the mission of God.
It also helps to consider the implications of the present reign of God in Christ. Jesus IS Lord after all. This implies a more realised eschatology than evangelicals tend to express and provides impetus towards deeds which bring all the creation under the loving rule of God in anticipation of the future.
Byron, I don't think I would rule deeds of love OUT of mission, but I would wnat to inquire as to the relationship of one to the other...
Post a Comment