Thus, given a proper understanding of God’s providence and of the missio Dei, the Christian mission, or missiones ecclesiae, is best defined as a holistic transformation of rebellious humanity into a radically humble, obedient, and loving community of Holy Spirit indwelt people from every tribe, nation, and tongue worshipping the Lord Jesus Christ in catholic unity (Rev 5; 7).

So I finished my most recent post on my growing understanding of a theology of mission. This mission is holistic in that no realm of life is outside of God’s providential rule. It is a transformation because the effects of the fall have turned the best of human culture against God and the gospel reverses the pervasive and perverse nature of sin (Romans). The new community is radical because it is opposite of everything the world stands for (1 John 2:15-7). It is humble because God hates pride (Prov 8:13), pride is the enemy of wisdom (Prov 11:2), pride leads to rebellion against God (2 Chr 26:16; 32:25; etc), while God gives grace to the humble and opposes the proud (James 4:6). It is obedient because love of Christ is marked by obedience to his commands (John 3:36, etc) and the church is contrasted with the unbelieving and disobedient Israelites (Heb 3; 4; 10). It is loving because the greatest commandments are to love God and to love one’s neighbor (Mark 12:28-34) and the church is known because of its love for one another (John 13:34-5). There are no aspects of life, however mundane, that fall outside of the transforming power of the gospel.

Transformation redefines the whole life of the believer based on Spirit-given gifts of service, not just for a church setting, but for the whole of life (Romans 12; 1 Cor 12-4; 1 Pet 4:8-10; Eph 4). Thus, the New Testament speaks to the poor, the orphan, the widow, the single, the married, the family, the master and slave, to the relationship of the believer to persecutors, to the government, to the marketplace, to the pagan idolaters. It talks about sex, eating, drinking, working, obeying one’s parents, taking others to court, money, how one talks, everyday, common, and the mundane and noble activities of life.

Though the Great Commission includes an implicit command to go (see the relationship of a fronted present active participle connected to an imperative by “kai”), the writers of the epistles go to great lengths to address the church within their particular contexts according to their particular situations. In other words, even with the example of the apostles, especially Paul himself, the writers of the epistles encourage gospel faithfulness where the church was at, not where they were going (though they do this too). The role of the church in its local context was on the mind of the writers of the New Testament. Thus, the churches were not being called out of the world, but called to serve the world through love. It is, then, the whole church, full of Spirit-indwelt and Spirit-gifted believers, that is enabled by the gospel to extend Christ’s mission to the ends of the earth.

This is not done, primarily, by a special class of priveleged missionaries (if you are a missionary reading this, do not be offended, I am not denigrating your work). Rather, the mission of the Christ is carried out by the church as a whole. It is the whole body, full of hands, feet, eyes, noble and ignoble parts, serving, giving, prophesying, teaching, speaking the very words of God, loving in response to persecution, looking to Jesus as the supreme value in all of life. The lay person and the clergy united in mission. All serving faithfully with the gifts God has given them (Romans 12). In other words, though there are examples of missionaries and apostles, short term (Epaphroditus–see recent edition of EMQ) and long term (Paul, Barnabas), the mission is for all. Thus, faith is known by obedience (James) in the whole of life. All of life is redeemed, not just some spiritual part (as if there could actually be a disjunct between spiritual/private and secular/public; we may try to ignore it, but it doesn’t change the reality).

Finally, it is the whole church. Though it is hard to see unity in the body, with an estimated 10,000+ denominations, we must conclude that the mission is uniform, not pluriform. To the degree that we focus on the mission (note that I did not say “on missions”; there is an important distinction, especially given my definition of mission), the more we reflect the unity of the body that will be realized in the eschaton (Rev 5; 7).  Thus, I can rejoice with my Dutch Reformed brethren in South Africa (and Swaziland especially), my Anglican brethren in Nigeria, my charismatic brethren in the 10/40 window, my Baptist brethren in Cambodia, etc. This does not erase doctrinal distinctions. But it submits them all to scripture and opens dialogue in the process of taking the gospel to the ends of the earth. It helps us love one another in the process and put the focus on Jesus, not on each other. Idealistic maybe, but I trust that Jesus’s prayer for His church will come true (John 17)–Let them be one as we are one!

This missio Dei flows throughout the grand story of scripture, from creation to consummation; it starts in Genesis chapter one and continues until Revelation chapter twenty-two. It is the divine interpretation of reality centered on the birth, life, death, burial, resurrection, ascension, return, and reign of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is mission because it is God’s providential purpose for the entire universe, ultimately for mankind and its relationship to God. Thus, God’s mission is His initiative in redeeming the nations (Israel inclusive) and, subsequently, in restoring created order from the effects of the Fall.  The story of redemption begins in Genesis chapter three with the promised seed, or offspring, who will destroy the Serpent (later identified as Satan). Even so, the record of God’s activity begins with creation.

God acts and creates a good world ruled by good men and women (Gen 1:27- with humanity as the pinnacle of God’s very good creation. After finishing His creative act, God rests (Gen 2:2-3). In rebellion of God’s sovereign rule, the man and women he created chose to disobey their all-good God. So, God curses the man, the woman, the deceiving serpent, and the earth. The rest of the story of Scripture is the story of God’s love in overcoming the sin of mankind by His “New Creation”–a new humanity and a new created order. Thus, God is at work again. So Jesus can say, “My Father is working until now, and I myself am working” (John 5:17). And thus Jesus frames his ministry as doing His Father’s work (John 4:34; 17:4).

Before Jesus is incarnated in the “fullness of time” (Gal 4:4), the biblical narrative slowly reveals the mysterious identity of the coming “seed.” Intertwined with the revelation of the “seed” are God’s dealings with those of genealogies outside of the chosen line, otherwise known as the nations, or the Gentiles. The first several chapters of the Bible trace the line of Cain. After the flood, chapter 10 gives a table of nations with the lines of Ham and Japheth, as well as Shem. Chapter 25 is an extended genealogy of Ishmael; chapter 36 of Esau. Even though the nations are witnesses to God’s grace to the line of Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and thus through David, they do not experience the covenantal blessings of the people of Israel except through joining themselves to the people of God, like Ruth for examply. Rather, God’s promise to all humanity in Genesis 3:15 is continually restricted to an increasingly particular future offspring-a coming Messianic Davidic Servant King. The nations are largely witnesses of God’s wrath upon Israel due to their disobedience; also they experience God’s wrath as he directs the hearts of kings according to His own purposes. Of primary importance, though, the nations are the object of God’s future promise through the Messiah (see especially Isaiah, and the Servant songs therein).

As the story unfolds, one finds that the Old Testament is inherently eschatological (see for instance the emphasis on “the last days”, “the day of the LORD”, “that day”, etc). The faith of the Old Testament is in the coming fulfillment of God’s promises. The “big idea” of the Pentateuch is faith in the God who is faithful to His promises and covenant (Ex 19:5-6) to Abraham by sending a king (Gen 49:9-12; Num 23-24; Deut 32-33) and in the God who has chosen to bless all peoples of the earth through Abraham’s seed (Gen 12:1-3; 15:6; cf. Gen 26:4-5; Ex 32; Num 20:12-13; Gen 6:3; Deut 34). The Davidic covenant echoes these promises to Abraham and also points to a future king (not David himself because God promises to establish the kingdom of his “seed” forever). The prophets recognize that “God’s people” also includes the nations, but not until the Messianic King arrives (Mic 4:1-4; 5:2-4; Hos 1:10; 2:23; Is 42:1-9; 49:1-13; 50:4-9; 52:13-53:12; 66:21; Zech 2:11) and not until the Spirit is poured out (Joel 2:28-29; Is 44:3; cf. the expected Servant is one on whom the Spirit will rest, Is 42:1).

The fulfillment of the promises of God are prefigured in the experience of the people of Israel with God’s self-disclosing actions, but the people of Israel do not taste the fullness due to their disobedience to, and thus breaking of, God’s covenant; the fullness will be found only in the coming Messiah. In other words, though the knowledge of God is a key theme throughout scripture, this purpose of God is not to only increase people’s knowledge of Him upon the whole earth “as the waters cover the sea” (Isa 11:9; Hab 2:14) but to establish a community of faith that worships God–a community comprised of a restored Israel and the ingathered nations (Isa 66:18-24). Thus, whereas in the Old Testament, the nations knew God, primarily, in his judgment over them, in the New Testament, through Jesus, the nations become part of a community that knows God through his love and kindnesses (Rom 2:4). Therefore, in the Messiah, the remnant of Israel along with the nations will be restored to God. In other words, when the Messiah comes, the Christian mission to the nations will begin (Is 66:18-24).

Who are the people of God? The Old Testament introduces God’s election of Israel on behalf of the nations, a choice ultimately realized in the coming “seed”-the virgin-born Jesus of Nazareth. Thus, the people of God, whether in the Old Testament, or New, are looking for the Messiah. In the Old Testament, this is looking for his coming. In the New Testament, this is looking for his return. But whereas the worship of God by the Old Testament people of God was defined in relation to Jerusalem as a centripetal center, the New Testament people of God relates to Jerusalem centrifugally (Acts 1:8), going out from the physical center unto the ends of the earth. The Old Testament people of God wait in faith until the promise arrives.

One of the primary images of faith in the book of Isaiah is the prophet waiting for God to fulfill the Davidic covenant through the anointed Servant (25:9; 26:8; 30:18; 33:2; 49:23; 51:5; 60:9; 64:3). The prophets recognize that God’s people also includes the nations, but they must wait until the Messiah comes (Mic 4:1-4; 5:2-4; Hos 1:10; 2:23; Is 42:1-9; 49:1-13; 50:4-9; 52:13-53:12; 66:21; Zech 2:11). The faithful remnant is waiting for the ingathering of the gentiles nations. Thus, the New Testament people of God includes people from all nations that are included by faith in the risen and returning Messiah. By being included in the Messiah, the New Testament people of God, or the church, shares in the mission of the Messiah. So, the mission of God is realized is the mission of His people. This mission, if we can call it that, for the Old Testament is waiting faithfully. In the New Testament, on the other hand, this mission is faithfully going to the ends of the earth.

It is abundantly clear from the Old Testament that the mission of the Messiah would be primarily the restoration of Israel and the salvation of the nations; therefore, in the church, both of these dual foci of Jesus’ mission are fulfilled (Eph 2). Jesus inaugurates the mission to Israel and Jerusalem as he calls his disciples to come to him; they are centripetally centered in Him (Matt 11:27-30), then they are centrifugally sent to make disciples of all nations (Matt 28:16-20). With the pouring out of the promised Spirit (John 13-17; Acts 1-2) the New Testament people of God, or the church, extends the messianic mission to the ends of the earth unto the end of the age (Matt 24:14; 28:20). Just as God the Son was incarnated to do the works of the Father, so Jesus’ disciples are sent to continue His works in the power of the Spirit.

Furthermore, with the Incarnation, Life, Death, Burial, Resurrection, and Ascension of Jesus, the eschatology of the Old Testament is fulfilled and redefined. The new eschatology (though still echoing prophetic themes of the Old Testament) clarifies the Trinitarian rule of all the nations in the new heavens and the new earth by the God-man, the Lord Jesus Christ. With this rule, the curse of sin and death is finally destroyed and the curse upon the creation itself is removed (Rev 18-22).

Even so, this understanding of Christian mission does not mean a priori that mission is defined by evangelism and cross-cultural missions. Both are aspects of Christian mission, yet this mission is rooted in the missio Dei. Thus, a wholistic definition of the missio Dei can be made:

God’s ordering of creation and His initiative in redeeming and restoring the fallen world full of sinful humans through the ministry, and all that entails, of the God-man, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the ultimate consummation of created order in the return and reign of Jesus Christ along with a redeemed people over a new creation.

Thus, given a proper understanding of God’s providence and of the missio Dei, the Christian mission, or missiones ecclesiae, is best defined as a holistic transformation of rebellious humanity into a radically humble, obedient, and loving community of Holy Spirit indwelt people from every tribe, nation, and tongue worshipping the Lord Jesus Christ in catholic unity (Rev 5; 7).

Questions:

• Did the nation of Israel have a mission in the same sense of the New Testament Church? Why or Why Not?
• Does the people group focus in contemporary missiology lead towards unity or disunity in the body of Christ? What would be some alternatives?
• Frost and Hirsch in their book “The Shaping of Things to Come” argue that the “Christendom” mode church has largely been attractional while the “Missional” mode church is to be apostolic. To what degree do you think the church is to have a centripetal, or attractional, mission? To what degree do you think the church is to have a centrifugal, or apostolic, mission?

Jena, LA, is going from this…. 

to this…

     

What the national media is not covering demonstrates our nations lust for disunity and discord. Ironically, the one thing that people marched for “unity” and “justice” is being fulfilled in Jena, LA. Crowds aren’t thronging this city again to see the work and the change. Oh, that they would. In the revival, reported to be in its 7th week (that means coming on 50 days!!!; see the Baptist Press article here), equality is being realized as every person’s differences are equalized before the cross of Jesus. Black and White are unified in the gospel. They are worshipping together, confessing together, singing together, sitting together. The seventh week of the revival will be held in a 1,000 person tent on the exact spot that the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton led 20,000 people in protest of the injustices made towards the Jena 6. It is fitting that unity be found on this exact location, it is symbolic of the life-giving peace of the gospel. It is symbolic of the healing power of the gospel. Whereas the deep chasms of inequality in Jena were exposed by the protests, the power of the gospel in suturing those fissures with love, humility, and grace is exemplified in the revival. How is this possible? One word–Repentance!

Without humble repentance, the revival is nothing more than a band-aid on wrist laceration. May it never be! May what is happening in Jena spread to our whole nation!

What is the best way to understand the word “mission”?

Mission is a word chosen to describe actions driven by a purpose or end. The best theological term to describe God’s mission is his providence. Theologically, God’s providence has been understood in terms of sustenance, concurrence, and governance. In other words, God actively sustains the world by His power (Heb 1:3) in that all things are dependent upon God for both their very existence and their designed end. Also, God works concurrently as the primary cause (in Aristotelian/Thomistic categories), thus establishing human freedom while directly all of history according to his own purposes, so that He is “at work in us both to will and to do for His good pleasure” (Phil 2:13).  Finally, God governs all of history through created order (natural law) and special revelation so that he, as in concurrence, is the first and, as in governance, the final cause of everything. Thus, scripture affirms that “In him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:2 and “from Him and through Him and to Him are all things” (Rom 11:36). As such, God is in complete control of every action and He directs all of history through a combination of primary and final causation toward His end. The origins and teleology of the universe is found in God; everything begins and ends with God. Moreover, God reveals through scripture that the movement from origins to eschaton is accomplished through and by Jesus. The incarnation and all its implications, then, is the center of God’s mission.

The Woman’s Seed, obscurely then foretold,
Now amplier known thy Saviour and thy Lord,
Last in the clouds from heav’n to be revealed
In glory of the Father, to dissolve
Satan with his perverted world, then raise
From the conflagrant mass, purged and refined,
New heav’ns, new earth, ages of endless date
Founded in righteousness and peace of love,
To bring forth fruits joy and eternal bliss.

This quote from Milton’s Paradise Lost gives poetic image to the truth that the center of scripture, and arguably all of life, is the Lord Jesus Christ. Thus, understandably, the messianic expectation is the framework for the missio Dei throughout the canon of Scripture.

The canonical story begins where the canon begins, with creation. Arguably, Jesus is the personification of Wisdom (”Prov 8″) through whom the world was created. The New Testament clarifies the role of the Son in creation (John 1:3; Col 1:15-17; Heb 1:2). Thus, the triune God (cf. role of Spirit in Gen 1:2) acts through creating by the word of his power a good world ruled by good men and women (Gen 1:27-8). Mankind, then, is the pinnacle of God’s very good creation. After creating man, God rests (Gen 2:2-3). The man and women he created, though, chose to rebel against their good God. As a result, God cursed the man, the woman, the serpent, and the earth. The rest of the story of scripture is the story of God’s love in overcoming the sin of mankind. Thus, God is at work again. So Jesus can say, “My Father is working until now, and I myself am working” (John 5:17). And thus Jesus frames his ministry as doing His Father’s work (John 4:34; 17:4). This work is not completed until Jesus rests upon the throne exclaiming once again in victory “It is done!” (Rev 21:6; see Rev 21-22).

Thus, the narrative of scripture from Genesis to Revelation is explained in terms of the divine activities of the Triune God, specifically in the role of the Son both in redeeming the falled human race and in renewing (recreating) the fallen world and finally reigning over his redeemed, New Creation. In the ensuing posts, I will trace out further implications of the messianic expectation.

 Questions:

• Missio Dei touches every Christian doctrine. Agree or Disagree? Why?
• To question God’s sovereign providence over His creation is to compromise mission. Agree or Disagree? Why?
• What are the implications of a biblical theology of mission, or a missional theology of the Bible, for the exercise of the Christian mission?

“So Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you’” (John 20:21).

So begins the Christian mission. A mission rooted in the Trinitarian nature of God, in the sending of the Son by the Father, and, as in the entire Gospel of John culminating in the in the next verse, in the sending of the Spirit by the Father and the Son. Thus, in Acts chapters one and two, the coming of the Spirit empowers the church to boldly proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ beginning in Jerusalem, on to Judea, Samaria and the ends of the earth. Thus, Christian mission is modeled, initiated, and empowered by God; this is what most call the missio Dei, or the mission of God.

Thus begins a set of posts aimed at discussing my understanding of the missio Dei. As you read books on theology, mission and missions, you will find that the concept of the mission of God is central to emerging understandings of missionary theology. I think we need greater clarity on this subject. As I post bits and peices of my understanding, please critique me and challenge me, point out places in scripture I miss or places where my social and religious culture has blinded my understanding. I need your input. Also, I’m going to ask you questions. Feel free to answer as much or as little as you like.

 My first questions are:

•  Is there such a thing as the mission of God? Why or Why not?
  
• Is there a missional  focal point in scripture? If so, where?
  
• Do you think that the missio Dei is the hermeneutical key to the grand narrative of Scripture? Why or Why not?
  
• What does it mean to be incarnational?

Check out these links for churches going from being “Missions-minded” to “Missions-active”

http://www.actsone8.com/atf/cf/{5C4BDE2E-3846-45A3-9CBF-8D89ABFB5231}/Mission%20Minded%20vs%20Missions%20Active_256k.wmv

http://www.swazimission.co.za/English/aids.htm

PLEASE ADD MORE>>>

Dougald McLaurin, today, has made an excellent point in a post entitled, “What is Mission? A Call For a Holistic Mission for Life“.  He wonders why people are so willing to jump on a plane and cross the globe for ministry while they ignore the lost and hurting people right across the street. I wonder if such an attitue reveals a deficiency in our understanding of mission and missions.

Arnau Van Wyngaard, a missionary to AIDS victims in Swaziland, rejoined Dougald’s argument that many people who point to the needs for ministry at home often use this smoke screen as an excuse to do nothing. He makes a good point. I think this excuse is another symptom of the same deficiency in understanding mission.

For most, mission is what is done over there, missionaries are special agents, and they won’t get invovled in any ministry unless they are “called” to do so. There are confusing inconsistencies in this understanding, though. For instance, you have to be “called” to ministry, but Pastors spend their entire careers trying to convince people that they all have their own “ministry.” Missionaries have to be “called” to ministry, but we are constantly increasing the number of short term teams. As such, a few people (though the number is rising) get involved in Short Term Missions, a few more find their “ministry” but most are content to set in the pew and “be fed.” The good Christian is one who doesn’t get in any trouble, who attends faithfully and tithes (sometimes).  Even for the folks who do find their “ministry,” the ministry they find is usually internally focused, aimed at supporting the church programs, not at ministering to the needs of the community.

We need a fuller understanding of mission. Lesslie Newbigin has forever reminded us that there is no “home base” in missions. The whole earth is the realm for mission. Therefore, there is no distinction between mission and evangelism. Evangelism is a subset of mission. Bosch teaches us this as well. Furthermore, Stott reminds us that evangelism and social ministry are equal partners in mission. Then, the emerging church question has taught us that the attractional, Christendom model of church has failed. Thus, we cannot merely be “attracting” people to our “superior” moral and spiritual gathering. Rather, as Bosch reminds us, the church is the church for others, it is incarnational and missional by nature. I summarize it this way–the church is to be God-centered and other-focused. This does not deny the necessary function of the church for encouragement and fellowship of believers (Heb 10). But it emphasizes the “going” to the nations (Matt 28), “bringing” (Isa 66) them to “come” and be disciples of Jesus (Matt 11).  This is done for our neighbor who is near and who is far off (Eph 2). Thus, mission is both/and. It is taking the gospel to Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8). Moreover, it is preaching the gospel as much as in serving (Rom 12). Thus, Mission is also done by all. It includes all the “giftings” of the church (1 Cor 12). I could go on and on. But the point is that mission is much, much more than overseas missions.

I am not suggesting that the sacrifice of missionaries is not real and important. But to say in one breath that mission cannot be done by proxy and missionaries are not special people on a special assignment, then with the other breath claim that we need to honor our missionary “heroes” is double-speak. We need an understanding of mission that does not allow this word play. I wonder what would change in our understanding of mission if we saw that mission is the role of the church as a whole, not just a select few? What do you think?

Baptist Press just released this article today–”This Time Around, Jena is Making Spiritual Headlines.”

Who knows if the national media will return to Jena, LA. But God has been working there even through the toughest times. The article reports that a pastors’ prayer alliance formed in 2006. The town saw its darkest moments in the wake of the social inequalities of the Jena 6 fiasco throughout 2007. But all hope was not lost for Jena:

“The burden on the hearts of those men, it goes beyond the walls of First Baptist and into the community,” DiCarlo [president of the prayer alliance] said. “Last Thanksgiving [2007] we had a community-wide thanksgiving service … that was truly a community event. We saw then once again that the larger family of God in the community of Jena ached for reconciliation.” Perhaps 500 people — blacks, whites and Native Americans — attended that service.”

Now, in the revival’s fourth week, crowds nearing 900 are crowding into the High School Gymnasium on a nightly basis. This in a town of less than 3000, of which reportedly 70% are unchurched.

Many books have been written to provide a biblical basis for mission; few have ventured to argue that there is a missional basis for the Bible. Christopher J. H. Wright is one of those few. His thesis is that mission is “a major key that unlocks the whole grand narrative of the canon of Scripture” (17). Wright does not define mission as a noun, but as a verb, focusing on the missio Dei. God and His purposes in making himself known is the hermeneutical key.

In the first part of his work, Wright defends his missional hermeneutic as going beyond proof-texting and towards a unified, coherent understanding of the whole of scripture. Biblical scholars have sought a unifying theme for the two testaments for generations. To those, Wright posits the mission of God. In so doing, Wright makes a magnificent contribution, not just to missiology, but to biblical theology. For missiology, Wright recaptures the meaning and message of the Old Testament. More than one biblical theology of mission skims over or gives cursory treatment to the Old Testament; Wright goes so far as to encourage a reciprocal reading of the texts, New Testament through Old Testament, Old through New. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Wright’s conclusions, his efforts are laudatory.

Ironically, the big problem with Wright’s argument is not what he includes, but what he excludes. Overall, his argument lacks sufficient warrant, not that he is not thorough, only that he is selective and does not interact enough with other scholars. Regarding selectiveness, he gives a cursory treatment of the Law (short paragraph on 296) and the Holy Spirit (302–3) among other things. (Noteworthy, he has written other books on these topics.) Also notably absent is a thorough treatment of the Messianic expectation in the Old Testament. He states that Jesus encouraged his disciples to have a messianic/missional double focus when coming to scripture (29­–31), since Jesus himself “went beyond his messianic centering of the Old Testament Scriptures to their missional thrust as well” (29), as if they could not be one in the same. Thus, for the majority of the book, Wright lays down his messianic lens. Here Wright presents a false dichotomy. One may applaud Wright’s efforts for his avoidance of interpreting the Old Testament through the New, but to give scant attention to the missional aspects of the messianic expectation is a glaring omission. Also, Wright’s argument lacks thorough scholarly interaction. As such, the reader is left to trust Wright’s professional opinion. This is not enough to be persuasive. Only those who already agree will find the argument persuasive. As such, Wright falls victim to the same proof-texting phenomenon he deplores.

Granted, Wright acknowledges that any system of interpretation “distorts” (6 the text to a degree. Nonetheless, he claims that a missional hermeneutic distorts the text the least; it at least makes the most sense of the whole. Instead of proving this with diachronic examination of the text as it is presented, he opts for a synchronic systematic approach. As such, if one disagrees with the system, then the argument is debunked. Thus, by failing to interact with much scholarship, his system lacks sufficient warrant. One is left to trust Wright on his merit alone (however impressive it may be). As such, his argument is weakened severely (even if one agrees with his points!). Is this thesis noble? Yes. Is he right? Most likely. Did he prove it? No. But his work is a valuable starting point for evangelical understandings of mission (missio Dei) and missions (missiones ecclesiae).

Even so, his chapters on monotheism, idolatry, and the nations in both the Old and New Testaments are excellent. Also of note, though not necessary to his thesis, is Wright’s timely treatment of the ecological and AIDS crises. Furthermore, Wright’s understanding of wisdom literature provides an interesting paradigm for issues of contextualization. Therefore, even with its weaknesses, Wright’s book makes a valuable contribution to missiology.

Interestingly, on the same day it was reported that the Catholic Church felt compelled to update the seven deadly sins (including damaging the environment), Southern Baptists experienced a watershed day. Finally, someone has determined what are the “major issues” for Southern Baptists. The “Southern Baptist Environment & Climate Initiative” was made public. Kudos to Jonathan Merritt et al for having the courage to make a public statement on such a controversial and heated issue. The political right has long avoided endorsing the notion of global warming, but now that the political door has opened (The US hosted the G8 Summit in 2007), along comes the SBC in tow, or at least folks affiliated with the SBC but who cannot truly represent her. Even though this initiative cannot represent the SBC, the concern for ecological issues by so many of the young leadership in the SBC is promising. But granted, the SBECI is not intended to be political (one hopes), one is wondering whether such a statement could have been made before it was politically acceptable for conservatives to embrace such a stand on global warming. Still, I’m sure many political conservatives are writhing in pain over the declaration at this very moment. Nonetheless, however laudatory the declaration, there are some points at which I take issue.

In a recent article on the Baptist Press, Jonathan Merritt is quoted as saying “In the lecture,” he said, “my professor made the statement that when we destroy creation, which is God’s revelation, it is no different than tearing a page out of the Bible” (emphasis added). I suppose this is an overstatement, but it is dangerous theologically, and naive at best. This is a faulty equation of the authority of special revelation, viz. the Bible, with that of general revelation. It puts them on equal terms. I am not advocating, on the other hand, ecological liscentiousness, rather, theological precision.  My questions would be: Are there aspects of the imago Deiin creation? What about God are we damaging if we destroy creation (I might argue that man’s perception of God is clouded; Ps 19; Rom 1, but even then there is the God-given conscience; Rom 2)? Even if there is such a mandate to care for creation in Genesis 2 (as the SBECI implies), how does the curse of creation in Genesis 3 (not removed until Rev 22) factor into the equation? Even so, what does it mean to “destroy” creation? What of God destroying the earth in Gen 6-9? What of the perception that God will destroy the heavens and the earth prior to the New Creation (Heb 1–Ps 102; 2 Pet 3)? I think that this initiative may be overly reactionary to current cultural trends. One could even argue that it is reactionary to current ecclesiological/missiological trends as well. See Brian McLaren’s A Generous Orthodoxy, or Christopher Wright’s The Mission of God, to start with.

Given my questions of the theological underpinnings of this Initiative, let us look at the four main points:

1. Humans Must Care for Creation and Take Responsibility for Our Contribution to Environmental Degradation
2. It is Prudent to Address Global Climate Change
3. Christian Moral Conviction and Our Southern Baptist Doctrines Demand our Environmental Stewardship
4. It is Time for Individuals, Churches, Communities and Governments to Act

Note, first of all, that nowhere in the entire declaration (not just the abovementioned propositions) are the words “global warming.” Perhaps these words are too politically charged, but the initiative chose the same terms as the Bush Administration “Global Climate Change.” Interesting…but probably a good choice.

Regarding point number one, let’s give Merritt the benefit of the doubt, this is a new beginning of sorts for SBCers. But I can’t help but ask the following questions: How do Southern Baptists “take responsibility”for our contribution to environmental degradation? What is “environmental degradation”? Regarding the first question, does this mean having a neutral or positive carbon footprint (if this is even possible)? Okay, I’ll stop littering (unless I’m in India, because, hey, there are folks dependent on me throwing garbage in the street); I won’t pour motor oil in the sewer, or dump my chicken grease in my sink. For my next car (if I can ever afford one), I will buy a Pruis, or Insight, or walk or ride a bike even. My whole family will ride horses 198 miles to our grandparents house. I guess I could take a bus, it would be cheaper and we would spread out the ecological damage over several families. Even then I must ask: How does my church “take responsibility”? We can put political pressure on the government, we can put political pressure on our bosses; if we are the boss, I guess we could make some changes. We could all agree to stop eating chicken or pigs (because pig and poultry farms are harmful to the environment) or fish (because of the abuse of overfishing). What does it mean? Of course, if we are directly involved in environmentally specious activities, we should reconsider our priorities. But are the majority of Southern Baptists involved in the abusive and oppressive dealings that need to be investigated? I’m sure we can all think of the myriads of ways that the government can take responsibility, but to insure that the government does so responsibly, this means people will have to get more involved in politics. This Initiative commits its signees to action; otherwise it is just rhetoric.

Ultimately, I must ask: what constitutes “enviromental degradation”? Vague, vague, vague…makes the statement look more political than indicating a desire to change. I’m not trying to slam Brother Merritt or any of the other signees, a number of whom I know and respect, I’m sure they all have pure motives, but if this is going to be anything other than the news as it was on March 10, 2008, much more work has to be done.

For point two, I would agree that it is prudent to address global climate change. It is an opportunity to Christians to show they care for the concerns of their non-Christian peers, but I must ask if we are somehow conceding that Christians are to blame for the mess. I don’t know, maybe. Will a bunch of Christians signing up for an “Adopt-A-Highway” section put forth a good ecological witness? This is an assumption that churches aren’t concerned for their respective communities. How do we know that Southern Baptists aren’t already concerned for the environment? Just because its not preached? Lay people read the Bible and understand it and they have the ability to obey without the pulpit intervening (at the same time, too many Southern Baptists are biblically illiterate). In Kazakhstan, for example, it was the Protestant Germans who were credited for keeping the villages clean. After the fall of the Soviet Union, when Germans returned to Germany, the villages were left in disrepair. There was something in the ethos of the Christians that made them care for their environs. This could easily be extrapolated into an argument that Christianity supports environmental concerns, but I wonder if Christians are at fault? My Dad instilled into me as a boy to always leave something better than you found it. Where did that come from? In other words, what type of change do we expect to see from this initiative? I don’t want to say there will be none, but the History of Christianity witnesses the efforts of Christianity, whenever it enters a new context, trying to improve the surrounding conditions. Its not a statement or a purpose that will change Southern Baptists, but Baptists living out the gospel in their context (I guess you could argue that the SBECI is a way to do just that).

Its not until point three that Merritt affirms the theological priority of Scripture in his statements (he does in the preamble, don’t get me wrong here). But lets look at his other points.

First, the world is God’s world, therefore “we share God’s concern for the abuse of His creation.” Again, please define. I think I should become a Jain and abstain from any activity that may result in the death of another being…such as a bug, or a paramecium. What is abuse? If abuse is above me sociopolitically or geopolitically, how do I “take responsibility”?

Second, he states “Within these Scriptures we are reminded that when God made mankind, He commissioned us to exercise stewardship over the earth and its creatures (Gen 1:26-28). Therefore, our motivation for facing failures to exercise proper stewardship is not primarily political, social, or economic–it is primary biblical.” I can hear the good ole boys hootin’ and a hollerin’ in the background, but is this true? When I read scripture, the first thing I think of is not “how do I stem Global Climate Change?”. That’s okay, it doesn’t have to.  I rather think it should be primarily social and we should not be ashamed at saying that (see Stott, Christian Mission in the Modern World, or Bosch, Transforming Mission, “Chapter 12). The Biblical worldview allows it, and given our context, it is “prudent.” Ultimately, this subpoint is either an uncareful statement or an attempt to appease the “fundamentalist” strain in Southern Baptist life.

My one major critique of the proposal lies subpoint three under the third statement: “The consequences of these problems will most likely hit the poor the hardest, in part because those areas likely to be significantly affected are the world’s poorest regions.” Yes and No. Yes, because the majority of the problem is generated in those regions themselves. Even if every American in every North American company in every North American Country completely offsets their carbon footprint, the causes (if they are indeed proven to be) of Global Climate Change will continue to affect the globe (keep in mind  almost every nation in the world has signed the Kyoto Protocol and yet the problem persists). As such, how does the SBC change the environmental policies of the world? Even if we grant that this is the job of the international community, you still have the very real problem of ecological and economic colonialism–the West is calling the shots. The major problem with this theological-ish initiative is that it is oversimplifying an otherwise very complex issue. Great, some Southern Baptists agree that we need some sort of change, but what next? Do we pressure the US government to enforce ecological policies on the rest of the world? How many more wars would that cause? How many more of the poor would be affected then? Slippery slope, maybe, I’ll admit that. But I think our concern for the needy, the orphan and the widow should be way much more than ecological–how bout food, money, shelter, hospitality, family, etc.

Finally, Statement 4 is a call to action, for individuals, churches, communities and individuals. In this call, though, Merritt humbly admits that “simply affirming our God-given responsibility to care for the earth will likely produce no tangible or effective results. Therefore, we pledge to find ways to curb ecological degradation through promoting biblical stewardship habits and increasing awareness in our homes, businesses where we find influence, relationship with others and in our local churches. Many of our churches do not actively preach, promote or practice biblical creation care. We urge churches to begin doing so.” This is well said. It has to be much, much more than a signed statement.

Less you think I am unfairly bashing this initiative, I am not. There are certainly things therein with which I could agree. However, much more thinking needs to be done before I can sign this. So much is left undefined that my signature could be attributed to some policy that embarrasses me. I don’t have anything in mind, but let us first define what it means to “take responsibility” or what is exactly “environmental degradation”, etc. Let us think more about the complex relations between other nations, cultures, peoples and the West. What if the US government, for instance, at the call of the SBC, enforces economic sanctions on offending nations? Is this not more dangerous for the poor than the ecological problems themselves? Let us think.

Jonathan Merritt, if you ever read this, you are the man. Few would be so bold to write what you have and then have it signed and released to public scrutiny. Do not be offended by my critiques, but let them be a call to further study and action. I am not asking you to stop, but to keep going. Work hard and this has the potential of being very persuasive.

In Christian Mission and the Modern World, John Stott, in defining evangelism, does not think that “persuasion” is a necessary component of a definition of evangelism. He follows J.I. Packer who critiques any definition of evangelism that includes persuasion as an element as confusing the act with the goal. Peter Wagner defines evangelism, though, as “Presence, Proclamation and Persuasion.” On Wagner’s definition, Stott comments, “Although I am not myself happy to include all three in a strict definition of evangelism itself, yet presence must certainly precede evangelism, as persuasion must follow it.” Stott loves his idea of presence and proclamation, but balks at persuasion.

He states, “Some speak of ‘persuasion’ as if the outcome could be secured by human effort, almost as if it were another word for ‘coercion.’ But no. Our responsibility is to be faithful; the results are in the hand of Almighty God.”

David Bosch, in Transforming Mission, says, “The focus in evangelism should, however, not be on the church, but on the irrupting reign of God.” In other words, by focusing on numbers and growth, as would including persuasion or conversion in the definition of evangelism, evangelism becomes man-centered rather than God-centered. At the same time, Bosch adds that “Numerical growth is , therefore, in a sense nothing more than a byproduct when the church is true to its deepest calling. Of greater importance is organic and incarnational growth.” As such, it seems that the church should expect to be persuasive if it is true to its mission.

So, here are the questions:

Does faithfulness to proclaim include persuasiveness?

What does scripture say about the attractiveness of the gospel message? What are the admonitions, the warnings, and the instructions?

If you are not seeing conversion growth in your church, is your church being true to its mission? If the faithful proclaimer and doer of the gospel is not seeing numerical growth, is she being faithful?

 John R. W. Stott, pictured above, in his renowned work Christian Mission in the Modern World, says that there are basically three options when it comes to understanding the relationship between evangelism and social reponsibility:

1. Social Action as a Means of Evangelism–By this, Stott means that some see social ministry, such as medicinal helps, education, food, etc, as a means to an end. One helps the poor native physically in order to lead them to Christ. He charges that this leads to “rice-Christians” namely because we are being “rice-evangelists”.
2. Social Action is a Manifestation of Evangelism–Here, Acts of service are the “sacrament”, the visible sign, of evangelism. They are “signs of the kingdom” in NT categories.  In other words, in helping the poor natively physically one is preaching Christ to them. However, Stott finds that even this motivation is a cloaked “means to an end” motivation. The one doing the service still expects conversion in return.
3. Social Action as a Partner of Evangelism–This is Stott’s perferred option. Based on a renewed sense of Christian vocation (see especially Gene Edward Veith, Jr.’s God at Work: Your Christian Vocation in all of Life), Stott argues that “As partners the two belong to each other and yet are independent of each other. Each stands on it own feet in its own right alonside the other. Neither is a means to the other, or even a manifestation of the other. For each is an end in itself. Both are expressions of unfeigned love.“

My questions to you are the following:

Which of these three best represents your understanding? Or do you think there is another option?

You have been placed in a South Asian village as a missionary, and your mission board strictly prohibits giving money or food articles to nationals. Lately, you have seen a growing harvest of new Christians, but a severe famine strikes your region.  You have plenty of financial resources to keep you and your three children fed. Additionally you have the financial means to easily care for the needs of your growing church and possibly the whole village, but to do so would risk you losing your appointment. What do you do? Why?

If you are interested in reading more on this topic see the following:

David Hesselgrave, Paradigms in Conflict: 10 Key Questions in Christian Missions Today, Chapter 4 “Holism and Prioritism”

David Bosch, Transforming Mission, Chapter 12 “Elements of an Emerging Ecumenical Missionary Paradigm”–Toward a Constructive Understanding of Evangelism.

Lesslie Newbigin, The Open Secret, Chapters 8 and 9 “Mission as Action for God’s Justice” and “Church Growth, Conversion and Culture”

Practically Speaking: 

Jonathan Bonk, Missions and Money: Affluence as a Missionary Problem…Revisited.

John Rowell, To Give or Not to Give: Rethinking Dependency, Restoring Generosity, and Redifining Sustainability

Glenn Schwarz, When Charity Destroys Dignity: Overcoming Unhealthy Dependency in the Christian Movement

I was looking at the RSS feed from Baptist Press and came across the article “Jena Revival Heads into Week 4“. Immediately I was intrigued. You probably remember, I hope, the racial tension budding from Jena across the nation back in September. I gave the beginning of my thoughts on overcoming racial barriers in response to this in a post entitled “Have we lost the “Dream…”?”. One of the items that I didn’t present so well was the need for repentance before God. Jena has been broken, laid bare, before God, and he is healing and bringing a harvest of righteousness.

In this article on Baptist Press, John Yeats reports that the same school gymnasium, host to much of the racial bruhaha in the past year, is the scene of a growing, community-wide, interracial revival. Of a town of 2900 people, crowds exceeding 700 per night have been meeting. It took only two weeks for crowds to outgrow the capacity of the gym; the meetings moving to a larger auditorium in another church.

Leading the way in the revival have been two churches, one white and one black, meeting together, each church’s pastors preaching. Yeats reports:

The Jena community buzzes with the news about the meetings and people are reaching out to each other across racial lines in love and prayer.

In the wake of media reports that the country if falling apart at the seams over race, the home to one of the largest racially heated rallies in recent memory is now experiencing the healing power of the gospel. Only the gospel can overcome the barriers of sin, pride, prejudice and hate caused by racism (of any kind). Can you hear Dr. King in the background:

I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight; “and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together.”

May we all seek the glory of the Lord together, hand in hand, hearts repentant, spirits jubilant, and eyes seeing the beautiful spectrum of color of God’s kingdom! Thank God that he has begun with Jena. If there is hope for Jena, there is hope for us all! Let us find that hope!

A rant, yes, this post is a rant, but a much needed one!

First and foremost, Doctors are not omniscient; they are not omnipotent; they are not all wise; they do not often agree with one another; they are often wrong, and yet, they are indispensible for our physical well-being (from a human perspective); they can discern things about our bodies not seen to the common eye or discernable to the common mind; they understand human suffering, and they know how to alleviate it (in many cases); and together, the advances of doctors and medicine, inter alia,  is one of the prime contributing factors to our growing life expectancies and burgeoning (out of control?) population. Nonetheless, the way many doctors treat patients reveals a god-complex.

I am not trying to be perjorative, or even call doctors power hungry, though few doctors may deserve the designation. Rather, doctors do their best, in light of their extensive education and vast experience (in treating patients), to diagnose and treat individuals in pain and disease. And they expect that their suggestions be the final word. (Yes, getting second opinions is okay, and doctors do consult with one another, but they each give their final diagnoses with unquestionable confidence.) Those unwillinging to question, or ignorant (taken in a postitive sense) of alternatives, take the doctor at their word, fill prescriptions, take medicine, get surgeries, etc, etc, as if the doctor’s word was straight from God, or a god.

Let’s understand how medicine works (from the perspective of a patient and parent, not a professional). Ultimately, as I see it, medicine is dependent solely on observable evidence. The more collective observation of certain symptoms, the more certain the diagnosis. Doctor’s, I presume, are educated on the collective observation of human anatomy and how the human organism reacts to outside agents. Then, they are given intense hands-on experience, in the environment of a community of doctors, where they test out their skills at diagnosis and treatment. Upon determination of their professional and technical acumen, then they are turned loose to apply their growing knowledge and experience on the general public.

Thus, when a patient, such as myself, goes to the doctor with a fever, cough, runny nose, she can easily diagnose me as having a common cold. I trust her education and experience so I follow her prognosis for treatment. The more I see this same doctor, the more accustomed she becomes to my body’s reactions to ailments and illnesses and she is increasingly capable of diagnosing or recommending diagnosis for most of my problems. Unfortunately, if I switch doctors, even given the written records of diagnosis and treatment, there is a loss of observable evidence in my case. This is why specialists often disagree with primary care physicians, though this discontinuity may also be attributed to the specialists greater knowledge and experience of more particular situations in other patients. However, even this situation is exponentially complicated if I rarely go to the doctor, do not have written records, or am constantly switching physicians. This doesn’t make my situation impossible, but ultimate health care is less likely. Nonetheless, the doctor, fully aware of these barriers, in most cases, will give an authoritative diagnosis while lacking some, or all, of the volume of prior collective wisdom in my idiosyncratic situation. What am I to do? I’ll probably trust the specialist, or get a second opinion if they seem way off the wall. But if the specialist looks at my case and says, “You have no problem worthy of my attention,” whereas my primary care physician was convinced I needed it, does that not lower the authority of the primary care physician in my eyes. Yeah, I shouldn’t expect them to have intimate knowledge of a field outside of their own expertise, but if I’m sent to a specialists for appendicitis, and he finds out I had the flu, then why didn’t my primary care physician catch this, who is well capable of diagnosing and treating the symptoms of the flu (especially since she probably sees an exponentially greater number of flu cases than the specialist). This would lower my trust in my primary care physician, and I should seriously consider finding another.

But, when I change doctors, as I claimed earlier, there is a loss, even if minimal, of collective wisdom concerning my body and its reactions to outside agents. Furthermore, my original doctor will continue to diagnose and treat others, though in my mind, her expertise and ability is called into question. Of course, mistreating one person one time is a small percentage in light of thousands of diagnoses over hundreds of patients. But here is my point–doctors, in humility, should recognize the weaknesses inherent in treating any patient. There is not absolute knowledge of any one person by another person, whether a doctor or not. It may be undeniable that a person has a broken arm that needs to be reset, but there are certain uncertainties in other medical situations that are hidden from the average Joe.  Good doctors disclose as much information as possible to the patient, others leave most things unsaid. A doctor should realize that there are situations in which the patient should have input on the treatment and even the diagnosis. As such, the doctors word is not final. I am not saying every situation. In a very, very (I should add another very here) high percentage of situations, the doctor is right on. But in others, even among specialists there is disagreement, and, thus, ambiguity. The field of medicine needs to be careful to recognize this fact (because with any field based on observable evidence, it is limited only to what can be, or has been, observed; something may come along that changes a whole paradigm). This is a call for medical humility.

Finally, a call for medical wisdom. This is in direct response to a situation I experienced yesterday with my daughter. In the morning, my daughter was not eating as usual, but she was otherwise fine. So my wife took her to the playground in the afternoon. While playing, quite uncharacteristically for my daughter, she fell from the playset about 4 feet hitting her head and landing hard on her stomach. After this time, she was wimpering and crying in my wife’s arms, asking to go home. After going home, she laid down immediately to sleep. My wife scheduled an appointment with the Pediatrician and took her one hour later. The pediatricians office, which is a co-op of sorts of pediatricians and RN’s, allowed my daughter to see someone we have never seen (this happens quite often at this prominent pediatricians office in Wake Forest). My daughter had a fever of 103. My wife told the doctor the whole situation (here is a very real problem–doctors are tempted to treat the story rather than the person!!!!). As such, they poked and prodded my daughter’s stomach while she lay there wimpering. Because she was crying and unresponsive, they felt she may have appendicitis or a stomach injury and recommended we go to the hospital emergency room. So we did. However, after several simple tests (that required no equipment or secret knowledge that, in my opinion, should have been carefully carried out by the pediatricians office), they easily and quickly ruled out appendicitis or a stomach injury. They did X-rays, not of her abdomen, but her chest to rule out pneumonia. Finally, they tested her for the flu, which she had. Finally, we spoke with Dr. Saad who implied distrust of our pediatrician because of the co-op model. I had the feeling, the whole time we were at the hospital, that the staff and doctors were really wondering why we were even there. This is why I am calling for medical wisdom. The co-op model may be efficient for the doctors and lead to higher profits (since our particular office has several local offices and numerous doctors and staff over a large patient body), but it is unwise in treating patients. There is no continuity between doctors, and even though all of our medical records are in that office and only doctors from that office see our children, there is a major breakdown of collective medical wisdom towards my children. As such, my wife and I are considering finding ‘one’ pediatrician who can give primary care to our children.

Always remember to ask questions of the doctor–always, always ask why. I personally refrain from giving the “story” of what happened until they have presonally observed at least some of the symptoms. I know this violates the system of triage, but I think it also removes bias from the diagnosis (bias towards the story). Also, the doctor should be able to tie together for you why a certain treatment matches certain symptoms. The doctor may feel you don’t trust them, but so be it. Doctors, as I argue for medical humility, should not assume this trust, especially in complex situations–they should earn it. If they recommend seeing a specialist or going to the hospital or getting surgery, they have to, they must, answer why. You musk ask them why. They may, as in the case of my daughter, neglect to fully investigate the symptoms. If they can’t answer why sufficiently, then you have evidence they haven’t done all that they could. (Note, though, that an answer of “I don’t know” may be good reason to see a specialist.)

After my annual hiatus from blogging, I’m back…but I’ll probably take it a little slow. As always, your feedback is invaluable to me!