A buddy of mine and I were reflecting on the state of our souls as they relate to pleasure and joy. We agree with John Piper that God created us with the capacity to seek after pleasure and joy. Like Augustine, we agree that being fallen creatures, we love (i.e. seek pleasure) inordinately. In other words, while we have been created to find infinite delight in God, thus seeking the greatest pleasure in the one most worthy of and most able to provide the greatest joy, we love things less worthy and less able to provide such lasting joy. With C.S. Lewis, we are “like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.” Blaise Pascal tells us that these worldly pleasures, like the mud pies, are diversions from our own wretchedness. We seek pleasure in things, in activities, to keep us from contemplating our sinful condition. The irony is that, in Christ, that condition has been transformed, thus our diversions are no longer “freeing” us from our own despair, but keeping us from eternal joy.

Seeking our eternal happiness is more difficult. Because along with eternal joy comes temporal suffering. We don’t like that much. However, we must remember that it is worth it!

Here’s a visual aid for comparing earthly pleasure to eternal joy:

Remember, we have a God-given impulse for Joy. However, being born with sinful fallen hearts, we immediately direct it towards temporal pleasures, some are not sinful, in-and-of-themselves, but they distract us from God. Others are sinful and worldly. Both kinds provide real pleasure and satisfy that impulse. But over time, these pleasures show their true colors; they twist and lead us into despair, addiction, and destruction. They fail to satisfy. Thus there are periods of time where we feel very dissatisfied. As we are converted and undergo the sanctification of the Holy Spirit, the temporal pleasures lose their influence, we grow in holiness and begin to experience eternal joy. However, we learn joy through, among other things, suffering. So it appears to us, at times, that our impulse for Joy is not being met. The more temporal pleasures we have, the more diversions, the greater dissatisfaction we will experience as these pleasures start spiraling downward into despair. Yet, the Holy Spirit is weaning us from the world and we by faith go forward. Eternal joy always conquers earthly pleasures (and despair). Thus, we must continue keeping our minds fixed on heavenly things, looking to Christ, with whom our life is hidden with God (Col 3). Then, we die, and our experience of eternal pleasure grows exponentially, infinitely, into eternity.

More than anything, I’m writing this to remind myself, and I’m creating this visual aid as a memory tool for myself. I hope that it is helpful for you. Please comment and share as you see fit.

Richard K. MacMaster and Donald R. Jacobs masterfully recount the genesis and on-going life of the East Africa Revival in “A Gentle Wind of God: The Influence of the East Africa Revival” (Find on Amazon).

The significance of this revival for the vitality (vigour in the Latourettian terms) of East African Christianity cannot be overemphasized. Furthermore, the revival bridged the gaps between continents–from East Africa into Europe and North America. The influence of this revival continues in waves of revival in Africa and in the hearts of revival Europeans and Americans who heard revival teams visit their churches and towns.

The revival message was simple, yet profound. MacMaster and Jacobs summarizes it as follows:

Come to Jesus with your sins; repent and be cleansed by the blood of Jesus Christ; live in the immediacy of the presence of Jesus, and walk in open fellowship with the brothers and sisters; absorb yourself in the Word of God by life-changing Bible study; allow Jesus Christ to do good deeds through you by the enabling of the Holy Spirit; and witness with word, life, and action that Jesus Christ is the head of the individual and of the body of believers (21).

This message was undeniable Jesus-exalting. Through this message, the revived one found the unity of brotherhood in the cross that was the opposite of colonial inequalities and native jealousies. Rather than resulting in hollow revivalism, the revival leaders avoided systematizing the revival in lieu of encouraging a persistent, humble, and “weak” walk with Jesus.

Much more can be said than the summary above, many individuals shined with the glory of Christ’s love that could be mentioned. These details will come later. I intend to continue studying this revival and attempt to uncover the many waves and ripples of this revival up to the present day. “A Gentle Wind of God” is an excellent treatment of these ripples especially among the Mennonite church. I desire to see how other denominational missions were affected as well as national believers. To repeat, this is not to say that “A Gentle Wind of God” is lacking, no, it is an excellent, historical yet touched-by-fire, account of the revival.

Please continue to comment on this revival; hearing from Africans, and Americans, missionaries and laymen about this revival is a great encouragement! It is amazing how this revival transcended race and hierarchy, looking only to Jesus.

A Myth is a cosmic story passed on from generation to generation within a people group that explains the nature of reality and existence in light of the world of the gods and ancestors.  These stories, though containing supernatural and sometimes fantastic elements, are assumed to be true by the people group who pass them on. They are passed on through rituals performed at coronations of leaders, birth, various rites of passage, death, marriages, generally, every major social gathering. The worldview of the group reinforces the veracity of these stories in their eyes, and as long as the myths make sense of the world, the myths reinforce the group’s worldview. To their people, myths are functionally true.

This definition precludes the western notion of myths being fictitious and devoid of truth content. The advent of Greek philosophy marked the descent of mythology reaching its base meaning as false under Christianity. As western civilization came into increased contact with supposedly “primitive” peoples, the west was reintroduced to myth. Ironically, it was the Christian missionaries who first began to rediscover the function of myths within society.

Sources:

Eliade, Mircea. Myth and Reality. Translated by Willard R. Trask. New York: Harper and Ros, 1963.

• Find on Amazon

Hiebert, Paul G., R. Daniel Shaw, and Tite Tienou. Understanding Folk Religion: A Christian Response to Popular Beliefs and Practices. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999.

• Find on Amazon

Hiebert, Paul. Transforming Worldviews: An Anthropological Understanding of How People Change. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008.

• Find on Amazon

Murray, Henry A., ed. Myth and Mythmaking. New York, George Braziller, 1960.

• Read on Questia

Smalley, William A., ed. Readings in Missionary Anthropology II. Enlarged 1978 Edition. Pasadena: William Carey Library, 1978.

• Find through Amazon affiliated Merchants

Wilken, Robert Louis. The Christians as the Romans Saw Them. 2d. ed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003. Find on Amazon.

As an interesting perusal of the pagan reaction to Christianity, Wilken provides a valuable insight into the ways in which Christianity is viewed by outsiders. What stands out, at least until Julian in the fourth century, is that the pagan reaction to Christianity was not one of biased hatred of Jesus. Rather, the pagans did not understand Christianity. Christians, rightfully, removed themselves from anything idolatrous and by reason of their persecution met in secret. Roman religion was external, public, and social. The Romans could not appreciate a religion without visible gods, without visible sacrifices. Similarly, Christianity appeared to them to be subversive, much like other illicit cults in the Empire. So, while the Christians rightly understood their persecution to be a spiritual in nature, individual Romans and Roman officials spurned Christianity for more innocuous reasons. The Hindu rejection of Christianity is probably similar. Hinduism as a religion is diametrically opposed to Christianity. It makes no sense to them. What is a required is a total break in worldview. The Romans also had to radically change their worldview in order to become Christians, or after becoming Christians, had to undergo that break. Hence, the battle to force Christians to offer supplications (25ff).

Also, Romans were proud of their religious piety (62ff), much as the Hindus or Buddhists, even Muslims. One of the growing objections to Christian missions is the universalistic claim that people of other religions are just as devout as, if not more so than, Christians. This objection is a red herring. Certainly devotion to other religion is a hinderance to the gospel, but it by no means swayed the early church. They pressed forward with the gospel. However, areas of intense persecution may also be areas where there is the greater devotion to a religion, as in Rome. The Roman cult demonstrates the pervasive nature of religion. Converting to Christianity has profound and pervasive cultural implications. Still, the early church strove to maintain their Roman-ness without being pagan (46–7).

Even so, the Romans recognized the subversive nature of the gospel (117ff). By its very nature, it was setting up a rival “myth” to the Roman way of life. A myth, an “antistructure” as understood by anthropologists, creates the foundation of a worldview by supplanting the previous alternative explanation of reality. Christianity was a genuine threat to Roman society. The early Christians may not have fully understood this, but the pagans rightfully felt it! Christianity is a threat to every society that holds to another religion. This does not mean that Christianity seeks to erase cultural distinctions, though this has been the case from time to time in Christian history. However, by its very nature, the gospel creates an alternative view of reality, a view based on the grand biblical narrative, from creation to Jesus, and from Jesus to consummation. This is why the Romans were incensed about Christian views of creation—it was a rival to the Platonic view (cf. Timeaus, 85–6, 133, 183–4).

Wilken’s book has further convinced me of the subversive nature of Christianity. This has profound implications for my view of contextualization. As much as continuity with a given culture is necessary for the communication of the gospel, the subversive elements of the gospel must be gently maintained. In other words, while the early apologists passionately implored their fellow Romans to be converted in terms that they could understand, and though they emphasized the elements of truth in the Roman worldview, they, for the most part among those orthodox, did not compromise the transforming (positive form of subversive) elements of the gospel. The Gospel transforms character and redefines worldview.

Green, Michael. Evangelism in the Early Church. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Find on Amazon.

In Evangelism in the Early Church, Michael Green has given us insight into the world in which early Christians lived, thought, worshipped and evangelized. While the cultural context has changed since then, it is no less complex than the cultural milieu of the first four centuries of Christianity. Thus, numerous themes from this classic work hold great import for contemporary theology and practice of missions.

First, just as there were several cultural factors that enabled the rapid expansion of Christianity in the Roman world (29–49), the history of missions has shown that these opportunities (or praeparatio evangelica) exist in varying degrees in every age. Green showed how early Christians, and significantly Paul (356–79), made strategic use of these advantages. The discussion of missionary strategy has been a hot topic in the past 200 years and will continue as such. Even so, while there have always been professional missionaries making use of prayerful strategies, Green humbly and appropriately reminds the reader throughout that “the unknown ordinary man, the man who left no literary remains, was the prime agent in mission.” (242). Western missions has taken full advantage of the professional missionary, and in the past 40 years has seen the rise of lay missions in probably its greatest scale in modern history; however, it remains to be seen how the Western church will enable and empower the laity as the early church. Professional minister and missionaries must take this to heart—the gospel spreads the farthest the fastest when it is seen as “the prerogative and the duty of every church member” (380).

Second, Green goes to lengths to show the ways in which the early church contextualized the gospel (116–202, esp. 165–8). To the Jews, the Christians emphasized the fulfillment of Scripture in the coming of the expected Messiah. To the Gentiles, Christians increasingly used language and terms that appealed to the Greco-Roman mind. In both cases, the Christians argued that Christianity was superior to the cult of both demographics because of the superiority of Christ over the law and over idolatry, respectively. The apologists chose terms that were agreeable to the unbelievers mind to open a door for the gospel (173), they chose methods that made it easier for inquirers to hear the gospel explained to them (300–55, esp. 319ff), not in order to trick the Jew or pagan, but to convert them, to transform them (203–233). They were not trying to build continuity with false religion, but to bring people out of it into a relationship with the risen Lord. This is very instructive for modern attempts at contextualization that over-emphasize the continuity between Christianity and other religions.

Finally, though certainly not claiming to have exhausted the importance of this work for missions, Green emphasizes the quality of life exhibited by the early Christians (249–72). Since the vast majority of early Christians never wrote a massive treatise or apology, what was it that convinced the Greco-Roman world of the truth of Christianity? It was the character Christians exhibited in life and in death. The grave danger for Western Christianity today is deadly legalism (also its distant cousin antinomianism). Western missionaries have been faulted with legalistic imperialism in the past two centuries, local Christians being forced to act Western as a visible sign of Christianity. Thus, as many scholars have argued, pagan religions have not been suppressed as only white washed with a veneer of Christianity. Certainly, this danger has always been present, but it is undeniable that the virtue of the early Christians was a living apologetic to the Roman world. Not that their behavior was perfect, but that their compassion and love overcame their faults. Would that missionaries, ministers, and lay people be so clothed with Christ!

Friends,

I will on occasion resume posting on this blog. Its been a while, but I have had some people still commenting on old posts. So I think God is still using this blog. Look for something once every other week from me.

Blessings!

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 1:27-8) 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 17:28) 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” (68) 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.