Missions Post that Will Make Everyone Angry with Me
I have been posting a great deal lately on matters surrounding the definition of mission, missions, and missionaries. Much of this is due to my present book project. If you are new here and curious, let me encourage you to check out the following posts:
Rethinking the Language of Mission
5 Currents of Change: How Everything Became Missions
The debate over the definition of mission, and naturally missions, continues, but is slowly growing with intensity. While other perspectives may be represented, here are the two main views (I'm labeling them Traditionalists and Revisionists). Also, I am making generalizations for the purpose of clarity.
The Traditionalists: Mission is about redemption. God's mission is about Him redeeming His fallen creation. Missions is particular and understood as evangelism and church planting--followed by developing contextualized leaders.
The Revisionists: Mission is about redemption and restoration. God's mission is about all He is doing to redeem His fallen creation and restore the groaning cosmos. Missions is general and understood as everything the Church does to carry out God's mission in the world.
The Traditionalist understanding was widespread until the twentieth century. Centuries of doing missions without a robust theological foundation eventually resulted in problems and the Church needing clarity for her task. Theologians such as Karl Barth and Karl Hartenstein in the 1930s, and others who followed, accepted the challenge to produce what had been lacking for centuries. The missio Dei concept of the 30s became widely accepted in the 50s and strongly influences the Church to date.
The result of their theological study? Mission became broader than the Traditionalist's perspective. Therefore, missions had to be broader than the Traditionalist's perspective.
What Traditionalists held for centuries was under attack--and many still feel this way today. Theologians took the classic language of mission, went to the Scriptures, and proved the terms were too limiting.
The Church now exists when both creation care and church planting are considered missions. As I have shared recently, we live in a time when missions takes place even when the gospel is never shared. This matter is deeply troubling.
And while everything within me wants to see the Traditionalists win the day, I cannot get away from the fact the theologians were correct. Read the Bible. The mission of God is broad and the Church is to engage in many Kingdom activities.
Yet, here is a significant problem with the Revisionist perspective. While the Traditionalists failed to develop a biblical theology and defined their terms in a restrictive sense, the Revisionists fell short too. They wrongly assumed the widening of mission meant all the actions of missions are of equal attention. This equal-opportunity perspective diminished gospel urgency and apostolic priority from the work of the Church in the world. Now, the priority is there are no priorities (contra Acts 6:1-6, for example).
So, the debate continues. The Traditionalists want to keep the traditional language and centuries-old definitions. The Revisionists want to keep the traditional language and revise the definitions. And while I disagree with both sides, the Revisionists have won the debate.
When both sides use extra-biblical language developed heavily from 16th century Latin (e.g., mission, missions), then the side that provides a more robust biblical argument wins.
I commend the Traditionalists for wanting to give priority and urgency to evangelism and planting churches from the harvest of least-reached peoples. I commend the Revisionists for noting that God is concerned about His universe and His Church should be too. Paul has much to say about diverse gifts and ministries within the Body (1 Cor 12). Kingdom activities are many.
However, both sides fail to see the short-fall of attempting to define extra-biblical language and remain at loggerheads. If the traditional language of mission is to remain (Stroope in Transcending Mission says it must change) with the modern revisions, then emphasis and priority must be given to apostolic purpose, function, and identity.
The mission of God is broad, but His missions are to be prioritized.