Missiology

Section 1

Introduction to the Study of Missions

Chapter 1

An Overview of Missiology

Justice Anderson

This chapter introduces readers to the fascinating field of missiology. Missiology, a technical discipline within theological education, is relatively new in comparison to other classical disciplines. In fact, missiology only slowly has won its way into the theological curriculum. Until recently, many classical theologians considered missiology a second-class study. Few, except the experts in missions themselves, had considered missions study seriously as a necessary part of the theological encyclopedia. Starting around 1867, formal professorships of missions were inaugurated in Germany, Scotland, and the United States. In spite of this acceptance, the study of missions has remained marginal and only grudgingly accepted by many.

The Term Missiology

With acceptance of the discipline, an increasing need also arose for a term to describe and designate the study. Contemporary missions literature has accepted the term missiology. An understanding of this term provides a more adequate understanding of the field of scientific missions study.

Although the Scots and Germans initiated the formal study of missions, the word missiology came into the English language from the French word missiologie. The acceptance of the transliterated term missiology in English has not, however, come either rapidly or easily. On the contrary, many theologians express a positive dislike of this term, which they consider a horrid, hybrid word! These critics maintain the word—a compound of Latin and Greek—represents a clumsy construct (Neill 1970, 149). They feel that these two words, one Greek and another Latin, is a linguistic monstrosity!

One notes that such “monsters” occur rather frequently. For example, sociology, terminology, numerology, methodology, scientology, and even theology are commonplace. Most scholars believe, therefore, that good reasons exist to retain missiology as the English terminus technicus for the science of missions (Myklebust 1955, 28–29).

In the opinion of this writer, it is the theological content of the etymology that excites enthusiasm. The Latin word missio and the Greek word logos constitute the compound word, but the original architects of the word—Graul, Warneck, Duff, Bavinck, Kuyper, Plath, Myklebust, Verkuyl, et al.—had much more in mind. These outstanding theological professors in Europe and America emphasized the study of missions in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. They saw it as a theological discipline but differed about how to incorporate it into the curriculum. David Bosch and Olav Myklebust describe in detail this development (Bosch 1991, 489ff and Myklebust 1955).

For these writers, missions meant the expansion of Christianity among non-Christians, that is, among people not baptized with Christian baptism. More precisely, these writers considered missions the conscious efforts on the part of the church, in its corporate capacity, or through voluntary agencies, to proclaim the gospel (with all this implies) among peoples and in regions where it is still unknown or only inadequately known. Missions is, they believed, not only a department of the church but the church itself in its complete expression, that is, in its identification of itself with the world (Myklebust 1955, 27).

Seen in another light, the term missiology includes the Latin missio referring to the missio Dei, the mission of God, and the Greek word λόγος (referring to the λόγος ἀνθρώπου, the nature of mankind). The word missiology, therefore, connotes what happens when the mission of God comes into holy collision with the nature of man. It describes the dynamic result of a fusion of God’s mission with man’s nature. It is what occurs when redeemed mankind becomes the agent of God’s mission, when God’s mission becomes the task of God’s elected people. We can picture the field of missiology with the following graphic:

Stated still another way, the word carries theological weight; it throbs with theological meaning! It envisions man caught up in God’s redemptive current! It says that God has a divine purpose for all peoples that he is carrying out through his redeemed people—that it is his mission. It points out why, when, and how God and man cooperate in redemptive activity. Missiology, etymologically speaking, is the study of this redemptive relationship, of what has happened and is happening when the church’s missions are at the service of God’s mission. Its theme must be the way of God among the peoples of the earth—a story that begins with the call of Abraham to be the father of a chosen people and that will continue until the second coming of Christ and the end of the age (Neill 1970, 153). The term contains all of this meaning.

Alternative Terms for Missiology

The quest for an appropriate term to describe this science of missions produced an evolution of interesting alternatives in several languages. Gustav Warneck, the nineteenth-century European pioneer of the science of missions, suggested the term Missionslehre, theory of missions. Abraham Kuyper, the eminent Dutch theologian, suggested several terms, none of which caught on. He said apostolics expresses the notion of missions in general; but because it might be confused with the “apostolate,” an office that no longer exists, he and others deemed it inappropriate and possibly confusing.

Next he coined prosthetics, “to add to the community”; later auxanics, “to multiply and spread out”; still later he borrowed from another halieutics, “to fish for men”; and finally elenctics, which ascertains a view of non-Christian religions. He felt that missionary science must be able to evaluate other religions properly and biblically. Kuyper’s terms were short lived and gradually faded away. Missiology in different forms and languages slowly came into vogue (Verkuyl 1978, 2).

The term missiology is of rather old vintage, especially in Roman Catholic use. It springs from the Latin translations of the Greek verb apostellein, in Latin, mittere, missio, missiones. These derivations surfaced in the great Roman Catholic missionary expansion of the sixteenth century led by the Jesuits (Verkuyl 1978, 2) but were practically unknown among Protestants. Since World War II, missiology and its transliterations in other languages have slowly won acceptance as the official names of the missionary science.

Johannes Verkuyl, the noted Dutch professor, after a long discussion of all the other exceptions, opted for the term “for the sake of clarity and to broaden the uniform use of language” (Verkuyl 1978, 2). Olav Myklebust, the Norwegian scholar, in his meticulous discussion of the matter, felt that good reasons enjoined adopting “missiology” as the technical term for this branch of theological learning (1955, 28–29). These writers were joined by the majority of German, North American, British, French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese missiologists, who have adopted adaptations of the term in their respective languages. It is the common term used by Two-Thirds World theologians as they slowly produce their missiology.

The Theological Evolution of Missiology

Theology is a living organism rather than a hodgepodge of separate studies. Its subdivisions, such as apologetics or missiology, cannot, and should not, be radically separated. Nevertheless, every reason remains to accept the science of missions as an independent entity. It has become an essential element in the theological curriculum. Godfrey Phillips points out the close relationship between Christian missions and Christian theology. Originating in the same religious experience, he writes, the two “are likely to flourish or fail together; weakening in theology is likely to be accompanied by weakening in missionary effort” (Myklebust 1955, 14). Missiology must continue to develop its theological relationship with the other disciplines in order to maintain its hard-earned place in theological education.

Not only has theology a duty to perform for missions, but it has much to learn from missions. In the early stages of the church, missions was more than a function; it was a fundamental expression of the life of the church. The beginnings of missionary theology are also the beginnings of Christian theology as such. This is why Martin Kähler, almost a century ago, said that “mission is the mother of theology” (Bosch 1991, 16). It is what Emil Brunner meant when he said later, “The Church exists by mission, just as fire exists by burning. Where there is no mission, there is no Church; and where there is neither Church nor mission, there is no faith” (i.e., no theology!) (Myklebust 1955, 27). Once again Godfrey Phillips, an Anglican divine, summed up the matter with these words:

The Church which is most sure of its own faith is best fitted to propagate it in the world. And gradually the converse of this is coming to light, namely the reflex action of missions upon the faith and the theology of the Church. Missions may from one point of view be regarded as a gigantic experiment to disprove or verify the classical doctrine of the divine-human person and the work of Christ. For two centuries, Protestant missions have experimented with bringing the news of one particular Saviour to men and women of amazingly different types . . . Two things stand out in the reactions: first the strange way in which each type finds Jesus as its kin . . . and second the way each type finds in Him the remedy for its special needs as well as for those common to all mankind. (Phillips 1939, 54)

These truths powerfully confirm the church’s sense of Christ’s significance as Son of Man and Son of God and stir up boldness for his deity and his saving efficacy. In short, the missionary endeavors of the church have helped theology to a fuller understanding of its task by providing a much-needed corrective and a wider perspective for its thinking. Missiology and theology must be “conjoined twins” in the theological curriculum; they are mutually interdependent.

The student of missiology must be cognizant of the historical development of this interdependency if he is to incorporate missiology properly into the theological curriculum and understand its relation to the other disciplines. A brief review of this development is relevant at this point.

In premodern times, theology was understood in two ways. First, it was concerned with everything related to God and man’s knowledge of God. This was the personal knowledge of God as experienced by the human soul. Second, it was the term for a discipline, a self-conscious, scholarly enterprise. Theologians long taught the holistic concept of theology; that is, they conceived the study as one, undivided discipline. Under the influence of the Enlightenment, a separation took place that produced theology as theory and practice. From this concept, theology gradually evolved into a fourfold pattern: the disciplines of Bible (text), church history (history), systematic theology (truth), and practical theology (application). From the influence of Schleiermacher and others, this pattern became firmly established and continues to this day (Bosch 1991, 490).

The so-called practical theology became principally “ecclesiology” and formed the basis of Christendom. Practical theology served to keep the church going, while the other disciplines were examples of pure, or classical, science. Theology, in this period, held largely an unmissionary posture because missions was assigned to the practical area that existed to serve the institutional church. Even after the revival of missions in the Roman Catholic Church, Protestant theology remained parochial and domesticated.

This unhealthy separation began to weaken because of the burgeoning Moravian antecedents and the William Carey-pioneered modern missionary movement. The new missionary spirit forced European theologians to incorporate the missions motif in the theological curriculum. Schleiermacher led the way by appending missiology to practical theology on the periphery of the theological spectrum (Myklebust 1955, 84ff). However, the fourfold division pattern remained sacrosanct.

In the mid-nineteenth century, missiology tried another method to validate its standing within theology by declaring autonomy. Missiologists demanded the right to be a discipline apart. This demand brought down the ire of the “fourfolders”; but Charles Breckenridge at Princeton in 1836, Alexander Duff at Edinburgh in 1867, and Gustav Warneck at Halle in 1897 founded chairs of missions at their respective institutions. Because of the intellectual respectability of these leaders, they won the right to teach missiology as a separate discipline (Bosch 1991, 491). The Roman Catholics founded the first chair of missions at a Catholic institution, the University of Munster, occupied by Josef Schmidlin, in 1910. This chair sprang largely from the influence of Warneck (Bosch 1991, 491).

This declaration of independence on the part of missiology was not all positive, theologically speaking. Many of the theologians did not accept these chairs as true professorships of theology. Missiology remained peripheral, the creature of the missionary societies and, in reality, became the institution’s department of foreign affairs! The theoretical disciplines remained aloof and accepted the new discipline with condescension, especially when the chairs were occupied by retired missionaries who had worked in “Tahiti, Teheran, or Timbuktu!!” (Bosch 1991, 492).

As an independent discipline in theology, missiology further distanced itself from the theoretical disciplines by falling into its own fourfold pattern. “Missionary foundations” paralleled the biblical subjects, “missions theory” paralleled systematic theology, “missions history” found its counterpart in church history, and “missionary practice” reflected practical theology (Bosch 1991, 492). This arrangement isolated missiology even more and made it a science of the missionary and for the missionary. British missiologists rebelled against this isolation and recommended that missiology be added as a unit to the other theoretical disciplines. This attempted integration concept never really worked and marginalized missiology even more.

None of the three models—incorporation, independence, or integration—resulting from this evolution satisfied the theological academy. Integration is theoretically and theologically the soundest, but today the independent model prevails in most theological institutions. However, since the 1960s, the church has gradually come to the position that missions can no longer be peripheral to its life and being. Missions has become no longer merely an activity of the church but an expression of the very being of the church. Bosch calls it the movement from “a theology of mission to a missionary theology” and considers it an element in his emerging ecumenical missionary paradigm (Bosch 1991, 492).

This recovery of the mission of the church has impacted missiology. An amalgam of the fourfold theology with the fourfold missiology is in formation. Missiology has its dimensional aspect in which it permeates all theological disciplines and is no longer one sector of the theological encyclopedia, but it also has its intentional aspect in which it addresses the global context. From this new point of view, missiology has the twofold task of relating to theology and praxis at the same time. It must constantly challenge theology to be a “theology of the road”; but at the same time, it must exercise theology in context.

J. M. van Engelen sums up this responsibility best when he says that the challenge of missiology is “to link the always-relevant Jesus event of twenty centuries ago to the future of the promised reign of God for the sake of meaningful initiatives in the present” (Bosch 1991, 498). Today, missiology, while maintaining its departmental identity, is seeking help from, and offering help to, the classical theological disciplines. It is a pilgrim discipline in constant exodus. As Bosch observes, “missiologa semper reformanda est.” Only in this way can missiology become not only ancilla theologiae, the “handmaiden of theology,” but also ancilla Dei mundi, “handmaiden of God’s world” (Scherer 1971, 153).

The Definition of Missiology

Having treated at length the etymology and theology of the term missiology, it is now necessary to formally define it. A brief perusal of some classical definitions of the term helps:

Abraham Kuyper: “The investigation of the most profitable God-ordained methods leading to the conversion of those outside of Christ” (Bavinck 1960, xix).

Olav Myklebust: “The scholarly treatment, from the point of view of both history and theory, of the expansion of Christianity among non-Christians” (Myklebust 1955, 29).

Johannes Verkuyl: “Missiology is the study of the salvation activities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit throughout the world geared toward bringing the kingdom of God into existence” (Verkuyl 1978, 5).

Alan Tippett: “The academic discipline or science which researches, records and applies data relating to the biblical origin, the history (including the use of documentary materials), the anthropological principles and techniques and the theological base of the Christian mission. The theory, methodology and data bank are particularly directed towards: (1) the processes by which the Christian message is communicated; (2) the encounters brought about by its proclamation to non-Christians; (3) the planting of the Church and organization of congregations, the incorporation of converts into those congregations, and the growth and relevance of their structures and fellowship, internally to maturity, externally in outreach, as the Body of Christ in local situations and beyond, in a variety of culture patterns” (Tippett 1987, xiii).

Ivan Illich: “The science about the Word of God as the Church in her becoming; the Word as the Church in her borderline situations; . . . Missiology studies the growth of the Church into new peoples, the birth of the Church beyond its social boundaries; beyond the linguistic barriers within which she feels at home; beyond the poetic images in which she taught her children . . . Missiology therefore is the study of the Church as surprise” (Bosch 1991, 493).

The analysis of these definitions, long and short, common and exotic, reveals missiology as a discipline in its own right but an essentially dynamic discipline. In other words, it has a symbiotic relation to the entire theological curriculum. It depends heavily on theology, history, and the practical disciplines; but it also must dip into the behavioral sciences, namely anthropology, sociology, psychology, and linguistics. It is not a mere borrower from other fields, for these dimensions are related to each other in dynamic symbiosis. They interact, influence, and modify one another.

Missiology cannot be static; it grows; it adapts; it relates to the ever-changing world. It is never complete. However, in every new situation it must also retain its own internal integration. For that reason, the simplest definition of missiology is “the study of individuals being brought to God in history” (Tippett 1987, xiii). But for the purpose of integrating its components, the following definition will serve to finalize this section:

Missiology is the science of missions. It includes the formal study of the theology of mission, the history of missions, the concomitant philosophies of mission and their strategic implementation in given cultural settings.

The Scope of Missiology

The foregoing definition of missiology demonstrates the remarkable scope of the discipline. The scope of missiology can best be expressed by a simple formula suggested to this writer by the outline of William Carey’s Enquiry. Using Greek and early Christian symbols it would result in the following formula:1

Most evangelical seminaries have departments of missions that continue to follow a fourfold pattern of missiology mentioned above. However, approximation to the classical disciplines on the part of the contemporary missiologists is leading to a greater integration of the missionary motif in the curriculum. At the same time, the more theoretical departments are realizing their need of missiological orientation. Although most faculties employ missions professors who have had field experience, they also require solid academic credentials and expect their missions department to do more than only recruit candidates and support the denominational program. They want men and women who can reflect theologically on their pragmatic experience. With this in mind, an examination of the units of study mentioned in the formula is in order.

Theology of Mission

Academic missiology must be seen vis-à-vis systematic theology. The starting point of all missiological study should be missionary theology. The dynamic relationship between systematic theology and academic missiology has already been discussed. They are mutually interdependent. The missionary enterprise needs its theological undergirding; systematic theology needs missionary validation. Missions is systematic theology in action, with overalls on, out in the cultures of the world! The missionary is the outrider of systematic theology. The greatest proof of the validity of theology is the success of the missionary movement. Perhaps this should be dramatized by asking the missionaries to be appointed in academic regalia and the theologians to march to convocation in pith helmets and bermuda shorts! The presence of a missions department in the seminary should be a reminder of the missionary motif that should permeate all theological departments.

The world of missiology is experiencing a return to theological reflection. A quest for the essence of the faith is in progress. With their wealth of cross-cultural experience, missionaries and nationals are seeking the “contextualization” of the gospel in their respective cultural settings. The modem missionary movement, launched from a firm theological pad, tended to drift into benevolent humanism in its second and third generations. However, recent evangelical missiological pronouncements such as the Wheaton and Berlin Declarations of 1966, the Frankfort Declaration of 1970, and the Lausanne Confessions of 1974 and 1989, indicate a return to a solid confessional basis. Together with the biblical revival in the ancient Christian traditions such as the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches, this fusion of missiology and theology is encouraging.

Another indication of this trend is that the Two-Thirds World churches are producing their first real theologians. They insist on a theology of praxis, on “doing theology.” The rise and fall of the liberation theologies in Latin America is a case in point. In spite of all its fallacies, liberation theology was an honest attempt to reflect on orthopraxy, or, in other words, to find out how theological orthodoxy could become efficacious in oppressive cultures.

If this trend toward indigenous theology can avoid the error of becoming so syncretistic and nationalistic that it ceases to be Christian, some exciting new theologies of mission will result. Missiology in the seminaries must prepare the cross-cultural missionaries to deal with this trend. Missiology and theology must continue to spend time together in the academy.

A second consideration in a theology of Mission relates to the missionary nature of God. The Christian mission is essentially God’s mission. Here we make a distinction between the words mission and missions. In missiological usage, the singular Mission (usually upper case) refers to the missio Dei, the mission of God. The plural missions (usually lower case) refers to the missions of humans. In other words, the “mission of God” makes necessary and undergirds the “missions of humans.” The redemptive activity of God recorded in the Bible sets the pattern.

The incarnate God in Christ is the key. God’s called-out, redemptive community, the church, is to be on mission. The nature of God and his church make the “missions” of the churches necessary. P. T. Forsyth expresses it in similar fashion, “The missionless church betrays that it is a crossless church, and it becomes a faithless church” (Myklebust 1957, 316).

A third concept in a theology of Mission is the missionary nature of the Bible. Generally the special revelation forms the biblical basis of missions. The Bible is the record of the missionary activity of God. Could this missionary motif not be the key to its unity and wholeness? It is the key to that puzzling interplay between the particular and the universal found in the Bible. Many are bogged down in the particulars and the prooftexts of the Bible, which lead to division and provincialism. The missionary motif brings a refreshing unity and universality to Bible study that a reactionary constituency desperately needs.

For instance, could we not show that the particular covenant of God with Abraham in Genesis 12 was God’s strategy to fulfill his universal covenant with Noah in Genesis 9? (Sundkler 1965, 11–17). The particular callings and actions of God with Abraham, Israel, the remnant, and the New Testament church must be seen in the light of the universal sovereignty and redemptive purpose of God. The doctrine of election will be better understood when seen as election for mission and not for privilege. The Old and New Testaments can be tied together by showing the missionary implications of a contrast between Babel and Pentecost (Sundkler 1965, 11–14), or how Jesus was careful to move from the particular to the universal in his own earthly ministry.

In the New Testament we have let Paul dominate the missionary picture. What about the missionary implications of Jesus’ teachings in Mark 13 or of the missionary lesson of the “cleansing of the temple”? It is the overarching theology of mission contained in the Bible that makes it a unity. From Genesis to Revelation we see a double line of salvation based on the principles of election and substitution—a minority is elected to bear blessings to the majority. The idea of “the people of God” chosen to be a missionary community “to all peoples” is the Bible’s central theme.

A fourth factor in the theology of Mission includes the missionary nature of the church. Many evangelicals, committed to the local church polity and to the planting of churches on their mission fields, are in danger of falling into provincialism and ethnocentrism. They need a dose of the New Testament doctrine of the universal church, the spiritual community of Christ in the world. The local congregations will be spiritually enhanced and doctrinally undergirded when viewed from the perspective of the universal church and its relation to the kingdom of God. Church growth will not be an end in itself but a means to the end of world evangelization. The relation between the kingdom, the church, and the churches is a theme for missions and needs more emphasis in a correct theology of mission.

A fifth truth in the theology of Mission involves the missionary nature of the Christian ministry. A correct interpretation of the New Testament doctrine of the ministry is essential for good missiology. The official ministers mentioned in Ephesians 4:11–12 are not to do all the ministry. A correct reading in the original language points out that the “official ministers” are to equip and enable the “general ministers” (all the saints, or all believers) to do the ministry. In a constituency that depends too much on full-time staffs, the correct idea of ministry is an endangered species. A new emphasis on the role of the pastor, or missionary, as an “equipper of the saints for the work of the ministry” is urgent. This will result in new converts who from the first will discover their gifts and be active in Christian ministries. A correct theology of mission needs this emphasis.

A sixth factor in the theology of Mission relates to the missionary nature of the Holy Spirit. The place and purpose of the Holy Spirit must be emphasized in a theology of mission. This emphasis is especially imperative in our day in light of the charismatic movement and the burgeoning Pentecostal growth on many mission fields. Missionary advance has always been preceded by genuine spiritual awakenings such as the Pietist movement on the Continent, the Wesleyan revival in England, the Great Awakening in North America, the Moody campaigns, the youth revival movement among Southern Baptists, and the Billy Graham campaigns across the world.

Modern missiology must give more attention to the role of the Holy Spirit in the call, appointment, orientation, and maintenance of the missionaries. More emphasis on spiritual gifts and spiritual warfare is sorely needed. Spiritual renewal should be accepted, guided, and exploited in order to discover new methods of evangelism, worship, and personal development. It is the radical therapy that, at times, is the only remedy for broken interpersonal relations, demonic interference, and moral laxity that beset the missionary enterprise. Coming to terms with spiritual renewal will be a primary task of a correct theology of mission.

The above elements of a theology of mission are selective, not exhaustive. They are representative of all Christian doctrines that should be examined missiologically. They should be sufficient, however, to show the importance of the study of Mission theology as a component part of missiology.

History of Missions

Once a firm theology of Mission has been formulated, the missiologist must consider the history of missions before formulating his or her philosophy of Missions. Limitations of space in this introduction, the vastness of this component, and the treatment in other parts of this volume make possible only a cursory mention of this area of missiological study.

There is perhaps an unconscious tendency in contemporary missiology to downgrade the importance of missionary history and biography in order to give place to mission action, the behavioral sciences, church growth, and a myriad of faddish methodologies. This must stop! Historical study produces creativity and flexibility that are necessary for effective missionary deployment. Missionary history must be enlivened and inserted into the missiological curriculum. Some mission agencies act as if a vacuum is between the beginnings of Christianity and their day. The missions curriculum must include a wide spectrum of elements derived from the history of the expansion of the Christian faith. Both descriptive history and historical theology should be included. A selected, not exhaustive, list of historical topics for the missiological agenda illustrate the importance of this component:

The definitive nature of New Testament missionary principles and methods. Should they be considered as normative for today?

The presence of cross-cultural problems and ethnic divisions among New Testament Christians. Are they challenges in every generation?

The rapid identification of Christianity with the Roman Empire. How do we deal with the imperialist problem in history?

The historical development of the monastic movement from an inward renewal movement to an outward missionary movement. What does this say about similar movements today?

A comparative study of the Celtic and Roman missionaries in the expansion of Christianity into Western Europe. Are there parallels in the contemporary situation?

A study of the lives and methods of significant Catholic missionaries such as Francis of Assisi, Ramon Lull, Francis Xavier, Mateo Ricci, and Robert De Nobili. What of value exists in their methodologies?

An analysis of the reasons the Protestant Reformers—Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and Knox—were not more missionary. Are some of these same reasons—faulty eschatology, deficient hermeneutics, theological controversy, and so on—impediments today?

A study of the Pietistic precursors of the modern missionary movement and their influence on Carey and evangelical missions today.

An assessment of the Protestant ecumenical movement from 1910 until the present. What caused it to detour from its original missionary purposes?

A study of the evangelical ecumenism of the interdenominational, parachurch groups and their relation to denominational missions.

An overview of your own denominational missionary history. What does it have to learn from other denominations?

And missionary history includes even more paradigms that are instructive for missiology today.

In conclusion, missionary history should engender overall optimism. For instance, the modern missionary movement, even with its patent weaknesses and mistakes, is a great success story. It has made Christianity a universal faith for the first time in its history. The pessimism heard today with reference to missions is not based on historical fact. Geographical expansion and cultural penetration of the missionary movement have brought Christianity to what could be its finest hour. This is no time for it to lose its nerve.

Philosophy of Mission

A theology of Mission plus the history of missions will produce a philosophy of mission. A definition of the term philosophy of mission could be the following: “The integrated beliefs, assertions, theories, and aims that determine the character, the purpose, the organization, the strategy, and the action of a particular sending body of the Christian world mission.”

A perusal of missionary history reveals some classical philosophies of mission. The study and evaluation of these philosophies, or schools of missions, is another task of missiology. It is a requirement for the formulation of pertinent, effective philosophies of mission today. A brief enumeration of these philosophies, described by key words, follows:

Individualism. This philosophy assigns the Christian mission to the individual. In other words, the faith will spread through the personal witness of individual Christians. It eschews all structures, organizations, and societies of missions and assumes that Christians should witness wherever they happen to be. There is no intentional mission, only a casual, passive witness. Martin Luther seems to have espoused this philosophy. He said that if Lutherans happen to have contact with the Turks or the Jews, let them witness to them, but he never seemed to think of an intentional sending of missionaries to the Turks or the Jews! Many Christians unconsciously support this philosophy.

Ecclesiasticism. This situation exists where the mission is a department of a structured, hierarchial church, or an order of a church. Most of the Roman Catholic or Orthodox missionaries fall under this philosophy. Augustine of Canterbury, the famous Catholic missionary to England, was ordered by the pope to go as a missionary. He went, not responding to personal vocation, but in obedience to an ecclesiastical authority.

Colonialism. This philosophy exists where the mission is a department of state. It requires a state-church relationship where the state underwrites the missionary and the church selects and sends him out. An example of this philosophy is the Danish-Halle Mission to South India. The Danish king financed the mission carried out by the Halle missionaries.

Associationalism. This philosophy exists where individuals or churches voluntarily associate themselves together to sponsor a mission. Associationalism has assumed two forms: the missionary society made up of individuals or the missionary board made up of representatives from local churches. Most free-church, Baptist, and evangelical missions follow this philosophy.

Pneumaticism. This philosophy exists where the mission is inspired, supported, and carried out by the direction of the Holy Spirit and by persons and groups compelled by the Spirit’s leading to support the mission. It has been called the “faith missions” movement pioneered by Hudson Taylor and the China Inland Mission. The approach waits on the Holy Spirit to provide the vocation, direction, and support of the mission.

Supportivism. This philosophy exists where the mission exists to serve other missions. For this reason it has been called the “service mission” movement. Examples of this philosophy are the Missionary Aviation Fellowship, the Bible societies, and a host of support missions.

Institutionalism. This philosophy exists where the mission centers on the support of a single institution, such as a hospital, an orphanage, a good-will center, or a school. All of the structure and the purpose of such a mission is the maintenance of the institution.

Ecumenicalism. This philosophy exists where the purpose of the mission is the promotion of Christian unity in one form or other. Missionaries are sent out to be agents of church union and to promote schemes to try to heal the divided denominations of Christianity.

Pentecostalism. This philosophy depends on signs, wonders, miracles, healings, exorcisms, and charismatic manifestations to attract large crowds to hear and respond to the gospel. It is represented by the large Pentecostal churches around the world.

These philosophies should be studied, assessed, compared, and appropriated by missiology. Most of them have adherents in the world of mission today. Missiology helps the contemporary mission groups to arrive at their own philosophies, which, many times, are combinations of the classical forms mentioned above.

Cross-Cultural Strategy

Once the missiologist defines his or her philosophy, the next area of study and instruction is the strategic implementation of that philosophy in a given cultural setting. Here the whole matter of cross-cultural communication of the gospel comes into play. The first step is to analyze the “cultural setting.” However, before the particular setting of a given mission field can be understood, it must be seen in the light of the global setting. Seeking this understanding is the task of the missiologist. The missiologist must stay abreast of the global characteristics in a given moment of history. For example, the following are characteristics of the present world mosaic that have a bearing on the communication of the gospel by the cross-cultural missionary.

A growing revival of the supernatural. Humankind seems to be tiring of a materialistic, positivistic world. Humans are weary of living by bread alone. Once again there is a rumor of angels; Plato is back! Men and women are nostalgic for the transcendent. This trend is seen in the new aggressiveness of the ancient religions, in the renewal of the occult, in the New Age movement, in the robust charismatic movement, and in the biblical revival among the ancient Christian traditions. Judeo-Christian secularization has created its Baal-peor called secularism; but humankind, made in the image of God, longs for something more. The Christian mission must be sensitive and responsive to this point of contact.

The growing influence of the Two-Thirds World. Formerly called the Third World, these countries that were not aligned with either the First World (the USA and its western European allies) or the Second World (the Sino-Soviet Union, communist world) now constitute two-thirds of the world’s population and two-thirds of the world’s territory. They happen to be the scenario where cross-cultural communication of the Christian faith is attempted. Therefore, the study of their situations and felt needs is the task of missiology.

The principle of acceleration. Things occur much faster than in previous times. No longer do the Greek cyclical or the Judeo-Christian linear images accurately describe the process of history. These processes, in other years content to develop over a long period of time, seem to “rev up” their engines and lurch forward at blinding speed. Missions can no longer afford to plod! Highly efficient but slow-moving mission bureaucracies must give way to more flexible, quick-moving “ad-hocracies!”

The demise of the noble savage. Given that the savage was never really noble, today he is rapidly disappearing. In other words, what Westerners call “the primitive world” is in rapid transition. Urbanization and civilization are gradually pushing back the proverbial “bush” and exposing these primal peoples to the modem world. Missionaries, highly trained in anthropology and linguistics, are needed to give them a welcome to the Christian faith.

The crowded global village. A demographic problem is creating havoc all over the world. Christianity is keeping up remarkably well, but one wonders for how long. Much will depend on the sensitivity of Christian missions to the urban challenge. Ways to reach the masses in the cities without losing the essentially personal nature of the faith must be explored.

The demise of world socialism. The sudden fall of Marxist-Leninist socialism has left a spiritual vacuum in great sectors of the world. This presents an unexpected opportunity for the Christian mission if it can respond positively.

The shifting economic center of gravity. The Christian mission no longer counts on a monopoly of the world’s economic capital. It no longer has a neocolonial umbrella. Other religions are economically competitive and aggressively active.

The revolutionary nature of the world. The Christian mission must perform its task in the midst of political, social, and economic revolution. It must not be reactionary. Somehow it must empathize with authentic revolution and leaven it with revolutionary Christianity.

Once the missiologist has become aware of the global mosaic, he is better able to analyze a particular mission field or a given cultural setting. At this point, missiology has to define culture and teach future missionaries how to “read” a culture. All the research of the behavioral sciences—anthropology, sociology, psychology—as well as linguistics, are employed to make possible a cultural penetration. The several layers of culture are analyzed, and cultural barriers are anticipated. The phenomenon of culture shock, so detrimental to effective adjustment and cross-cultural communication, is defined and anticipated. Ways to overcome it are discussed. “Cultural overhang,” or “lag,” is isolated, and means to avoid it are presented. The religious aspect of each culture is examined.

At this point, the whole question of a theology of religions is addressed and approaches to the other religions are considered. With different views—called exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism—in mortal conflict among theologians, some missiologists feel that this “theology of religions” is the most crucial question in their field today.

Communication principles are employed to facilitate the task of translation of Scripture and the explanation of the biblical truths in the idiom of the new culture. Ethnocentrism and cultural imperialism are shown to be the principal enemies of successful cross-cultural communication. Strategies to implement the cross-cultural principles wrap up this important unit of missiology.

Conclusion

In summary, the fleshing out of this formula of content presents an overview of the whole field of missiology, which the rest of this volume intends to treat in detail. Missiology, after many vicissitudes, has won its place in theological education. Although it is now a separate discipline with its own integrity, it is vitally related to the other disciplines and would hope to be an integrating center around which all can gather.

Chapter 2

The Purpose of Missions

Gerald D. Wright

We live in an era preoccupied with the issue of purpose. This preoccupation is seen in books such as The Purpose Driven Church by Rick Warren and God’s Missionary People: Rethinking the Purpose of the Local Church by Charles Van Engen. Institutions and churches rush to formulate purpose statements. This current fixation on purpose may reflect a widespread concern that efforts should be directed toward consciously determined ends and also may reveal a certain uneasiness about the value of many traditional endeavors. This issue of purpose holds special importance in the realm of Christian missions.

Without a clear understanding of purpose, efforts that issue out of the best of motives may lose focus. Even worse, when the church loses touch with its God-given purpose, its energies quickly become institutionally focused and self-serving rather than self-giving. The enormous challenges, demands, and opportunities of modern missions make it essential that the church possess a clear, biblically and theologically sound understanding of the purpose of missions.

A Plurality of Understandings

While one might think that the purpose of missions is self-evident, the late David Bosch in Transforming Mission (1991) demonstrated that the missionary efforts of the church through the centuries have reflected considerable variety with regard to purpose. This variety has ranged from the embodiment of agape to the “Christianizing” of culture to the expansion of Christendom, both in terms of government and orthodoxy. Bosch concluded his impressive survey with a summary of what he called “emerging paradigms,” which further enlarged the potential scope of missions’ purpose, encompassing missions as missio Dei, enculturation, liberation, and ministry by the whole people of God, to name a few.

A cursory examination of current texts in missiology reinforces this perception of diversity. Waldron Scott (1980) emphasizes establishment of justice. Charles Kraft (1979) and others, working from an anthropological perspective, consider missions a process of cross-cultural communication and contextualization. They emphasize mission activity as the incarnation of the gospel. John Piper (1993) relates the purpose of missions primarily to worship and proclamation in the context of the glory of God. Lesslie Newbigin (1995a) considers the purpose of missions in relation to the kingdom of God understood from a trinitarian perspective. In earlier centuries, missions for William Carey, as for many of the Anabaptists before him and the Baptists who have followed him, was understood primarily in the context of the Great Commission and its command to make disciples among all nations.

These diverse understandings of the purpose of missions result in part from varying interpretations of the biblical and theological foundations of missions. Which biblical texts should be given primary force: the Great Commission, the Old and New Testament covenants, the theological formulations of Romans, or the eschatological emphases of Revelation? Which doctrines should be determinative: the nature of God, Christology, pneumatology, ecclesiology, soteriology, eschatology?

This diversity has been compounded in modern times by the influence on missions of disciplines such as communication theory, anthropology, and sociology. Different voices within different traditions at different times have offered varying understandings of the purpose of missions.

Against this background of plurality and complexity, the trustees of the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention adopted, in February 1995, a remarkably simple and straightforward purpose statement that asserts that “our basic purpose is to provide all people an opportunity to hear, understand and respond to the gospel in their own cultural context.” Several aspects of this understanding are significant. While there is emphasis on proclamation, there is also emphasis on understanding and response, and all within the cultural context of the hearers. Hence, the purpose of missions is not fulfilled until the gospel has been presented in the most viable way possible in view of the particular cultural setting.

The same International Mission Board document states that the basic task of the missionary is “evangelism through proclamation, discipling, equipping, and ministry that results in indigenous Baptist churches.” The emphasis, then, is clearly upon evangelism; but the instruments of evangelism are identified as proclamation, discipling, equipping, and ministry. Indigenous churches are generally understood to be churches that are self-supporting, self-governing, and self-propagating. Some missiologists would add “self-theologizing” to the characteristics of a truly indigenous church.

The Southern Baptist Convention’s Covenant for a New Century expresses the purpose of the North American Mission Board as proclaiming the gospel, starting New Testament congregations, and ministering to persons in Christ’s name, as well as assisting churches in fulfilling these functions. The statements of these two Southern Baptist missionary entities demonstrate a similarity of understanding as to the basic purpose of mission and missions.

Missions and the Light of the World

Missiologists strive to achieve balance between the different facets of missions. They seek biblical and theological foundations broad enough to afford a holistic approach yet restrictive enough to prevent blurring that perceives everything as missions.

Discussions have centered, at times, around the missio Dei (the mission of God into which the church is enlisted) or around the kingdom of God or around the glory of God. Each of these and other foci have proven helpful in the ongoing conversation about the purpose of missions. These perspectives complement and augment one another, forming a beautiful tapestry. The absence of any one from the whole detracts from the beauty and fullness of the total picture.

To those who embraced the kingdom of God, Jesus said, “You are the light of the world” (Matt 5:14 NASB). This expansive and emotive image of the nature and purpose of missions connected with Old Testament missiological themes and related the purpose of missions to the nature of the godhead and to Jesus’ own mission. The entire tapestry of the purpose of mission can be viewed as an expansion of the metaphor of God’s people as the light of the world.

Jesus used images that defied strict, mathematical equivalency and that beckoned the hearer to reflect in order to understand. He spoke of bread and water and seed and leaven. His parables, too, invited reflection. His miracles were “signs” that, when properly understood, conveyed truth about his nature and mission. Light was one of the terms used by Jesus that called for reflection and that overflowed with meaning for the hearer seeking truth.

The concept of light had important missiological roots in the Old Testament. Isaiah envisioned a servant of God who would be a light to the Gentiles (Isa 42:6). In a striking passage God declared of his servant, “It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth” (Isa 49:6 NIV 1984).

These and other passages in Isaiah make it clear that, for the prophet, light was indeed a missiological term related to God’s purpose of making himself known to the nations, the Gentiles. Jesus maintains this missiological focus in his own statement, for the world is the recipient of the light shining forth through his disciples.

Light and Knowledge

Several purposes of missions are discernible in the imagery of light, which of course has to be understood against the opposing imagery of darkness. First, light suggests knowledge while darkness suggests ignorance, as anyone who has ever stumbled around in the dark of an unfamiliar environment in search of some item can well comprehend. Where there is no light there is no knowledge, and what better than darkness could describe the plight of a world without the message of redemption and hope? In this context, light is closely associated with revelation and with the glory of God and implies knowledge of God. Hence, Paul could speak of “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ” (2 Cor 4:6 NIV 1984).

An essential aspect of missions, therefore, is proclamation, the imparting of the knowledge of God through the Good News of Jesus Christ, particularly his sinless life, crucifixion for our sins, resurrection, and coming return in glory. Proclamation was central to the mission of God’s servant described by Isaiah, who was to proclaim good news to the poor, liberty to the captives, recovery of sight to the blind, and the era of God’s favor (Isa 61:1–2). Jesus, of course, made exactly this proclamation.

The kingdom of God was central in Isaiah’s mission as it must be central in ours; only now, as Lesslie Newbigin has observed, that kingdom has a name and a face—Jesus of Nazareth (Newbigin 1995a, 40). If the church is to fulfill its mission as light of the world, it must be faithful and clear in proclaiming the gospel and imparting the information essential to an understanding of salvation and an experiential knowledge of God through believing in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Light and Good Deeds

Proclamation, however, is more than words. Jesus proclaimed God’s kingdom in word and deed. Just as the parables proclaimed the kingdom in words, the miracles proclaimed the kingdom in deeds. This, too, had been a part of the missiological vision of Isaiah, for in bringing light to the Gentiles the servant would open the eyes of the blind, free those in bondage, and bind up the brokenhearted (Isa 42:7; 61:1).

The church today, likewise, must proclaim God’s message by word and in deed. In fact, it is often the proclamation in deeds that validates and authenticates the proclamation in words, and vice versa. Quite appropriately, then, home and foreign missions have emphasized the importance of ministry to people’s needs, sponsoring homeless shelters in the inner city, agricultural projects in underdeveloped areas, medical missions, and a host of other ministries.

Light denotes good deeds, even as darkness suggests evil deeds. The Gospel of John, for instance, speaks of the light coming into the world and being rejected because people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil (John 3:19). Evil deeds are hidden under the cloak of darkness, but deeds of righteousness can be done in the light. When Jesus declared his followers to be the light of the world, he exhorted them to let their light shine so that the world would see their good deeds and glorify God.

Good deeds—ministry to the hurting, humanitarian aid, medical missions, social ministry, or some other form of compassionate action—glorify God. But Christ must also be proclaimed through actions that demonstrate the power of God and of the gospel. Paul reminded the Corinthians that his proclamation in words had been simple and straightforward, but it had been accompanied by demonstrations of divine power (1 Cor 2:4).

If the missionary today is to be an instrument of light in a world of darkness, the power of God should be evidenced in redemptive deeds. Proclamation in words that neglect the actions properly associated with children of light will be hollow indeed. Furthermore, proclamation in actions without accompanying words will stop at mere sentimentality, addressing the needs of the moment but leaving unanswered the greater and eternal need.

Word and deed must never compete with each other, as though one were diminished by the other. Word and deed clarify and define each other. Either one without the other is shallow and impotent, but together they shine as light in a dark world. Both, however, must be exercised under the empowering of God’s Spirit.

Joy and Hope

Light, as used both by Isaiah and Jesus, suggests joy and hope in contrast to the gloom and despair of darkness. Isaiah (9:2–7) describes a people dwelling in the despair of darkness and oppression. When the light dawns upon them, however, their gloom turns to joy, as people who celebrate a bountiful harvest or as warriors who divide the spoil after a great victory. Such is the joy when the darkness is shattered by the light of missions.

Upon graduation, a seminary student in West Africa was called to pastor a village church in an area where Christian work was undeveloped. Because he had been called into the ministry later in life after a career in civil service, the pastor easily could have gone to a much larger city church in a more developed area; but he felt the leadership of God to the village.

Within a few months of his arrival, he began to notice signs of a new prosperity among the believers; and as the months passed the prosperity increased. Some who had been riding bicycles purchased motorcycles. Others plastered over their mud walls and floors with cement or replaced the thatched roof on their houses with a new tin roof. Their contributions to the village church increased significantly.

The pastor’s curiosity grew until, finally, he asked his church members why they had suddenly begun to prosper. He expected that they would share amazing stories of how they were materially blessed after they professed Christ. Instead, they told him that their prosperity really had not changed, but that before they came to Christ they had been afraid to show any sign of being blessed for fear that an envious neighbor might use dark spiritual powers against them, bringing harm on their households. In their spiritual bondage of fear and darkness they had been afraid to prosper.

It is little wonder that in such settings exuberance is in Christian worship, for believers know that the light of Christ has brought joy and hope to their lives. Nor is it surprising that joy was such a common manifestation among the Christians of the New Testament and was listed among the fruit of the Spirit by Paul. The mission of the church and of Christians, as the light of the world, is not only to spread the knowledge of God through proclamation accompanied by the deeds of light but also to bestow joy and hope, dispelling the darkness of gloom and despair.

Light and Spiritual Warfare

All of this, of course, presupposes a kind of spiritual warfare, a confrontation between light and darkness. Those who live in darkness are in bondage to the powers of this dark world, against which Christians must wrestle. Darkness is in part the result of a rejection of God’s glory (Rom 1:21) and in part a work of the “god of this age” who has blinded the minds of unbelievers (2 Cor 4:4). Throughout the New Testament, Christians are reminded that they have been delivered from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light and are to walk in the light, shunning every form of compromise with evil and darkness.

Nowhere is this confrontation with darkness more evident than on the mission fields, at home or abroad. When missionaries cross barriers or enter neglected sectors of the world and society, they are invading Satan’s domains. Indeed, confronting the forces of darkness (invasion of these darkened domains) is a primary purpose of missions. It is not surprising, then, that God instructed Paul to turn the Gentiles “from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God” (Acts 26:18 NASB).

The most critical need, then, is not for more money or better strategies, though these are vital, but for an awareness and appropriation of spiritual equipping and empowering from God. Those who have carried the light into the dark corners of the world and of society know the importance of this empowering, for they have seen firsthand the fear and despair. They have experienced the struggle against evil in which Satan’s territory is yielded only with the utmost exertion of all one’s resources. They have seen their every effort openly opposed by the Evil One.

The Ephesian Christians had to contend with the powers of darkness. Paul prayed that their eyes would be opened to know God’s great power on behalf of believers, a power demonstrated in the resurrection of Christ from the dead and in their own resurrection from the deadness of trespasses and sins into the life of Christ (Eph 1:18–2:7).

Paul’s prayer makes it clear that the needed resources for victorious living are available and need only be appropriated. Missionaries, therefore, need not tremble before the darkness, for their weapons of warfare are not of the flesh but are divinely powerful so as to destroy the fortresses of the Evil One and take every thought captive for Christ (2 Cor 10:3–5).

To undertake the work of missions without such spiritual weapons and knowledge of how to use them, therefore, is futile and even foolhardy. The missionary’s weapons include righteousness, faith, truth, the Word of God, and a readiness to share the gospel, all exercised with vigilant prayerfulness (Eph 6:13–18).

It is impossible to overstate the importance of prayer in this conflict with darkness. Prayer is the primary instrument by which God’s available power is appropriated in the life of the missionary. One of the great stories of contemporary missions is the story of how God has used prayer to open doors to unreached people groups, bringing light to those in darkness. Even so, we still have much to learn about missions praying and about the relationship between prayer and victory over the forces of darkness. And we still may have important lessons to learn about the nature of this warfare.

If a part of the purpose of missions is to confront and oppose the powers of darkness, then missionaries need a clear idea of the enemy and his tactics. Fortunately, the Scriptures provide detailed information concerning Satan’s activity. He is the adversary, the accuser, the destroyer, the deceiver, the liar, and the murderer who holds people and peoples in bondage. In contrast, God reveals himself as our advocate and defender, as one who gives life abundantly and leads into all truth, who sets free those who are in bondage. These respective traits may seem so familiar as to be trite, but they are vitally important and need to be kept in mind whenever missions is pondered.

Missionary service is modeled on the character of God. Consequently, the missionary goes to the world as an advocate, not an adversary; goes in truth, not in deception or falsehood; goes to set free, not to enslave.

Light and Culture

Another purpose of missions that is integral to the calling to be light in a dark world concerns the missionaries’ relationship to culture and society. On the one hand, missionary service demands cultural adaptation that aims to permeate and transform culture. It also requires confrontation with culture. Interestingly, this tension is depicted in the biblical imagery of light, for light both transforms and exposes.

Like the salt and leaven also used by Jesus to depict his followers and their influence, light is an agent of transformation. As such, it illuminates the landscape or dwelling, making it manageable and even hospitable. Much that is of value may be in the setting, but unless it is transformed by the light, it remains cloaked in darkness and marred by sin.

Even so, within cultures there may be much that is noble and of value. Without the light of Christ, however, such inherent value cannot be truly appropriated. On the other hand, light exposes all within the setting that is undesirable or detestable, uncovering the evils of individuals and societies. Light confronts the deeds of wickedness, stripping away the protection of darkness.

This tension between transformation and judgment is reflected theologically in the tension between the incarnation and the cross. In the incarnation, we see God adapting himself to humanity and condescending to human culture. In the cross, however, we see God’s judgment on sinful humanity and fallen culture. One of the weaknesses of Charles Kraft’s work in Christianity in Culture is that he works almost exclusively from the perspective of the incarnation without the tension of the cross. Consequently, Kraft thinks primarily in terms of transformation and not in terms of judgment upon culture. On the field, missionaries may be tempted to sacrifice this tension, either completely embracing or totally repudiating their host culture. But the tension implied by the light, which both transforms and exposes, needs to be maintained in missions.

There is, then, a mission purpose with regard to culture that requires transforming and validating within a culture that which has value and can be placed in the service of Christ, and exposing and rejecting that which belongs only to the darkness and can never be compatible with the kingdom of light. Expressions of culture must be judged as to whether they have positive value, are neutral, or constitute a negative presence in the setting and need to be opposed. Sometimes sorting out these issues is difficult, for cultural elements may not be what they seem in the eyes of an outsider. Missionaries have often drawn conclusions without the necessary cultural understandings.

These questions must be addressed prayerfully under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and with the help of indigenous Christians. Kraft warns that the missionary can advocate cultural change but that only cultural insiders innovate in achieving change (Kraft 1979, 360–70). Further, time must be allowed for the Spirit of God to work in individuals to bring about the necessary transformation of culture or rejection of culturally entrenched evil. Still, these principles may prove difficult to apply if the missionary encounters a practice such as sati, the Indian practice of burning alive a widow on the funeral pyre of her husband—a practice vehemently opposed by William Carey.

A Community of Light

The calling to be light is also a calling into the fellowship of light. Paul saw Christians as being joined together in a community by which they could encourage and strengthen one another as children of light (Eph 5:8, 15–20). Similarly, John was emphatic in that if Christians truly walk in the light, they have fellowship with one another as common members of God’s family in a relationship defined by love (1 John 1:7; 2:8–11). Surely the task of missions is not fully accomplished until believers are united in communities of faith, fellowships of light, and loving spiritual families. It is from within such a fellowship that the light of Christ can best shine through his followers, and the creation of such fellowships is integral to the mission task.

Being God’s light in a dark world, then, means overthrowing ignorance with the knowledge of God. This ministry includes countering the evil deeds of darkness with deeds of righteousness and light. The ministry of light involves bestowing joy and hope in Christ where gloom and despair are and engaging the powers of darkness in spiritual warfare in the power and name of the living Christ. The ministry of light includes both transforming and confronting culture.

Light, then, is a fitting metaphor for mission and a guiding standard for missions. Christians are called into the light of eternal life and commissioned to take this light to those in darkness. An effective witness must show this light by proclamation, ministry, and spiritual warfare. Good deeds done in the name of God and the power of the Holy Spirit do much to show the light of God’s message.

As ministers of God’s light, missionaries must act as both supporters of indigenous culture and judges of local culture. While missionaries will advocate cultural change, they must allow local people to effect changes. Some cultural elements may remain as part of the reception of light, but others will have such marks of darkness as to be untenable in the Christian context.

Believers, as children of light, should be drawn into the communities of light, local Christian fellowships. As Christians share the nature of light in God, they live together in the essence of the fellowship of light. Only as the churches exemplify the light in joy, unity, hope, and service can these congregations share the mystery of salvation. Light sums up much of what mission and missions is all about.

The Nature of God and the Mission of Christ

The calling to be light also draws missions into the sphere of the nature of God and the mission of Christ. John declared, “God is light; in him there is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5). Similarly, Paul described God as dwelling in “unapproachable light” (1 Tim 6:16). Indeed, Paul had encountered the risen Christ on the road to Damascus as a blinding light. Further, Jesus declared himself to be the light of the world, promising that those who followed him would not walk in the darkness but have the light of life (John 8:12). It is only because Christ is the true light that Christians are light. Stated differently, Christ is the light, and Christians become light as they are properly related to him.

The designation of Christians, and particularly of missionaries, as the light of the world is a reminder that they are called to be partakers of the divine nature with him who is by nature light. Missionaries are called to join in mission with the one who has shown in the darkness bringing light to the nations. “As the Father has sent Me,” Jesus said, “I also send you” (John 20:21 NASB). To be light in a dark world, then, is to share in God’s nature and to share in Christ’s mission.

Consequently, arrogance and pride have no place. Paul, having contemplated the mystery and grandeur of the God of light who has shone in our hearts, went on to declare that “we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us” (2 Cor 4:6–7 niv 1984). This recognition can only produce humility and gratitude to God for his indescribable grace.

Is Everything Missions?

As was suggested earlier in this chapter, missionary leaders must avoid two extremes in working out an understanding of the purpose of missions. On the one hand, the purpose of missions should not be so narrowly defined that vital missions concerns are overlooked or obscured. On the other hand, the purpose should not be stated so generally that everything becomes missions. Then the danger arises that the more critical concerns will be overshadowed by a host of lesser concerns, and missions will lose its direction.

Two aspects of missions as sharing God’s light help protect missions from being diluted or becoming too generalized. First, missions must display an overriding concern for the glory of God. Jesus indicated that the ultimate purpose of his followers should be to incite others to glorify God (Matt 5:16). John Piper has developed some of these concerns in his book Let the Nations Be Glad: The Sovereignty of God in Missions. Missions should always be viewed within the context of its ultimate purpose of leading a lost humanity to join with all creation in praising and glorifying the living God.

Second, the calling to be light requires prioritizing missions in favor of those in darkness. Of course, all who do not know Christ are in darkness; but there are also degrees of darkness related to factors such as availability of the gospel, accessibility of Christian worship, the existence of Scripture and related Christian literature in the heart language of the target people, or the presence of oppressive structures and traditions. Missions must be zealous to take the gospel to the darkest corners of the world and of society so that every creature has the opportunity to receive the light of Christ.

Some Christians may be led to emphasize some part of the mission as the particular expression of missions for their group. This arrangement is not necessarily in error so long as the particular ministry (literacy, children’s work, medicine, education) is not presented as the way to do missions. The entire body of Christ should express the entire mission to win and develop people, meet their physical and spiritual needs, and bring them into fellowships that influence and transform their communities.

Everything is missions and missions is everything. The only care that must be expressed is that we not allow any expression of missions to be the entire mission. The body of Christ must be careful to express the entire meaning of mission in the particular expression of missions around the world.

A Unifying Image

It is important to be reminded at this point that every Christian is called into God’s service to be light in a dark world. When Jesus said, “You are the light of the world” (Matt. 5:15 NIV), he was talking to more than simply missionaries. Yet the calling to be light has special relevance for the missionary and for the mission of the church to a lost world. While not every Christian is called to be a missionary in the strict sense of the term, every Christian is called to be part of God’s total redemptive purpose.

The part of some, those whom we call missionaries, is to cross the barriers that separate people from the gospel and present them with the knowledge, claims, and character of God. Their calling does not make them holier or more valuable than other Christians, but it does require special giftings from God that enable them to become bicultural, to be severed from kin and country, and to recognize avenues of proclamation and ministry in settings different from their own.

All Christians, however, are part of God’s mission, his one mission of making himself known to all the people and peoples of the world. One of the most dramatic mission developments of this era has been the emergence of volunteers in missions. Christians in unprecedented numbers, who are not career missionaries, have voluntarily taken up the missionary banner and joined forces with vocational missionaries to share the light of Christ with the world. Others who have not gone to the mission fields at home or abroad have committed themselves to remarkable levels of praying and giving for the cause of missions. This merging and partnering of all Christians with those who are called by God as missionaries is essential if the missionary task is to be accomplished.

Mission and missions must be the consuming passion of the whole church of God and not the exclusive domain of an elite missionary regiment. Only then will the church be like a city set on a hill that cannot be hidden. Only then will the fullest meaning of mission as the light of God be realized.

Conclusion

The purpose of missions must be understood and articulated in ways that are biblically and theologically sound, avoiding a focus that is either too narrow or too inclusive and making missions a vital concern for the whole people of God. Jesus’ designation of his followers as the light of the world at once places the purpose of the church in a missiological framework based on the Old Testament expectation of a light to shine upon the Gentiles and the dark places.

This understanding of the purpose of missions centers on the proclamation of the gospel of Christ by word and by deed while displacing ignorance with the knowledge of God, evil deeds with deeds of righteousness, and despair and bondage with joy and freedom. Missions, then, means engaging and overthrowing the powers of darkness in the power of God. It entails an encounter with culture that both confronts and transforms.

Further, the calling to be light identifies missions with the God who is light and with the light and life-giving mission of Christ. Mission can be fully realized when believers are called into the fellowship of churches where the light of the gospel is lived out in love, unity, and service. Finally, it requires endeavor that glorifies God and that favors those who, by virtue of their social or geographical location, are in the greatest darkness.

Chapter 3

Missiological Method

Bruce Ashford and Scott Bridger

Missiology is a theological discipline, that is undertaken in conversation with Scripture, church history, and the social sciences and in consideration of its cultural context. One of the most formidable challenges facing missionaries and mission agencies today is the imperative to ensure that missiology remains a theological discipline, rather than making it a subset of the social sciences or captive to a particular cultural context. Missionaries must forge their ministry practices in the furnace of Christian Scripture and evangelical theology. Although evangelical missionaries, agencies, and seminaries declare their belief that Scripture is inspired by God, this belief sometimes is disconnected from our actual mission practice. When we allow this type of disconnection, we imply that what we believe about Scripture is important, but how we apply it on the mission field is not. This type of disconnection between belief and practice will derail our mission. In the following pages, we provide a brief treatment of some ways in which we can ground our mission practice in sound, biblically faithful theology, in conversation with church history, the social sciences, and our cultural contexts.

Theologically Driven Missiological Method

Missiology is a theological discipline, just as mission is a theological task. What, then, is “theology”? Christian theology is disciplined reflection on God’s revelation for the purpose of knowing and loving God, and participating in his mission in this world. From this definition, we can clearly see that “theology” is something in which every missionary is deeply interested. It is the impetus that drives the continual translation and transmission of the faith across linguistic, conceptual, and cultural boundaries. Andrew Walls writes, “Christian faith must go on being translated, must continuously enter into vernacular culture and interact with it, or it withers and fades” (Walls 2002a, 29). The missionary participates in God’s mission out of his knowledge of God and love for God, and through consistent reflection on the Bible.

One way that we can illuminate the task of theology is to understand its relation to four concepts: narrative, worship, obedience, and mission. First, theology arises out of Scripture and its dramatic narrative. The Bible is composed of sixty-six books written by numerous authors from diverse historical and cultural contexts. However, this diversity is part of a beautiful unity that constitutes the Bible’s overarching story. This story begins with God’s creation, is followed by humanity’s rebellion, and proceeds with God’s unfolding plan of redemption. This plan culminates in a renewed creation populated by worshippers from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation. The nature of the story is dramatic, inviting us into the story so that it can shape our lives. The nature of the story is also missional, sending us out to join God in his redemptive mission.

Next, theology arises from and issues forth in worship and obedience. Theology arises from worship and obedience because it is an attempt to understand, conceptualize, and articulate the God whom we love and obey. But theology also reinforces that worship and obedience. Michael Horton writes, “When the doctrine is understood in the context of its dramatic narrative, we find ourselves dumbfounded by God’s grace in Jesus Christ, surrendering to doxology (praise). Far from masters, we are mastered; instead of seizing the truth, we are seized by it, captivated by God’s gift, to which we can only say, ‘Amen!’ and ‘Praise the Lord’” (Horton 2011, 22). Without close attention to the biblical narrative and its attendant evangelical theology, our worship and obedience are at best unfocused and at worst idolatrous. However, when we consciously submit to the biblical narrative and its teaching, the flame of our worship and obedience is fueled by the oxygen of Word and Spirit.

Finally, theology arises from and issues forth in mission. The early church, as portrayed in the book of Acts, illustrates this fact. The church’s theology arose in the midst of her God-given mission. Paul’s epistles, for example, were written as he preached the gospel, planted churches, and suffered persecution. Not only did the early church’s theology arise from her mission; her theology likewise propelled the mission (Marshall 2004, 717–26). The biblical narrative portrays God as a missional God; therefore, theology is inherently missional, and missiology is inherently theological (C. Wright 2006b, 29–70). The biblical narrative, from which Christian theology arises, is nothing if not a missional narrative (Ashford 2011, 6–16). Any theology that purports to be Christian but does not arise from mission and issue forth in mission is not a truly Christian theology.

A Missional Theologian’s Disciplines

Christian theology is historical, exegetical, systematic, and practical. Each of these aspects of theology is helpful for shaping missionary strategies, methods, and practices.

First, theology is historical. As John Behr notes, “The theological reflection of the writers of antiquity cannot be divorced, as pure dogmatic speculation, from the ecclesial, social, and political situations and struggles in which they were immersed” (Behr 2001, 4). Historical theology therefore lays bare the significant factors in shaping both the questions and the answers of Christian theology in the contexts where the faith has taken root. Training in this discipline in turn disciplines missionaries to recognize the ways in which our inherited Western theological traditions shape the questions we ask and the answers we give. We recognize why certain issues tend to occupy a central place in a Western structure of thought, while other issues are central for majority world theologians in Latin America, Africa, and Asia (Tennent 2007, 1–24). Thus, when employed critically, the historical disciplines help us to preserve the integrity of the great Christian tradition, while at the same time not allowing various local traditions to control us as we obediently traverse all boundaries in translating and transmitting the gospel to those who remain outside the kingdom.

Second, theology is exegetical. Recognizing the ways (for better or for worse) that our culture and tradition have shaped our presuppositions puts us in a better position to read Scripture well. When reading Scripture, missionaries want to understand what the biblical author was trying to communicate (Vanhoozer 1998, 43–97; Thiselton 1992, 558–62). In order to do so, we must read the text lovingly. We value the biblical message for its inherent worth and beauty, rather than using it toward some other means (such as finding proof texts for our most recent mission strategy or practice). We approach it patiently, attentively, like a lover, rather than impatiently and inattentively, like, perhaps, a fast-food customer. N. T. Wright says, “Love does not seek to collapse the beloved into terms of itself. . . . In the fact of love, in short, both parties are simultaneously affirmed” (Wright 1992, 64). Also, we must read the text trustingly. We trust Scripture and are suspicious of ourselves, rather than trusting ourselves and being hesitant to find out what Scripture might actually say about our missionary strategies and practices (Bartholomew 1995). In addition, we must read the text humbly. We recognize that we approach the text with biases that threaten to distort its meaning. For this reason, we seek continually to bring our exegetical conclusions (and methods) back to the text for “cleaning” (Clark 2003, 51). Furthermore, we must read the Scripture in community. When we read the Scriptures with other believers, we are more likely to avoid the interpretive distortion that can be brought about by our biases and limitations. We read “in community” by reading Scripture in the context of our local church, in conversation with believers from other global cultures, and with the great theologians of Church history.

Third, theology is systematic. The missional theologian tries to show the unity and coherence of the biblical teaching for a particular cultural context. Because theology is shaped in and for a particular context, it often conceptualizes and articulates the biblical faith in relation to questions that arise from within that context, and with categories and in language that is familiar to that context. A biblically faithful theologian seeks systematic conceptions of the Bible that arise from the biblical narrative. These conceptions ought to resonate with its core teachings, take into account all of the biblical data, and recognize Scripture’s primacy over the theologian’s system. We need a good systematic theology to help us read the Bible better, while we affirm that Scripture is primary and systematic conceptions of it are secondary. As Vanhoozer has aptly noted, “The Spirit speaking in Scripture about what God was/is doing in the history of Israel and climactically in Jesus Christ is the supreme rule for Christian faith, life and understanding” (Vanhoozer 2006, 109).

Fourth, theology is practical. The most practical thing missionaries can have is a biblical and vibrant theology. The story of the Bible presents the God who speaks and acts in history, and in our lives. Scripture provides the redemptive script for our lives; we are participants in God’s grand drama. As Bartholomew and Goheen write, “[The biblical narrative] functions as the authoritative Word of God for us when it becomes the one basic story through which we understand our own experience and thought, and the foundation upon which we base our decisions and our actions” (Bartholomew and Goheen 2004, 21). We grow into our missional identity by means of Spirit-led obedience to this dramatic narrative. Theology arises from active ministry and in turn forms and reforms our ministry. Christian theology is not an ivory tower exercise isolated from the church’s broader mission. Mission is not a maverick adventure wandering away from the path of faithful Christian theology. A profound interplay exists between theology and mission.

A Missional Theologian’s Tools

To do historical, exegetical, systematic, and practical theology, missional theologians draw upon at least five sources: Scripture, reason, culture, experience, and tradition. Because these sources potentially conflict with one another, we affirm Scripture as the primary source and the supreme norm over all other sources. “Judgments about sources,” writes John Webster, “go hand-in-hand with acceptance of norms, that is, criteria by which decisions may be reached about which sources furnish the most authentic, reliable, and persuasive Christian teaching” (Webster 2007, 2). Scripture furnishes God’s special self-revelation, and therefore it is the primary source and the final norm for a missionary’s practices (2 Tim 3:16–17).

In addition to Scripture, a missional theologian draws upon reason. To clarify, we are not talking about autonomous human reason, the sort of reason that insists on living independently of God (von Rad 1973, 78). Instead, we are noting that God created humanity in his image and endowed him with rational capacities that allow him to do such things as read Scripture, reflect upon it, and craft mission strategies and practices.

A missional theologian draws upon culture. Theology is always conceived in a cultural context and articulated in cultural forms and cannot be otherwise. One’s cultural context provides the language, conceptual categories, media, artifacts, and environment in which theology is done. As Vanhoozer describes, “Culture sets the stage, arranges the scenery, and provides the props that supply the setting for theology’s work” (Vanhoozer 2005, 129). The missionary cannot escape his cultural context, nor should he want to. Culture is the God-ordained matrix within which he desires his people to continually translate the faith faithfully and meaningfully for future generations. Walls notes, “If the acts of cultural translation by which the Christians of any community make their faith substantial within that community cease––if . . . the Word ceases to be made flesh within that community––the Christian group within that community is likely to lose, not just its effectiveness, but its powers of resistance” (Walls 2002a, 13).

A missional theologian draws upon experience. Experience plays an inescapable role for the missionary theologian. First, our general life experience enables us to understand what the Bible means when it makes statements like “God is Father” or “God is love.” Our human experience of fatherhood and love—however disordered and distorted—gives the basis upon which we can begin to understand the Bible’s teachings on those subjects. Further, our human emotions and feelings (e.g., pain that results from suffering) drive us to the text to answer questions that arise (e.g., Why does my good Father in heaven allow me to suffer?). Finally, human emotion and feeling (e.g., wonder, delight, comfort) is the result of our theology as we learn deep and profound things about God (Barth 1963, 63–105). For example, Russell Moore explains how the experience of adopting two sons from Russia has shaped his soteriology, ecclesiology, and missiology (Moore 2009).

A missional theologian draws upon tradition. Missional theologians draw upon the great tradition of Christian theology and history in order to help safeguard against misinterpretation, heresy, and self-serving readings of the text (Behr 2001, 17–48). This is what the early church meant when speaking about the “rule of faith.” We want to learn from the great tradition and what the experience and reflection of Christians in different times and locations can contribute to our concretization of the faith in our particular time and location. But we do this critically so as to avoid letting Scripture be distorted or tamed by various local traditions, whether past or present.

Scientifically Informed Missiological Method

Missionaries often draw upon the social sciences as they study the people groups to whom they will minister, learn how to communicate cross culturally, and determine the media by which they might communicate the gospel. Unfortunately, evangelical missiologists and missionaries have (usually unconsciously) allowed secular social science paradigms to take the driver’s seat in mission strategy and practice. When this happens, Christian mission is distorted and sometimes even derailed. So, what are some guidelines for utilizing the social sciences in our missiological method?

Historically, various views have developed about the relation of theology and science. (The three views presented here are best viewed on a continuum, perhaps moving to four or more views. [Carlson 2000]) These views carry over into the discussion about the relation of missiology and the social sciences. For our purposes here, we will limit our discussion to three representative views. One view holds that missiology and social science are overlapping research programs that conflict with one another. In this view the two inherently conflict; and, in most cases, one discipline is believed to be inherently superior to the other. Another view holds that missiology and social science are nonoverlapping research programs that do not conflict. In other words, missiology and science treat entirely different subjects and therefore do not conflict. A third view holds that missiology and social science are overlapping research programs that should remain in conversation and partnership with one another, and which are not inherently conflictive or combative. We share the third view and work from it in this chapter.

Missiologists and social scientists should dialogue with one another and partner together in seeking to understand reality. “Reality is complex,” David Clark writes, “and human knowers access different dimensions of reality using different methods. This is precisely why dialogue among disciplines is important. Dialogue permits us to adopt multiple frames of reference on reality. Still, if truth is unified as we hold, we must seek connections between and integration of these multiple frames of reference” (Clark 2003, 284). The partnership between missiology and the social sciences should be mutually beneficial, as each discipline informs the other and together they work toward a fuller understanding of reality.

The social sciences inform missiology. Social sciences such as anthropology, sociology, psychology, marketing, and communication theory can help missionaries by offering conceptual frameworks and empirical studies that help them in their task. For example, anthropologists and sociologists might help missionaries identify the influencers among a certain people group, or the extent to which folk religion is more influential than normative Islam among a certain population segment. Communication theory can help missionaries communicate the gospel and call for response among a people group that displays communal decision-making patterns versus individual ones. Marketing theory can help missionaries understand various strategies and media for promoting certain literature or the classes they want to offer. These are only a few examples of the many that could be offered. The Bible provides the core doctrines for understanding humanity, but it often does not provide the types of insights needed for applying scriptural truth that the social sciences can offer.

Missional theology informs the social sciences. Only Christian theology provides the broad and comprehensive framework that explains humanity and the world. Christian theology explains the origin and destiny of the universe, the rationale for why the universe is orderly and can be interpreted, and why humans have the rational capacities to do science. Theology can also help provide warrant for one scientific theory over another. For example, in the early nineteenth century, social and cultural Darwinism ruled the day. Under this paradigm, societies were viewed on a spectrum from simple to complex, with the more complex cultures being viewed as superior to the simple. This paradigm was used to justify exploitation of other societies and exploitation within the same society. This paradigm goes against the biblical teaching, and when it is adapted for the purpose of missions, it creates or reinforces Western arrogance and colonialism. Equally unhelpful is cultural relativism, which was a reaction to cultural Darwinism. Under this paradigm, anthropologists stressed the uniqueness of particular cultures to the extent that it made translation (conceptual or linguistic) of those cultures nearly impossible. In addition, often these cultures are treated as inherently good. When missionaries have (usually unconsciously) adopted this paradigm—viewing cultures as pristine and inherently good in their own right—they have been unable to see the ways in which those cultures are shot through with sin and idolatry. As a result, many have too easily and foolishly christened certain cultural forms or concepts without understanding the baggage associated with them (see Rosman and Rubel 2004).

Contextually Appropriate Missiological Method

Missionaries always do their work in particular cultural contexts, whether that context is New York, Nairobi, or Nagasaki. Lesslie Newbigin states, “From age to age, the church lives under the authority of the story that the Bible tells, interpreted ever anew to new generations and new cultures by the continued leading of the Holy Spirit who alone makes possible the confession that Jesus is Savior and Lord” (Newbigin 1995b, 78). Good missionaries preach, witness, theologize, and plant churches in ways that are appropriate for their particular context. Paul’s sermons and speeches are an excellent example of this. When we examine Paul’s sermons in Acts 13 (to Jewish Diaspora), Acts 14 (to rural animists), Acts 17 (to the cultural elite of the Areopagus), and his testimonies in Acts 22 (to Jewish patriots) and Acts 26 (to the cultural elite of Syria-Palestine), we see Paul’s discernment and determination in communicating the gospel contextually (Schnabel 2008, 155–208, 334–53). Paul did not try to escape his cultural contexts, nor should we.

God established culture when he created his imagers with culture-making capacities and told them to be fruitful, till the soil, and practice dominion. These inherently social and cultural commands, combined with the social and cultural nature of the eternal state (Isaiah 65–66; Revelation 21–22), assure us that the deeply cultural nature of human existence is something to be embraced rather than avoided (Ashford 2011, 109–27). God has woven culture into the fabric of human life. We preach, theologize, and live in the midst of human cultures and by means of cultural realities such as human language. So the missionary must recognize the goodness of culture as a given reality. But he should also recognize the badness (sin) that pervades any culture. Because humans––idolaters––produce culture, every culture is distorted and misdirected by idolatry.

This “mixed bag” nature of human culture is what makes contextualization so difficult; however, any “theology of mission is incomplete until it speaks to the gospel’s penetration into every aspect of a people’s life and worldview” (Ott, Strauss, and Tennent 2010, 265). In order to ensure that he is contextualizing appropriately, the missionary’s checklist should include adherence to at least three questions: Am I being faithful? Am I being meaningful? Am I being dialogical? Appropriately contextualized sermons, churches, and theologies must be crafted faithfully, meaningfully, and dialogically.

First, the missionary must ask, “Am I being faithful?” When preaching, planting, and theologizing, the missionary wants to do those things in a way that is faithful to Christian Scripture. The missionary’s activity should be underlain by extended reflection on Scripture’s overarching storyline, its specific teachings, and its underlying principles. Second, the missionary must ask, “Am I being meaningful?” Mission practice should always be undertaken in ways that mesh with the particular social and cultural context. We want the hearer to apprehend our words and actions in the way that we intend, and to respond in a way that is meaningful for that context. Third, “Am I being dialogical?” Our mission practice must be undertaken in a continual dialogue between Scripture, the missionary, and the sociocultural context.

What does it look like for a missionary to adhere to a contextualization process that is faithful, meaningful, and dialogical? David Clark is an evangelical theologian who has elaborated on the dialogical process, and his work provides a basic outline of what this process looks like (Clark 2003, 99–131; see also Schreiter 1985; Dyrness 1994; Moreau 2012). In the following case study, we will imagine a missionary church planter who is partnering with the new believers of his church plant in order to begin building a contextual theology.

First, the missionary encourages the new believers to approach the Bible with questions that they consider significant. Their questions inevitably are shaped by their society’s worldview and culture, including its language, conceptual categories, values, practices, and products. Second, the new believers offer initial answers based upon their understanding of the Bible. Because the questions were raised from within a particular social and cultural context, which is not the context in which the Bible was written, the questions asked may not find an immediate or easily packaged answer from the Bible. Third, the new church embraces these provisional conclusions. They prayerfully allow God to keep their hearts open to further light from the Scriptures. Fourth, they allow Scripture to judge the social and cultural context that shaped their questions. No human culture asks all of the right questions or possesses all of the right conceptual categories for conceiving and articulating the gospel. In fact, all human cultures are underlain by idolatry, which warps both their questions and their categories (Vanhoozer 2005, 356). Fifth, through prayer and reflection, these new believers form a contextual theology, a theological framework. This framework is an attempt to do theology faithfully and meaningfully. Sixth, to the extent they are able, they discuss their findings with believers, missionaries, and theologians from other cultures. They might converse with churches in “near cultures,” read contemporary thinkers from other global or cultural locations, or read the church fathers from eras past. Seventh, the believers return to Scripture once again, evaluating their emerging theology and continuing the cycle. Clark explains, “Using a dialogical method implies we notice the danger in simply asking Scripture to answer the culture’s concerns. A dialogical approach requires that the Bible not only answer our concerns but also transform those concerns” (Clark 2003, 115). In this way, the missionary contextualizes in a way that allows Scripture its place as the primary source and supreme norm of the task.

A Case Study: Worshipping Jesus in Arabic

David is a missionary who has resided in an Arabic-speaking country for many years. He’s acquired a deep understanding of the Arabic language, culture, and a keen ability to evangelize and to communicate the gospel in Arabic. He also has a solid understanding of Islam and the Quran, as well as Christian theology and church history—in particular, the history of Christianity in the Middle East.

Over the past two years, David has seen a small group of Sunni Muslims make professions of faith. They have been baptized and now meet regularly as a home church for fellowship, Bible study, and worship. As the group grows in its understanding of the gospel, David is intent on training leaders and working with them to develop their theology in a way that is faithful to Scripture and its core doctrines in the light of church history. He wants this theology to be both faithful as well as meaningful to this group of Arab Muslim-background believers.

Mahmoud, one of the believers, is a gifted musician and leads the group in worship. Mahmoud uses indigenous music styles, instruments, and rhymes. Recently, Mahmoud has been crafting new songs that reflect the group’s acknowledgment of Jesus’ unique identity as the eternal Word of God who was made manifest in human flesh. All of them accept Jesus’ full deity and humanity. Below are some of the lines from one of his recent praise songs:

He is God, He is God, my Lord Jesus, He is God (2x).

He is the one who is, and was, and is before the beginning of time;

before the existence of any man, He was present in the mystery of God.

Jesus is the Word and Spirit of God; and by His Spirit there is Life (2x).

He is the Alpha and Omega, Lord of Glory, Lord of Heaven.

The chorus of this particular praise song notes, “Jesus is the Word and Spirit of God.” When David first heard it, he immediately noticed that this is an explicit echo of the first part of Q 4:171, “People of the Book, go not beyond the bounds in your religion, and say not as to God but the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only the Messenger of God, and His Word that He committed to Mary, and a Spirit from Him.” David is aware that some of the believers who came to faith in Christ testify that this verse played a formative role in their search for the truth about Jesus. But was it proper to include this in their worship?

While listening to the group singing, David remembered that one of the first Christian theologians who noted the similarity between the Quran’s affirmation of Jesus as God’s Word and the Bible’s teaching on this topic was John of Damascus (d. 749). In John’s Fount of Knowledge, one of the many heresies he addresses is the “Heresy of the Ishmaelites,” a reference to Islam. In that chapter, John draws attention to the profession Muslims make regarding Jesus as God’s Word and Spirit. He even suggests that this poses an area of common ground that Christians can use to communicate the gospel to Muslims. David is also aware that several medieval Arab theologians, like Theodore Abu Qurra (d. ca. 830) and Yahya ibn ‘Adi (d. 974), made similar use of quranic points of contact in their theology.

However, this particular case seemed different. Here the believers had incorporated these terms into their worship. On their own, the terms do not seem problematic. But when heard in Arabic and incorporated in the praise song, they present an explicit echo of a quranic passage. Everyone who knows Arabic would recognize this. It is as if this group of believers is intentionally communicating that the one whom Muslims know and acknowledge as “the Word of God and a Spirit from Him” is none other than the incarnate Son of God testified to in the Bible.

As David listened to the believers worshipping Christ and using this particular phrase, he wondered if it posed a case of syncretism? Should he confront the believers? After praying about the issue, he decided to . . .

Section 2

The Biblical Basis of Missions

Chapter 4

Mission in the Old Testament

Christopher J. H. Wright

In this chapter I shall outline what seem to me to be five primary contributions that the Old Testament has made to the theological underpinning of Christian mission, ever since its origins in the New Testament.

Pillars of Old Testament Faith that Support Christian Mission

What follows is a brief survey of some of the key Old Testament themes, which undergird a biblical theology of Christian mission. This is not a search for odd verses of the Old Testament that might say something relevant to our narrowed concept of sending missionaries, or “going on missions,” but rather a sketch of some of the great trajectories of Israel’s understanding of their God and of God’s mission through Israel for all the nations. We are not concerned about how the Old Testament gives incidental support to what we already do in “missions” but about the biblical theology that undergirds the whole worldview that Christian mission presupposes. That is, we are seeking to “hear the Old Testament” as it speaks its great claims and affirmations in relation to the mission of God’s people as a whole.

I would not want the above comment about the nature of the following discussion to suggest any negative reflection on the work of cross-cultural missions and the core element of “sending” that is implicit in Christian mission. On the contrary, the concept of being called and sent by God is deeply rooted in the Old Testament itself, and there are indeed rich resources for exploring the “sending” dimension of mission. Most of us will have heard “missionary sermons” on the call of Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and even (especially) Jonah. Hearing the Old Testament for missional purposes from these texts is not inappropriate. We could reflect further on the missional cost to the messengers whom God chose to send. All of this has valid and fruitful scope for reflection. However, in what follows I am concentrating on the theological dimensions of Old Testament faith, rather than the specific examples of people whom God “sent” (Wright 2010, 397–420).

We will survey briefly the missiological implications of five major pillars of Old Testament faith: monotheism, election, redemption, ethics, and eschatology.

The Uniqueness and Universality of Yahweh as Against All the Gods of the Nations

In other words, the missiological implications of biblical monotheism.

Yahweh is God and there is no other (Deut 4:32–39). Israel made remarkable affirmations about Yahweh, affirmations that had a polemical edge in their own context and still stand as distinctive claims. Among them was the monotheistic declaration that Yahweh alone is God and there is no other (e.g., Deut 4:35, 39). This is not the place to do an extended critical survey of the vast literature on Old Testament monotheism. Suffice it to say that I am convinced by the arguments of Richard Bauckham (Bauckham 2004, 187–232) and others that there was a categorical distinctiveness about the claims made by Israel concerning the transcendent uniqueness of Yahweh as the only true and living God. I have explored in detail the missiological dimensions of Old Testament monotheism in The Mission of God, part 2.

As sole deity, it is Yahweh, therefore, who owns the world and rules the world (Deut 10:14, 27; 1 Chron 29:11; Ps 24:1; Jer 27:1–12). This ultimately means the radical displacement of all other rival gods and that Yahweh must be acknowledged as God over the whole earth and all nations (e.g., Psalm 96; Isa 43:9–13; 44:6–20; Jer 10:1–16). The impact of these claims is felt in such widely varying contexts as the struggle against idolatry, the language of worship, and the response to other nations, both in their own contemporary international history and in eschatological vision. Monotheism, in other words, is inevitably and intrinsically missional. For this one true living God wills to be known throughout his whole creation and to all nations.

There is no doubt that the strength of these Old Testament affirmations about the uniqueness and universality of Yahweh as God underlie, and indeed provide some of the vocabulary for, the New Testament affirmations about the uniqueness and universality of Jesus (cf. Phil 2:9–11, based on Isa 45:23; and 1 Cor 8:5–6, based on Deut 6:4). The amazing fact is that the earliest followers of Jesus recognized in him all of the major identities and functions of Yahweh in the Old Testament. The essence of Old Testament monotheism is to say that Yahweh alone is Creator, Sovereign, Judge, and Savior (Wright 2010, 105–35). The New Testament affirms these very same things about Jesus of Nazareth. It is also noteworthy that these early Christian affirmations were equally polemical in their own historical context as those of ancient Israel and in turn provided the primary rationale and motivation for Christian mission.

If Yahweh alone is God and if Jesus alone is Lord, and if it is God’s will (as it manifestly is in the Bible) that these truths be known throughout the whole creation, then there is a missional mandate intrinsic to such convictions. A fully biblical understanding of the universality and uniqueness of Yahweh and of Jesus Christ stands in the frontline of a missional response to the relativism at the heart of religious pluralism and some forms of postmodernist philosophy. Biblical monotheism in both its New Testament, Christocentric richness and in its Old Testament foundations is one of the key pillars of all Christian mission.

This point strongly connects with the trinitarian perspective of the introductory chapter. In terms of our overarching biblical theology, the God whom we have come to know in the fullness of his self-revelation as God the Holy Trinity is clearly identical with Yahweh the unique covenant God of Old Testament Israel. That is to say, Yahweh “includes” within himself all three persons we now speak of as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, even though Old Testament Israelites did not think or speak in those terms. Ever since the second verse of Genesis we meet the Spirit of God, creating, empowering, anointing, transforming. And through the Old Testament era there are theophanies that anticipate, in their anthropomorphic descriptions of encounters with God in human form, the ultimate incarnation of God the Son in Jesus of Nazareth. However, it is probably right most often to have God the Father in mind when we read of Yahweh in Old Testament texts. The most compelling argument for this view is the prayer life of Jesus himself. Here is what I wrote elsewhere on this point:

Jesus was fully human. He grew up in a devout and believing Jewish home, and was without doubt a worshipping, praying child, young man and adult. The daily habit of prayer that we read of in the Gospels must have been ingrained in him from childhood. So when Jesus worshipped and prayed, in his home or in the synagogue in Nazareth, to whom was his worship directed? Who was the God whose name he read in all the Scriptures he recited and all the songs he sang? To whom did Jesus pray at the knees of Mary and then through all his life? The answer is, of course, to the Lord, Yahweh (though he would have said Adonai). Jesus would have recited the Shema‘ (Deut 6:4) daily with his fellow Jews, and he knew the “Lord our God” of that text to be the God of his people, his human parents, and himself. So, Jesus’ whole perception of God was entirely shaped by the Scriptures that we call the Old Testament. When Jesus thought of God, spoke of God, reflected on the words and will of God, set out to obey God, it was this God, Yahweh God, who was in his mind. “God” for Jesus was the named, biographied, character-rich, self-revealed God Yahweh, the Holy One of Israel. When Jesus and his disciples talked together of God, this is the name they would have used (or would have known but piously avoided pronouncing). When Jesus read Isaiah 61 in the synagogue in Nazareth, he claimed that the Spirit of the Lord was upon him “Today”—the Spirit of Yahweh, God of the Old Testament prophets.

But of course, Jesus also knew this God of his Scriptures in the depth of his self-consciousness as Abba, as his own intimate personal Father. Luke tells us that this awareness was developing even in his childhood, and it was sealed at his Baptism, when he heard the voice of his Father, accompanied by the Holy Spirit, confirming his identity as God’s beloved Son. So, in the consciousness of Jesus the scriptural identity of God as Yahweh and his personal intimacy with God as his Father must have blended together. The God he knew from his Bible as Yahweh was the God he knew in prayer as his Father. When Jesus took the Psalms on his lips on the cross, the God he was calling out to in the agony of abandonment was the God addressed in Psalm 22:1 as Elohim, but throughout the Psalm as Yahweh. The Psalmist was calling out to Yahweh. Jesus uses his words to call out to his Father.

Now since all our understanding of God as Father must start out from knowing Jesus, it makes sense for us also to think of Yahweh, the God of Old Testament Israel and the God of the one true faithful Israelite Jesus, as God the Father, for that is who Yahweh primarily was in the consciousness of Jesus himself. (Wright 2007, 16–18)

The Universality of Yahweh’s Plan through Israel for the Blessing of the Nations

In other words, the missiological implications of election:

The Old Testament begins on the stage of universal history. After the accounts of creation, we read the story of God’s dealings with fallen humanity and the problem and challenge of the world of the nations (Genesis 1–11). After the stories of the flood and of the tower of Babel, could there be any future for the nations in relation to God? Or would judgment have to be God’s final word? The narrative from Genesis 3–11 presents the double problem of humanity: the universality of sin (in every human person and in every dimension of human personhood, spiritual, mental, physical, and social) and the dividedness and strife of the nations.

The story of Abraham, beginning in Genesis 12, is the launch of God’s solution to both problems, a solution that will take the rest of the Bible to unfold. God’s declared commitment is that he intends to bring blessing to the nations: “All peoples on earth will be blessed through you” (Gen 12:3 NIV). Repeated five times in Genesis alone, this key affirmation is the foundation of biblical mission, inasmuch as it declares the mission of God. The creator God’s mission is nothing less than blessing the nations of humanity.

So fundamental is this divine agenda that Paul defined the Genesis declaration as “the gospel in advance” (Gal 3:8 NIV). And the concluding vision of the whole Bible signifies the fulfilment of the Abrahamic promise, as people from every nation, tribe, language, and people are gathered among the redeemed in the new creation (Rev 7:9). The gospel and mission both begin in Genesis, then, and both are located in the redemptive intention of the Creator to bless the nations. Mission is God’s address to the problem of fractured humanity and is universal in its ultimate goal and scope.

The same Genesis texts that affirm the universality of God’s mission to bless the nations also, and with equal strength, affirm the particularity of God’s election of Abraham and his descendants to be the vehicle of that mission. The election of Israel is one of the most fundamental pillars of the biblical worldview, and of Israel’s historical sense of identity. It is vital to insist that although the belief in their election could be (and was) distorted into a narrow doctrine of national superiority, that move was resisted in Israel’s own literature (e.g., Deut 7:7ff.). The affirmation is that Yahweh, the God who had chosen Israel, was also the Creator, Owner, and Lord of the whole world and all nations (Exod 19:4–6; Deut 10:14ff.). That is, Yahweh was not only “the national God of Israel”—he was God of all nations. This is what Paul saw so clearly (e.g., in Romans 4). Yahweh had chosen Israel in relation to his purpose for the world, not just for Israel. The election of Israel was not tantamount to a rejection of the nations but explicitly for their ultimate benefit. Election is not an exclusive privilege but an inclusive responsibility. If we might paraphrase John, “God so loved the world that he chose Israel.”

Thus, rather than asking if Israel itself “had a mission,” in the sense of being “sent” anywhere (anachronistically injecting again our assumption that mission is only about “sending missionaries”), we need to see the missional nature of Israel’s existence in relation to the mission of God in the world. Israel’s mission was to be something, not to go somewhere. This perspective is clearly focused in the person of the Servant of Yahweh in Isaiah 40–55, who both embodies the election of Israel (identical things are said about Israel and the Servant) and also is charged with the mission (like Israel’s) of bringing the blessing of Yahweh’s justice, salvation, and glory to the ends of the earth.

From this we can see much more clearly the dynamic theology that underpinned Paul’s understanding and practice of mission. He saw his task as taking the gospel to the Gentile nations and assuring them that, by trusting in the Messiah Jesus (who embodied the identity and mission of Israel but had been faithful where Israel had been rebellious, and had died to take upon himself their sin and the sin of the world), they were included in the family of God, members of the covenant people of God. The nations too, like Israel, were now being called, as he put it twice in Romans, to “faith’s obedience” (see Rom 1:5; 16:26), that is to the status and the responsibility of covenant membership. In other words, through Christ, God solved the problem of Genesis 3 and Genesis 11—the root of sin, and the dividedness of humanity, seen most sharply in the separation of Jew and Gentile.

Two other implications of this point may be briefly mentioned. First, it indicates that in biblical theology, election is fundamentally missional, not merely soteriological. That is to say, God’s choice of Abraham and Israel was instrumental, not preferential. The election of Israel was not into some singularly saved status from which all other nations would be excluded and rejected. Rather it was the election of Israel into a servant status to be the means by which God would enable all other nations to have the opportunity of being included and accepted—as so many Old Testament texts point out (which we will sketch in the final point below).

And second, it highlights the close connection between missiology and ecclesiology. God’s redemptive mission began by creating a community of blessing, to be a blessing, so that all nations would come to praise the living God (cf. Psalm 67’s universalizing of the Aaronic blessing). Salvation would not be a matter of whisking individual souls out of the earth and “up” to heaven. Rather it would be a long-term project of creating a people for God, initially the descendants of one man, Abraham, but with the intention (emphatically built in from the very beginning) of becoming a multinational community (cf. Psalm 87). Not only, then, is it correct to say that mission is the primary reason for the church’s existence in history; it is also true that the church itself—the people of God from Abraham to the “great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language” (Rev 7:9)—is the creation of the mission of God, and the demonstration of the gospel (Eph 3:6–10).

The vogue phrase “missional church” is therefore virtually tautologous. What other kind of church is there? As a friend said to me recently, “Talk about ‘missional church’ sounds to me like talking about ‘female women.’ If it’s not missional, it’s not church.”

The Comprehensiveness of God’s Work of Redemption for Israel

In other words, the missiological dimension of the Old Testament story of salvation.

Mission (from a human point of view) might be defined as sharing the good news of God’s redemptive work with all nations. But what is our understanding of “redemption”? The temptation in some Christian traditions is to confine it to the “spiritual” dimension—forgiveness of personal sin and release from its bondage. While this is undoubtedly a precious biblical truth, it fails to grasp the comprehensiveness of the biblical understanding of God’s redeeming work, as portrayed in the Old Testament (which of course provided the foundational source of meaning for the metaphor in the New Testament also).

The primary model of redemption in the Old Testament (primary both chronologically as well as theologically) is of course the exodus. It is the event to which the language of redemption is first applied. It is therefore vitally important to attend to all the dimensions of what God actually accomplished in that event. At least four dimensions are clearly highlighted in the key narratives at the beginning of Exodus, and in the later texts that celebrate the event (e.g., in Psalms or the Prophets).

Political. The Hebrews were not a free people. They found themselves in Egypt as the descendants of people who had migrated there as famine refugees and found a welcome (a fact that was not forgotten: Deut 23:7). But under the current government, they were being oppressed as an ethnic minority and viewed with suspicion and state-generated fear.

Economic. The Hebrews were being exploited as a source of cheap labor for the economic benefit of the host nation—in construction projects and agriculture (things haven’t changed much). They were not enjoying the fruit of their own work but suffering the harsh slavery of working for a hostile state.

Social. The policy of that state progressed from economic exploitation to outright genocidal fury. The interference in the family life of the Hebrews, by the government mandate to all the citizens of Egypt to make sure that newborn Hebrew boys were killed at birth, must have inspired fear in every pregnant mother and despair among the whole community whose very survival into the next generation was threatened.

Spiritual. The play on the word ‘abodah highlights this point. The word can mean slavery but also worship. While the Hebrews were under slavery to Pharaoh (the self-asserting member of the gods of Egypt), they were not free to worship their true God and Lord. This explains Yahweh’s insistence, “Let my people go that they may serve/worship me” [not Pharaoh]. Israel’s problem in Egypt was not that they were in slavery and needed to be liberated, but that they were being forced to serve the wrong master. The point of the exodus was not merely the gift of freedom but to bring Israel back to their true Lord and to enter into covenant relationship with him.

As we reflect on all these dimensions of the great redemptive event of the Old Testament, and the first great model of God acting as redeemer in the Bible, we need to see the holistic, integrated nature of the whole accomplishment. It is missiologically deficient either to use the exodus only as biblical support for political, economic, or social action for liberation (without reference to the spiritual dimensions of redemption usually included in the work of evangelism), or to spiritualize the exodus into nothing more than a picture-story of which the real message is to do with forgiveness of personal sin and release from the personal bondage to sin. Once again, these are issues in mission that I have explored in much greater depth, and with reference to much wider biblical resources, in The Mission of God.

It should also be added that the Old Testament’s vision of the mission of God extends even beyond the ultimate redemption of people from all nations and includes the redemption of the whole creation—a “new heavens and new earth” (Isa 66:22). Paul affirmed the cosmic universality of this vision in his understanding of “all things in heaven and on earth,” that have been created by Christ, are sustained by Christ, and have been reconciled to God through the blood of Christ shed on the cross (Col 1:15–20).

The Ethical Distinctiveness of Israel: a Light to the Nations

In other words, the missiological dimension of Old Testament ethics, or of Israel’s holiness.

Israel was called to be distinctive from the surrounding world in ways that were not merely religious but also ethical. In Genesis 18:19, this is expressed as the very purpose of Israel’s election in relation to God’s promise to bless the nations. In stark contrast to the world of Sodom and Gomorrah (the focus of the narrative in Genesis 18–19), Yahweh says of Abraham, “I have chosen him so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just, so that the Lord will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him [i.e., the blessing of all nations, specified in the preceding verse]” (emphasis mine). This verse, in a remarkably tight syntax, binds together election, ethics, and mission as three interlocking aspects of God’s purpose. His choice of Abraham is for the sake of his promise (to bless the nations), but the accomplishment of God’s mission demands the ethical obedience of God’s community—the fulcrum in the middle of the verse. In other words, God binds the accomplishment of his missional agenda to the ethical quality of life of the community he is creating through Abraham. If they will be committed to walking in the way of the Lord (rather than the way of Sodom), by doing righteousness and justice (rather than the wickedness that was producing the “cry for help” coming up to God out of Sodom), then God will be able to fulfill his mission of bringing all nations into the sphere of his blessing.

In Exodus 19:4–6, Israel’s ethical distinctiveness is also linked to their identity and role as a priestly and holy people in the midst of the nations. As Yahweh’s priesthood, Israel would be the means by which God would be known to the nations and the means of bringing the nations to God (performing a function analogous to the role of Israel’s own priests between God and the rest of the people). As a holy people, they would be ethically (as well as ritually) distinctive from the practices of surrounding nations. The moral and practical dimensions of such holy distinctiveness are spelled out in Leviticus 18–19.

In Deuteronomy 4:6–8, we find that such visibility would be a matter of observation and comment among the nations. This expectation in itself was a strong motivation for keeping the law—a point I have also expanded in seeking a missional hermeneutic of Deuteronomy. The question of Israel’s ethical obedience or ethical failure was not merely a matter between themselves and Yahweh but was of major significance in relation to Yahweh’s agenda for the nations (cf. Jer 4:1–2), and indeed of Yahweh’s reputation (“name”) among the nations (Ezekiel 36:22). And that means that Old Testament ethics is inseparably linked to God’s mission as the Old Testament declares it (Wright 2010, 358–87).

This missiological perspective on Old Testament ethics seems to me a fruitful approach to the age-old hermeneutical debate over whether and how the moral teaching given to Israel in the Old Testament (especially the law) has any authority or relevance to Christians. If the law was given in order to shape Israel to be what they were called to be—a light to the nations, a holy priesthood—then it has a paradigmatic relevance to those who, in Christ, have inherited the same role in relation to the nations. In the Old as well as the New Testament, the ethical demand on those who claimed to be God’s people was determined by the mission with which God entrusted them. There is no biblical mission without biblical ethics.

The Universality of Israel’s Vision of the Future Ingathering of the Nations

In other words, the missiological dimension of Old Testament eschatology:

Israel saw the nations (including themselves) as being subject to the sovereign rule of God in history—whether in judgment or in mercy (cf. Jer 18:1–10; Jonah). But Israel also thought of the nations as “spectators” (witnesses in Old Testament terms) of all God’s dealings with Israel—whether positively or negatively. That is to say, whether on the receiving end of God’s deliverance or of the blows of God’s judgment, Israel lived on an open stage and the nations would draw their conclusions (Exod 15:15; Deut 9:28; Ezek 36:16–23).

Eventually, however, and in a rather mysterious way, the nations could be portrayed as the beneficiaries of all that God had done in and for Israel, and even invited to rejoice, applaud, and praise Yahweh, the God of Israel, for the history of Israel and the prayer-answering presence of God in the midst of Israel (1 Kgs 8:41–43; Pss 47; 67).

Most remarkable of all, Israel came to entertain the eschatological vision that there would be those of the nations who would not merely be joined to Israel but would come to be identified as Israel, with the same names, privileges, and responsibilities before God (Ps 47:9; Isa 19:19–25; 56:2–8; 66:19–21; Amos 9:11–12; Zech 2:10–11). Psalmists and prophets envisaged a future in which the nations could be

Registered in God’s city (Psalm 87)
Blessed with God’s salvation (Isa 19:19–25—with its clear echoes of exodus and Abraham)
Called by God’s name (Amos 9:11–12)
Accepted in God’s house (Isa 56:2–8)
Joined with God’s people (Zech 2:10–11)

These texts are quite breathtaking in their universal scope. This is the dimension of Israel’s prophetic heritage that most profoundly influenced the theological explanation and motivation of the Gentile mission in the New Testament. It certainly underlies James’s interpretation of the Christ-event and the success of the Gentile mission in Acts 15:16–18 (quoting Amos 9:12). And it likewise inspired Paul’s efforts as a practitioner and theologian of mission (e.g., Rom 15:7–16; Eph 2:11–3:6). Indeed, Paul saw the fulfillment of this great scriptural hope and vision as nothing less than the very essence of the gospel itself, now that it had been made possible through the coming of the Messiah, Jesus, and his death and resurrection. And it provided the theological shape for the Gospels, all of which conclude with their various forms of the Great Commission—the sending of Jesus’ disciples into the world of nations.

And finally, we cannot omit the even wider vision that not only the nations but also the whole creation will be included in God’s purposes of redemption. For this God of Israel, of the nations, and of the world declares himself to be creating a new heavens and a new earth, with redeemed humanity living in safety, harmony, and environmental peace within a renewed creation. Again, this is a portrait enthusiastically endorsed in the New Testament (Ps 96:11–13; Isa 65:17–25; Rom 8:18–21; 2 Pet 3:13; Rev 21:1–5), and so not only sustains our hope today but also enables us to see Christian concern and action in relation to the environment and care of creation as an essential part of our holistic biblical mission.

Conclusion

I trust it is sufficiently clear from the above survey that a missional approach can provide a fruitful way of “hearing the Old Testament.” There can be no doubt, it seems to me, that the great pillars of the faith of Old Testament Israel not only supported their identity as a people of memory and hope but also continue to support the mission of God’s people—believing Jews and Gentiles united in the Messiah Jesus—since the New Testament times until the return of Christ.

My hope is that there will be more fruitful interaction between Old Testament scholars and missiologists in the task of reading these texts in this way. I am certain that a close missional reading of specific books and texts in the Old Testament will yield fresh insights for the church in mission.

Chapter 5

Mission in the Gospels

Andreas J. Köstenberger

The Gospels, each in its own way, tell the story of Jesus’ mission and anticipate the mission of the early church following the giving of the Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2). Most likely, Mark was the first to write his Gospel. Subsequently, Matthew and Luke composed their respective accounts, each drawing on Mark’s presentation independently while adding their own material and their own distinctive theological imprint. Nevertheless, the following presentation will proceed in canonical order. Last, John wrote his Gospel without overt reference to the Gospels that preceded him. Most likely, John’s Gospel is the product of an eyewitness who transposed some of the pertinent Synoptic motifs as the result of sustained theological reflection, constituting the climax of the mission theology presented in the canonical Gospels.

Mission in Matthew

Matthew’s Gospel, climaxing with Jesus’ well-known Great Commission, provides the church with some of the most critical teaching on mission. In the earlier chapters of Matthew, the mission of Jesus is aimed particularly at the Jews. But also, distinct and growing references to Gentile mission lead up to the Great Commission (28:16–20; Hagner 1993, lxvii). This tension between the restriction of taking the gospel to Jews only, alongside the foreshadowing of Gentile mission, prepares the way for Jesus’ global commission to “make disciples of all nations” (28:19).2 The progression “proceeds along salvation-historical lines, portraying a dynamic that is well corroborated by the other Gospels and Acts: Jesus, the Jewish Messiah, offers the kingdom to Israel; Israel rejects Jesus, issuing in his crucifixion; the kingdom is offered universally to all those who believe in Jesus the Messiah, Jew and Gentile alike” (Köstenberger and O’Brien 2001, 92–93).

Matthew begins with the introduction of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham (Matt 1:1), recalling the promise to Abraham of worldwide blessing through his “seed” (Gen 12:1–3; Carson 2010, 88), as well as the promise to David of a future kingdom (2 Sam 7:13, 16). Jesus is the Savior through whom this blessing will come (Matt 1:21), as well as Immanuel—“God is with us” (1:23)—who will rule over the Davidic kingdom. What is more, Matthew presents Jesus as the vicarious representative of Israel who was persecuted by a king (Herod, 2:1–18; cf. Exod 1:8–16) and was called by God out of Egypt (Matt 2:15; cf. Exod 19:4), yet unlike Israel remained faithful in the wilderness (Matt 4:1–11; par. Luke 4:1–13; cf. Exod 4:22–23; Carson and Moo 2005, 164; Carson 2010, 141). Therefore, Jesus, settling first in Galilee, became the “great light” for the people who dwell in darkness, both for his own people (Matt 1:21) and for “Galilee of the Gentiles” (4:15, quoting Isa 9:1–2; cf. Isa 42:6). Jesus’ ministry soon spread beyond Galilee into the Gentile territories of Syria and the Decapolis (Matt 4:24–25).

In his Sermon on the Mount (chaps. 5–7), Jesus proclaimed, with reference to both Jews and Gentiles (cf. 6:5–7), that righteousness was required of those who would receive the coming kingdom (5:3–12, 20; 6:33). Jesus lay the burden of mission on his followers when he declared that they were the “salt of the earth” and the “light of the world” (5:13–16; cf. 4:16, quoting Isa 9:2). In the narrative sections that follow, Jesus modeled this missional challenge in several ways. First, although he never initiated ministry to Gentiles, Jesus did not hesitate to help them, nor did he take pains to avoid them (cf. 10:5–6; 15:24, 26). For example, Jesus healed the centurion’s servant, commended his great faith, and prophesied that many Gentiles will enter the kingdom, while many of its subjects—unbelieving Jews—will be cast out (8:5–13; cf. 21:33–46; Mark 12:1–2). In fact, Jesus warned his Jewish hearers that if they rejected his message, they would be judged more harshly than the Gentiles (Matt 11:20–24) and that the people of Nineveh and the Queen of the South would condemn them (12:41–42). Jesus was a typological Jonah who spent three days in the deep and then preached salvation to the Gentiles (12:39–41). He is also the “Suffering Servant” of Isaiah’s prophecy (Isa 42:1–4), which Matthew quotes in 12:18–21, including the prediction that “the nations will put their hope in His name” (cf. 28:19). Jesus is also shown to journey to Tyre and Sidon where he healed a Canaanite woman’s demon-possessed daughter and commended her faith (Gundry 1994, 314), though eliciting from her the confession that Jesus’ primary mission at this point was to Israel (15:24–27; cf. John 4:22). These examples demonstrate that Jesus “clearly foresees the Gentiles’ full future participation in God’s promise to Abraham” (Köstenberger and O’Brien 2001, 94).

A second way in which Jesus modeled mission for his followers was through his concern for those lowly in social status. For example, Jesus healed lepers (Matt 8:1–4), the demon-possessed (8:16, 28–34; 9:32–34), and the blind (9:27–30). He often used children to illustrate the humble posture of those who would enter the kingdom (10:42; 11:25–27; 18:2–6, 10, 14; 19:14–15; 21:14–16).

Third, Jesus modeled mission by training and sending the Twelve. That Jesus’ own disciples lacked faith is illustrated several times in Matthew, such as by Peter’s dramatic cry for help after Jesus bade him to walk on the water (14:31). Peter’s lack of faith anticipates the promise of Jesus attached to the Great Commission. There, because some still doubted, Jesus added the reassuring words, “I am with you always” (28:20; cf. 1:23). Meanwhile, Jesus modeled compassion for the crowds who are “like sheep without a shepherd” (cf. Num 27:17) and urged his disciples to “pray to the Lord of the harvest to send out workers into His harvest” (Matt 9:35–38; Hagner 1993, 260–62).

This prayer anticipates the commissioning of the Twelve for mission activity in the name of Jesus (10:1–42). Jesus sent the Twelve exclusively to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (10:6) but also instructed them that they would “be brought before governors and kings because of Me, to bear witness to them and to the nations” (10:18). The mission discourse accompanying the commission in chapter 10 is punctuated by the command to proclaim the nearness of the kingdom (10:7), followed by the warning that some will reject the message (10:11–16; cf. 40–42), resulting in persecution (10:17–20, 23–33) and even division within families (10:21–22, 34–39). Those who take up the mission of Jesus in his name must be prepared to be rejected just as he was (10:11–14, 40–42) and to loyally take up their cross and die for him (10:37–39; cf. 16:21–24; Gundry 1994, 200). Yet Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would speak through the disciples in their hour of trial (10:19–20), and that eternal rewards were prepared for the faithful (10:40–42; cf. 10:32–33; 16:27; 19:27–30).

Another important dynamic of Jesus’ missional ministry to the Twelve was his formation of a new community. It is within this close group of disciples that Jesus elicited Peter’s confession, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God!” (16:16), to which the Lord responded with the promise that “on this rock” he would build this new community (ekklēsia). This promise is highlighted by a preview of Jesus’ future glory for his three closest disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration (17:1–8) and the promise of his abiding presence wherever they are gathered (18:20; cf. 1:23; 28:20). Ultimately, the promise of this new community will be fulfilled as Jesus’ disciples carry forth the Great Commission, which reiterates the promise of Jesus’ continual presence (28:19–20).

The final chapters in Matthew leading up to Jesus’ arrest and crucifixion increasingly anticipate the implications of Jesus’ impending death and resurrection: the Jews, having rejected their Messiah, no longer took the lead in mediating God’s kingdom, and the Gentiles were welcomed in alongside the Jews. The rejection of Jesus may be traced from events recorded earlier in the Gospel, such as the plot of the Pharisees to kill Jesus (12:14), the accusation that Jesus is demon-possessed (12:24), the unbelief of Jesus’ hometown (13:57), and the beheading of John the Baptist (14:1–12). Opposition intensified as Jesus denounced Israel and her leadership for their unbelief (11:20–24; 12:31–32, 39–42; 16:1–4; 23:1–36) and finally climaxed in the nation’s choosing to free the insurrectionist Barabbas while crucifying their Messiah (Kingsbury 1973, 50–52). While accepting full responsibility for his death (27:24–25), the Jewish mob delivered Jesus over to the Romans for execution. In anticipation of these events, Jesus signaled the inclusion of the Gentiles in the new community. For instance, in Jesus’ parable of the Wedding Banquet the invited guests refused to enter and were therefore deemed unworthy, and the call was given for others to enter instead (22:8–10). Also, on several occasions Jesus declared that the gospel would be preached globally, to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews (24:9, 14; cf. Mark 13:10; 25:32; 26:13).

As indicated above, the missional threads in Matthew’s Gospel are woven into the tapestry of the Great Commission, which provides a carefully constructed climax:

The 11 disciples traveled to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had directed them. When they saw Him, they worshiped, but some doubted. Then Jesus came near and said to them, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matt 28:16–20)

Several observations can be made. First, Matthew says that some of the disciples still doubted (28:17), so Jesus assured them of his continuing presence with them as they carry out their commission (28:20). Second, the Father gave Jesus comprehensive authority encompassing the entire mission (28:18; Carson 2010, 665) so that his followers may go forth into the entire world as emissaries in his name (28:19). Third, Jesus commanded his followers to go and make disciples, which means to bring men and women into the same committed, obedient relationship with Jesus that they themselves share (28:19; cf. 11:29; 13:52; 27:57; Acts 14:21). Fourth, the making of disciples involves believers’ baptism in the name (singular) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (28:19) as well as ongoing instruction of the new disciples to observe the commands of Jesus (28:20). Fifth, strikingly, the commission to make disciples is not focused merely upon individuals but is directed toward entire nations (28:19, Greek ethnē), an ambitious and seemingly impossible task if it were not for the promise of Jesus’ all-encompassing authority and abiding presence. Finally, the commission finishes with the promise that Jesus will be with his followers “to the end of the age,” which indicates that their commission will not be completed until the Lord’s return (28:20).

Viewing the Gospel as a whole, Matthew presents Jesus the Messiah as the typical representative of Israel who failed to realize her own mission of bringing blessing to all nations. The Father, therefore, sent Jesus to mediate the blessing to both Jews and Gentiles (Beale 1997, 28–29). Faithful to God’s plan for his own people, however, Jesus focused his own mission exclusively upon the Jews, forming from them the nucleus of his new end-time community through which his mission would be continued. Meanwhile, Gentiles began to gravitate toward him. And when the Jews ultimately rejected and crucified him, Jesus’ sacrificial death and resurrection prepared the way for all nations to come to him in faith and obedience.

Mission in Mark

Mark fittingly opens his account with reference to “the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (1:1). He roots Jesus’ messianic mission in the ministry of John the Baptist, who in turn came in fulfillment of Isaiah’s (and Malachi’s) prophecy, both as the God-sent “messenger” (1:2; cf. Mal 3:1) and as a “voice of one crying out in the wilderness: Prepare the way for the Lord” (Mark 1:3; cf. Isa 40:3). The Baptist’s preparatory ministry consisted in calling the Jewish people to repentance and in administering a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4–5). His appearance is reminiscent of Elijah, the powerful Old Testament prophet (1:6). John made clear that the Messiah’s stature would be incomparably greater than his, as would be his baptism, not with water but with the Holy Spirit (1:7–8). John baptized Jesus in the Jordan River, and Mark records the Spirit descending on Jesus and a heavenly voice attesting Jesus as God’s “beloved Son” (1:9–11). The same Spirit then led Jesus into the wilderness where he was tempted by Satan and served by angels (1:12–13).

After John’s arrest (1:14, recounted by way of flashback in 6:14–29), Jesus commenced his mission by preaching “the good news of God” in Galilee, announcing the arrival of “the kingdom of God” and calling people to “repent and believe in the good news” (1:14–15). Jesus proceeded to call his first disciples, Galilean fishermen, and summoned them to follow him (1:16–20). After this, he taught in the Capernaum synagogue, and people were amazed at his teaching with authority (1:21–22). When challenged by a man with an unclean spirit in the same synagogue, Jesus was acknowledged to be “the Holy One of God” by the spirit and promptly proceeded to cast out the demon (1:23–26). Once again, the people marveled, not only on account of Jesus’ authoritative teaching but now also because of his authority over the spirit world, and his fame spread throughout the region (1:27–28). More healings and synagogue preaching followed (1:35–42). Jesus, however, sternly warned the recipient of one of these healings not to say anything to anyone but to comply with the requirements of the Mosaic law (the so-called Markan messianic secret; 1:43–44). The man completely disregarded Jesus’ instructions, with the result that Jesus had to withdraw and could no longer preach openly (1:45).

In his opening presentation of Jesus’ mission, Mark stresses Jesus’ sweeping authority demonstrated in both his words and his actions. Jesus’ authority extends to both the evil supernatural and a wide range of diseases. The spread of Jesus’ fame is presented not only in positive terms but also as having the negative consequence of necessitating Jesus’ withdrawal. This ominously foreshadows Jesus’ opposition, which has not yet been mentioned explicitly (though see the mention of the requirements of the Mosaic law in 1:43–44) but which comes to the fore in the account of Jesus’ healing of a paralytic, met with fierce opposition from the Jewish authorities (2:1–11). Specifically, these scribes concluded Jesus was blaspheming because he did not only heal the man but claimed to be able to forgive his sins, an exclusively divine prerogative (2:6). Jesus did not back down in the face of such opposition, however, and asserted that “the Son of Man [Jesus’ favorite self-designation] has authority on earth to forgive sins” (2:10).

Opposition continued to mount against Jesus’ practice of fraternizing with “tax collectors [such as Matthew, who is called in 2:13–14] and sinners,” but he insisted that he came not to call the righteous but sinners (2:15–17). Jesus was also opposed because of his alleged breaking of the Sabbath (2:22–3:6). Nevertheless, he was followed by ever-increasing crowds and was acknowledged as the “Son of God” by demons who were strongly warned by Jesus not to make him known (3:7–12). After this, Jesus appointed the Twelve to be with him and to preach and have authority over demons (3:11–19). Opposition came even from Jesus’ own family who set out to restrain him saying, “He’s out of His mind” (3:21). The scribes, for their part, accused him of driving out demons by the power of Satan, which elicited Jesus’ warnings against blaspheming the Holy Spirit, the true power underlying Jesus’ ministry (3:22–30). Jesus made clear that allegiance to him transcends kinship ties and that his circle of followers ranked above his natural family as those who do the will of God (3:31–35).

After this, Jesus taught on the nature of his kingdom by way of several parables, which he explained to his followers but which remained unintelligible to those who opposed him (4:1–35). Jesus’ rebuke of the wind demonstrates his mastery over the elements of nature (4:35–41). Several additional manifestations of Jesus’ powerful authority follow, including the exorcism of a demon from a man in the region of the Gerasenes (5:1–20), the healing of a woman with blood flow, and the raising of the daughter of Jairus the synagogue leader (5:21–42). Again, Jesus gave strict orders not to talk about the raising (5:43). The raising was witnessed only by Jesus’ inner circle, composed of Peter, James, and John (5:37).

Because of increased Jewish opposition to his public ministry (cf. 3:6), especially after Herod mistook Jesus for a resurrected John the Baptist (6:14–29), Mark portrays Jesus as withdrawing from the largely Jewish Galilee into regions of Gentile population: Tyre and Sidon (7:24–30), the Decapolis (7:31–8:12), and Caesarea Philippi (8:27–9:32). These excursions offered Jesus opportunities to minister to Gentiles (Kato 1986, 59; Schnabel 1994, 51–52). For example, Jesus healed the Gerasene demoniac (5:1–20) and the daughter of the Syrophoenician woman (7:24–30), and he fed the multitude (8:1–10; cf. 2 Kgs 4:42–44). Also, when Jesus commissioned the Twelve (Mark 6:7–12), he did not explicitly limit their ministry to Jews only, as in Matthew 10:5–6.

Nevertheless, the primary thrust of Jesus’ mission in Mark’s Gospel continues to be almost exclusively Jewish. For instance, Jesus sent the demoniac away to his own people (5:19–20), and with a brusque metaphor Jesus elicited the acknowledgment from the Syrophoenician woman that his mission was to the Jews first (7:27–28). What is more, although Mark 8:27–10:52 portrays Jesus’ journey from Caesarea Philippi to Jerusalem, Jesus did not leave Galilee permanently until 10:1. Proclamation to the Gentiles in Mark is a future phenomenon only (13:10; 14:9).

Meanwhile, though the disciples were slow to understand the point of Jesus’ mission, their involvement in it increased throughout the Gospel (e.g., 6:41; 8:1–6). Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Messiah (8:29) demonstrated their growing realization of his identity. Yet Jesus’ subsequent revelation that he would be crucified and raised (8:31–33), followed by his challenge to the disciples to take up their own cross (8:34), showed that the disciples could not embrace their own mission until they understood the dynamics of the cross (Cranfield 1959, 282; Senior and Stuhlmueller 1983, 226). For the disciples, therefore, the “messianic secret” had been lifted, although Jesus still charged his disciples not to reveal his identity publicly (8:30; 9:9).

After Jesus entered Jerusalem (11:1–11), however, the prophetic proclamation of Jesus to the world at large became more pronounced as the Jews rejected their Messiah. Jesus called the temple “a house of prayer for all nations” (11:17, emphasis mine; cf. Isa 56:7). The cursing and lesson of the fig tree (Mark 11:12–14, 20–26; 13:28–31) signal the rejection of the Jews because of their rejection of Christ (Lane 1974, 402). In the same vein, the allegory of the tenants of the vineyard (12:1–12) shows that God will take the vineyard away from the Jews and give it to others (cf. 12:9; Lane 1974, 402). This statement is followed by the Olivet Discourse in chapter 13, in which Jesus prophesied the destruction of the temple and future cataclysmic events during which the gospel will be proclaimed to all nations prior to his own glorious return (13:9–10, 26; 14:9; Kato 1986, 191–93). During Jesus’ Jewish trial, he responded in the affirmative to the high priest when asked, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” (14:61–62). But he remained silent when Pilate, the Roman governor, asked, “Are You the King of the Jews?” (15:2). Nevertheless, at the climax of Mark’s Gospel, it is a Roman centurion who confessed, “This man really was God’s Son!” (15:39). This confession by a Gentile made after Jesus’ death on the cross is highly significant, for it demonstrates that the “messianic secret” is now lifted for Gentiles as well as for Jews (Kato 1986, 8–11) and that the Great Commission may now be given with instructions to take the gospel to Jerusalem, Judea, and to all the Gentile nations.

Thus Mark presents the mission of Jesus as central to his Gospel, and the cross as the focal point of that mission. However, the disciples are not yet seen as fully taking up that mission but are struggling to understand it. Indeed, if the Gospel actually ends at 16:8 (Williams 1998, 146–50), Mark does not include any realization on the part of the disciples as to Jesus’ true significance but rather closes with the women fleeing the open tomb in fear. The focus of Jesus’ own mission in this Gospel was primarily Jewish. But Jesus was certainly willing to minister to Gentiles as they were drawn to him, and he taught that the proclamation of the gospel to the Gentiles would be a reality in the near future. While Jesus, therefore, remained true to his mission to his own nation, he opened the door, through both his example and his teaching, for the realization that God was making salvation possible to all people.

Mission in Luke

Luke’s two-volume work, his Gospel and the book of Acts, together “may be the clearest presentation of the church’s universal mission in all of the New Testament” (Senior and Stuhlmueller 1983, 255). While Acts portrays the fulfillment of the Great Commission through the witness of the apostles, the Gospel of Luke sets the stage for this universal mission by highlighting the rejection of Jesus by the Jews, to whom Jesus offered himself, and the anticipation of salvation and mutual fellowship of both Jews and Gentiles in the kingdom.

The first two chapters of Luke provide the salvation-historical setting from which the Gospel and Acts will unfold. In his prologue (1:1–4), Luke affirms the authenticity of the message and mission of Jesus and his apostles, which the two volumes will demonstrate (Fitzmyer 1981, 9; Witherington 1998, 4–9). The infancy narratives are highlighted by the Song of Mary (1:46–55) and the Song of Simeon (2:29–32), both of which celebrate the coming of Jesus as the fulfillment of God’s promise to restore Israel, thus bringing the nation’s history to a climax (Bock 1994, 68–69). Through Jesus, the long-awaited blessing for Israel and the nations had become a reality (cf. Gen 12:1–3).

As we have seen in the other Synoptic Gospels, Jesus’ ministry is focused primarily on Israel. Yet, Luke is careful to foreshadow the universal implications of God’s salvation in several ways even in the chapters leading up to Jesus’ public ministry. For example, “God’s word” comes to John the Baptist in the context of what is taking place on the world stage (3:1–2), and John’s ministry to announce the coming Messiah is a fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy in which “everyone will see the salvation of God” (3:6; cf. Isa 52:10). After Jesus’ baptism, marking the point of preparation for his ministry (Luke 3:21–22), Luke records the genealogy of Jesus, which stretches back to Adam (3:23–38), signaling that Jesus identifies with all people, not only those who have come from Abraham (contrast Matt 1:1–17; Bock 1994, 360; Marshall 1978, 161). Jesus is the representative of all humanity.

Remarkably, Luke alone among the evangelists highlights Jesus’ reading of the Isaiah scroll in the Nazareth synagogue (4:16–30). On this occasion, Jesus declared his anointing by the Holy Spirit (which occurred at his baptism, 3:22–23), indicating his commission from the Father and articulating the purpose of his mission (see also 5:32; 12:49–53; 19:10):

The Spirit of the Lord is on Me,

because He has anointed Me

to preach good news to the poor.

He has sent Me

to proclaim freedom to the captives

and recovery of sight to the blind,

to set free the oppressed,

to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor. (Luke 4:18–19; cf. Isa 61:1–2a)

According to this text, Jesus’ mission can be expressed with four infinitival phrases. The first, “to preach good news,” is fundamental to Jesus’ ministry, and this part of his mission most likely subsumes the other three (Tannehill 1986, 62–63; Green 1992, 27) (the word poor refers not only to economic destitution but also to spiritual oppression; Green 1992, 24). The three remaining parts of his mission—“to proclaim freedom to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free the oppressed, [and] to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor”—also have spiritual ramifications. The word freedom is used in Luke-Acts to signify the forgiveness of sins, and recovery is used to speak of being rescued from the bondage of Satan (4:31–37; Green 1994, 73). The “year of the Lord’s favor” is a reference to the year of Jubilee (cf. Lev 25:8–10) and is used here to announce that God’s ultimate day of spiritual liberation was now dawning in Christ, a picture of complete forgiveness and reconciliation.

However, although his own people of Nazareth were initially favorable toward Jesus’ words (Luke 4:22), they severely rejected him when he recalled the fact that both Elijah (1 Kings 17–18) and Elisha (2 Kings 5) ministered to Gentiles during a time when the nation of Israel was unrepentant toward God (4:25–30; Johnson 1977, 98). In this subtle way, Jesus hinted at the fact that the mission of preaching the gospel, with its spiritually healing properties, would ultimately be aimed at Gentiles as well as Jews. Ironically, many of those who were close to Jesus in proximity (Jews) would refuse his message, while those who were far off (Gentiles) would receive him. This reality is illustrated in Luke’s first account of Jesus’ ministry to a Gentile (7:1–10). When a Roman centurion believed in Jesus’ power and authority to heal his servant, even at a distance, Jesus declared to the crowd, “I tell you, I have not found so great a faith even in Israel!” (7:9).

Luke’s account of Jesus’ sending the twelve apostles (9:1–8) is similar to Mark’s in length and content (Mark 6:7–13) and does not include the extended mission discourse found in Matthew (10:5–42). But it is significant to consider the commissioning of the Twelve against the backdrop of Jesus’ own mission, which he previously announced in the Nazareth synagogue (cf. Luke 4:18–19). Jesus transferred his authority to the disciples, equipping and commissioning them for a ministry of healing and preaching the gospel reminiscent of his own ministry (9:1–2, 6). What is more, Luke alone in his Gospel includes an account of a second commissioning, this time with seventy(-two) disciples (10:1–24; for a discussion on whether the number is seventy or seventy-two, see Bock 1996, 1014–16). These are specifically appointed and sent ahead of Jesus as he journeyed to Jerusalem (9:51–19:28) in anticipation of his death for sin (Matson 1996, 33). Like the Twelve, the Seventy(-two) were commissioned to heal and to preach the gospel (10:9), so that they may enter towns ahead of Jesus like royal heralds calling people to repent and enter the kingdom (10:1).

Knowing that many towns would not receive his emissaries, Jesus also gave instructions about how they should respond when their message was rejected (9:5; 10:10–11). Later, Jesus anticipated in several parables Gentiles entering the kingdom in place of those Jews who had rejected him. For example, when asked about the number of those who would be saved, Jesus spoke of those who would try to enter the house too late, for the master of the house had already shut the door (13:22–28). Still, people “will come from east and west, from north and south, and recline at the table in the kingdom of God” (13:29). The nations who were “last” would be “first,” while Israel, though having been “first,” would end up “last” (13:30). Second, Jesus spoke of a great kingdom feast that a large number of (Jewish) guests made excuses not to attend (14:15–20). After inviting the poor and outcasts of Israel, however, there was still room at the feast (14:21–22). So the invitation was extended to all, while the original invitees were shut out (14:23–24). Thus, not only does Israel’s rejection of Jesus pave the way for Gentile inclusion; it sets Jews and Gentiles on equal footing in the kingdom (Senior and Stuhlmueller 1983, 153), bringing them together to share table fellowship. Finally, Jesus confronted the religious authorities with the stinging parable of the vineyard tenants who abuse the owner’s messengers and eventually kill his ultimate messenger, his “beloved son” (20:9–15). The owner of the vineyard destroys the wicked tenants and gives his vineyard to “others” (20:16). The meaning of the parable becomes explicit when Jesus’ own people rejected him and handed him over for crucifixion (22:47–23:38).

The good news of eternal life that Jesus provided through his cross-work and resurrection becomes the foundation for a third and ultimate commissioning (24:44–49), which is intended to shape perpetually the mission of the church:

He also said to them, “This is what is written: the Messiah would suffer and rise from the dead the third day, and repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And look, I am sending you what My Father promised. As for you, stay in the city until you are empowered from on high.” (Luke 24:46–49)

There are several points of interest with regard to Jesus’ commission of his followers in Luke. First, the person of Jesus is central to the commission (vv. 46–47). Second, this universal mission is to take place after Jesus has ascended to the Father (v. 49); the previous commissions were for Israel only and took place during Jesus’ earthly ministry. Third, the disciples were specifically commissioned to “proclaim,” and Jesus based the threefold content of this proclamation on the written Word: his followers are to proclaim the suffering (and, by implication, death) of Christ, as well as his resurrection on the third day, and the repentance and forgiveness his finished work has provided (vv. 46–47). In summary, those commissioned by Jesus are to proclaim the good news that Jesus died and rose on their behalf and that they may now turn from their sin and rebellion (repentance) and toward God in obedience and faith (cf. Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 8:22; 11:18). Fourth, the words, “to all the nations,” mean that the commission, as well as the call to repentance and faith, are universal in their scope (Luke 24:47; Tannehill 1986, 296; Nolland 1993b, 1221). Finally, the mission of the apostles was to begin “at Jerusalem,” before extending “to all the nations” (v. 47). This strategy is highly significant, for it recapitulates the original plan of God, embodied in the earthly ministry of Christ, in which salvation would come to the descendants of Abraham and from Abraham’s descendants to the rest of the world (Köstenberger and O’Brien 2001, 126–27). Thus Luke ends his Gospel with the stage fully set to begin the next act of fulfilling the commission (narrated in the book of Acts).

Mission in John

Like the Synoptic Gospels, and here particularly Matthew and Luke, John displays a considerable interest in the subject of mission (Köstenberger 1998, 98–140). The Fourth Evangelist draws attention both to Jesus’ mission and to the subsequent mission of Jesus’ disciples, aptly summarized in the climactic expression of John’s mission theology: “As the Father has sent Me, I also send you” (20:21).

Pride of place naturally goes to the mission of Jesus. Beginning with the prologue (1:1–18), John portrays Jesus as an utterly unique person sent by the Father to carry out a mission that is equally unique (Köstenberger 1998, 45–52). Jesus’ position as the monogenēs or “unique” Son of God (1:14, 18; 3:16), fully human and fully divine, establishes his special relationship to the Father and qualifies him as the only person capable of accomplishing the Father’s mission (Köstenberger and O’Brien 2001, 204–5). As John states at the climax of his prologue, “No one has ever seen God. The One and Only Son—the One who is at the Father’s side—He has revealed Him” (1:18).

Jesus used the term “works” (erga) to refer to his mission and the singular “work” (ergon) at the first and the last reference (4:34; 17:4) to speak of his mission in its entirety (Köstenberger 1998, 72–73). The “work” or mission of Jesus is twofold: (1) revelation—to make the Father known (1:18); and (2) redemption—to take away the sin of the world (1:29, 36). Regarding the former, God, in his love for sinful humanity, is said to have given his one and only Son to die on the cross (3:16). Regarding the latter, Jesus is both the “Lamb of God” (1:29) who offers his flesh to the world (6:51) and the good shepherd who gives his life for the sheep (10:11, 15, 17, 18) and for his beloved “friends” (15:13; cf. 3:16).

The overriding purpose of Jesus’ mission, encompassing both the revelation of the Father and the redemption of humanity, is bringing glory to God (Erdmann in Larkin and Williams 1998, 213–15). While glory is a characteristic shared by both Jesus and the Father (17:5), Jesus reveals God’s glory to the world through his signs (2:1–11, 18–21; 4:46–54; 5:1–15; 6:1–15; chaps. 9; 11), and most of all through his sacrificial death through which he manifests the Father’s love for the world (3:16; Köstenberger 1998, 87–103). Thus the lowest point in Jesus’ earthly ministry, the cross, is in John’s Gospel his highest point of honor and exaltation, the place where Jesus was “lifted up” (17:4; 19:30; cf. 3:14–15; 8:28; 12:32–33; cf. Isa 52:13).

Many times Jesus referred to his mission by declaring that he had been sent to accomplish the Father’s purpose and to return to him. In fact, the image of the “sent Son” is John’s most pervasive designation of Jesus in all the Gospel (Köstenberger 1998, 96–121), intended in part to mirror the traditional Jewish practice of a father sending an important message by none other than his own son, ideally his firstborn (Köstenberger 1998, 209n25). As the Son sent from the Father (e.g., 5:37–38; 6:39; 8:29; 12:45), Jesus insisted that his mission was to accomplish the Father’s will and to finish the Father’s work (4:34; 17:4); and at the climax of the Gospel, Jesus, the obedient Son of the Father, exclaimed at the cross, “It is finished!” (19:30).

Another intriguing aspect of Jesus’ mission in John’s Gospel is the fact that the Father is always the sender of the Son, and that ultimately the Father and the Son together send the Spirit (14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7; 20:22). John consistently presents these noninterchangeable, divine relationships and responsibilities in order to highlight the role of the Godhead in salvation history. Thus, John’s mission theology is not an extension of his trinitarian theology but the opposite: John’s theology of the Trinity is grounded in his interest in mission. John’s teaching on the Trinity is aimed at demonstrating “the Spirit-enabled demonstration to the world that the Father sent the Son, offering the world forgiveness of sins and eternal life upon faith in the Messiah” (Köstenberger and Swain 2008; 155; cf. 149–64).

The mission of the disciples was integrally related to the mission of Jesus. The first time in John’s Gospel that Jesus functioned as “sender” rather than “sent one” is when he commissioned his followers after his resurrection (20:21). Accordingly, the focus of this Gospel is almost exclusively upon the mission of Jesus and not that of the disciples. When the mission of the disciples is mentioned, it is in the context of Jesus’ mission (17:18; 20:21). Even John the Baptist (1:7, 8, 15, 32, 34; 3:26) and the Spirit (15:26), as well as the disciples (15:27), were “sent” for the purpose of bearing witness to Jesus.

Nevertheless, John’s focus on Jesus’ mission, with the mission of the disciples unmistakably in a subordinate role, is intended to demonstrate that all other missions find their ultimate significance only as they relate to the mission of Jesus. The disciples were part of Jesus’ “harvest,” but only because their Lord provided the crop (4:38); they did “greater works” than Jesus, but only when they prayerfully depended upon him (14:12–13); and they “[bore] fruit,” but only as they remained in Christ and were appointed by him (15:4, 8, 16).

Despite the nearly exclusive attention given to the mission of Jesus, however, several features in John’s Gospel demonstrate that Jesus intended for his followers to take up his mission after he ascended to the Father. First, on multiple occasions, Jesus referred to his followers as “disciples” (mathētēs). These disciples were those who participated in Jesus’ mission (4:2, 8, 27, 31, 33, 8; 6:3, 8, 12, 16, 22, 24, 60–71) and who continued to follow him when others did not (6:66–69; 7:2–5). As the Gospel progresses, however, the term “disciple,” as well as the expression “remain,” matures from indicating a person who is physically with Jesus (1:37–43) to one who remains in the word of Jesus (8:31), and ultimately to one who remains in Jesus himself by the power of the Spirit (15:1–10). There is also a remarkable shift in John’s Gospel between the disciples’ participation in the mission of the earthly Jesus (chaps. 1–12) and their participation in the mission of the Father, Spirit, and the exalted Jesus (chaps. 13–21). In its broader, abiding sense, therefore, the term “disciple” can refer to subsequent followers of Jesus who also will carry forth his mission (cf. 15:16–27; 17:18–20; Köstenberger and O’Brien 2001, 213).

Second, Jesus envisioned that his disciples would form a new community of loving and faithful witnesses who would advance his mission. This new community is described by way of two central metaphors (Köstenberger 1998, 161–67). First, Jesus’ followers are a “flock” who follow “the good shepherd” and hear his voice (chap. 10). Though the “flock” is a common Old Testament metaphor for God’s people Israel (e.g., Psalm 23; Isa 40:11; Jer 23:1; Ezek 34:11), it is recast through the coming of Jesus to refer to all those who hear his voice and follow him (10:26). Second, Jesus also referred to the new community as “branches” that must spiritually remain in him, the “vine” (chap. 15). Both of these metaphors have significant implications for the disciples’ mission: as branches of the vine, their purpose was to “go” and “bear fruit” (15:8, 16); as members of Jesus’ flock, they were to assist him by feeding his sheep (20:15–17). What is more, the universal scope of this new community is indicated by the fact that the prerequisite for belonging to it is simply faith in Jesus, and that the focal point of the divine mission to gather other members into the flock is no longer the nation of Israel only but the entire world (cf. 3:16; 10:16; 17:18; 20:21).

Third, Jesus spoke of the ministry of his disciples in terms of its future progress. On the one hand, references to the actual tasks of the disciples in John’s Gospel are limited. They were reapers in the harvest (4:38), fruit bearers (15:16), witnesses through the Spirit (15:26–27), and Jesus’ representatives (20:23; cf. 17:20). Even their active role in Jesus’ ministry appears to be limited to assisting in ordinary tasks (cf. 4:8; 6:5–13). On the other hand, Jesus declared, “I assure you: The one who believes in Me will also do the works that I do. And he will do even greater works than these, because I am going to the Father” (14:12). In other words, those who follow Jesus after his exaltation will do “greater works”—in a sense, even greater than Jesus’ “signs”!—because their work will be based upon the finished work of salvation (cf. Bruce 1983, 112–14). This means that the glorification of Christ through his cross and resurrection provides the grounds not only for salvation but also for mission. Those who come after Christ will carry on his mission through the ministry of the Spirit whom he will send (14:26; 16:13–14; cf. 15:26–27), advancing the work that he began, and reaping the end-time harvest for God’s glory.

Finally, two significant terms are used with regard to Jesus’ disciples that point ultimately to their future mission: “following” and being “sent.” Though the term “follow” is often used of the disciples, many of them ceased following during his ministry (cf., e.g., 6:66), and Jesus warned that even his closest followers would abandon him in his hour of trial (16:32); thus, faithful following is only possible after Jesus’ glorification (compare 13:36–38 with 21:15–19). What is more, Jesus widens the idea of “following” him to include believers beyond the original disciples (see, e.g., chap. 10, esp. v. 16; cf. 11:51–52; 12:32). At the end of the Gospel, Jesus called Peter to follow him (21:22), even though Jesus himself was about to be exalted.

The term “sent,” in contrast to the term “follow,” stands in direct continuity with Jesus’ own mission. Just as Jesus himself was sent into the world, so Jesus sends his own disciples into the world (17:18; 20:21). Thus, in a sense, the disciples of Jesus share the “otherworldly” quality of belonging to an eternal, heavenly reality while being sent as witnesses into a temporal, earthly reality. They are in the world but not of the world. The concept in John’s Gospel of believers as Jesus’ “disciples” and “followers” who form a new community of those who will do greater works than the One who sent them vividly portrays the Lord’s desire for his people to carry forth the mission that he exemplified in his own ministry and made possible through his cross-death, resurrection, and exaltation.

Conclusion

In conjunction with their focus on the redemptive mission of Jesus the Messiah and Son of God, mission is quite an important motif in all four Gospels. Each evangelist provides his own unique, distinctive presentation of the mission theme culminating at the end of his respective Gospel. Matthew’s Gospel moves inexorably from Jesus’ messianic mission to the Jews to Jesus’ Great Commission to his followers to make disciples of all the nations (Matt 28:18–20). Mark’s Gospel climaxes in a Roman centurion’s confession—representing the Gentile world—that Jesus really is the Son of God (Mark 15:39). Luke shows how the risen Jesus envisioned the Spirit-aided universal proclamation of the good news of salvation and forgiveness in him beginning at Jerusalem prior to his ascension, setting up the sequel to his Gospel, the book of Acts (Luke 24:46–49). John’s Gospel, last but not least, grounds the mission of Jesus’ followers squarely in Jesus’ own mission from the Father, designating them as his Spirit-empowered representatives (20:21–23).

In this powerful display of symphonic theology, all four Gospels—in fact, the fourfold one Gospel—jointly bear definitive witness to the way in which mission is rooted ultimately in nothing other than the loving heart of the trinitarian Godhead, canonically culminating in the fourth evangelist’s record of Jesus’ own words when commissioning his followers: “As the Father has sent Me, I also send you. . . . Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” (John 20:21–22). By calling Jesus’ followers to the proclamation of the forgiveness of sins in Jesus, John’s trinitarian mission theology makes clear that, in the ultimate analysis, the Gospels’ mission motif is more than a truth to be believed—it is a commission to be obeyed: “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations” (Matt 28:20). By God’s grace, may the church today be obedient to that call.

Chapter 6

Missions in the Apostolic Church

Eckhard Schnabel

The missionary work of the apostolic church cannot be understood without the person, the ministry, the death and resurrection, and the commission of Jesus. The earliest Christians, who were all Jews, believed that Jesus was Israel’s Messiah and, as exalted Lord, Savior of both Jews and polytheists. They believed that Jesus’ death was the only means of atonement for sin (cf. Mark 10:45; Rom 3:21–26); thus, they were willing to risk their lives in extolling Jesus, who had been crucified as a criminal. The Twelve observed the ministry of Jesus with his message and practice of mercy and grace being extended to sinners at the fringes of Jewish society (cf. Luke 15; 19:10); thus, they did not concentrate on cultivating their own holiness, as did other pious Jews, but actively proclaimed their convictions to anyone who was willing to listen. Jesus called and commissioned the Twelve to be witnesses of his ministry, his death, and his resurrection beginning in Jerusalem to the farthest corners of the earth (Luke 6:14–16; Acts 1:2, 8, 13, 21–25). Jesus trained them for the task of being “fishers of people” (Matt 4:19//Mark 1:17; cf. Luke 5:10); for three years they participated in his mission of rescuing the lost by devoting their entire energies (by “leaving their nets”) to proclaiming the dawn of God’s kingdom in the person and the ministry of Jesus. They accompanied Jesus, visiting the small farms (Mark 6:56) and the villages of Galilee, as well as urban centers such as Jerusalem, preaching to crowds (2:13) and interacting with individuals (9:17–27). They observed Jesus proclaiming his message to the simple and the sophisticated, to powerless Galileans and to influential leaders of the Jerusalem establishment, to people with bad reputations and to the pious. They learned from Jesus how to reach the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt 10:6). They observed how Jesus occasionally ministered to Gentiles who sought him out (Matt 8:5–13; Mark 5:1–20; 7:24–30; John 12:20–22). They heard his announcement that the gospel of the kingdom would be preached in the entire world to “all nations” (Matt 24:14). And they responded with obedience when Jesus commissioned them to go to the “ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8) and make disciples of all nations (Matt 28:19; cf. the commission to Paul: Acts 9:15; 26:15–18).

Vision and Challenges

From Jerusalem to the Ends of the Earth

The Old Testament prophets anticipated a time the nations would come to Zion and learn God’s ways (Isa 2:2–5/Micah 4:1–5; Zech 8:20–23)—a time when the Servant of the Lord would bring God’s salvation to the ends of the earth (Isa 49:1–6). As Jesus’ announcement of the dawn of God’s kingdom was accompanied by new understanding of what the kingdom meant, with the symbols of Israel’s identity—Sabbath, food, nation, land, temple—challenged (cf. Wright 1996, 369–442, 467–472), the expectation of the nations coming to Jerusalem was replaced by Jesus’ command to his disciples to go from Jerusalem to the nations and the end of the earth. An essentially stationary model of communication—God revealed himself on Zion; Gentiles were attracted by Israel’s faith, becoming proselytes; nations flocked to Jerusalem—was transformed into a fundamentally mobile pattern of communication: the followers of Jesus carried the good news from Jerusalem to Damascus, Antioch, Rome, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, and many other cities.

According to the book of Acts, Jesus commanded the Twelve to be his witnesses “in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8 NIV). Jesus traveled from Galilee to Jerusalem (Luke 23:5; Acts 10:37); the disciples were given the task of traveling from Jerusalem via Judea and Samaria to the ends of the earth. Jerusalem was the center of the apostles’ mission and the point of departure of their travels. Judea probably included Galilee—in Acts 9:31 Luke refers to “the church” of Judea, Galilee, and Samaria, while in Acts 1:8 only Judea and Samaria are mentioned as areas in which the disciples are directed to preach the gospel. When Luke wrote the book of Acts, Galilee was no longer a separate political entity as it was during Jesus’ ministry (ruled by the ethnarch Herod Antipas); it had been integrated into the Roman province of Judea. Samaria, the territory between Judea and Galilee, was the region where descendants of the original Israelite tribes of the northern kingdom lived, who had become estranged from the Jews in the south over several centuries and who rejected the Jerusalem-centered history of salvation.

Given that Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria are geographical terms, the phrase “ends of the earth” should be taken as a description of geographical regions and not merely as a universalistic statement that formulates the fulfillment of Isaiah 49:6 (ESV) where Yahweh says of his Servant: “I will make you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.” The phrase “end of the earth,” understood as a geographical reference, does not refer to Rome (e.g., Fitzmyer, 1998, 206–7), Spain (Ellis 1991, 123–32), or Ethiopia (Thornton 1977, 374–75), nor to the Jewish diaspora (Jervell, 1998, 116), nor simply to the Gentiles (Unnik 1966, 386–401), but literally to the farthest reaches of the inhabited world known at the time (Schnabel, 2004, 372–76). In Greco-Roman literature, the phrase “the ends of the earth” designates the farthest regions of the earth (Romm 1992, 11–41). By the first century, the western “end” of the known world was Gaul or Germania on the Atlantic Ocean, as well as Britannia, which Emperor Claudius had annexed in AD 43, or, further south, Spain, and particularly the city of Gades/Gadeira west of the Strait of Gibraltar. Strabo describes Gades as the city “at the end of the earth” (Strabo, Geogr. 3.1.8). The northern “end” of the world was, in terms of inhabited regions, Scythia, whose people lived “at the end of the earth” (Propertius 2.7.18). The southern “end” of the world was Ethiopia (today Sudan), whose people were said to live “at the ends of the earth on the banks of Oceanus” (Strabo, Geogr. 1.1.16). The eastern “end” of the world was thought to be beyond India and the Seres, the silk people, i.e., China (Procopius, De bellis 2.3.52). We should note that Luke mentions an Ethiopian (Acts 8:26–40), Paul mentions Scythians (Col 3:11) and plans to go to Spain (Rom 15:24, 28), and India is mentioned in written (Acts of Thomas) and oral traditions as the region where the apostle Thomas engaged in missionary work (Schnabel 2004, 880–95). Given the audacious courage of the apostles who were willing to risk their lives, as they stayed in Jerusalem despite the killing of Jesus and then of Stephen, it is entirely feasible that the apostles indeed planned to travel to all territories known at that time.

Spontaneity and Planning

Did the apostles leave the implementation of Jesus’ missionary commission to coincidences of more or less accidental developments, or did they engage in planning and in systematic missionary work? Luke’s description of the work of the earliest followers of Jesus in Jerusalem seems to suggest the former, as he relates the often spontaneous guidance by the Lord, the Holy Spirit, or supernatural factors. (1) The first missionary sermon that Peter preached on the day of Pentecost seems to have been a spontaneous statement (Acts 2:12–14, 37–38); he explained to people who were confounded by some extraordinary phenomena the significance of the outpouring of the Spirit of God. (2) The Twelve appeared to have stayed in Jerusalem (Acts 8:1); Luke does not report missionary travels in which they reached other towns. (3) Philip, one of the leaders among the Greek-speaking Christians in Jerusalem, led the first major expansion of the Jerusalem church—into Samaria, only thirty miles north of Jerusalem—which is described as a spontaneous event resulting from the first persecution of Christians in Jerusalem (Acts 8:1–8). (4) Paul had to leave some cities in which he preached the gospel in a hurry, forced out by persecution (Pisidian Antioch, Acts 13:50–51; Iconium, 14:4–5; Lystra, 14:19–20; Philippi, 16:19–40; Thessalonica, 17:5–10; Berea, 17:13–14), which renders the missionary work that he started in Iconium, Lystra, Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, and Athens a spontaneous new initiative, although he may have planned to establish churches in these cities already. (5) Specifically, Paul’s travel to Macedonia, resulting in church-planting efforts in Philippi, Thessalonica, and Berea, was the result of the fact that he had been thwarted from establishing new missionary work in the provinces of Asia and Bithynia (Acts 16:6–7), as well as the result of a vision that directed him to go to Macedonia (vv. 9–10).

Several observations indicate, however, that the missionary work of the early Christians was not an entirely spontaneous, unplanned venture driven by persecution. (1) The Jerusalem apostles challenged the members of the Sanhedrin, refusing to obey their ban on public proclamation and private teaching (Acts 4:18–20; 5:28–29); they were not timid leaders unwilling to proclaim the good news of Jesus, Israel’s Messiah, in difficult and dangerous situations. They accepted the responsibility for an active missionary outreach to Jews and also to Gentiles, they had great courage, and they seem to have engaged in planning. This is supported by the content of the prayer of the Jerusalem church after the release of Peter and John who had been arrested; even in view of “raging nations” they ask for boldness to carry on their task of preaching God’s word (Acts 4:29). (2) The Sanhedrin was concerned that the messianic movement linked with Jesus of Nazareth would spread (Acts 4:17), implying the eagerness of the followers of Jesus to reach an ever-widening number of people with their message. When members of the Sanhedrin voiced their concern that the apostles had “filled Jerusalem” with their teaching (Acts 5:28), they unwittingly provided information about the effectiveness of the evangelism of the Jerusalem church, and, perhaps, about the goal of the apostles to reach all people living in Jerusalem. (3) Because the Old Testament prophecies regarding the nations describe not only a movement of the nations to Jerusalem but also a movement of the word of the Lord from Jerusalem to the nations (Isa 2:3), it is possible that the apostles initially expected the proclamation of the gospel in Jerusalem (cf. Isa 40:9) to reach the “the ends of the earth” through the constant stream of Jewish pilgrims to Jerusalem who would take the gospel back to the countries in which they lived. “In that case, Luke provides us, in his portrayal of the first preaching of the gospel in Jerusalem to a crowd drawn from all nations under heaven (Acts 2:5–11), with a programmatic account of the earliest mission strategy of the Jerusalem church” (Bauckham 1995, 426). (4) The apostles sent Peter and John to Samaria as soon as they heard of converts there (Acts 8:14); Luke does not even hint at the suggestion that the apostles might have found the news from Samaria to be surprising. (5) Peter was involved in missionary travels through the towns, cities, and villages of Judaea, Galilee, and Samaria (compare Acts 9:32 with 9:31; 8:25), as well as in the coastal plain (9:35). (6) Peter pioneered the first breakthrough to the Gentiles in Caesarea (Acts 10:1–11:18), an event that was not planned but the result of supernatural guidance through visions (Acts 10:1–7, 9–16, 28–29). (7) The Jerusalem church felt responsible for outreach to Gentiles in Antioch, demonstrated by the fact that they sent Barnabas to consolidate the new church there (Acts 11:19–24). Note that all the early coworkers in Paul’s mission to the Gentiles came from Jerusalem: Barnabas, John Mark, and Silas. (8) The Twelve were the leaders of the Jerusalem church and its missionary activity for twelve years up to the persecution started by Herod Agrippa I in AD 41, which led to the martyrdom of James, one of the Twelve, and to the imprisonment of Peter, the preeminent apostle, who managed to escape (Acts 12:1–17). After AD 41, we encounter in Jerusalem the “elders” as the group that replaced the Twelve as leaders in Jerusalem, with James, the brother of Jesus, being the new preeminent figure (Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18). (Bauckham 1995, 427–41.) The fact that Peter was executed during the persecution under Nero (Tertullian, Praesc. Haer. 36), sometime between AD 64 and 68, suggests that Herod Agrippa’s persecution did not end Peter’s ministry but led to a larger role (retired missionaries are not a threat to political authorities!) as a traveling missionary (cf. 1 Cor 9:5). The same seems to hold true for the other Jerusalem apostles: evidence in the early church fathers says that the Twelve stayed in Jerusalem for twelve years before moving out into the world (Apollonius, in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 5.18.14; Acts of Peter 5; Kerygma Petrou 3; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 6.5.43). (9) Paul’s letters contain references to plans regarding his geographical movements (Rom 1:10–11,13; 15:23–29; 1 Cor 16:5–9). (10) Luke implies that Paul planned to do missionary work in the province of Asia (Acts 16:6), evidently with the goal of pushing westward after having established churches in the provinces of Cilicia, Galatia, and evidently Pamphylia, in the eastern and central regions of Asia Minor. (11) The principle that Paul adopted after his collaboration with Barnabas in Syrian Antioch (“to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation” [Rom 15:20 NIV]), implies consistent planning of new locations for missionary work. (12) Paul planned to do missionary work in Spain because “there is no more place for me to work in these regions” (Rom 15:23 NIV).

Thus we find both—spontaneous missionary activity and planning of new initiatives, reaction to persecution and active initiative, guidance by dreams and discussion of new projects, responsive obedience to the Holy Spirit, and pursuit of systematic goals.

Geographical Movement

AD 30–41, The Apostle Peter

We know not very much about the geographical scope of the missionary work of Peter, Jesus’ leading disciple. In the twelve years from AD 30–41, he preached in Jerusalem (Acts 2–5), Samaria (8:14–25), and in the cities of the coastal plain, in particular Lydda and Joppe (9:36–43) and Caesarea (10:1–48). When Peter was forced to leave Jerusalem due to the persecution initiated by Agrippa II in AD 41, he went “to another place” (Acts 12:17 NIV). Eusebius and Jerome relate the tradition, uncontested for many centuries, that Peter came to Rome after his escape from prison in Jerusalem in AD 41 and that he worked in Rome as a missionary, pastor, and bishop for twenty-five years until his death under Nero in AD 67 (cf. Eusebii Pamphili Chronici Canones 261, ed. Fotheringham, and Jerome’s Latin text of the Chronicon; cf. Bauckham 1992) (see also Thiede 1986; Grant 1994; Hengel 2010; Bockmuehl 2012).

AD 31/32, Philip

Philip, one of the “Seven” (Acts 6:5), emerged as a missionary in Samaria (8:5–13), as evangelist to an Ethiopian (vv. 26–39), and as an evangelist in “all the towns” between Azotus/Ashdod and Caesarea (v. 40), the official capital of Judaea and the official seat of the procurator, where he eventually had his base (11:19; 21:8) (see also Spencer 1992; Matthews 2002).

AD 32 or 35, Anonymous Followers of Jesus, and Barnabas

Followers of Jesus from Jerusalem, when forced to leave Jerusalem after Stephen’s death, traveled to Phoenicia, the coastal region of the province of Syria, to Cyprus, and to Antioch on the Orontes River, Syria’s capital, “spreading the word” (Acts 11:19–20 NIV). Luke’s subsequent report confirms the existence of churches in Tyre (21:3–5), Ptolemais (21:7), Sidon (27:3), and Antioch (11:20–21; 13:1). Christians, presumably from Jerusalem, established a church in Damascus (9:2). Joseph Barnabas, a native of Cyprus who lived in Jerusalem (4:36–37; 9:27), played a major role in the consolidation and expansion of the church in Antioch (11:22–26) (see Kollmann 2004).

AD 32–65, The Apostle Paul

The only apostle for whom we have comprehensive information is Paul, who engaged in missionary work from his conversion in AD 31/32 to his death in AD 67. We can identify sixteen phases of Paul’s missionary work (Schnabel 2004, 923–1485; 2008, 58–122).

1. Syria	Damascus	Acts 9:19–21; Gal 1:17; Acts 9:23–25	AD 32
2. Arabia	(Nabatea)	Gal 1:17; 2 Cor 11:32	AD 32–33
3. Judea	Jerusalem	Acts 9:26–29; Rom 15:19	AD 33/34
4. Syria/Cilicia	Tarsus	Acts 9:30; 11:25–26	AD 34–42
5. Syria	Antioch	Acts 11:26–30; 13:1	AD 42–44
6. Cyprus	Salamis Paphos	Acts 13:4–12	AD 45
7. Galatia	Pisidian Antioch Iconium Lystra Derbe	Acts 13:14–14:23	AD 45–47
8. Pamphylia	Perge	Acts 14:24–26	AD 47
9. Macedonia	Philippi Thessalonica Berea	Acts 16:6–17:15	AD 49–50
10. Achaia	Athens Corinth	Acts 17:16–18:28	AD 50–51
11. Asia	Ephesus	Acts 19:1–41	AD 52–55
12. Illyricum		Rom 15:19	AD 56
13. Judea	Caesarea	Acts 21:27–26:32	AD 57–59
14. Rome		Acts 28:17–28	AD 60–62
15. Spain	Tarraco?	1 Clement 5:5–7	AD 63–64?
16. Crete		Titus 1:5	AD 64–65?

These figures yield the following totals: Paul traveled at least 25,000 kilometers (15,000 miles) as a missionary, about 14,000 kilometers (8,700 miles) by land. We know that he established at least ten local churches: Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Corinth, and Ephesus. He probably also established churches in Tarsus, Salamis, Paphos, Perge, and Athens, presumably further churches in Syria and Cilicia (Acts 15:41; Gal 1:21–22), and perhaps churches in cities in Spain and on Crete.

AD 65–67, Crescens and Titus

There might have been missionary activity in the province of Gaul; Paul informed Timothy in his last letter from prison that Crescens went to “Galatia” (2 Tim 4:10). The Greek word Galatia can describe either the Roman province of Galatia in central Asia Minor or the region of the Celtic Galatians in the north of the province of Galatia and the Roman province of Gaul (Gallia; mod. France). Several New Testament manuscripts, including the early Codex Sinaiticus, clarify the ambiguity by reading eis Gallian rather than eis Galatian, assuming a journey by Crescens to Gaul. Some scholars assume that it was already the author of the Second Letter to Timothy who interpreted the Greek term Galatia—if this was the original reading—as a reference to the province of Gaul, even before the subsequent manuscript tradition and the later tradition of the church read Gallia (e.g., Spicq 1969, 2:811–3). The capital of Gallia was Lugdunum (mod. Lyon); other important cities were Massalia and Narbo.

This wealth of geographical detail and these statistics demonstrate that “missions” was, for the early church, not a theoretical concept or a theological point of discussion but a concrete reality with “boots on the ground” and the apostles walking long distances in order to reach people with the gospel. Within thirty-five years of Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection in AD 30, Christian communities were in most of the eastern provinces of the Roman empire: Illyricum, Macedonia, Achaia, Crete, Asia, Pontus/Bithynia (1 Pet 1:1), Galatia, Pamphylia, Cappadocia (1 Pet 1:1), Cilicia, Syria, and Iudaea. We have no information, for the first century, about churches in Moesia, Thrace, Cyrenaica, and Egypt. The silence about Christians in Egypt is mysterious, given the fact that Alexandria, the second largest city in the Roman Empire, had quite a large Jewish community that was easily accessible from Jerusalem, a mere 350 miles to the south. We know of Apollos, a Jew from Alexandria who was active in the church in Ephesus and in Corinth (Acts 18:24–28), but we do not know whether he was converted to faith in Jesus in Alexandria or outside of Egypt. As regards the western Mediterranean, we know of Christian activity in Rome and Dalmatia, perhaps in Gaul, and, if Paul indeed reached Spain, perhaps in the province Hispania Tarraconensis. The movement of Jesus’ followers had grown from small beginnings in Jerusalem to a presence throughout the Roman Empire.

Strategies and Methods

Strategies of missionary work address the goals of missionary work, the overall plan for reaching people with the gospel. Methods of missionary work relate to the specific work of missionaries, their “tactics,” i.e., the implementation of a defined and regular plan, the procedures that are adopted in a particular region or city or situation. As regards the early Christian mission, strategies are “global,” while methods are “local.” Missions in the early church, understood as God’s mission, was “global” because it involved the world: the apostles wanted to reach all people irrespective of their geographical location and irrespective of social class or gender; their mission was “world mission” as they wanted to reach all the people who lived in the world. At the same time, their mission was “local” because it targeted people who lived in specific cities, towns, and villages.

Global Strategy

Peter had a “global” vision. After he explained the coming of the Holy Spirit as the gift granted by the risen and exalted Jesus, who is the Lord and Messiah through whom God fulfills his promises (Acts 2:14–36), and after some of the listeners—Jews from all over the world—asked him what they should do, Peter gave an answer that includes a description of the scope of the reality of God’s promise of new life through his Spirit. He asserts, “Repent, and be immersed, every one of you, in the name of Jesus the Messiah, for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and for your children and for all those who are far away, whom the Lord our God will call to himself” (Acts 2:38–39). The phrase “for your children” indicates distance in time: God’s promise of his Spirit, of forgiveness and of new life, remains valid for future generations of Jews. The phrase “for all those who are far away” (which echoes Isa 57:19) marks distance in space: the promise of God’s Spirit and of his salvation will reach Gentiles. Peter expresses a universal vision of salvation in which he and the Twelve would play a major role as Jesus’ witnesses (Acts 1:8, 22). When Peter was invited by a Roman military officer, and prompted by God to accept the invitation, he asserted that he was a practicing Jew who should not really be associating with a Gentile (10:28); this was probably a polite way of saying that he should not be consorting with an officer of the Roman army and his friends who would likely be defiled by idolatry, despite the fact that Cornelius was a Godfearer who had a good reputation among some local Jews (Bauckham 2005, 107–14). The repeated vision of the sheet with clean and unclean animals, with the heavenly voice commanding him to slaughter and eat (Acts 10:9–16; cf. 11:5–10), prepared Peter for accepting Cornelius’s invitation and for eventually accepting as new members of God’s people Gentiles who believed in Jesus and who received the Holy Spirit. Jesus’ promise of “immersion in the Holy Spirit” (Acts 1:5) implied that Gentiles who had come to faith in Jesus and who had incontrovertibly received the Holy Spirit should be considered “clean” because of God’s Spirit who cleanses and restores Israel in the “last days” (Acts 2:17, quoting Joel 2:28). The prophets’ promise that in the last days the nations would come to Zion to worship Yahweh (Isa 2:2–5/Mic 4:1–4; Isa 14:2; 45:14; 49:22–23; 55:5; 66:20; Jer 16:19–21; Zeph 3:9–10; Zech 8:20–23; 14:16–19) is being fulfilled. God’s revelation to Peter in Joppe implied a change of central commandments of the Law about the distinction between holy and profane and between clean and unclean. Now the path to the Gentiles and to the ends of the earth was fully opened.

When Paul described the scope of his missionary work, he repeatedly commented on the ethnic dimension of his strategy, which was consistently theological: there is no distinction between Jews and Gentiles with regard to their status before God as far as their sins are concerned. Both are helplessly exposed to the wrath of God, who condemns sinners (Rom 1:18–3:20); both are justified on Judgment Day only by faith in Jesus Christ (3:21–5:21). It is this conviction that is downplayed in those proponents of new perspectives on Paul who reject the view that Paul was in conflict with Judaism (cf. recently Zetterholm 2009). Since “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23), all people, without exception, need to hear, understand, and accept the good news of Jesus Christ.

The cultural and social dimension of Paul’s strategy is equally comprehensive, formulated in the statement that he is “a debtor both to the Greeks and to the barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish” (Rom 1:14 NET), that “there is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female” (Gal 3:28 NRSV), that he seeks to reach those who are “wise by human standards” and those with little or no education, those who belong to the powerful elite in the cities that he visits and those who have no political or economic influence, those who are of noble birth and those who are ordinary or who belong to the despised people (1 Cor 1:26–29). The good news of Jesus Christ did not allow Paul to omit any ethnic, social, religious, or cultural group from the preaching of the gospel. Everybody needs to hear the gospel because there is no salvation apart from faith in Jesus. Thus we find Paul in contact with Jews, proselytes, Godfearers, and pagans (cf. Acts 13:13–48; 14:8–18); with slaves such as the woman in Philippi who was a medium (16:15–18) and the jailer in Philippi (16:23–34); with simple people such as the lame beggar in Lystra (14:8–10); with city magistrates in Pisidian Antioch (13:50) and the Asiarchs in Ephesus (19:31); with philosophers (17:18) and members of the venerable Areopagus Council in Athens (17:19–34); with Roman governors in Paphos and in Caesarea (13:6–12; 24:1–26:32); with synagogue officials in Pisidian Antioch and in Corinth (13:15; 18:8); with women such as Lydia in Philippi (17:14–15) and Damaris in Athens (17:34). Paul sought to reach as many people as possible with the gospel, irrespective of ethnic origins, social class, religious affiliation, or gender.

Local Methods

Without a local focus, global strategies remain abstract ideas. When Jesus called the Twelve to fish for people (Mark 1:17), and when he commissioned them to go to all nations (Matt 28:19), he sent them to real people living in real towns. We see such a consistent local focus not only in the ministry of Jesus who preached in the towns and villages of Galilee but also in the missionary work of Peter and Paul.

Looking at Peter’s mission from a geographical and topographical perspective, we encounter Peter on the Mount of Olives (Acts 1:12), in an upstairs room in Jerusalem (1:13), in a house in Jerusalem (2:1), before a large crowd of people in Jerusalem (2:14), in the temple (3:1), in Solomon’s Portico on the east side of the Temple Mount (3:11; 5:12, 20, 25, 42), in the prison of the Sanhedrin (4:3), in the Sanhedrin hall (4:7; 5:27), in the public jail (5:18), in the Samaritan city in which Philip had been active (8:14–15), in Samaritan villages (8:25), in Lydda in the Plain of Sharon (9:32), in an upstairs room in Joppe (9:36), in the house of a tanner named Simon in Joppe (9:43), on the roof of that house (10:9), on the road from Joppe to Caesarea (10:23), in the house of Cornelius in Caesarea (10:24), on the road from Caesarea to Jerusalem (11:2), in the prison in Herod’s palace in Jerusalem (12:3), and in the house of Mary in Jerusalem (12:12). Clearly, Peter’s “methods” of missionary work were consistently local. Unfortunately, “another place” for which Peter left Jerusalem (12:17) is not specified, reflecting perhaps the necessity of keeping Peter’s whereabouts secret (Dunn 2009, 410). What we know is that Peter was active as a missionary, traveling with his wife (1 Cor 9:5), surfacing in Antioch in Syria, probably in AD 48 (Gal 2:11–14), and in Jerusalem in AD 48 on the occasion of the Apostles’ Council (Acts 15:7).

When we look at the verbs that Luke uses in the book of Acts to describe Peter’s missionary work, we see its local nature. Peter explained Scripture (1:16, 20; 2:16–21, 25–36; 3:24–25) and led Jesus’ followers in replacing Judas as a member of the Twelve (1:15–26); he explained the visible manifestations connected with the Spirit being poured out by Jesus on his followers (2:1–36) and the significance of Jesus as Israel’s crucified and risen Messiah before crowds of people (2:22–36; 3:13–26) and before the Sanhedrin (4:10–12; 5:30–32). He pleaded with the Jews of Jerusalem to confess their sins and find forgiveness in pledging allegiance to Jesus (2:38–40); he assisted people to be immersed in one of the large immersion pools in Jerusalem (2:41); he prayed in the temple (3:1), and he prayed with believers (4:24–30); he healed the sick (3:1–10; 5:12, 15; 9:32–35, 36–42); he explained miracles (3:11–26); he confronted followers of Jesus who wanted to deceive the church (5:1–10); he taught daily in the temple court (5:42) and in private homes (5:42); he suffered repeated arrest (4:1–3; 5:18; 12:3–4) and the punishment of flogging (5:40); he reported to the congregation about his arrest and interrogation by the Sanhedrin (4:23); he supervised the distribution of funds among the needy members of the congregation (4:35, 37; 6:1–2), and he reorganized the structure of the church for improved efficiency of the distribution of funds and food to the needy followers of Jesus (6:1–6); he installed and prayed for new ministry leaders (6:6); he went to Samaria in order to consolidate the missionary expansion of the church that had happened through the work of Philip (8:14–25); he helped new converts to receive the Holy Spirit (8:15–17); he confronted and corrected new converts who had a defective understanding of faith in Jesus (8:18–23); he preached about Jesus in Samaria (8:25); he traveled to various towns in Judea (9:32) and visited believers (9:32); he received and responded to a divine vision (10:9–29); he explained the good news about Jesus to Gentiles (10:34–43); he accepted the hospitality of new converts (10:48); he defended his actions that other believers found problematic (11:11–18); he left Jerusalem when his life was in danger (12:1–17). Most of the verbs are verbs of speaking, which confirms Peter’s stated priority of engaging in the “ministry of the word” (6:2, 4 NIV) and agrees with his call to be a witness for Jesus (1:8; cf. 1:23). There was nothing that Peter was not willing to do.

The geographical scope of Paul’s missionary work was not controlled by a grand global strategy concerning the selection of towns and cities in which he would start a new missionary initiative, such as focusing on big cities (Allen 1912, 12), or on Roman colonies, or on the regions in which the descendants of Japhet settled (Scott 1995, 135–80), or because he wanted to fulfill the program of Isaiah 66:19 (Riesner 1998, 245–53). The evidence indicates that Paul moved to geographically adjacent areas that were open for missionary work, which means that it was “local methods” that drove his geographical movements (Schnabel 2008, 258–87). Two examples may suffice to illustrate this point. When Paul moved from Paphos on Cyprus to Pisidian Antioch in the Anatolian highlands region of Phrygia, which belonged to the province of Galatia, he bypassed large and significant cities such as Perge, the capital of the province of Pamphylia, Side, Attaleia, Termessos, Sagalassos, Kremna, Komama, and other towns. One explanation for Paul’s move from Paphos to Pisidian Antioch is the suggestion that Paul had contracted malaria and that he sought relief in the higher altitudes of southern Galatia (Ramsay 1896, 92–97). A second explanation, which does not exclude the likelihood of the first, points to the connections between Sergius Paullus, the converted governor of Cyprus (Acts 13:12), and the family of the Sergii Paullii in Pisidian Antioch. Paul’s journey to Pisidian Antioch may have been suggested by Sergius Paulus who proposed “that he make it his next port of call, no doubt proving him with letters of introduction to aid his passage and his stay” (Mitchell 1995, 2:7). A second example is Paul’s plan to preach the gospel in cities in the province of Asia (Acts 16:6). When the Lord intervened and instructed Paul not to start missionary work in the province of Asia, he planned to visit cities in the province of Pontus–Bithynia, which was north of the provinces of Asia and Galatia, the only region apart from Asia that he had not reached in central and western Asia Minor. Evidently Paul planned to preach the gospel in Nicea, Nicomedia, and Chalcedon. The move to Greece was not motivated by a strategic decision to reach cities in Europe but by a dream-vision (Acts 16:9) whose significance was discussed by Paul and his coworkers before they embarked on a ship that took them to Neapolis and then to Philippi (v. 10).

The local dimension of missionary work is also present in the phrase “every tribe and language and people and nation,” which occurs, with variations, in Revelation 5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6; 17:15. This phrase, repeated seven times, can be interpreted in the context of John’s numerical symbolism in which four is the number of the world and seven the number of completeness and in the context of an allusion to and interpretation of several Old Testament passages (Gen 10:20, 31; Exod 19:5–6; Dan 3:4, 7, 31 [4:11]; 5:19; 6:25 [26]; 7:14; 7:14 LXX). The phrase refers to all the nations of the world, and the phrase is used in connection with the prophetic conviction that the nations will be transferred from the rule of the beast to the rule of God (Bauckham 1993, 34, 326–36). While the phrase certainly underlines the universal reach of the gospel, the Christian believers for whom John wrote probably understood the four terms of the phrase in specific local terms, given the reality of the work of missionaries who proclaimed the gospel in the cities and villages of Asia Minor, seeking to reach all ethnic, social, and political groups. The term “tribe” (phylē) is often used as a technical term for the largest subunit of a city (polis), e.g., for the ten local “tribes” of Athens formed by Cleisthenes (Herodotus 5.69) or the “tribes” formed by Servius in Rome (Plutarch, Rom. 20). Citizens of Pergamum belonged to one of at least fifteen phylai, called Apollonias, Attalis, Diodoris, Eumeneia, Philetairis, and others. Membership in the “tribe” of a city was a prerequisite for full citizenship. The “tribe” cooperated in the appointment of magistrates, members of commissions, and judges. Christians from Pergamum (Rev 1:11; 2:12) who held Pergamese citizenship and belonged to one of the “tribes” of the city would rather naturally think of their civic affiliation when they heard John’s vision mention that people “from all phylai” will one day stand before the throne and before the Lamb (Rev 7:9). And the evangelists of the church might well have regarded it as their duty to make sure that the gospel was proclaimed to members of all phylai of the city. The term “language” (glōssa) is not simply a synonym for “tribe” (understood as clan) or “nation” but refers to the language that specific people speak. John’s readers would have thought of specific people groups with specific languages. Christians living in the major cities of western Asia Minor such as Ephesus, Pergamum, and Smyrna spoke Greek, they were aware of Latin, they may have heard Hebrew and Aramaic spoken by local Jews and by the earliest missionaries, and they were aware of the existence of the old indigenous languages in the region, e.g., Lycanonian (cf. Acts 14:11). Most of the ethnic groups in Asia Minor continued to use their indigenous languages. In the border areas of the provinces of Asia and Lycia, four indigenous languages could be heard: Pisidian, Solymian, Greek, and Lydian (Strabo, Geogr. 13.1.65).

John’s vision in Revelation 7:9, together with the words of the “new song” that celebrates the fact that people “from every tribe and language and people and nation” have been ransomed by Jesus’ sacrificial death, points to the missionary program of John and his churches: people in all language groups need to be reached with the gospel of Jesus Christ. The third term, “people” (laos), denotes a “crowd, multitude, people living in a city” but also “a body of people with common cultural bonds and ties to a specific territory,” in some texts specifically “common people, village peasants, serfs.” When Luke reported that “all the residents of Asia, both Jews and Greeks, heard the word of the Lord” (Acts 19:10 NRSV) during the time when Paul was active in Ephesus, he may have had in mind not only people living in the cities but also village people. When Paul asserted that the church consists largely of the powerless, uneducated, and disenfranchised, whether freedmen or slaves (1 Cor 1:26–28), which would have been true for most if not all Christian congregations in the first century, he may have thought of the presence of former and/or present village people in the church, among them possibly descendants of the serfs called laoi in an earlier period. The term “nation” (ethnos) describes a “body of persons united by kinship, culture, and common traditions”; the plural (ta ethnē) denotes “people groups foreign to a specific people group.” Christian believers come from every people group united by kinship, culture, and common traditions, including the “others” who are despised by the general population and any associations or guilds that may be designated locally with the term ethnē. People from all ethnic, linguistic, tribal, civic, political, and social backgrounds need to hear the gospel of Jesus Christ and worship God together.

Theological Proclamation

Proclamation before Jewish Audiences

Paul’s proclamation before Jewish audiences can be illustrated by his evangelistic sermon in the synagogue of Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:16–41). What Paul needed to demonstrate was the messianic identity of Jesus. The question of whether Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah or not decided whether the message that God forgives sins on account of Jesus’ death was valid and should be accepted. Paul argued that Jesus is the Messiah and that his death on the cross brought about God’s promised salvation. The key argument centered on the significance of Jesus’ resurrection. Paul argued (1) that Jesus’ resurrection was the climax of Israel’s history of salvation; (2) that it was witnessed by many who saw him after his death; (3) that it represented the fulfillment of God’s promise in Psalm 2 and thus confirms Jesus as Son of God; (4) that it also represented the fulfillment of the promise in Isaiah 55:3, which means that he conveyed God’s gracious gifts that nobody can destroy, just as the risen Son of God, according to Psalm 16:10, cannot experience corruption; (5) that it was the basis for God’s forgiveness of sins and for the justification of everyone who believes in Jesus (Acts 13:38–39); (6) that it was the amazing act of God that many do not want to believe, a fact that prompted Paul to warn the audience not to despise the work of God. These convictions implied that Israel’s salvation no longer rested on being God’s chosen people. It implied that circumcision no longer guaranteed that Jews were the recipients of God’s salvation. It implied that the sacrifices in the temple that the Mosaic law stipulated no longer guaranteed the forgiveness of individual Jews nor the holiness of Israel as a nation. These were far-reaching implications and conclusions that depended on the identity of Jesus of Nazareth as the promised Savior and on the significance of his death and his resurrection.

Proclamation before Gentile Audiences

Paul’s preaching before Gentile audiences can be illustrated by his speech in Lystra (Acts 14:15–17). Paul emphasized (1) the worthlessness of the deities whom the people in Lystra worshipped: these gods, symbolized in images of stone, wood, or bronze, were worthless, vain, empty, useless; (2) the need for people to turn away from their idols, i.e., end the practice of bowing before the image of a favorite deity, abstain from visiting temples, and refrain from offering sacrifices; (3) the good news, which is the possibility to worship the living God, i.e., the God who has real power and who is the source of life; (4) the one true God, who is the creator of the heavens and the earth; (5) the initiative of God to change the misguided ways of idol worship; (6) the mercy of God who cared for the pagan nations even in the past, conferring benefits on human beings. Paul asserts that it is this God alone who deserves to be worshipped—the creator of the universe who in his goodness wants to satisfy the needs of people, for whom he cares, desiring that they experience joy in their hearts. Paul needed to convince pagan listeners that there is only one true God. If there is only one true God, there is only one true Savior from sins.

When Paul described in 1 Corinthians 2:1–5 his missionary preaching in the city of Corinth, he emphasized that he dispensed intentionally with the art of rhetoric when he proclaimed the gospel of Jesus, the crucified Messiah and Savior. This means that in contrast to contemporary itinerant philosophers and orators, his message required neither an enkomion on the greatness of the city of Corinth nor an effort to put his listeners in a good mood, nor an erudite audience suggesting a subject for a public declamation in which he could demonstrate his rhetorical expertise. The subject-matter of his public discourses had been determined long before he arrived in the city. Paul emphasized that his public speaking as a missionary always focused on Jesus, the crucified Messiah and Savior: “I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Cor 2:2 ESV). He did not allow himself to be distracted by any other subject when he initiated contact. Paul explained in 1 Corinthians 2:5 why he renounced traditional rhetorical methods: “so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God” (NSRV). Paul knew that the message of the cross could not be adapted to the philosophical, rhetorical, or aesthetic expectations of his audience. It was impossible, in the first century, to speak in a rhetorically alluring manner about a man who had been executed on a cross. The reality of crucifixion was too gruesome, and needed too much explanation, for rhetorical competence and brilliance to be of any help.

When Paul taught new converts, he described Jesus as “last Adam” (1 Cor 15:45), “savior” (Eph 5:23; Phil 3:20), “Son of God” (Rom 1:4; 2 Cor 1:19), and as the “firstborn from the dead” (Col 1:18). These were terms and categories that could be packaged as attractive religious content when introducing the message about Jesus to Jewish and pagan audiences. Paul asserted, however, that he never dispensed with preaching Jesus the crucified Savior in his missionary proclamation (1 Cor 2:2). The preaching of a crucified Savior makes it impossible to employ the traditional rhetorical methods with their strategies of persuasion. The proclamation of Jesus the crucified messianic Savior confronted Greek and Roman listeners with convictions that stood in stark contrast to the ideology of the city that ultimately excluded the weak and the aliens. It contradicted the ideology of the Roman Empire that emphasized the divinity of the emperor. Faith in and allegiance to a crucified Kyrios, to a Jewish Savior of the world, was scandalous. Equally nonsensical was the suggestion that a new community of people might be formed in which neither ethnic nor social differences played any role—a community in which everything and everybody was focused on faith in the God of Israel, on allegiance to the crucified Savior sent by Israel’s God, on sacrificial love for all fellow-believers as well as for all fellow-citizens, and on the hope that Jesus Messiah would return and restore a world unmarred by any imperfection. Paul continued to preach a crucified and risen Savior because this was the message that had been given to him to pass on to those who had not heard the gospel, and because he knew that it was the almighty Lord himself, the Creator of the world, who caused Jews and pagans to come to faith (1 Cor 2:4–5).

Section 3

The Theology of Missions

Chapter 7

The Missionary Mandate of God’s Nature

John Massey

Rightly understood, the absolute sovereignty of God is no barrier to missions; it is the sure foundation and constant motivation for missions. Affirming the lordship of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the flow of redemptive history gives the church an understanding of the global scope of missions and beckons her to join him in his eternal purpose to make disciples of all nations. God sends some believers to prepare the field, some to sow, and others to reap, all of whom are equally important in the great task of missions. God is sovereignly and providentially orchestrating the mass movements of peoples, creating new openness to the gospel and new doors of gospel ministry for the church right at home. As the church spiritually apprehends the doctrine of God’s sovereignty in its formal (doctrine) and functional (praxis) theology, then Christ through love motivates God’s people to make disciples of all nations.

Above all, the long-held Christian doctrine of God’s sovereignty reminds the church that he and he alone is the Lord of the harvest. His people serve as workers in his field. It is not, therefore, the church’s duty or in her sphere of responsibility to finish the task but to be faithful to the task of making disciples of all nations. The knowledge of Christ’s lordship rules out Western evangelical and missiological ethnocentrism, humbles denominational egos, and reminds churches that the kingdom of God does not revolve around one group of believers or churches. Missions is truly from everywhere to everywhere (Escobar 2003).

By God’s providence and the work of his people faithfully laboring in his fields, evangelical Christianity is growing outside the Western world. The center of evangelical Christianity has shifted southward. The Lord’s task of reaching the nations for Christ is being taken up by evangelicals all over the world. No one denomination or pocket of believers has been given the responsibility of managing the great task. Only by the Lord’s divine orchestration will the Great Commission be completed. The following will serve as an exposition of the truths set forth above in order to demonstrate the connection between our understanding of God as Lord and the missionary mandate of the church to make disciples of all nations.

The missionary task demands that churches recognize the strong link between biblical theology and missiological practice. Too often, Christians are like the disciples in Acts 1:9–10, gazing into the sky that has received the ascended Lord without engaging in the task to which the Lord has called them. A biblical understanding of the sovereignty of God and missions is not an either/or but a both/and. Deep-thinking disciples often get caught up in “gazing” at the sovereignty of God and its implications for individual salvation (critically important gospel issues), engaging in the intramural discussions and debates that go along with it, but never engaging the task that the sovereign Lord has given to the church. At the other extreme are those who are so focused on engagement that they forget to ground their missiological practice and strategy in deep theological reflection, particularly the truth of God’s sovereign authority over all and its connection to the Great Commission. The former trends toward functional hyper-Calvinism (all is up to God, so no need to offer the gospel), and the latter trends toward functional Pelagianism (all is up to man, so no need for divine intervening grace). The church needs both deep theological reflection and intentional missiological engagement to be faithful to what God has called the church to be and to do in his world as agents of the gospel and a people of mission.

Jesus bridges the gap between formal theology and functional theology in the Great Commission, demonstrating that a high view of God’s sovereignty exists alongside the command to go and make disciples of all nations: “All authority has been given to me in heaven and earth [formal theology], therefore, go, make disciples of all nations” (functional theology). B. H. Carroll helpfully noted how all parts of the Great Commission (theological and practical) work together:

We are to see what he told them to do, and we will compare the Commission to a suspension bridge across a river. On one side of the river is an abutment, the authority of Jesus Christ. And at the other end of the bridge we will take this for the abutment: “And lo, I am with you all the days, even unto the end of the age.” On one side of the river stands the authority, and on the other side stands the presence of Jesus Christ—Christ in the Holy Spirit. That is to be until the end of the age. Suspended between these two, and dependent on these two, and resting on these two, is the bridge. Let us see exactly, then, what they are to do: First, to “go therefore.” The “therefore” refers to the authority; second, “make disciples of all the nations.” So there are three parts to this first item of the Commission: To go, what to go for, and to whom. If we are missionary Baptists indeed, this Commission is the greatest of all authority. (Carroll 1916)

Jesus grounded his command to his disciples in his absolute authority over all things, in heaven and earth. The disciples responded appropriately by worshipping the Lord, even though some still doubted. Jesus offered the correct theological frame of reference to his apostles and his church, specifically the doctrines of his sovereignty and enduring presence, and commanded them to make disciples of all nations in light of these doctrines. He calls the church, therefore, to practice the sovereign presence of God as she takes the gospel to the ends of the earth, grounding the practice of missions in the knowledge of Jesus’ lordship and abiding presence.

God’s Sovereign Purpose and the Scope of the Missionary Mandate

God’s sovereign purpose from eternity past has been to redeem a people for himself from all the nations of the earth to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation that would proclaim the excellencies of the God who called them of out darkness into light (1 Pet 1:9). The church is central to God’s eternal redemptive purpose as the God-ordained means of spreading the good news of Jesus Christ to the ends of the earth and reflecting the multicultural diversity as God’s new society. The Lord calls every believer in his body to recognize that he has chosen them as his agents to proclaim the gospel to all nations. God’s sovereign authority over his mission gives Christians confidence and direction in his assigned task to the church to make disciples of all nations.

The biblical narrative bears witness to his sovereign global purpose in redemption and beckons the church to walk obediently. God called Abraham to leave Ur of the Chaldees and go to a place that God would show to him. God promised to make of him a great nation that would bless all the nations. Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.

The Lord said to Abram: Go out from your land, your relatives, and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. I will make you into a great nation, I will bless you, I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, I will curse those who treat you with contempt, and all the peoples on earth will be blessed through you. (Gen 12:1–3)3

Paul grounded his understanding of the gospel in the promise of God to Abraham. According to Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ is the promised seed of Abraham, who came to bless the nations by dying and rising again for a salvation available to any who believe (Gal 3:16). Paul noted in Galatians 3:8, “Now the Scripture saw in advance that God would justify the Gentiles by faith and told the good news ahead of time to Abraham, saying, All the nations will be blessed through you.”

By the sovereign design of God, the plan of redemption unfolded through Israel and now continues through the church. As God called Abraham to be a blessing to the nations through his descendants, so now God calls the church to be a conduit of blessing to all by making disciples of all nations. Paul reminded the Ephesians of his eternal plan.

For this reason, I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus on behalf of you Gentiles—you have heard, haven’t you, about the administration of God’s grace that He gave to me for you? The mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I have briefly written above. By reading this you are able to understand my insight about the mystery of the Messiah. This was not made known to people in other generations as it is now revealed to His holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit: The Gentiles are coheirs, members of the same body, and partners of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. I was made a servant of this gospel by the gift of God’s grace that was given to me by the working of His power. This grace was given to me—the least of all the saints—to proclaim to the Gentiles the incalculable riches of the Messiah, and to shed light for all about the administration of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things. This is so God’s multi-faceted wisdom may now be made known through the church to the rulers and authorities in the heavens. This is according to His eternal purpose accomplished in the Messiah, Jesus our Lord. (Eph 3:1–13, emphasis mine)

God’s sovereign purpose has been to include the Gentiles in the scope of his redemption and to use gospel churches from among the Jews and Gentiles to be his agents to make disciples of all nations. Jesus called and gifted apostles to proclaim the gospel to the Jews first and then to the Gentiles. Paul’s unique calling was to proclaim the mystery hidden in ages past, the gospel, to the Gentiles. And now, as he informed the Ephesians, the church is tasked with the apostolic mandate to share the gospel to the ends of the earth and, thereby, be the showcase of God’s glory and the living temple to which living stones are continually added (Eph 2:21; 6:14; 1 Pet 2:5). Paul said, “This is so God’s multi-faceted wisdom may now be made known through the church to the rulers and authorities in the heavens. This is according to His eternal purpose accomplished in the Messiah, Jesus our Lord” (Eph 3:10).

The culmination of God’s plan of redemption is unveiled in the final book of the Bible, the Revelation. John’s vision serves as a reminder that God will complete his task assigned to the church in the Great Commission. The vision of redemption’s global culmination serves as a blueprint for our faithfulness to the Great Commission, and it gives the church confidence that its labor in the fields of the Lord will not be in vain. John observed,

And they sang a new song: You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because You were slaughtered, and You redeemed people for God by Your blood from every tribe and language and people and nation. You made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they will reign on the earth. (Rev 5:9–10).

As we engage in the task of mission, the church must be certain in its conviction that our triune God is Lord over all and has chosen the church to be his instrument of blessing to all the nations. The church needs a constant check against denominational pride with the reminder that Jesus is the Lord of the harvest. As a check against fatalism and missiological inertia, the church also needs to recognize that God has ordained the preaching of the gospel by the church as his means of redeeming the nations. If we obey, then we experience God’s joy and blessing in participating in the greatest task ever to be engaged—the making of Christ followers from all the nations. The words of Mordecai to Esther should echo in our collective hearing.

Mordecai told the messenger to reply to Esther, “Don’t think that you will escape the fate of all the Jews because you are in the king’s palace. If you keep silent at this time, liberation and deliverance will come to the Jewish people from another place, but you and your father’s house will be destroyed. Who knows, perhaps you have come to your royal position for such a time as this.” (Esth 4:13–14, emphasis mine)

God has sovereignly positioned his church to fulfill his intended purposes in redemption. Because God is no respecter of persons in the dispensing of his sovereign and free grace to all peoples who believe, irrespective of race and class, even so the church must be unbiased and open handed in its ministry of the gospel to all peoples. As the Lord of the harvest, he bids us to join him in inviting a lost world to the cross of Christ—the place at which Christ has eliminated all vertical and horizontal barriers to fellowship with God and man (Eph 2:13–17). The church, like Esther, has come into existence for such a time as this. If we do not obey, then God will raise up willing servants to join him in furthering his narrative of salvation among all nations. His mission will not and cannot be thwarted.

God’s sovereignty and human effort work in tandem to accomplish God’s redemptive purpose because it is God’s sovereign purpose to work in this manner. God’s purposes in election not only include the dimension of individual salvation; they also involve the corporate side of gospel service to the whole world. Christopher J. H. Wright notes,

Election needs to be seen as a doctrine of mission, not a calculus for the arithmetic of salvation. If we are to speak of being chosen, of being among God’s elect, it is to say that, like Abraham, we are chosen for the sake of God’s plan that the nations of the world come to enjoy the blessing of Abraham (which is exactly how Paul describes the effect of God’s redemption of Israel through Christ in Gal. 3:14). (Wright 2010, 121–22)

As the Bible’s teaching on the individual dimension of salvation humbles the believer, so God’s corporate choice of the church to be his instrument of the gospel to the nations should humble and compel the church to faithful engagement, recognizing that there is only one Lord of the Harvest. God has chosen us to be his people, and he has chosen us to bless all the nations through the gospel. The sovereign purpose of God in redemption, therefore, mandates missions.

God’s Sovereignty and the Dimensions of the Missionary Mandate

God is sovereign over his eternal redemptive plan. The Bible describes God’s redemptive sphere and labor as God’s garden or field (e.g., Matt 9:37; 1 Cor 3:5–9). He is the Lord of the harvest. He chooses to use periods and people to prepare the field, sow and water the seed, and then to harvest the yield.

The Lord’s harvest involves a process. Like any gardener knows, successful gardening includes preparation of the soil, planting, watering, and then reaping. Common wisdom among gardeners recognizes that the first year of planting shrubs and flowers is one of sleep as plant roots firmly grow into the soil. The second year is characterized by slow growth above the ground, or creep. The third year is marked by great growth, or leap, when flowers blossom. God works similarly in the history of redemption.

Wherever there has been leap and reap in the numerical growth and mission of the church, one must recognize that God used circumstances and his people to remove the stones, till the soil, plant the seed, and then water the seed before reaping the harvest. The church of every age enters into the field where others have labored before them and where God has already been working. Paul says that it was in the “fullness of time” that God sent his Son (Gal 4:4 ESV) as a reminder of God’s work of preparation to create the right conditions for the birth of the Messiah and the spread of his gospel to all nations. In the same manner, God sovereignly works in history to accomplish his redemptive purpose through his people. Those who sow and those who reap are the same in God’s estimation; both will receive the same reward. Jesus’ words to his disciples are reminders to the church when it is tempted to claim credit for what God has done through others. “I sent you to reap what you didn’t labor for; others have labored, and you have benefited from their labor” (John 4:38 HCSB).

God’s providential superintendence of the multilayered nature of the missionary task forms a foundation for affirming and utilizing the many spiritual gifts that God gives to the church to make disciples of all nations. Paul recognized that in the establishment of the Corinthian church not all played the same role, but that each role was significant in God’s purpose.

What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? They are servants through whom you believed, and each has the role the Lord has given. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. Now the one planting and the one watering are one in purpose, and each will receive his own reward according to his own labor. For we are God’s coworkers. You are God’s field, God’s building. According to God’s grace that was given to me, I have laid a foundation as a skilled master builder, and another builds on it. But each one must be careful how he builds on it. For no one can lay any other foundation than what has been laid down. That foundation is Jesus Christ. (1 Cor 3:5–11)

Paul planted. Apollos watered. But God gave the increase. Paul states that the one who plants and the one who waters are one. Paul identifies himself and Apollos as “servants through whom you believed, and each has the role the Lord has given.” Paul, the church planter, and Apollos, the teacher, both had parts to play in the establishment and strengthening of the Corinthian church. The Lord gives different roles to different people, and each will receive the reward for the work rendered in service to Christ.

The successful practice of missions and wise deployment of field personnel will recognize and utilize the diversity of gifts God gives to establish doctrinally sound and spiritually healthy churches. The evangelist, pioneer church planter, missionary pastor, and teacher are all needed. Often in missiological practice, one role is valued over another. Today, agencies value the manager of missionary activity or the strategist, also known as strategy coordinator, team strategy leader, or church planting movement catalyst. Rather than placing an emphasis on the ministry of one’s God-given spiritual gift for the cross-cultural task, the latest fad in missions is to remove the missionary one or two steps from the intended field of labor in order that he might function as a nonresidential missionary. Some places demand this kind of approach. Paul, however, recognized that God gives gifts for direct hands-on ministry in establishing churches on the foundation of the gospel and strengthening them through the teaching gifts.

Sometimes denominational missions agencies do not value the diversity of roles for mission established by the Lord of the harvest in the New Testament for deployment of personnel. This failure cuts off vital Holy Spirit-ordained lifelines to fledgling churches across the globe, sowing the seeds of destruction rather than edification in the Lord’s church. Denominational agencies also undermine their own financial support when such gifted and called servants of the cross-cultural churches seek other means of support for their ministries, siphoning church funds away from cooperative denominational efforts to meet vital needs of the global church.

Paul emphasized God’s lordship over the task of missions and church planting. In doing so, he reminded the Corinthian church, and the churches of today, that he and others were only servants of the Lord of the harvest. He and the others who labored in Corinth were all God’s fellow workers, and there was no place for exalting oneself above another. Paul was ever the enemy of arrogance in the ministry and of the one who would establish himself as the center of God’s kingdom work. Eckhard J. Schnabel (Plummer and Terry 2012) noted,

Since other missionaries, preachers and teachers are also servants, there is no place for arrogance and striving for superior prestige: missionary work is not about personal honor and status, but about getting work done at the behest of God. . . . [T]he missionary who “plants” a church and the teacher who “waters” the new believers in the emerging and established church are involved in one and the same task: they are “one” as they are both dependent upon the Lord and as they have a common purpose.

Paul was not in pursuit of vainglory, and he did not have the need to be in control of everything. Western-based missions agencies should reflect Paul’s apostolic ethos and humility. Often missions agencies operate as if they were in charge of the Great Commission and tasked with completing it. God’s global field of service is much larger than any one group, denomination, and missions agency. Each group of churches has the joy of making their contribution as the Lord has assigned to each one and in the manner that Christ has prescribed in his Word.

The missionary mandate of God’s sovereignty instructs the church to recognize Jesus Christ as the foundation of new churches and the triune God as the Lord of his mission. It is God who gives gifts for the churches’ external growth and internal edification. God calls the church to be his colaborers and uses all the members of the body of Christ to achieve the purpose for which he sent her into the world. Paul’s mission included pastors, church planters, teachers, and various other coworkers who used their talents and resources for the kingdom. Paul valued the second- and third-tier ministries of people like Apollos, Timothy, and Titus in light of his robust view of God’s sovereign authority and governance over his redemptive purpose. Paul knew that what he planted through his gifts and God’s power would not last unless others skilled in church strengthening and leadership development came behind him to shore up the work. Churches and mission agencies today stunt the work of the kingdom and sow seeds of destruction for new churches when they do not utilize all of the different gifts and roles that the Holy Spirit has sovereignly bestowed on the church for Christ’s global mission.

The Sovereignty of God and the Location of the Missionary Mandate

God’s sovereign purpose and the church’s missionary mandate is to make disciples of all nations, serving as witnesses of Christ to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8). The mass migration of peoples today, however, demands that the church no longer only define “the ends of the earth” in terms of national boundaries or peoples on the other side of the globe. The sovereign Lord of the harvest has brought the nations to the doorstep of evangelical churches all over the world, especially in North America and Europe.

Paul spoke of God’s sovereign placement and movement of peoples throughout history in his sermon to the pagans on Mars Hill in Athens. Paul underscored the redemptive purpose in God’s population relocation: “so they might seek God, and perhaps they might reach out and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us” (Acts 17:27). In doing so, he brought the themes of God’s sovereignty and his mission into harmony and gave churches of today his clear purpose for doing so—that the nations on the move might hear the gospel of Jesus Christ and believe in order that they might be saved.

For as I was passing through and observing the objects of your worship, I even found an altar on which was inscribed: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Therefore, what you worship in ignorance, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it—He is Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in shrines made by hands. Neither is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives everyone life and breath and all things. From one man He has made every nationality to live over the whole earth and has determined their appointed times and the boundaries of where they live. He did this so they might seek God, and perhaps they might reach out and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us. For in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, “For we are also His offspring.” (Acts 17:23–28, emphasis mine)

Paul affirmed that God made the world and all things in it. He does not dwell in temples made with hands. He has bestowed life on all human beings. He made all peoples from Adam and has determined by his sovereign decree where and when they would exist. People groups have come and gone, and mass migrations have occurred according to God’s sovereign purpose. John B. Polhill stated, “The God whom Paul proclaimed was no local Jewish cult God. He was the one sovereign Lord of all humankind” (Polhill 1992).

By his sovereign design and wisdom he moves peoples around the globe in order that his church may share the gospel of Jesus Christ with them. Because most of the migration in the world today takes place when peoples of the global south move to the global north for education and job opportunities, global-south Christians, numbering far more than their global-north brethren, bring the gospel with them to their new settings. Vibrant immigrant churches, for example, exist in many major cities in the United States—cities where church-planting efforts among Caucasian Americans have been slow to nonexistent.

Missiologists have long recognized that people on the move out of their own culture are more open to the gospel in their new setting. Paul acknowledged in his Mars Hill sermon that God’s movement of people creates opportunities for reconnecting with God through the gospel of Jesus Christ. As a result, the church can view globalization as ultimately God’s doing. He is moving peoples into the megacities of our world. He is bringing Christians from the global south to reach out to peoples of various backgrounds in their new homeland. Van Rheenan concluded,

The movement and presence of people around the globe are not simply products of market forces. Globalization is not simply the product of a human desire for betterment, a working out of aggression, or a flight from danger. Rather, God himself orchestrates the globalizing phenomenon of human migration. The fundamental fact of population migration, the presence of people of many cultures living together the world over, is not a theological “problem.” It is a phenomenon we are called to embrace and even to engage. (Pocock, Rheenen, and McConnell 2005)

Missions strategy is no longer primarily focused on reaching nations within their geographical boundaries but now seeks to reach displaced peoples living and working in different countries. God has brought the world to the doorstep of the American church, and other evangelical communities across the world, in order that we might proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ to them. Many missions agencies still operate on strategies to reach rural monocultural peoples, but God is bringing peoples to the megacities of the world. These cities demand strategic attention. Terry Coy observed,

The nations have come to us, so that should help us fulfill the commandment to take the gospel to all nations. That is, with thousands of international university students and millions of immigrants with connections back home, often in countries closed to the gospel, to reach them with the gospel of Jesus Christ only increases the chances of the gospel reaching around the world. This does not, of course, replace global missions. The first contact with the “ends of the earth” may be next door. (Coy 2014)

If the sovereign God has brought peoples of many nations to the cities with a strong Christian presence, then one must conclude that God’s providence has brought us into existence so that we might reach the nations in our own backyard. His sovereign working mandates our seizing the opportunity that he has created for his people. The choices before the church are simple: (1) Will we rely on formulas and strategies without reference to the sovereign and surprising work of God? (2) Will we misinterpret the teaching of God’s sovereignty over all to lead us to indifference and fatalism? Or (3) Will we understand the clear connection in the Bible of God’s sovereignty and his call to his people to make disciples of all nations, beginning in our communities and cities?

While many decry the lack of response among certain segments of the American population, God is on the move by changing the map. The vast majority of evangelical Christians exist outside of traditional centers of strength in the West. Global Christianity has arrived. God is bringing people of high response to the gospel closer to our reach and bringing Christians from the global south to evangelize global-south people in American cities. Soong-Chan Rah commented,

As many lament the decline of Christianity in the United States in the early stages of the twenty-first century, very few have recognized that American Christianity may actually be growing, but in unexpected and surprising ways. The American church needs to face the inevitable and prepare for the next stage of her history—we are looking at a nonwhite majority, multiethnic American Christianity in the immediate future. (Rah 2009)

Only the sovereign God of the Bible can do what we are seeing today. The real growth potential in the United States is in the ethnic and immigrant communities. God has determined the boundaries of their habitation, and he has made them thirsty for the Water of Life. The future leaders of evangelical churches and denominations will increasingly be drawn from the ranks of second- and third-generation Christian immigrants or from minority peoples, or else evangelical denominations in North America as they are known today will cease to exist by 2050.

Concluding Remarks

God is sovereign, and the church is responsible for understanding the shifts that God is bringing about in the world today in order that she may effectively engage the great task of making disciples of all nations in the manner of Christ’s prescription. Christ sends the church out under his authority and with the promise of his presence. As such, Christ’s sovereign authority over all and his eternal purpose to redeem peoples from every nation should embolden the church today to leave no people or nation out of her plan to extend the gospel to the ends of the earth.

God is sending various gifted individuals from churches to accomplish the cross-cultural task of proclaiming the gospel, forming disciples into churches, and training leaders. All are valued participants in God’s field of redemption. God has presented before the church today an open door for effective gospel ministry right here at home with the vast number of immigrants that continue to stream into North America. God’s sovereign authority demands our joyful and obedient participation in his gospel purposes for the nations.

The sovereignty of our triune God should not only cause the church to participate with him in the advancement of his cause and purpose of redemption in the world, but our understanding of his rule over all should also chasten our attitudes as we go. Care must be taken on the part of the church today not to functionally assume the role of lord of the harvest through the promulgation of golden key strategies designed to hasten the coming of the Lord, or through ethnocentric attitudes that place the Western evangelical missions agencies at the center of God’s kingdom purposes. When evangelicals primarily rely on their strength of numbers or depth of pocket to make disciples of all nations, then the church falls prey to a missiological idolatry. It is easy in a success-oriented culture, driven by numbers as the clear and only indicator of success, to lose focus. The Cape Town Commitment of the Lausanne Movement insightfully observed, “The Bible shows that God’s greatest problem is not just with the nations of the world, but with the people he has created and called to be the means of blessing the nations. And the biggest obstacle to fulfilling that mission is idolatry among God’s own people” (Wright 2011). God demands faithfulness above all.

In the run-up to the twenty-first century, missiologists began to speak of closure strategies designed to finish the task of the Great Commission (Hesselgrave 2005). In light of what we know about the sovereignty of God in salvation and his mission in the world, it is presumptuous, at best, idolatrous, at worst, to think that any denomination of churches can complete the task of the Great Commission or lead others to do so. The lordship of Jesus Christ over all should chasten our speech, attitudes, and methods to recognize that our task is to be faithful to what Christ has commanded us and not to usurp his role by attempting to bring in the eschaton. Let us be found faithful when he comes!

Chapter 8

The Missional Church

Ed Stetzer

What is a missional church? One would think the answer to this question is obvious. A church that practices missions, right? Or is it mission? It is not an easy task. Missiologists, ecclesiologists, theologians, pastors, and church leaders have been wrestling with this question for some time now.

Before we can answer the question “What is a missional church?” we must first tackle the thorny issue of just what it means to be “missional.” The word missional is used in such a variety of ways it is in danger of becoming meaningless. The term ends up being like an ecclesiological Rorschach test. More often than not, how people describe the “missional church” says more about themselves than what it says about a biblical portrait of the church.

Some have argued we should simply jettison the word missional, but I do not believe that is the best move. Instead, we should work hard to frame a definition. The term can serve as a guide for the church as it seeks to be a witness in its culture. As more churches and leaders engage in the missiological dialogue, defining the core terms of this conversation has become more important.

A few years ago, I collaborated with a group of missional thinkers including Tim Keller, Alan Hirsch, Linda Berquist, J. D. Greear, and others in order to provide some parameters for how we used the word missional. We drafted a document, “Missional Manifesto.” (You can read the full text of the “Manifesto” online at http://www.edstetzer.com/missional-manifesto.) The preamble of the “Missional Manifesto” explains our focus:

Redeeming the integrity of the word missional is especially critical. It is not our intent (or within our ability) to define words for others, but we thought it helpful to describe and define how we are using the term—and to invite others to do the same. A biblically faithful, missional understanding of God and the church is essential to the advancement of our role in His mission. . . . (emphasis mine)

This document did not end all conversations on the use of missional, but it did declare what a group of us believe is the best way to use it. Because so many people found the “Manifesto” helpful in their own ministry, it’s a constructive place to start the “missional discussion.” Before I describe the characteristics of a missional church, I will use the “Manifesto” to provide a framework for understanding what the term missional means and how this adjective modifies our ecclesiology.

The Missional Manifesto: A Framing Document

The term missional is effective in describing the relationship between the calling of God’s people and God’s mission. While it’s common for people to say, “The church has a mission,” a better way to talk about mission is “God’s mission has a church” (cf. Eph 3:7–13). God’s mission is the starting place for understanding the church and its mission. God has placed mission in the DNA of the church.

Missional is useful as a theological term that orients the church to live faithfully as missionaries in their world in light of God’s mission. The “Missional Manifesto” uses nine theological commitments to provide a framework for the term:

1. Authority. The Bible reveals God’s nature, his works, and his will in the world. These truths are foundational for mission. Christopher Wright says, “The whole canon of Scripture is a missional phenomenon in the sense that it witnesses to the self-giving movement of this God toward his creation and us, human beings in God’s own image, but wayward and wanton” (Wright 2006, 48). Christians must not sidestep God’s gracious disclosure of himself in the Scriptures. His thoughts on his mission shape and direct our understanding of the church and its mission. Just as God’s words and thoughts must be ours, his mission must be ours as well.

2. Gospel. The apostle Paul gave the “gospel in a nutshell” when he wrote “that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor 15:3–4).4 Paul’s statement that the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus is “according to the Scriptures” reminds us that every book, passage, and verse of the Bible points to the world’s need for redemption and God’s gracious work to accomplish it for us. The gospel is the good news that God’s kingdom has come in the person and work of Jesus Christ. From Eden to the restoration of all things, the Scriptures are filled with the message of God’s great rescue of his people.

When we repent of our sins, confess Christ as Lord, and trust in him, the gracious work of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection (the gospel) restores our relationship with God. Many have called this the “God-Man-Christ-Response” understanding of the gospel. A gospel-centered mission always includes calling individuals (evangelism) to place their faith and trust in Jesus. Personal response to God’s work of redemption in Christ is central to a biblically informed view of being missional and the church’s calling in the world.

The gospel can also be captured with the story-arc of the Bible—“Creation-Fall-Redemption-Restoration.” The biblical story teaches God’s mission is to redeem individuals and gather them as one people who dwell forever with him in a restored creation. Emphasizing restoration highlights an important biblical theme: when God redeems people, he is bringing physical, emotional, psychological, relational, and societal healing to the brokenness of our world. Because of this, it is right for God’s people to embrace acts of mercy and justice as a part of their participation in God’s mission.

I acknowledge that there is an important difference between the gospel and the implications of the gospel. The gospel is the saving and gracious work of God to redeem people. At its core, the gospel is God’s work. Because of God’s work, the church proclaims what God has done and will do in Christ. The gospel comes in power and has an effect on people and on the world. Individuals are resurrected from death to life through God’s redeeming work, which has inaugurated the kingdom of God.

As God redeems his people, they are called to join his work by proclaiming what he has done, demonstrating his transforming power in their lives and faith community, and making the presence of God’s inaugurated kingdom known in the world. These are the implications of the gospel. Everything is not the gospel, but the gospel affects everything. The church cannot forget that it is in the power of the gospel that we live, and this gospel sets the direction for our lives. I have more to say about this below where I discuss “duality.”

3. Kingdom. The kingdom of God serves as a central theme in the New Testament. The kingdom is both our current experience and future hope of God’s redemptive reign. I discussed the gospel above and said the gospel is the good news that God’s kingdom has come. Since the mid-twentieth century, missiologists have recognized that the gospel, the kingdom, missions, and the church are all related and that the kingdom is seen as central to God’s mission.

An emphasis on the kingdom and its significance for the church’s mission has raised some concerns historically and theologically. In previous decades, proclamation of the gospel of the kingdom has often become swallowed up “with our own utopias—with Marxism, capitalism, or socialism” (Hiebert 1996, 34–42). The “social gospel,” “liberation theology,” and “solidarity with the poor” are examples of theological utopias of the twentieth century.

To avoid these legitimate concerns, the kingdom must be defined rightly. First, the kingdom should be understood as the vibrant, active rule of God through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Second, we recognize the reign and rule of God is manifested on the earth through the people of God (Ladd, 109) . The goal of the kingdom is to make things as they should be—a work in process until God brings all things to completion. We partner with God in the advancement of his kingdom through proclaiming and living kingdom-shaped lives in this present age, praying for it to be “on earth as it is in heaven.”

4. Mission. Historically, the church understood “missions” as a ministry of the church and as geographical expansion of the Christian faith. However, in the mid-twentieth century “mission” came to be understood first in terms of God’s initiative. In short, “mission” refers to the movement of the Father in sending his Son and Spirit. God and his mission define the missionary existence of the Christian community.

Missio Dei (a Latin phrase for the “sending of God” or the “mission of God”) emerges from John 20:21, where Christ, in his own “sentness,” commands the sending of the Christian community. The church is sent because Christ has been sent. “Mission” is, therefore, God’s work in the world; the church serves as a sign and instrument for that mission. In other words, there is a church because there is a mission, not vice versa.

The New Testament places the mission of the church within the larger context of God’s purpose to restore the whole creation (Rom 8:18–25; Col 1:20), and it also gives the church a mission in the life of the kingdom. God does work in the world outside of the church, but he does not work savingly outside of the church’s proclamation of the gospel. The end game for the missio Dei is a redeemed people dwelling with their God in a redeemed creation.

5. Church. Kingdom, mission, and the church are connected—even inseparable. The church is the Spirit-empowered body of Christ that is gathered because of God’s mission and is sent to join his mission. Two well-worn yet powerful images help us understand the relationship between the church and the kingdom. “Sign” captures the call of the church to reflect the reality of the kingdom in its love and service toward others. “Instrument” points to our call to be a part of Jesus’ work to advance the kingdom of God through gospel proclamation in our broken and dark world. Speaking of the church in this way clarifies the relationship between the church and the world. The church finds its significance as a body sent on a kingdom mission.

Missionary congregations reflect the reality of the gospel of the kingdom and its power in their life together and their life for their world. The Spirit empowers them. The Word informs them. The King gives them the keys of the kingdom and a promise to be present with them in their “sentness.” As the church lives in the world together and lives for the good of our communities, it reflects our message and advances the mission.

6. Christocentricity. Jesus is the center of God’s mission. When Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom to his disciples (Matthew 18), we see Christology impacting missiology. Jesus announced that the church is birthed in the wake of the kingdom. He proclaimed himself the Cornerstone of the church when he told Peter that he would build the church upon Peter’s confession. Jesus also informed his disciples the church holds the keys to the kingdom—the church and the kingdom are both distinct and inseparable. The church’s gospel proclamation unlocks the door of the kingdom. With the arrival and accomplished work of Jesus the Messiah, the kingdom was inaugurated in this present age and the church was established in the kingdom’s wake. The church joins God’s work to place all things under the reign and rule of his son, Jesus (Eph 1:9–10, 21–22).

7. Disciple-Making. Disciple-making is a missional task. The church is called to make disciples and to equip the disciples for the mission. Both of these tasks engage in God’s mission. The church is not missional if it ignores its calling to make disciples. Disciples understand and live out the gospel under the kingdom reign and rule of Jesus, and they do so with the assurance that he is with them. Discipleship and mission interface in the “going,” “making,” and “obeying.” The church is called to make disciples who obey the words of Jesus.

8. Duality. There’s an intense debate within the current missional conversation on the duality of gospel proclamation and gospel demonstration. Some people view works of mercy and justice as an implication of the gospel while others see them as a facet of the gospel “diamond.” Still others view them as a coequal of the gospel.

I affirm that the gospel is good news about the gracious work of Jesus in his life, death, and resurrection. The gospel is God’s work of redemption in Jesus Christ. Because of the gospel, no enmity is between God and those who have repented and believed in Jesus.

I also affirm that God’s gracious work restores our relationship with him when we repent of our sin, confess the Messiah as Lord, and trust in him. This restoration includes a reordering of one’s life (or, a transformation)—one’s loves, one’s ambitions, one’s purpose (Col 1:6). The followers of Jesus demonstrate the hope of the gospel in both word and deed because the gospel transforms them. God’s purpose is to redeem individuals who then join him in the restoration of all things (Eph 1:21–22).

9. Universality. One unfortunate reality in a fallen world is that divisions will always be present. The barriers that normally separate people in the world—gender, race, education, social standing, and so on—dissolve because the church’s identity is first in Christ.

I see two clear connections between this truth and God’s heart for mission in the world. First, because our identity in Christ is through faith and not of our own works, Christians should be humble people. Second, because God’s love extends to all people, our love should too. Humility and love are missional virtues. Because of them, the church should orient itself toward the good of all through mission.

God’s mission is truly a global mission (Rev 5:9). Because his mission extends to all people, our mission should also extend to all people. Christians have a global obligation to advance God’s kingdom among all the nations (Matt 28:18–20). Thus, to be faithfully missional, we must both cross the street and span the globe.

What Does It Mean for the Church to Be “Missional”?

With these theological commitments from the “Missional Manifesto” as a guide, it is now possible to begin to answer our original question: What is a missional church? Spurgeon once said, “Every Christian is either a missionary or an impostor.” While I may want to clarify the language, this impulse is needed.

Mission is rooted in the identity of God himself. God is on a mission; Jesus is the embodiment of that mission and empowers the people of God for God’s mission. Jesus identifies himself as being sent more than forty times in the Gospel of John. The church is sent on mission by Jesus. Being missional, therefore, is the church’s realization that it is called to join Jesus in God’s mission in the power of the Spirit. A missional church is one that seeks to engage all of the church in the activity God has for them—His mission.

The Missional Church Begins with God-Empowered Love

If all of the church is to be engaged in God’s mission, moving out of our comfort zones is required. When you and I step out of our comfort zones to share the good news of the gospel, it is common for us to experience some anxiety. What is interesting is that Paul the apostle shared this emotion with us. He said that he often spoke “in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling” (1 Cor 2:3). On one level, this statement may shock us. We picture Paul boldly calling sinners to faith and repentance. But the truth is, the feeling of weakness and trembling makes sense. We proclaim the gospel to those who are spiritually dead, and we cannot make them spiritually alive.

People do not respond to the gospel because of our intelligence or charisma. They do not respond to the gospel by the force of their own will. The gospel calls for a spiritual response and a spiritual change. Only by the work of the Spirit does a human soul repent and believe. The Holy Spirit enables people to understand God’s offer of salvation. The empowering presence of the Spirit brings amazing hope. People without hope are everywhere, and our role is to glorify God by offering hope through the message of the gospel (John 16:8–11).

The Spirit empowers us to share the gospel and encourage believers. Both tasks are to be love saturated. The Spirit’s missional role is to convict of sin. Our missional role is simply to go. Love is the place where our going and his convicting converge. Paul writes,

Now we who are strong have an obligation to bear the weaknesses of those without strength, and not to please ourselves. Each one of us must please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. For even the Messiah did not please Himself. On the contrary, as it is written, The insults of those who insult You have fallen on Me. (Rom 15:1–3)

The Holy Spirit could do his work without us. He chooses to use us because he desires for us to be intimately related to him by being intimately involved in his world. He allows us to participate in his redeeming work, and he energizes us for the work accomplished through love.

By seeing the world through God’s eyes, the church realizes it exists to join Jesus in God’s mission in the power of the Spirit. By the Spirit’s presence, we can then be compelled by love to move out of our comfort zones and into the world where a hearing and demonstration of the gospel is needed. Paul gives us his perspective for ministry and mission in 2 Corinthians 5:14–21:

Christ’s love compels us, since we have reached this conclusion: If One died for all, then all died. And He died for all so that those who live should no longer live for themselves, but for the One who died for them and was raised. From now on, then, we do not know anyone in a purely human way. Even if we have known Christ in a purely human way, yet now we no longer know Him in this way. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away, and look, new things have come. Everything is from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: That is, in Christ, God was reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed the message of reconciliation to us. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, certain that God is appealing through us. We plead on Christ’s behalf, “Be reconciled to God.” He made the One who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Paul wrote 2 Corinthians as a letter to a church that was struggling to live its faith in a corrupt society. He was a man compelled by love because he understood what God had done for him. And Paul desired that same reconciliation for the Corinthian church. The love that motivated Paul into action is the same that is to motivate the church, the new creation, into action.

Regardless of the challenges, the church must engage the world with the gospel. Being compelled by love means seeing people through God’s eyes, as God sees them, because of what He has done for the church in Christ (v. 16). God does not see his image-bearers from merely a worldly point of view. He sees them from the perspectives of their created value and his purpose for creation, and he sees them as the objects of redemption. Once Paul taught the Corinthians how they should view others differently, he called all to serve as Christ’s ambassadors (vv. 18–20).

There is no equation for proving love. God tells us love can be verified by the way we live. God showed love to us. God’s demonstration of love toward his children is powerful. The people of God are called to follow his example, but it is more than merely following. His love resides in us and transforms us. When we relate to others, they should experience God’s love.

The apostle Paul was not the only biblical author to write about this relationship between God’s love and our love for others. John tells us the world witnesses God’s love and our love for him through our love for one another. To be missional, we have to love the children of God: “By this all people will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35).

The whole world should be able to identify the believers among them. The church, on mission, should be constantly proving the reality of God’s love by the way we care, comfort, and enjoy one another. As we love the church as Christ loves the church, obedience to his commands will purify our passions and lead us to a greater ministry of disciple-making.

The Missional Church Is Shaped by God and His Mission

In order for the church to recover its missional passion, we must reclaim our lost sense of the glory of God’s mission. While evangelical churches affirm the orthodox doctrine of God, we approach him too often as a God we can use. He is a God for us, for our satisfaction. We have shrunk God down to our size. We have limited the scope of his mission in our minds. We have unwittingly bought into the idea that progress is more important than redemption (Stetzer 2012, 175–79).

Our zeal for mission has been undermined by our small view of God. We have simply replaced God’s purpose for the world with our own purpose for the world. Even when we serve and help and give and share, we too often do it from a sense of obligation or a desire to impress. We have become a church that is motivated by a host of things other than a singular desire to glorify God.

We will not recover the missional vision of the church until we recover the grandeur of a big God, of being the people of God, and of his glory in his purpose and mission for the world. Being the people of God means we are a people of his mission for his glory.

The message that emanated from the life and work of the apostle Paul—the most productive missionary in the history of the church—is that we cannot hope to be either faithful or effective in kingdom service while being overly concerned about our own needs. No one survives the harsh, abusive treatment he endured without living for something bigger than himself. Paul was devoted to the churches and the people who comprised them. He possessed an uncommon zeal to see others convinced of gospel truth and redeemed through God’s eternal mercy and grace. But it was not concern for his neighbors that ultimately motivated Paul to such extremes of spiritual exertion and sacrifice. It was Jesus’ love that “compelled” him (2 Cor 5:14).

The Missional Church Is both Missional and Engages in Missions

Being missional conveys the idea of living a purposeful, biblical mission. Christ’s love compels God’s people to be missional for God’s glory. The church is called to join Jesus on mission. This mission is from everywhere to everywhere. Mission is the reason the church exists.

The connection between the church and mission anticipates another important matter: “missions.” Talking about “mission” leads to asking about “missions” (or, the international pursuit to preach the gospel to all people of the earth—the ethnē). How are missions and missional related? Should they be related at all?

Missions and missional are distinct and yet integrated. They thrive best when they are both embraced and implemented in a local church body. Being missional, or living on mission, is not a missions issue, per se. It’s a Christian issue. It’s an identity issue. As we live on mission, we live out our identity as missionary people of God. Living on mission, however, must lead to missions. Part of the reason a tension is felt between being missional and missions is the church tends to embrace one particular commission of Jesus without considering his other commissions.

For example, the Great Commission should be understood in light of the ethnolinguistic context in which the commission was given. The Great Commission is a paradigm shift in how missions is understood by the people of God. The Old Testament details a clear God-given mission to the Jewish people that they were to be a light to the nations, drawing the nations to Jerusalem where they would worship the one, true God. It was a centripetal mission—from the edges (the nations) to the center (the temple in Jerusalem).

Jesus redefined that pattern. He sent his followers from the center (Jerusalem) to go make disciples wherever they went (all nations), and he promised that he would go with them. The Pauline approach to missions—go out and plant churches—was derived from following Jesus’ command in Acts 1:8. Jesus commanded his followers to be witnesses in “Jerusalem, in all Judea, and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” But it is also closely related to Matthew 28:19—Jesus commanded to “go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations.”

These statements in Matthew and Acts point out that something has changed—the mission is no longer centripetal, but now it is centrifugal. Rather than merely drawing the nations to Jerusalem, the people of God were called to go out from Jerusalem. The Great Commission is about reaching your neighbor; but in the flow of redemptive history, it lays out a new plan for mission. Because it involves reaching the nations, it involves missions.

We must be aware of the pitfalls in overemphasizing one (missional) to the exclusion of the other (missions) or promoting one (nations) at the expense of the other (neighbor). When the church’s focus is solely on international missions, it becomes easy to think of ways to reach remote tribes in Africa and not engage our neighbor down the street. The Johannine commission helps us see that we are called to be missionaries to our neighbors too. In John 20:21, Jesus spoke to his disciples explaining that he was sending them as his Father had sent him. This text teaches that everyone is sent on mission (John 20:21) and everyone is called to this ministry (1 Pet 4:10).

Embracing the John 20:21 commission has ignited a revival for churches to embrace mission locally. The Bible teaches everyone is sent on mission, and everyone is called to the ministry. The challenge with this pendulum swing from a Pauline to a Johannine approach to missions and mission is that some are tempted to only think about mission in their local contexts. Both mission extremes (local only, global only) must be avoided.

Mission and missions need to live together. I want us to be missional—living as agents of God’s mission in context—but you cannot take John 20:21 in isolation without also remembering Matthew 28:18–20 and Acts 1:8. We need missional churches engaging in global missions because both are clearly articulated in the teachings of Jesus and the actions of the disciples.

Reasons Why Missional Churches Do Not Do Missions

As the missional conversation continues and deepens, there is a growing trend among missional churches to forget the lost world around us. Why has this happened? There are five reasons I think this has happened:

1. In rediscovering God’s mission, many have discovered its personal dimensions only. The encouragement for each person to be on mission (to be “missional”) has trended toward a personal obligation to one’s immediate context. While mission to our local communities is important, an inordinate focus on “local” neighbors misses the church’s obligation to “global” people groups.

2. In responding to God’s mission, many have made everything “mission.” Missions historian Stephen Neill, responding to a similar surge in mission interests, explained his concern this way: “If everything is mission then nothing is mission.” Neill’s fear was that the focus would shift from global evangelization (often called “missions”) to societal transformation (often called “mission”).

3. In relating God’s mission, the message increasingly includes the hurting but less frequently includes the global lost. Missional churches seem to speak more of underserved peoples rather than unreached peoples. As we engage to deliver justice, we must also deliver the gospel regardless of anyone’s status in a culture.

4. In refocusing on God’s mission, many are focusing on being good news rather than telling good news. It seems that many in the missional conversation place a higher value on serving the global hurting rather than evangelizing the global lost. I am not urging a dichotomy here, only noting that one already exists. It is ironic, though, that as many missional Christians have sought to “embody” the gospel, they have chosen to forsake one member of Christ’s body—the mouth.

5. In reiterating God’s mission, many lose the context of the church’s global mission and needed global presence. While Christ calls people from all tongues, tribes, and nations, we have become content with our own tongue, tribe, and nation. Many churches are wonderfully embracing the missional imperative, but as they seek to “own” the mission by adapting their church into a missional movement in their local community, some inadvertently localize God’s mission itself and lose the vital connection all believers share together. A hyperfocus on our own community results in lost vision for the communion of the saints.

Principles for Missional Churches Engaging the Global Lost

To help missional churches engage the global lost, I propose five principles:

1. Recognize it is God’s mission. The missional church must be passionate about God’s mission. God’s mission includes all people, everywhere.

2. Serve the poor and engage in social justice. Evangelicals have understated the call to serve the poor and the hurting and need a stronger engagement in social justice. While this sounds counterintuitive, if we are seeking to remedy the loss of concern for an articulated evangelism, a proper and beneficial relationship can be found. Social engagement entails relational engagement, and relational engagement entails opportunities to share the gospel. Further, successes and experiences in our communities should awaken hearts and minds to global needs. Social justice must be retained ultimately for the glory of God in the worship of Jesus.

3. Share God’s deep concern about his mission to the nations. God is passionate about his name being praised from the lips of men and women from every corner of the globe.

4. Make disciples in every nation. The end product of missional endeavors should be a thriving Christian ready to produce more thriving Christians. This includes a readiness to cross cultural and geographical boundaries with the good news of Jesus in order to multiply disciples.

5. Be missionaries in your local context. For a church and church planter to be missional, thinking and acting with a missiological purpose, they have to be living on mission where they are.

How Beautiful Are Missional Feet

The Bible says the feet that take the gospel and proclaim it to the lost are beautiful (Rom 10:15). A church filled with people engaged in missions is filled with beautiful feet.

Most feet are not beautiful. Mine are not. However, they are made beautiful when they move and go on mission. The gospel transforms the feet of those who carry the good news of Jesus to others. Here are some ways missional feet are beautiful:

Missional feet go to proclaim the gospel. In Romans 10:15, the feet are beautiful because they carry the messenger of the life-transforming gospel.

Missional feet go to serve the hurting. Through kingdom people who have experienced a bounty of grace in Christ, mercy and justice are extended to God’s image-bearers.

Missional feet go to love others. The Bible is filled with themes about welcoming the outsider and stranger (Lev 19:33–34). Not only does God desire for us to welcome the stranger; we are also called to go to and love them. This requires intentional movement toward those with whom we would not regularly cross paths (John 4:3–42). This also means that we intentionally love others when we receive no immediate return (Jas 1:17).

Missional feet go in community. Mission is intricately tied to community. Much of what I have said in this chapter is possible only as we go with others. The missional value of community is highlighted in Hebrews 10. The writer explains that we are to “provoke one another to love and good deeds” (Heb 10:24 NRSV). The corporate language used by the writer of Hebrews says a lot. We need some provocation by one another to missional activation.

In the Gospel of John we read the most moving passage concerning a theology of feet (13:1–17). In the loving act of washing his disciples’ feet, Jesus proves his love for them, signifying the washing away of sins through his death. At the end of the day, missional means we join Jesus on mission. We stoop. We pick up the towel. We go to the lost and the hurting. Beautiful feet. Washing feet. In doing this we not only love the world but encourage one another. I do not have naturally beautiful feet. However, in Christ they are made beautiful as we go on mission with God together.

There are people all around us who are weary and broken, people who have endured hard paths in life. Following our Savior, let us serve them and point to the only One who can give them pure cleansing and true rest. While we are here, wandering in our temporary dwelling, let us use our feet to bring glory to Jesus. We know that one day we will fall at his beautiful feet in awe-inspiring worship. In light of our destination, let’s bring others with us as we journey that way.

Let’s not have only missional conversations . . . let’s have missional feet.

Chapter 9

The Missionary Motivation of God’s Salvation

Daniel L. Akin and Keith Whitfield

Mission exists because God exists (Whitfield 2011, 17). This statement orients the Christian motivation for missions, and it challenges the impulse to use human needs as the primary motivator for Christian missions. The spiritual, physical, emotional, and social conditions of those created in God’s image are important to God and should never be ignored by us. The New Testament teaches that if we say that we love God but do not love the poor, orphans, widows, and our brothers and sisters, then we do not truly love God. But their needs and our needs cannot be the ultimate motivation for the church’s mission. Jesus ordered our affections and actions. He orders love for God first and then love for neighbor as yourself (Matt 22:37–38). This order instructs the people of God on how they should stir themselves up to engage in missions. This order sets our Great Commission agenda.

Well-meaning ministry leaders often seek to motivate for evangelism and missions involvement with human needs. They say something like, “If you have the cure for cancer and your neighbor has cancer, you would give it to them. So, why are we hesitant and unengaged in missions and evangelism?” Connecting terminal cancer and the condition of sinful humanity outside of faith in the crucified and resurrected Jesus Christ is correct on many levels. The critical issue for terminal disease and sin is death. The result of cancer is physical death. The future for those who die separated from Christ is spiritual, eternal death. This analogy rightly reminds us that we must remain urgent and fervent in our evangelistic witness. The truth is, we do not know how much more time people around us and people in tribes and cities around the world have to respond to the gospel. At first, connecting the cure to cancer to the sharing of one’s faith has some emotional, rhetorical power and leads to the convicting reminder that people in our neighborhoods, our coworkers, as well individuals scattered across the globe are spiritually in the same condition as those who have a physical terminal illness.

However, the problem is that this appeal for gospel engagement does not actually motivate people to live their lives on mission. The main reason it does not is that relating cancer to the human condition alone does not (and cannot) convince us of the urgency for gospel engagement. The hurdles facing missions engagement and the challenges entailed in the hypothetical scenario described above are not the same. The scenario requires no personal sacrifice from either the one sharing the cure or the one receiving it. In the situation described, offering the cure contains with it no effort or sacrifice, and the person who receives it takes it with no personal risk, no commitment requirement, and no change in what (or who) they are living for. Missions requires sacrifice. The one who engages in Christian missions sacrifices money, time, and personal comforts. The missionary takes a message that faces intellectual, moral, emotional, and spiritual opposition. The witness to the gospel proclaims that all of humanity has sinned against its Creator, and humanity’s greatest need is to be reconciled to him. This message will hardly get the same reception as one would if they shared with their neighbor a risk-free cure for their terminal illness. It is doubtful that you would have to persuade, plead, or defend your desire to give away the cure for a terminal illness.

Further, receiving the free cure for cancer does not require the patient to deny himself and follow someone else. Responding to the gospel requires a life-changing response—repentance and belief in the One who rules over all things. When one considers the cost and sacrifice of developing a relationship and the long-term investment in people that an evangelistic lifestyle requires, it becomes clear that walking across the yard with a hypothetical vial containing the cure to cancer is almost nothing like evangelism. To motivate people to live on mission, people must be convinced to deny themselves in order to sacrifice and to pursue someone else through costly, personal investment.

The second reason that this analogy is unhelpful is that the motivation for sharing the cure for cancer and sharing the gospel are not the same. What would motivate one to share the cure for cancer is their common experience with the pain of disease and death that they share with humanity. Most everyone knows someone who has died from cancer. They have seen the pain and horror that the disease inflicts on the patient. They have seen the grief of a family as they watch their loved one suffer and die. People know the pain disease and death brings. Any sane person would share the cure for cancer to stop the pain of physical death because they are human and have the experience of physical death in common with others. However, it requires spiritual eyes to have compassion on the spiritually lost. In fact, not every unbeliever engenders compassion. Many unbelievers live pretty good lives and do not seem to need much. But, more than that, it requires spiritual eyes because no one has experienced the eternal aspect of death. Experience with the grief of physical suffering is common among all people, but the eternal reality of death is impossible to get one’s mind around and is not possible to experience in this life. The only way to be motivated by the reality of eternal death is to see the world and people the way God views them. The cancer analogy does not help us to do this.

A proper understanding of God’s mission can lead us to see the world the way God sees the world and to be directed by his purposes. In fact, a brief look at what motivates Jesus, Paul, and the churches in the book of Revelation reveals that they were all motivated by God’s mission. Each of these examples serves as a model for our motivation.

God’s Mission, Our Motivation

Faithfulness requires that we live for the glory of God and what he is doing through his Son, Jesus Christ. In God’s mission, we see that what God is doing is good for the world, and beholding God’s great plan, we are compelled to join him. For the church to become committed and more faithful in its mission engagement, it has to recover a sense of the glory of God’s mission for the church. Most evangelical Christians do not deny any aspect of the orthodox doctrine of God. There has been, however, in David Wells’s words, “The Caging of God” in the evangelical church. He writes,

We have turned to a God that we can use rather than to a God we must obey; we have turned to a God who will fulfill our needs rather than to a God before whom we must surrender our rights to ourselves. He is a God for us, for our satisfaction—not because we have learned to think of him in this way through Christ but because we have learned to think of him this way through the marketplace, everything is for us, for our pleasure, for our satisfaction, and we have come to assume that it must be so in the church as well. (Wells 1994, 114)

When the church loses appreciation for God’s weightiness, it loses sight of and undermines the cause of missions and evangelism because the inevitable result is that God’s purpose for the world will be replaced with our purpose for the world. Wells rightly says, “We will not be able to recover the vision and understanding of God’s grandeur until we recover an understanding of ourselves as creatures who have been made to know such grandeur” (Wells 1994, 115).

When the church understands that its mission is rooted in the mission of God and is captured by the incredible privilege of participating in God’s work for his name, the church will be shaped by their spiritual calling and purpose in line with God’s mission. If the church will shape and orient its mission around God’s mission, we can be confident that God’s mission can and will sustain the mission of the church, for it is God himself who empowers the church through his Spirit (Acts 1:8). And, God promised that the “gates of hell shall not prevail against” his church and its mission (Matt 16:18).5 Christopher Wright says,

So all our missional efforts to make God known must be set within the prior framework of God’s own will to be known. We are seeking to accomplish what God himself wills to happen. This is both humbling and reassuring. It is humbling inasmuch as it reminds us that all our efforts are in vain but for God’s determination to be known. We are neither the initiators of the mission of making God known to the nations nor does it lie in our power to decide how the task will be fully accomplished or when it may be deemed to be complete. But it is reassuring. For we know that behind all our fumbling efforts and inadequate communication stands the supreme will of the living God, reaching out in loving self-revelation, incredibly willing to open blind eyes and reveal his glory through the treasures of the gospel delivered in the clay pots of his witnesses (2 Cor 4:1–7). (Wright 2006b, 129–30)

The divine act of creation initiated God’s mission in the world. God created to make himself known as the Lord and to manifest his goodness throughout the whole world. Out of nothing (ex nihilo), he formed and ordered the world to serve his good pleasure. God’s creational design reflects God’s kingdom. Creation is a kingdom-establishing act. Creation ordered life so that God rules over and provides for his people and the rest of creation. God planned for this kingdom to spread from Eden out into the whole world. Built into Creation is a telos. God created to accomplish something.

At the center of God’s plan for creation is humanity. His plan is to fill the whole world with imagers who know and love God. In the act of creation, God establishes a context for his mission. God placed them in a garden and provided for them perfectly. He was their God, and they were his people. They were called to be fruitful, multiply, and rule over the whole earth. To accomplish his purpose, God gave humanity the unique ability to know and respond to their Creator. Humanity is called to participate with God to fulfill his purposes for creation. This is indeed a great calling and privilege.

While God’s purpose for creation was challenged by the fall of humanity and the separation it caused in the relationship between God and humanity, God continued his mission by making a covenant first with the man Abraham and then with a specific line of his progeny, Israel, and promising to bless all of humanity through them (Gen 12:1–3). Israel was a sign and instrument of God’s mission (Exod 19:1–6). God chose them to make himself known to the nations through Israel, and he provided for them, gave them an ordered life by which to live in relationship with him, protected them, and disciplined them. Through this people, God prepared to establish his kingdom on the earth. The mission that God began in Israel, he accomplished through the sending of his Son into the world. The Son reveals the Father (John 1:14, 18; 14:7) because he shares the identity and mission of the Father (Matt 28:18–20; John 1:1; Eph 1:20–23; Col 3:1; Rev 5:9). It is through Jesus that God is known and worshipped throughout all of creation.

Jesus’ Motivation for Missions

Matthew’s Gospel begins with the genealogy of Jesus Christ, proclaiming that he is the long-awaited Messiah. Matthew places him at the center of God’s mission. As the son of Abraham and David, he assumed the divine promises given to these leaders of Israel, and he is the one from whom these promises finally will be fulfilled. Jesus establishes the eternal kingdom promised to David (2 Sam. 7:12–16) and receives the blessings promised to Abraham (Gen. 12:1–3). Beginning his Gospel in these terms, Matthew prepares his readers for the commission that Jesus gave his disciples in Matthew 28, to “go therefore and make disciples of all nations” (v. 19).

When Jesus was eight days old, Mary and Joseph took him to the temple to fulfill the Mosaic law’s requirement for Jewish boys. The priest Simeon lifted him up and blessed him. His blessing is one of the most fully orbed expressions of Jesus’ mission in the New Testament. Simeon said, “Lord, now you are letting your servant depart in peace, according to your word; for my eyes have seen your salvation that you have prepared in the presence of all peoples, a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and for glory to your people Israel” (Luke 2:29–32 ESV). Simeon located Jesus’ life in the redemptive story that God is working out for his people. He declared that Jesus is the fulfillment of God’s mission. He embodied the salvation of God for both the Gentiles and Israel, and he was the sign of God’s faithfulness to his people. That is the “glory” of Israel. Their glory is God’s salvation for his people and all peoples. God demonstrates his lordship over the whole earth principally through saving his people. Jesus’ mission is the unfolding of God’s faithfulness and the display of his glory.

Jesus began his mission at his baptism. He identified with Israel’s need to be restored. Jesus’ baptism marked a new beginning for the kingdom of God and restoration of the world. Following Jesus’ baptism, he was led into the wilderness to face forty days of fasting and temptation. Jesus’ baptism and his victory over temptation set him apart. The Spirit empowered him, and he began to reverse the course of human history, from rebellion against God and idolatry to obedience and worship. Unlike anyone who came before him, he was able to establish God’s kingdom. Coming out of the wilderness temptation victorious, Jesus declared, “The kingdom of God is at hand” (Mark 1:15). Jesus made a similar announcement in the Nazarene synagogue. Luke records this event. Jesus took the scroll and proclaimed that the words of Isaiah 61 were fulfilled in Him (Luke 4:18–19; cf. Isa 61:1–2). Jesus embraced his mission. He declared that the covenant Lord of Israel is at work through him “to restore all of creation and all of human life to again live under the benevolent reign of God himself” (Bartholomew and Goheen 2004, 135).

In his life, death, and resurrection, Jesus accomplished God’s promises to the nation of Israel and the nations of the earth. He embodied Israel’s mission in his life, and he fulfilled the Old Testament promises. He accomplished salvation for the world in his death. He gathered a people to continue God’s mission to bless the people of the earth through Abraham (Gen 12:1–3). After his resurrection, Jesus sent his disciples to preach repentance and forgiveness in his name to all the nations (John 20:21–23; cf. Matt 28:18–20; Luke 24:44–49; John 17:18).

Throughout the Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), Jesus’ mission is characterized by what he came to do (or, was sent to do) and what he must do. He came to proclaim a message about the kingdom and to bring salvation (Mark 1:14–15; 10:45; Luke 19:10). To accomplish this mission, he had to suffer, die, and be raised on the third day (Matt 16:21; Mark 8:31; Luke 9:22). But what motivated him for this mission? John’s Gospel helps to answer this question. John portrays Jesus as determined to accomplish his Father’s will (John 4:34; 5:30). Jesus made clear that he did not speak his own message, but he shared the words of his Father (John 3:34; 7:16; 8:26). There is such continuity between the Father’s will and his obedience and faithfulness to it that Jesus could say, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father” (John 14:7). He did not seek his own glory but his Father’s glory (John 7:18; 17:1–2). One of the main themes in John’s Gospel is “The only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known” (1:18). Jesus saw his entire mission as accomplishing the mission of his Father. It is love and devotion to his Father and his Father’s will that led him to be faithful to this mission. Staring the crucifixion in the face, Jesus said, “Not my will but your will be done” (Luke 22:42). The writer of the book of Hebrews interprets for us Jesus’ missionary motivation. He says, Jesus, “for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God” (Heb 12:2). The clear motivation for the mission of Jesus was the glory of God.

Paul’s Motivation for Missions

The message from Paul’s testimony, who was the most committed and productive missionary in the history of the church and who endured incredibly harsh treatment for the mission, is that faithfulness to God’s mission requires believers to live for and be committed to something bigger than their own needs and even the needs of their neighbors. What enables one to see the world with spiritual eyes is the love of God toward sinners displayed in the gospel. Paul makes this connection in 2 Corinthians 5:14–16. He says, “For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded . . . one has died for all, therefore all have died; and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised. From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh” (emphasis ours).

The testimony of the apostle Paul offers one a different view on what should motivate the church for missions and gospel engagement. While in prison, he wrote a letter to the church at Philippi in which he confessed that he was facing pressure from all sides (Phil 1:23). He could not decide whether he wanted to die or to continue living, for in his estimation it was better for him to die and be with the Lord (Phil 1:22–23). He knew that for him to live was good for the church. The apostle was ambivalent. Ultimately, he was persuaded by what is good for the church. It is interesting why he made this decision. It was not primarily for the benefit of the Philippians. Yes, for them, he says, “To remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account . . . I will remain and continue with you all, for your progress and joy in the faith” (Phil 1:24b–25). But, it was not primarily for them. He endured “so that in [him the church] may have ample cause to glory in Christ Jesus.” That statement is a great commentary on what Paul meant by “For to me to live is Christ” (Phil 1:21).

There is yet another place in Paul’s writing where it seems that Paul was motivated by the fallen condition of people. He made a shocking statement in Romans 9. There he declared that he had “great sorrow and unceasing anguish” because Israel—his national people—was unconnected to what God was doing in Christ Jesus (Rom 9:2). This caused him such concern that he was willing to be separated from his Savior if Israel could be connected to Christ (v. 3). One might be tempted to think that Paul was compelled above all by his love for his nation, but that is not what primarily troubled him. He was distraught because Israel was supposed to be a people who brought glory to God through Jesus Christ. He wrote, “They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen” (vv. 4–5).

Paul’s concern became quite clear after his extended reflection in Romans 9–11 on what God was doing with Israel and with the other nations of the earth. He believed that God had chosen to work in a different way at that time, and he says to this fact:

Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! “For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor? Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?” For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen. (Rom 11:33–36)

Faithfulness requires that we live for the glory of God and what he is doing through his Son, Jesus Christ. In this, we see that what God is doing in the world is good for the world. For the church to recover this, we have to recover a sense of the glory of God’s mission, which has been lost. The unredeemed peoples of the world matter. But the glory of God in all things matters most. God’s glory, and God’s glory alone, is ultimate.

The Church’s Motivation for Missions in the Book of Revelation

The God of the Bible has a mission. He is a missionary God. He has a missionary people. The book of Revelation was written on the mission field for the missionary people of God. This book describes God’s mission in universal, covenantal, and doxological terms. God’s mission is to be known as Lord over all things through the establishment of his kingdom. One of the main purposes of Revelation is to challenge the people of God to remain steadfast and overcome the trials and temptations of their present age. This challenge for God’s people is rooted in God’s own mission for the world. Revelation motivates the people of God to be faithful. Hear the opening lines of this great book:

Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth.

To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen. (Rev 1:4–7)

The people of God are called to remain faithful to their covenant God and his mission. In at least three places in Revelation, the people of God are challenged to overcome by God’s eschatological vision to establish his kingdom with people “from every tribe and language and people and nation” (5:9–10; cf. 7:9–17; 20:22–27). These insights alone should lead us to explore the missionary implications of the last book of the Bible.

God’s ultimate purpose is to be known as the Lord by all of his creation. In Revelation 1:8, God reveals himself to John as the covenant Lord. He says, “I am the Alpha and the Omega . . . who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” These words echo what God said to Moses in Exodus (3:14–15) and to the people of God on Mount Sinai (Exod 20:2). The lordship of God is declared when God says, “I am the Lord” (cf. Gen 15:7; Exod 6:2, 6; 12:12). His lordship is demonstrated when it is said no one compares to him (cf. 2 Sam 7:22; Ps 89:6–8; Jer 10:6–7). God declares that he acts to be known as the Lord (cf. Exod 5:22–6:8). This was God’s purpose in creation and is his purpose in redemption, and this purpose is seen in the book of Revelation where the God of the Bible is presented as the Lord of history (1:1, 21), the Lord of powers (4:8–9; 11:17–18; 17:8–17; 20:7–10), and the Lord of his people (3:5–6, 21; 21:6–7).

God’s rightful sovereign reign and the worship that is due to him are established in creation (Rev 4:11) and are reestablished in redemption (Rev 5:6). The worship of the good God is the vision and motivational thread throughout Revelation. The seven churches in Revelation 2–3 are evaluated based on their devotion and response to Him. In Revelation 4–5, the curtain on the majesty of God is pulled back in an Isaiah-6-like vision. It is no longer Isaiah standing before the Holy one; but now, through the eyes of John, everyone who reads those words with the “eyes of your hearts enlightened” (Eph 1:18) stands before the God of Isaiah. Through John’s retelling of his revelation, we join the living creatures gathered around the throne in singing: “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty” (Rev 4:6–8). The church is called to participate in God’s grand plan to call all types of people to himself.

The sovereign God of Revelation uses his people to advance his mission. One way we see the people of God participating in the mission of God in Revelation is by the title “servant” that is given to God’s people (1:1; 11:18). This title suggests a people who are committed to God’s mission and the advancement of his kingdom. So what God reveals to his servants in this book is designed to stir them up in their kingdom work. One of the ways God’s people serve his kingdom is by being faithful witnesses. John is the witness in Revelation. He passed along the revelation that he received (Rev 1:9). In fact, John was commissioned as a witness (1:1–2) to equip the church in its task to witness to the world (Revelation 2–3; 10:11). All the people of God are witnesses, and they defeat the enemies of God with their testimony (12:11). They face opposition because of their testimony (12:17). The opposition leads to death for some (17:6) but ultimate triumph for all (20:4).

In Revelation 1:6, John presents another way the people of God participate in the mission of God. God made his people “a kingdom, priests to . . . God.”6 As priests, God’s people claim their commitment to promote his honor and glory forever and ever and to join with him on his mission. Therefore, to be for our God is to be for the world (John 3:16). The church in Philadelphia is an example of how God’s people proclaim his name (Rev 3:7–13). Even though this church endured suffering and persecution, they faithfully proclaimed God’s Word. As a result, the church found an open door for ministry and God sustained them. Their witness was not received, but their witness was effective. God honored their testimony. God said, “I will make them come and bow down before your feet, and they will learn that I have loved you” (Rev 3:9). Philadelphia is an example for all God’s people. They joined his mission, and they modeled faithfulness in difficult circumstances. We learn from their examples what faithfulness looks like. It is active waiting. In the midst of their challenges, their hope was in the return of Jesus Christ, who when he comes will make all things new (Revelation 21–22). This hope inspired them to wait but not passively. They waited with a missionary heart and commitment to proclaim God’s sovereign rule over all things and his gracious work of salvation for all people.

In the book of Revelation, the church is called to be faithful witnesses for their God; the church overcomes all the challenges that confront them. They triumph through the blood of the Lamb and through their witness to the Word (12:11). Following the example of Jesus (Rev 1:5; 3:14), they triumph by their devotion to Christ over their commitment to their own lives. Revelation pulls back the curtain to the final stage of history and reveals the end of God’s mission: “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever” (11:15).

Conclusion

New excitement for missions exists in churches in North America and across the world. This excitement is present in my own family of churches—the Southern Baptist Convention. While visionary leaders, core values, and strategic plans are necessary to steward missions movements, they cannot sustain these movements. A theologically driven view of mission is needed to sustain this emerging interest in missions. If we are going to have a truly missional vision for the churches we lead and network with, we need a vision that expresses not merely what we are seeking to accomplish but a comprehensive vision that connects the theology of missions to how we seek to accomplish it—a vision that shows how we are directed, shaped, and sent by the mission of God. We need a vision that follows Jesus, Paul, and the book of Revelation.

Further Reading

Barnett, Mike and Robin. Discovering the Mission of God: Best Missional Practices for the 21st Century. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2012.

Piper, John. Let the Nations Be Glad. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010.

Platt, David. What Did Jesus Really Mean When He Said Follow Me? Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale, 2013.

Ripken, Nik. The Insanity of Obedience: Walking with Jesus in Tough Places. Nashville: B&H, 2014.

Sills, David. The Missionary Call: Find Your Place in God’s Plan for the World. Chicago: Moody, 2008.

Chapter 10

The State of the Unevangelized and Its Missionary Implications

Millard J. Erickson

What is the status of persons who have not made an explicit acceptance of Jesus Christ? Are they innocent of any sin and thus free from guilt? Are they in need of salvation? May they somehow be saved even without hearing the gospel message during this life? And if they are lost, what will happen to them in the life to come? Will they be condemned to an endless anguish and suffering in hell, apart from God, or may they simply cease to exist? And finally, what are the implications of answers to these questions for our philosophy of missions and evangelism?

We should note initially that currently some confusion exists on these matters even among those who are expected to be the most certain on the subject. The data obtained by the Barna organization in its polling is both interesting and enlightening. Their polling data published in 1992 indicated a rather high degree of correct understanding of the basis of salvation. When asked to describe their belief about life after death, 62 percent of the general sample responded, “When you die, you will go to heaven because you have confessed your sins and have accepted Jesus Christ as your Savior.” Only 6 percent said, “When you die you will go to heaven because you have tried to obey the Ten Commandments”; 9 percent said, “Because you are basically a good person”; and 6 percent said, “Because God loves all people and will not let them perish.”

When asked to respond to the statement, “All good people, whether they consider Jesus Christ to be their Savior or not, will live in heaven after they die on earth,” somewhat different results occurred. Of those who said they had made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ (which in turn constituted 65 percent of the total adult sample), 25 percent agreed strongly and 15 percent agreed moderately; 16 percent disagreed moderately and 33 percent disagreed strongly; 11 percent did not know. Thus, of the persons who hazard an opinion, those who disagreed outnumbered those who agreed by less than a 5-to-4 ratio! Even 29 percent of the born again and 26 percent of the Baptists agreed, either strongly or somewhat. Those most opposed were the Charismatics and Pentecostals, with 18 percent agreeing and 78 percent disagreeing. It appears that a strong majority agree in theory on what qualifies a person for entrance into heaven. When the question shifts to who will actually get there, however, quite a different view is taken by a significant portion of the sample (Barna 1992, 76–78, 294, 295, 50–52, 262). Obviously, the subject demands careful examination!

What is the biblical picture of the status of humans? Those who hold to the Bible’s full inspiration and final authority must examine what the biblical writers have to say on that subject. This is particularly important, for there is a sharp conflict between the biblical testimony and the widely held belief in the inherent goodness and natural perfectibility of humans. This myth of basic human goodness persists despite two world wars, the growth of crime, the genocide of six million Jews, a worldwide economic depression, and the spread of AIDS and numerous other evils, in the twentieth century alone (Menninger 1973).

The Universal Fact of Human Sinfulness

Sin’s universality is taught in several ways and varied places in Scripture, including both Testaments. The teaching is projected in both didactic and narrative passages alike.

Old Testament Teaching

The Old Testament writers do not usually make general statements about all people at all times. They do, however, speak emphatically about those living at the time they are describing. So, for example, Noah said of the human race of his time: “The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. . . . The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence” (Gen 6:5, 11).7 Noah appears to be an exception: a “just man, perfect in his generations” (v. 9). Yet even he was guilty of the sin of drunkenness (Gen 9:21), which is condemned elsewhere in Scripture (Eph 5:18).

Even after the flood destroyed the wicked of the earth, God still characterized “the imagination of man’s heart [as being] evil from his youth” (Gen 8:21). David described the corruption of his contemporaries as universal: “They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none who does good. . . . They have all turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is none who does good, no, not one” (Ps 14:1, 3). Similarly categorical statements are found in 1 Kings 8:46; Psalms 130:3; 143:2; and Proverbs 20:6, 9. The writer of Ecclesiastes summed it up well: “There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins” (Eccl 7:20). Similarly, Isaiah wrote, “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, to his own way; and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all” (53:6).

New Testament Teaching

The New Testament teaches even more strongly the universality of human sin. In the best-known passage on sin, Romans 3, Paul quoted and elaborated upon Psalms 14 and 53, as well as 5:9; 10:7; 36:1; 140:3; and Isaiah 59:7–8. He asserted that all people, both “Jews and Greeks, are under sin” (Rom 3:9 ESV) and then heaped up a number of descriptive quotations beginning with, “There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God. They have all turned aside; they have together become unprofitable; there is none who does good, no, not one” (vv. 10–12). None will be justified by works of the law (v. 20). The reason is clear: “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (v. 23). Paul also made it plain that he was talking not only about unbelievers, those outside the Christian faith, but believers as well, including himself.

In Ephesians 2:3 Paul acknowledged that “among whom [the sons of disobedience, v. 2] also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others”. There are no exceptions to this universal rule.

The Extreme Consequences of Sin

If the fact of human sinfulness is universal, we must next ask about the results of this sinfulness for humans. Here we find several important facets of the sinner’s situation.

Divine Disfavor

In two instances in the Old Testament, God is said to hate sinful Israel. God said, “All their wickedness is in Gilgal, For there I hated them. Because of the evil of their deeds I will drive them from My house; I will love them no more. All their princes are rebellious” (Hos 9:15). In this very strong expression, God actually said that he had begun to hate Israel and would no longer love them! A similar sentiment appears in Jeremiah 12:8. On two other occasions God is said to hate the wicked (Pss 5:5; 11:5).

Much more frequent, however, are passages in which he is said to hate wickedness (Prov 6:16, 17; Zech 8:17). The hate is not one sided on God’s part, for the wicked are described as those who hate God (Exod 20:5; Deut 7:10) and, more commonly, as those who hate the righteous (Pss 18:40; 69:4; Prov 29:10). In those few passages where God is said to hate the wicked, it is apparent that he does so because they hate him and have already committed wickedness.

While God is only rarely spoken of as hating the wicked, it is common for the Old Testament to refer to him as angry with them. God is pictured as angry with Israel for having made the golden calf while Moses was conferring with him on the mountain. The Lord said to Moses, “Let Me alone, that My wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them. And I will make of you a great nation.” Moses responded, “Lord, why does Your wrath burn hot against Your people?” (Exod 32:10). The anger of God is pictured as a fire that will consume or burn up the Israelites. There are numerous other references to God’s anger: “The anger of the Lord was hot against Israel” (Judg 2:14). Jeremiah asked the Lord to correct him but “not in Your anger” (Jer 10:24). The psalmist rejoiced that God’s “anger is but for a moment, His favor is for life” (Ps 30:5).

Many of the New Testament references to God’s anger do not merely refer to his present reaction to sin but also suggest certain divine actions to come. In John 3:36, for example, Jesus said, “He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” Several passages teach that while the anger of God presently rests upon sin and those who commit it, this anger will lead to action at some future time. Romans 1:18 teaches that “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” Romans 2:5 (ESV) speaks of “storing up wrath” for the day of judgment; and Romans 9:22 notes that God, while “wanting to show His wrath and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction.”

Guilt

Another result of sins that affects a human’s relationship with God is guilt. This word needs some careful explication, for in today’s world the usual meaning of the term is “guilt feelings,” or the subjective aspect of guilt. These feelings are often thought of as irrational, and indeed they sometimes are. That is, a person who has done nothing objectively wrong and is thus not deserving of punishment may nonetheless have these feelings. We are referring here, however, to the objective state of having violated God’s intention and thus being liable to punishment. This aspect of guilt deserves our special attention.

We may define sin as involving not merely the bad but the wrong as well. In the former case, sin might be likened to a foul disease from which healthy people shrink in fear. But in the latter case, we think of sin not merely as a lack of wholeness or of perfection but as moral wrong, as a deliberate violation of what God has commanded, and thus as deserving of punishment. This is to see sin not in aesthetic terms but in juristic terms. In the former view, the good is thought of as the beautiful—the harmonious, lovable, desirable, and attractive—whereas evil is understood as the inharmonious, ugly, and repulsive. The latter view emphasizes the law. The right is what conforms to the law’s stipulations, and the wrong is whatever departs from that standard in some way and, therefore, deserves to be punished.

But what is the precise nature of the disruption that sin and guilt produce in the relationship between God and man? God is the almighty, eternal One, the only independent or noncontingent reality, who has created everything that exists. And the human, the highest of all of the creatures, has the gifts of life and personhood only because of God’s goodness and graciousness. As Master, God placed humans in charge of the creation and commanded them to rule over it (Gen 1:28). Humankind serves as stewards of God’s kingdom, with all the opportunities, privileges, and responsibilities that entails. As the omnipotent and completely holy One, God asks for our worship and obedience in response to what he is and does.

But humans have failed to do God’s bidding. Entrusted with the wealth of the creation, they have used it for their own purposes, like an employee who embezzles from his employer. In addition, like a citizen who treats contemptuously a monarch or a high official, a hero or a person of great accomplishment, humans have failed to treat with respect the highest of all beings. Further, they are ungrateful for all that God has done for them and given them (Rom 1:21). And finally, humans have spurned God’s offer of friendship and love, and, in the most extreme case, the salvation accomplished through the death of his own Son.

These offenses are magnified by the fact that God is infinitely above us. Under obligation to no one, he brought us into existence. Hence, he has an absolute claim upon us. And the standard of behavior he expects us to emulate is his own holy perfection. As Jesus himself said, “Be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect” (Matt 5:48).

To see sin and guilt’s immense effect on our relationship with God and indeed on the whole of the universe, we must see them in metaphysical categories. God is the highest being, and we are his creatures. Failure to fulfill his standards disrupts the economy of the universe. Whenever the creature deprives the Creator of what is rightfully his, the balance is upset, for God is not being honored and obeyed. Were such wrong, such disruption, to go uncorrected, God would virtually cease to be God. Sin and the sinner deserve and even need to be punished.

Punishment

There is a rather widespread opposition to the idea that God’s punishment of the sinner is retribution. Retribution is regarded as primitive, cruel, a mark of hostility and vindictiveness, which is singularly inappropriate in a God of love who is the Father to his earthly children (Ferre 1951, 228). Yet despite this feeling, which may reflect a permissive society’s conception of what a loving father is, a definite dimension of divine retribution is in the Bible, particularly in the Old Testament. Ryder Smith puts it categorically: “There is no doubt that in Hebrew thought punishment is retributive. The use of the death penalty is enough to show that” (1953, 51).

Certainly, the death penalty was not intended to be rehabilitative, being terminal in nature. And while it also had a deterrent effect, the direct connection between what had been done to the victim and what was to be done to the offender is clear. This is seen particularly in a passage like Genesis 9:6, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.” The heinousness of what has been done (the image of God has been attacked) requires a corresponding penalty.

This divine retribution should not be thought of merely as God’s vengeance or revenge against sinners. References of that type of attitude contain an element of anthropomorphism, for “vengeance” applies particularly to a private individual’s reacting against a wrong done to him. God, however, considered in relationship to the violations of the moral and spiritual law, is not a private person but the administrator of the law. Further, “vengeance” or “revenge” relates to retaliation, to gaining satisfaction (psychologically) to compensate for what was done, rather than the idea of obtaining and administering justice. God’s concern, however, is the maintenance of justice. Thus, in connection with God’s punishment of sinners, “retribution” is a better translation than “vengeance.”

There are numerous references, particularly in the Major Prophets, to the retributive dimension of God’s punishment of sinners. Examples can be found in Isaiah 1:24; 61:2; 63:4; Jeremiah 46:10; and Ezekiel 25:14. In Psalm 94:1 God is spoken of as the “God of vengeance.” In these cases, as in most instances in the Old Testament, the punishment envisioned is to take place within historical time rather than in some future state.

The idea of retribution is found not only in didactic material but also in numerous narrative passages. God’s reason for sending the flood to destroy mankind was to punish the wickedness of the human race upon the earth (Genesis 6). the flood was not sent to deter anyone from sin, for the only survivors—Noah and his family—were already righteous people. And it certainly could not have been sent for any corrective or rehabilitative reason because the wicked were all destroyed.

The case of Sodom and Gomorrah is similar. Because of the wickedness of these cities, God acted to destroy them. God’s action was simply retribution for their sin. Their sins deserved destruction, and in this manner God purged the earth of such sin.

Although less frequently than in the Old Testament, the idea of retributive justice is also found in the New Testament. Here the reference is more to future rather than temporal judgment. Paraphrases of Deuteronomy 32:35 are found in both Romans 12:19 and Hebrews 10:30: “‘Vengeance is Mine,’ I will repay, says the Lord.” In Romans Paul’s purpose was to deter believers from attempting to avenge wrongs done to them. God is a God of justice, and wrongs will not go unpunished.

Death

One of the most obvious results of sin is death. This truth is first pointed out in God’s statement forbidding Adam and Eve to eat from the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: “For when you eat from it you will surely die” (Gen 2:17 NIV). It is also found in clear didactic form in Romans 6:23: “The wages of sin is death.” Paul’s point was that, like wages, death is a fitting return, a just recompense for what we have done. This death that we have deserved has several different aspects: (1) physical death, (2) spiritual death, and (3) eternal death.

First, note the aspect of physical death. The mortality of all humans is both an observable fact and a truth taught by Scripture. Hebrews 9:27 says, “It is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment.” Paul in Romans 5:12 attributed death to the original sin of Adam. Yet, while death entered the world through Adam’s sin, it spread to all people because all sinned.

Considerable debate among theologians has regarded whether Adam and Eve were born mortal or became mortal as a result of the fall. To put it another way, would Adam and Eve have died physically if they had not sinned, or did death come into the human race because of that sin? On the one hand, physical death seems to be included in the death that Paul attributed to sin (Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15). On the other hand, Adam and Eve did not die immediately upon sinning, even though they were told, “When you eat from it you will surely die” (Gen 2:17 NIV), and Jesus, although sinless (Heb 4:15), died.

The best solution may be what I have termed “conditional immortality.” Adam was created with a body that could die, but that would not happen until the conditions resulting from the fall came to pass. Thus, God drove them out of the garden of Eden and from the presence of the tree of life: “Lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever” (Gen 3:22).

At creation, Adam and Eve could die. In the garden of Eden, however, the means existed for keeping them alive indefinitely; but after the fall, this resource was no longer available to them. They had bodies that could become diseased, and now there were diseases to afflict them. They had bodies that could be mortally wounded, and now sin brought murder into the world. To sum up: The potential of death was within the creation from the beginning. But the potential of eternal life was also there. Sin, in the case of Adam and each of us, means that death is no longer merely potential but actual.

Second, note the aspect of spiritual death. Spiritual death is both connected with physical death and distinguished from it. Spiritual death is the separation of the person, in the entirety of his nature, from God. God, as a perfectly holy being, cannot look upon sin or tolerate its presence. Thus, sin is a barrier to the relationship between God and the human race. It brings human beings under God’s judgment and condemnation. While we will examine the concept of spiritual death more fully in the following section, we may note that there is frequent reference to the unbeliever being dead: “And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins . . . even when we were dead in trespasses, [God] made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)” (Eph 2:2, 5).

The essence of spiritual death as separation from God can be seen in the case of Adam and Eve. After they ate the fruit, they tried to hide from God because of their shame and guilt, and God pronounced severe curses upon them. Sin alienates us from God. This is the wages of sin of which Paul spoke (Rom 6:23).

In addition to this objective aspect of spiritual death, there is also a subjective aspect. This means, at least in part, that sensibility to spiritual matters and the ability to act and respond spiritually, to do good things, are absent or severely impaired. The newness of life that is now ours through Christ’s resurrection and symbolized in baptism (Rom 6:4), while not precluding physical death, most certainly involves a death to the sin that has afflicted us. It produces a new spiritual sensitivity and vitality.

In the third place, note the aspect of eternal death. Eternal death is, in quite a real sense, the extension and finalization of the spiritual death, which takes place at physical death. And just as eternal life is both qualitatively different from our present life and unending, so eternal death is separation from God that is both qualitatively different from physical death and everlasting in duration.

In the last judgment, the persons who appear before God’s judgment seat will be divided into two groups. Those who are judged righteous will be sent into eternal life (Matt 25:34–40, 46b), while those judged to be unrighteous will be sent into eternal punishment or eternal fire (vv. 41–46a). In Revelation 20:14, John referred to this as a “second death.” The first death is physical death, from which the resurrection gives us deliverance but not exemption. Although all will eventually die the first death, the important question is whether in each individual case the second death has been overcome.

The Seriousness of Sin’s Consequences

We have seen that the Bible teaches that all persons are sinners, and that this sin brings them into condemnation and eternal death. We need finally to ask how far reaching these consequences are. How severe are the effects of sin upon humans themselves? Is it possible that humans might be able to extricate themselves from sin by their own efforts? Is sin, in other words, a humanly correctable defect?

Old Testament Teaching

For the most part, the Old Testament speaks of sins rather than of sinfulness, of sin as an act rather than as a state or disposition. Yet, a distinction was drawn between sins on the basis of the motivation involved. The right of sanctuary for manslayers was reserved for those who had killed accidentally rather than intentionally (Deut 4:41–42). The motive was fully as important as the act itself. Inward thoughts and intentions were condemned quite apart from external acts, for example, covetousness, an internal desire that is deliberately chosen.

Yet, a further step is in the Old Testament understanding of sin. In the writings of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, sin is depicted as a spiritual sickness that afflicts the heart. Our heart is wrong and must be changed, or even exchanged. We do not merely do evil; our very inclination is evil. Jeremiah declared that “the heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it?” (17:9 NKJV). Later, Jeremiah prophesied that God would change the hearts of his people. The day will come when the Lord will put his law within the house of Israel and “write it on their hearts” (Jer 31:33 NKJV). Similarly, in Ezekiel God asserted that the hearts of the people needed change: “Then I will give them one heart [or a new heart], and I will put a new spirit within them, and take the stony heart out of their flesh, and give them a heart of flesh” (Ezek 11:19 NKJV).

Psalm 51, the great penitential psalm, most fully expresses the idea of sinfulness or a sinful nature. Foregoing for the moment the question of whether sin or corruption is inherited, we note here a strong emphasis upon the idea of sin as an inward condition or disposition, and the need of purging the inward person. David spoke in this psalm of his having been brought forth in iniquity and conceived in sin (v. 5). He referred to the Lord’s desiring truth in the inward parts and the need of being taught wisdom in the secret heart (v. 6). The psalmist prayed to be washed and cleansed (v. 2), purged and washed (v. 7), and asked God to create in him a clean heart and to put a new and right (or steadfast) spirit within him (v. 10). Hardly anywhere in religious literature can one find stronger conscious expressions of need for change of disposition or inner nature. It is unmistakably clear that the psalmist did not think of himself merely as one who committed sins but as a sinful person.

New Testament Teaching

The New Testament is even clearer and more emphatic on these matters. Jesus spoke of the inward disposition as evil. Sin is very much a matter of the inward thoughts and intentions. It is insufficient not to commit murder, for anger against one’s brother brings liability to judgment (Matt 5:21–22). It is not enough to abstain from committing adultery. The man who lusts after a woman has in his heart already committed adultery with her (Matt 5:27–28).

Jesus put it even more strongly in Matthew 12, where actions are regarded as issuing from the heart:

Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or else make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for a tree is known by its fruit. Brood of vipers! How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things, and an evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth evil things. (vv. 33–35 NKJV)

Luke made it clear that the fruit produced reflected the very nature of the tree, or of the man: no good tree bears bad fruit, nor a bad tree good fruit (Luke 6:43–45). Our actions are what they are because we are what we are.

It cannot be otherwise. Evil actions and words stem from the evil thoughts of the heart: “But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies” (Matt 15:18–19).

Paul’s own self-testimony also is a powerful argument that it is the corruption of human nature that produces individual sins. He recalled that “when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death” (Rom 7:5). He said, “I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members” (v. 23). In Galatians 5:17 he stated that the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit. The word here is epithumeo, which can refer to either a neutral or an improper desire (Arndt and Gingrich 1979, 293). “Works of the flesh” are numerous: “immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these” (vv. 19–21 NASB). In Paul’s thinking, then, as in Jesus’, sins are the result of human nature. In every human being there is a strong inclination toward evil, an inclination with definite effects.

Total Depravity

The adjective “total” is often attached to the idea of depravity. This idea derives from certain texts we have already examined. Quite early in the Bible we read, “The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen 6:5). Paul described the Gentiles as “darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity” (Eph 4:18–19). His descriptions of sinners in Romans 1:18–32 and Titus 1:15, as well as of persons in the last days in 2 Timothy 3:2–5, focus on their corruption, callousness, and wickedness.

The expression total depravity, however, must be carefully used. For it has sometimes been interpreted as conveying (and on occasion has even been intended to convey) an understanding of human nature that our experience belies.

We do not mean by total depravity that the unregenerate person is totally insensitive in matters of conscience, of right and wrong. For Paul’s statement in Romans 2:15 says that the Gentiles have the law written on their hearts, so that “their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them, and at other times even defending them” (NIV). Further, total depravity does not mean that sinful persons are as sinful as they can possibly be. They do not continuously do only evil and in the most wicked fashion possible. There are unregenerate persons who are genuinely altruistic, who show kindness, generosity, and love to others, who are good, devoted spouses and parents. But these acts, done independently of conscious reliance upon God, are not in any way meritorious. They do not qualify the person for salvation or contribute to it in any way. Finally, the doctrine of total depravity does not mean that the sinner engages in every possible form of sin.

What then do we mean, positively, by the idea of total depravity? First, sin is a matter of the entire person. The seat of sin is not merely one aspect of the person, such as the body or the reason. Certainly, several references make clear that the body is affected (Rom 6:6, 12; 7:24; 8:10, 13). Other verses tell us that the mind or reason is involved (Rom 1:21; 2 Cor 3:14–15; 4:4). That the emotions also are involved is amply attested (Rom 1:26–27; Gal 5:24; and 2 Tim 3:2–4, where the ungodly are described as being lovers of self and pleasure rather than lovers of God). Finally, it is evident that the will is also affected. Unsaved persons do not have truly free wills; they are slaves to sin. Paul described the Romans as having been “slaves to sin” (6:17 NIV). He was concerned that the opponents of the Lord’s servant repent and come to know the truth, and “escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will” (2 Tim 2:25–26).

Moreover, total depravity means that even the unregenerate person’s altruism always contains an element of improper motive. The good acts are not done entirely or even primarily out of perfect love for God. In each case, another factor is whether the preference be of one’s own self-interest or of some other object less than God. Thus, while there may appear to be good and desirable behavior and we may be inclined to feel that it could not in any way be sinful, yet even the good is tainted. The Pharisees who so often debated with Jesus did many good things (Matt 23:23) but had no real love for God. So he said to them, “You search the Scriptures [this of course was good], for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life. I do not receive honor from men. But I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you” (John 5:39–42).

Finally, total depravity means that sinners are unable to extricate themselves from their sinful condition. As observed earlier, the goodness they do is tainted by less than perfect love for God and therefore cannot serve to justify them in God’s sight. But apart from that, good and lawful actions cannot be maintained consistently. This fact is depicted in Scripture’s frequent references to sinners as “spiritually dead.” Paul wrote, “And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked. . . . Even when we were dead in trespasses, [God] made us alive” (Eph 2:1–2, 5). The same expression is found in Colossians 2:13. The writer to the Hebrews spoke of “dead works” (Heb 6:1; 9:14).

These various expressions do not mean that sinners are absolutely insensitive and unresponsive to spiritual stimuli but, rather, that they are unable to do what they ought. Because the unregenerate person is incapable of genuinely good, redeeming works, salvation by works is impossible (Eph 2:8–9).

All persons are sinners, who thereby incur God’s wrath and judgment. Only through the redeeming grace of Jesus Christ can persons be born again, made new creatures, pleasing in God’s sight because they possess the righteousness of Christ.

Salvation by Grace

If, then, humans are to be delivered from the eternal consequences of this sin of which all are guilty, it must be by the grace of God mercifully transforming them and giving them a standing of righteousness before God. Scripture makes this clear, with the most emphatic statements made by Paul:

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom 6:23)

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. (Eph 2:8–9)

Just as Abraham “believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.” So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham. For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.” (Gal 3:6–11)

Further, the Scripture writers repeatedly emphasize that this grace is made possible because of Jesus Christ’s atoning death. This is seen in the references to Christ having died in the place of or as a substitution for the penalty of humans’ sins. This is seen in a wide variety of passages, for Isaiah spoke prophetically of him:

He was wounded for our transgressions,

He was bruised for our iniquities;

The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,

And by His stripes we are healed.

All we like sheep have gone astray;

We have turned, every one, to his own way;

And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. (Isa 53:5–6)

Paul said, “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Cor 5:21) and “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree’)” (Gal 3:13). The writer of the letter to the Hebrews likened Christ to a priest and to a sacrifice:

By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. (10:10–14)

In light of this, the New Testament writers repeatedly direct their hearers to place their faith in Jesus Christ, the One who has provided salvation. John said, “Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God” (1:12 NIV). Peter said, “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12) and “To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins” (10:43).

Paul and Silas reply to the Philippian jailer who asks, “What must I do to be saved?” by saying, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household” (Acts 16:30–31 NIV). After describing the desperate condition of sinful humanity, Paul wrote to the Romans,

If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon him. For, “whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” (Rom 10:9–13)

Even Jesus said, “‘This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent. . . . For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.’ Then they said to Him, ‘Lord, give us this bread always.’ And Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst’” (John 6:29, 33–35). He also asserted to Thomas, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6).

Recapitulation of Teachings

Let us recapitulate the path we have traveled to this point in our discussion:

All humans in their natural state are sinners.

This sin separates each person from God and brings guilt, punishment, and death upon the person.

No human can do anything to save himself by works of righteousness, that is, either by works of religious ritual or acts of moral living.

God has provided for the removal of sin and the new birth into righteousness of sinners by the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ.

All who believe in Christ and accept the salvation, which he has achieved, receive the eternal life that God has prepared for humans.

Implications for the Mission Enterprise

If the foregoing is true, then it follows that the church must take the message of the gospel to all who have not heard and accepted Jesus Christ. This is found in the command of Christ to his disciples to be his witnesses and make disciples: “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matt 28:19–20), and “But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1:8 NKJV). It is also the conclusion of Paul’s discourse upon the value of believing in and confessing Jesus Christ:

How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace.” . . . But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?” So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. (Rom 10:14–17)

These and similar texts have led the church, over the years, to conclude that it must take the message to those who have not heard of Jesus Christ. The Christian movement has taught that salvation for the unevangelized rests on their opportunities to hear and respond to the message of Christ.

Responses to This Message

In approximately the past two decades some evangelicals have suggested that the fate of those who do not hear of Jesus Christ within this lifetime may not be certain condemnation! Three major arguments are advanced.

The Possibility of Implicit Faith

Perhaps, say some, those who have not heard may nonetheless be saved through implicit faith, that is, through believing the essential facts of the gospel, namely, their own sinfulness and inability to save themselves and the gracious forgiveness of God. This results from the general revelation that God has given of himself to all persons. Examples of such implicit faith are believed to be found in the Bible, that is, Melchizedek and Cornelius. The Bible says God wants all people to be saved.

There is also the Noahic covenant, which was to all persons, and involved salvation. On the basis of such considerations, Clark Pinnock urges evangelicals to adopt a hermeneutic of optimism, rather than emphasizing those texts that have been cited in support of the “fewness doctrine.” He concludes that there are those who are saved apart from explicit faith, and says, “For my part I am bold to declare that on the basis of the evidence of the Melchizedek factor I referred to earlier God most certainly does save people in this way. I do not know how many, but I hope for multitudes” (Pinnock 1988, 164).

What are we to make of this contention? We must first note that part of the argument is weak and poorly supported. We do not know enough about Melchizedek to know that he had only general revelation, and Cornelius seems rather clearly not to have been saved until Peter told him of Christ (Acts 11:14). The universal salvific will of God must be understood in light of other passages that indicate rather clearly a separation of saved from unsaved (e.g., Matt 25:31–46).

Yet having said this, we must acknowledge that there are points within this inclusivist view that are biblically supported. Paul spoke of the universal knowledge of God available through the general revelation in nature in Romans 1 and the “law written on the heart” in Romans 2. Unless these are support for the idea that such persons, without explicit knowledge of Christ through the general revelation can somehow fulfill what God requires of them, there seems to be no sense to Paul’s statement, “so that they are without excuse” (1:20). Such fulfillment would not be by perfectly doing the works required of the law, for Paul made clear that even those who have the revealed law are incapable of perfectly doing those works (Gal 3:11). It would rather be by concluding that there is a perfectly holy God who expects humans to be perfect as he is perfect; that they themselves fall short of this standard and can do nothing to achieve it; that God is a merciful God; and then by throwing themselves upon the mercy of this God (Anderson 1984, 146).

Further, if one says that no one is ever saved without explicit faith in Jesus Christ, one would seem to be forced by the logic of implication to the conclusion that no one who lived before the time of Christ was saved, and that those who never attain a point of spiritual competency, such as those who die in infancy, cannot be saved.

What we are faced with here is a dilemma: the allowance in Scripture of the possibility of some being saved through implicit faith but the lack of evidence of how many, if any, are so saved. There really is no indication of such in Scripture. In fact, J. I. Packer seems to be correct in his judgment that Scripture simply does not tell us whether this really proves efficacious for any (Packer 1986, 25). It is not something that we can rely on as an alternative to presentation to everyone of the message of salvation in Christ.

This seems also to be the thrust of Paul’s argument in Romans. After speaking of the possibility of persons knowing God through general revelation (chaps. 1–2), he went on to describe in detail the sinfulness and rejection by all persons (chap. 3). By the time he got to chapter 10, he said, “How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?” (Rom 10:14). The point he was making seems to be, “Don’t count on their being able to believe without this explicit message! Tell them!”

The Possibility of Postmortem Encounter

One ancient concept that has recently been revived is the idea that perhaps those who do not have an opportunity to hear and believe within this life will have such a chance after death. Clark Pinnock (1992, 168–75) and John Sanders (1992, 177–214) have advocated this view in recent years. The argument is based upon 1 Peter 3:17–19 and 4:6. This is interpreted as teaching that Christ, between his death and his resurrection, descended into the abode of the dead and there preached the gospel to Old Testament persons.

Salvation was actually offered to them. This is then extended to the idea that such an opportunity is also made available to all who have lived since the time of Christ but have not heard explicitly. Thus, everyone is given an opportunity to hear, at one point or another.

Pinnock makes an additional point, declaring that God does not foreknow actual or possible future actions of human beings. If he did, they would have to be certain, and these persons would consequently not be free. Thus, not knowing who would have believed if they had heard, he must give all such an actual opportunity (Pinnock 1986, 146, 157; 1992, 160–61).

As appealing as this argument might be emotionally, there is little basis for holding it. Coming to a definite understanding of the 1 Peter passage remains both highly controversial and basically problematic. Logically, there are approximately 180 different interpretations that could be given to the Petrine passage, although in actual practice the options resolve down to six. Concerning the difficulty of interpreting this passage, Robert Mounce says this passage is “widely recognized as perhaps the most difficult to understand in all of the New Testament” (Mounce 1982, 54). The interpretation upon which postmortem evangelism depends is much too problematic upon which to decide something like the missionary initiative. And even if we could establish that the passage teaches such a postmortem evangelism, that would apply only to those who had lived and died before Christ’s death. No warrant is in the passage for extending such a hope to others. We must judge this theory unfounded.

The Possibility of Annihilation

One final view has recently come to relative popularity among some evangelicals—annihilationism. This is the teaching that those who die without saving faith do not spend eternity with God in heaven, but neither do they spend eternity in endless suffering in hell. They simply pass out of existence, either because death is the end of existence or because God subsequently destroys them. Among evangelicals who have adopted and advocate this view are Clark Pinnock (1990, 243–59), John Stott (1988, 313–20), John Wenham (1974, 34–41), Philip Edgecumbe Hughes (1989, 398–407), Stephen Travis (1982, 198), and Michael Green (1992,72–73).

While failure to reach people with the message is serious because they do not enjoy eternal life, their plight is not as desperate as on the traditional view of hell. The advocates of annihilation support it by a number of arguments. One is that God’s love is such that he would not condemn anyone to endless suffering. Another is that the idea of an immortal soul that must live forever comes from Greek philosophy, not from the Bible. Still another is that it is death, not punishment, that is everlasting. Once one dies this death, the person is permanently dead. It is final.

The emotional appeal of this position is powerful for any sensitive Christian. What person who has experienced Christ’s love really enjoys the idea of unbelievers suffering in torment forever? Yet, emotions must yield to the teaching of Scripture. Matthew 25:46 compares eternal punishment (not eternal death) to eternal life and even John A. T. Robinson, a self-declared universalist, acknowledges that if the Greek adjective aionios means “everlasting” in the case of the latter, it must also mean that with respect to the former (Robinson 1968, 131n8). Several recent studies by evangelicals have argued vigorously against the cogency of the annihilationist position (for example, Peterson 1995, 161–82; Dixon 1992, 69–96; Brown 1990, 261–78). It is most difficult to sustain annihilationism using the hermeneutic usually employed by those who hold an evangelical doctrine of Scripture.

Conclusion

In light of the foregoing considerations, we conclude that Christ’s command to be witnesses to him throughout the entire world and to make disciples of all people is incumbent upon the church today. The mandate to mission should be accepted uncompromised by those who follow scriptural teachings. Theologies of “wider hope,” “universal accessible salvation,” and “salvation through general revelation,” while engaging, are not biblically acceptable. The church remains obliged to respond positively to the mandate to “make disciples of all nations” (Matt 28:19 HCSB).

Section 4

The History of Missions

Chapter 11

The History of Missions in the Early Church

John Mark Terry

In AD 325 the Emperor Constantine and Bishop Hosius welcomed 318 bishops to the Council of Nicea. These bishops represented churches from Spain all the way to Persia. How did the church grow from the small group that met in the upper room in Jerusalem to the massive institution reflected at Nicea? Answering this question is a worthwhile effort. As Martin Hengel has said, “The history and the theology of early Christianity are mission-history and mission-theology” (Weinrich 1981, 61). He means that one cannot understand the history of the early church without considering the missionary activity of the church.

Therefore, this chapter examines the ways in which the church expanded from AD 100 to 500. Historians usually discuss this period in two parts divided by the Council of Nicea in AD 325, that is, the ante-Nicene and post-Nicene periods. The chapter focuses on the methods employed by the early church rather than tracing the geographic expansion.

Missions in the Ante-Nicene Church

The Church at the End of the Apostolic Age

The end of the apostolic age coincided with the death of John at Ephesus AD 95–100. What was the state of the church at that time? The Acts and the Epistles reveal clusters of churches in Palestine and Asia Minor, especially in western Asia Minor. Paul had planted other churches in Macedonia, Achaia, and Cyprus on his missionary journeys. Titus had ministered on the island of Crete, and unknown Christians founded the church at Rome. It seems there was a church at Puteoli near Naples because Paul stayed with Christians there for seven days (Acts 28:13–14).

Traditions of the early church hold that Thaddeus preached in Edessa, Mark founded the church at Alexandria, and Peter preached in Bithynia and Cappadocia. There are also less likely traditions that Paul went to Spain and Thomas to India. Even if one accepts these traditions, it is clear that the number of churches was still quite small. Then, too, the size of the churches was limited. The churches at Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, and Rome seem to have had large memberships, but probably most of the churches were rather small. For the most part, they were urban churches because Paul preached primarily in the cities of the Roman Empire. It is not clear that this was a conscious strategy on his part, but it certainly was his pattern.

In the beginning the church reflected a strong Jewish influence. However, as the number of Gentile churches increased, the churches became more and more Hellenistic. This trend was greatly accelerated when Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70, and the Christians of Jerusalem were scattered. Thus, the New Testament was written in Greek, as were the majority of Christian documents during the second century. At the end of the apostolic age, therefore, one can say that the church was limited in size, perhaps no more than one hundred congregations, mainly urban, and primarily Greek speaking.

General Factors Affecting the Church’s Expansion

Most introductions to the New Testament list the factors that made 4 BC (or thereabouts) the right time for the incarnation. These same factors also positively affected the missionary activity of the early church. Perhaps the greatest general factor was the excellent Roman road system. Everywhere the Romans went they built fine roads that not only improved commerce within the empire but also made it possible to dispatch Roman legions to trouble spots quickly. During this period travel was safer than at any later time until the nineteenth century. This relative ease of travel was a great help to early missionaries.

Another reason for the safety of travel was the Pax Romana. The Romans brought and enforced peace in the Mediterranean world. Their legions and proconsuls ensured the stability of the region. The Roman navy cleared the sea of pirates so that sea travel was less risky. All in all, the period under study was congenial to missionary travel.

The widespread use of the Greek language also was a tremendous advantage for the early missionaries. Whereas modern missionaries have to spend months or even years in language study, the evangelists of ante-Nicene times could go almost anywhere in the empire and communicate through the Greek language.

Greek philosophy was widely taught and admired all over the empire. This aided the Christian mission in two ways. First, it imbued the educated classes with a love for truth. Second, it caused people to become dissatisfied with the superstitions of their traditional religions.

The presence of Jews and synagogues in the cities of the Roman Empire was another significant factor. The Jews propagated a religion of strict monotheism. This was a novel concept to most citizens. The Jews also taught that God was personal and that people could have a personal relationship with him. The Jews proselyted actively, and in many cities a good number of “God-fearers” attended the synagogue. These God-fearers proved a fertile ground for the early church planters. In fact, the opposition of the Jews to Christianity in Asia Minor and Greece was surely due in part to jealousy at the loss of their Gentile adherents. Paul wrote that “when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son” (Gal 4:4 RSV). This was the “fullness of time” not only for the incarnation but also for church expansion.

Growth in the Second Century

It seems that Christianity spread naturally along the main roads and rivers of the Roman Empire. It spread eastward by way of Damascus and Edessa into Mesopotamia; southward through Bostra and Petra into Arabia; westward through Alexandria and Carthage into North Africa; and northward through Antioch into Armenia, Pontus, and Bithynia. Somewhat later it spread even farther to Spain, Gaul, and Britain (Kane 1975, 10).

Egypt and North Africa became strongholds of Christianity during the second century. Tradition has it that Mark founded the church at Alexandria, but this is not certain. At any rate, the early church in Egypt was limited to those who spoke Greek. Probably Christians from Egypt carried the gospel into North Africa (Neill 1964, 36).

The churches in North Africa were the first Latin-speaking churches. In the early years these churches seem to have appealed more to the upper classes, the Latin-speaking people. Then, too, the churches existed primarily in the cities and towns. During this period the villages were largely untouched (Neill 1964, 37).

Paul, Peter, and John all had evangelized in Asia Minor, and that region boasted many churches that grew steadily. Pliny, a Roman official, wrote to Emperor Trajan in AD 112 concerning the Christians in Bithynia. He complained that “there are so many people involved in the danger. . . . For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only through the free cities, but into the villages and rural districts.” Pliny went on to say that “many persons of alt, ages and both sexes” were involved (Kidd 1920, 1, 39). Obviously the churches in Bithynia were growing and multiplying, and this seems to have been true in and around Ephesus as well.

Many scholars believe “Jews and proselytes” who were converted on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:10) founded the church at Rome. While this is only a theory, it is a fact that the Roman church grew in size and prestige year by year. For the first one hundred years of its existence, the church members used Greek in their services. This shows that the church drew its members from the poorer classes of society. There are no records of the size of the Roman congregation until the time of the Novatian controversy in AD 251. Eusebius quotes from a letter written by Bishop Cornelius of Rome in which he states that there were 46 presbyters; 7 deacons; 7 subdeacons; 42 clerks; 52 exorcists, readers, and janitors; and 1,500 widows and needy in the church. Some scholars have calculated the total church membership at that time at around 30,000. If that was true in AD 251, then the Roman church must have been large during the second century as well (Eusebius 1984, 265). Theologian Paul Minear suggests that the church in Rome was not one large congregation but rather many small Christian communities that followed the diverse nature of the Roman society of the day (1971, 8).

Kenneth Scott Latourette estimates that by the end of the second century, Christians were active in all the provinces of the Roman Empire as well as in Mesopotamia (Latourette 1937, 85). This seems to be a fair estimation in light of a passage from Tertullian. Writing about AD 200, he reported that many had become Christians, including “different races of the Gaetuli, many tribes of the Mauri, all the confines of Spain, and various tribes of Gaul, with places in Britain, which, though inaccessible to Rome, have yielded to Christ. Add the Sarmatae, the Daci, the Germans, the Scythians, and many remote peoples, provinces, and islands unknown to us” (Roberts and Donaldson 1951, 3:44).

In another book Tertullian boasts to the pagans: “We have filled every place belonging to you, cities, islands, castles, towns, assemblies, your very camp, your tribes, companies, palace, senate, forum! We leave you your temples only” (Kidd 1920, 143). Tertullian may have employed some hyperbole, but it does seem clear that the church had penetrated, at least to some extent, every part of Roman society by AD 200.

Growth in the Third Century

Christianity grew steadily, but not dramatically, from AD 200 until 260. Beginning about AD 260, the church grew rapidly until Emperor Diocletian’s Edict of Persecution in AD 303. Up until AD 260 the church had remained a mainly urban institution, but the mass movement in the latter third century was primarily a rural phenomenon.

Several factors affected this remarkable growth. First, this was a period of civil strife in the Roman Empire. This was the era of the “barrack emperors” when the empire was threatened with attack by Germanic tribes and with chaos in Rome. Second, there was great economic dislocation. Inflation made survival quite difficult for rural folk who found it a struggle to market their produce.

As usually occurs, the rural folk began to question their traditional cults as the hard times continued. In contrast, the Christians presented a simple gospel that offered both social justice and assurance of power over demonic forces. Thousands, perhaps millions, forsook their old gods and accepted Christ. This era became the greatest period of growth in the ante-Nicene period.

The great growth was possible because the church was free of persecution during these forty years. The government was so preoccupied with other problems that it left the church alone. This respite from persecution continued during the early years of Diocletian’s reign.

The era of peace and progress ended when Emperor Diocletian issued his Edict of Persecution in AD 303. This terrible period of persecution lasted until Constantine assumed control in AD 311. During the persecution 1,500 Christians died as martyrs, and many more suffered lesser persecutions. Many Christians recanted under torture or the threat of it, including the bishop of Rome. Lasting peace came when Constantine issued his Edict of Toleration in AD 311 and his famous Edict of Milan in AD 313 (Kane 1975, 32).

The Expansion of the Church by AD 325

By AD 300 the gospel had been preached in every city and province of the empire. However, the distribution of the churches was uneven. The church had grown more rapidly in Syria, Asia Minor, Egypt, and North Africa, including significant centers in Rome and Lyons. Growth in other areas—Gaul, for example—had been limited. Adolf Harnack believed that in one or two provinces at least half the people were Christians, and in several cities Christians were in the majority. He estimated the number of Christians in the empire at three or four million at the time of Constantine (Harnack 1908, 2:325).

Under Constantine’s rule the number of Christians increased rapidly. When Christianity became the state religion, church memberships swelled, though the quality of members may have declined. Still, the ante-Nicene church had made remarkable progress and withstood tremendous onslaughts. The question remains: How did the church grow?

Missionaries in the Ante-Nicene Church

From its inception Christianity has been a missionary religion. The missionaries of the second and third centuries followed the example set by the apostles. Eusebius says of them:

The holy apostles and disciples of our Saviour, being scattered over the whole world, Thomas, according to tradition, received Parthia as his allotted region; Andrew received Sythia, and John, Asia, where . . . he died at Ephesus. Peter appears to have preached through Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia, to the Jews . . . finally coming to Rome. (1984, 82)

According to Eusebius, the twelve apostles took deliberate steps to evangelize the world they knew.

It seems that there were itinerant missionaries in the second century who followed the Pauline model in their ministry. Eusebius tells of their work in his church history. The Didache from the second century also speaks of itinerant “apostles and prophets” in need of hospitality (Bettenson 1956, 71). So it seems clear that there was a body of full-time missionaries in the second century. Origen testifies to their continuance in the third century: “Some of them have made it their business to itinerate, not only through cities, but even villages and country houses, that they might make converts to God” (Roberts and Donaldson 1951, 4:468). In fact, Pantaenus, the predecessor of Clement and Origen, left Alexandria and went into Asia as a missionary; Eusebius believed he traveled as far as India (Eusebius 1984, 190). This brief review of the source material indicates that the office of missionary continued in the church after the first century.

Missionary Bishops

During this period, bishops continued the missionary activity of the apostles. The bishops of large urban centers led in the evangelization of the adjacent rural areas. Further, existing churches consecrated bishops and sent them into new areas to organize the Christians into churches. Also, a bishop or bishops living near a group of Christians would gather and instruct the believers until they could elect their own bishop (Conner 1971, 208).

Irenaeus and Gregory Thaumaturgos exemplify missionary bishops. Irenaeus (AD 130–200) was bishop of Lyons. In one of his books he speaks of preaching in the Celtic language to the tribes around Lyon (Neill 1964, 34). Gregory was won to Christ by Origen. About AD 240 he was chosen bishop of his hometown in Pontus. According to tradition, when he became bishop he had a congregation of seventeen; but when he died, only seventeen pagans were left in the city. The numbers may be exaggerated, but clearly Gregory evangelized successfully. He exposed pagan miracles as frauds and performed so many wonders himself that he became known as Gregory Thaumaturgos (“worker of wonders”). He also substituted festivals in honor of the martyrs for pagan feasts. He thus sought to ease the transition from paganism to Christianity (Latourette 1937, 89–90).

Lay Missionaries

Although missionaries and bishops set an example in evangelism, no doubt laypeople spread the gospel for the most part. They shared the gospel while engaged in their daily activities. It is easy to imagine laymen conversing with their acquaintances in their homes, at the market, and on the street corners (Green 1970, 173).

In addition, Christians shared the gospel as they moved about. Christian traders evangelized as they traveled through the empire much as did the Christians dispersed from Jerusalem (Acts 8:4). Christians serving in the Roman army, though relatively few in the early years, carried the gospel as well. They witnessed wherever they were stationed. Some scholars believe Roman soldiers first brought the gospel to Britain. Further, the government pensioned retiring soldiers with a plot of land in a new territory. These retired soldiers sometimes established churches in those remote places. This process was definitely the case in southeastern Europe (Carver 1932, 51).

Women played a major part in the expansion of the church. Adolf Harnack writes:

No one who reads the New Testament attentively, as well as those writings which immediately succeeded it, can fail to notice that in the apostolic and subapostolic age women played an important role in the propaganda of Christianity and throughout the Christian communities. The equalizing of man and woman before God (Gal. 3:28) produced a religious independence among women, which aided the Christian mission. (Harnack 1908, 2:64)

Because the early churches met in homes, many women were able to form house churches.

Missionary Methods

Paul and Peter often preached in public, and this practice continued in the second and third centuries when conditions permitted. Eusebius records that Thaddeus preached publicly at Edessa. Eusebius quotes Thaddeus saying, “Since I was sent to preach the word, summon for me, tomorrow an assembly of all your citizens, and I will preach before them and sow in them the word of life” (1985, 47). The early evangelists were fervent in their preaching. J. G. Davies says that they preached so as to “bring the hearers to repentance and belief . . . [and] to force upon them the crisis of decision” (Davies 1967, 19). The steady growth of the church testifies to their efforts.

W. O. Carver believed that teaching was another important method. The early catechetical schools developed into training schools for presbyters in Antioch, Alexandria, Edessa, Caesarea, and other places (1932, 47–50). All of these schools sent people into missions. Sometimes teachers, like Pantaenus of Alexandria, set an example in this. These teachers worked as evangelists inside and outside their schools. Pagans as well as catechumens attended their schools and heard their teaching. The great missionary bishop, Gregory Thaumaturgos, was won to Christ by Origen at the school in Alexandria (Harnack 1908, 2, 362).

The early Christians often spread the gospel through the use of their homes. Because there were no church buildings, the congregations met in one or several homes. The home setting provided a relaxed, nonthreatening atmosphere. The warm hospitality afforded by Christian homes no doubt influenced many. Whole households were sometimes converted as was that of the Philippian jailer. The New Testament contains many references to house or home churches, and the early church followed this model (Green 1970, 207).

Oral witness through preaching and personal testimony was the main method of evangelism, but literature also became an increasingly effective means of propagating the gospel. Literature evangelism included apologies, letters, polemics, and the distribution of the Scriptures. W. O. Carver says all the ante-Nicene Fathers “were in varying degrees missionaries of the pen” (1932, 47–50).

The early church spread the gospel primarily through personal contact and example. This was much the same as in apostolic times. The church established no elaborate missionary societies or organizations; instead, Christians shared and demonstrated the gospel in their daily lives. Justin Martyr tells about this in his Apology:

He has urged us . . . to convert all . . . and this I can show to have taken place with many that have come in contact with us, who were overcome, and changed from violent and tyrannical characters, either from having watched the constancy of their neighbor’s lives or from having observed the wonderful patience of fellow travelers under unjust exactions, or from the trial they made of those with whom they were concerned in business. (Kidd 1920, 74)

The Christians also maintained a public testimony by their conduct at their trials and martyrdoms. Though some recanted under pressure or torture, many gave a wonderful testimony for Christ. When threatened with death if he did not recant, Polycarp of Smyrna said, “Eighty and six years have I served him, and he never did me wrong; and how can I now blaspheme my King that has saved me?” (Eusebius 1984, 147). Roman persecution did not destroy Christianity; rather, it strengthened it. The blood of the martyrs really did prove to be the seed of the church. Many pagans accepted Christ because of the testimonies of these Christians.

The early Christians won others through social service. Adolf Harnack lists ten different ministries performed by the Christians: alms in general, support of teachers and officials, support of widows and orphans, support of the sick and infirm, the care of prisoners and convicts in the mines, the burial of paupers, the care of slaves, providing disaster relief, furnishing employment, and extending hospitality (1908, 1,153).

It seems that the benevolent activities affected evangelism positively because the pagan emperor, Julian the Apostate (AD 332–63), complained about it: “Atheism [that is, Christianity] has been especially advanced through the loving service rendered to strangers, and through their care for the burial of the dead . . . the godless Galileans care not only for their own poor but for ours as well” (Neill 1964, 42). Thus in the early church no dichotomy existed between social service and evangelism. Both were natural activities integral to the church’s mission.

Factors That Affected the Church’s Expansion

So far this chapter has presented information about the geographical expansion of the early church and the methods used by the church. This last section tries to answer the question, Why did the church grow? Six factors are suggested.

The church grew first and foremost because of divine blessing. It was God’s will for the church to grow, and God blessed the efforts of the early Christians. The early church was the instrument of the Holy Spirit in fulfilling the redemptive purpose of God. Origen said, “Christianity . . . in spite of the small number of its teachers was preached everywhere in the world. . . . We cannot hesitate to say that the result is beyond any human power” (Roberts and Donaldson 1951, 4, 350).

The church grew because of the zeal of the Christians. They gave of themselves sacrificially for the faith. The early Christians possessed a burning conviction that expressed itself in missionary activity.

The appealing message of the church was another important factor. Latourette says that the uniqueness of Jesus was the key. The love of God and the offer of forgiveness and eternal life through Christ appealed to the people of the Roman Empire (1937, 168).

The organization and discipline of the church aided its growth also. Walter Hyde believes that the organization of the church on the imperial pattern was a positive factor (Hyde 1946, 187). Certainly the faithfulness of the bishops enabled the church to persevere in the face of persecution. Also, the strict discipline of the church presented a marked contrast to the pagan cults.

The church grew because of its inclusiveness. It attracted people of all classes and races. It became a universal religion. It burst the bonds of restrictive Judaism to become a religion for the world.

Christianity prospered because of the ethical standards of the early church. This is not to say that the churches or believers were perfect, but their lives were so much different from their pagan neighbors that they attracted notice. Their morality and works of charity commended the faith to many.

Missions in the Post-Nicene Era

The story of the expansion of Christianity in the post-Nicene era differs in several respects from the ante-Nicene period. Until the Edict of Milan in AD 313, Christianity developed in an often-hostile environment. With the favor bestowed by Constantine, the church enjoyed greatly improved prospects for growth. Because of the emperor’s favor, new members inundated the churches. The transparent insincerity of many prompted the development of the monastic movement. Monastic communities played a major role in church expansion.

Though the emperor’s favor was a mixed blessing, it did cause great church growth within the Roman Empire. Church leaders had to adjust to government involvement in ecclesiastical affairs. They also had to adjust to a situation in which the church expanded quite rapidly.

The encroachment of pagan tribes also presented the church with a challenge. The migration of the barbarians caused the dislocation of many churches, but it also brought large groups of pagans within the effective sphere of the church. The church rightly made great efforts to evangelize these tribes.

Though the church’s situation changed in several ways, the church continued to employ many of the same missionary methods. Bishops continued to preach and reach out to the pagans. Benevolent ministries also remained a public demonstration of Christian compassion. And, as always, individual Christians had a great impact through their speaking and manner of life. The story of the church’s growth was also the story of great saints who ministered often in difficult circumstances. All in all, the expansion of Christianity from AD 313 to 500 was and is a remarkable era in the history of missions.

Constantine and Missions

Constantine and his sons encouraged the expansion of the church. Both Constantine and Constantius identified Christ’s kingdom with the Roman Empire. Further, they saw Christianity as a way to maintain order within the empire and pacify warlike tribes outside its borders. Therefore, both emperors encouraged missionary activity. For example, Constantine wrote a letter to the king of Persia requesting protection for Christians in Persia: “And now, because your power is great, I commend these persons to your protection; because your piety is eminent, I commit them to your care” (Eusebius 1984, 3:54).

On another occasion Constantine told a group of bishops, “You are the bishops of those within the church, but I would be a bishop established by God of those outside it” (Eusebius 1984, 4:13). The emperor truly believed he had a special responsibility to see to it that his pagan subjects were converted. Apparently he did not promote missionary work outside the empire but rather concentrated on the pagans within it. His efforts certainly proved successful. Neill estimates that the number of Christians in the empire quadrupled in the century following the Edict of Milan (1964, 46).

Missionary Bishops

As in the ante-Nicene period, bishops played an important part in the expansion of the church. Outstanding examples of such bishops are Ulfilas, Martin of Tours, Ambrose of Milan, and John Chrysostom.

Ulfilas is remembered as the great missionary to the Goths (Visigoths). Ulfilas was the son of a Cappadocian father and a Gothic mother. He was consecrated in 341 to serve as bishop of the Christians already living in Gothic territory. These people were probably a mixed group of Romans and Goths. Ulfilas preached for seven years north of the Danube during which time an intertribal war broke out. The two factions were led by Phritigernes and Athanaric. Ulfilas apparently identified himself with Phritigernes and supported his request for Roman assistance. Emperor Valens sent Roman troops, and Phritigernes triumphed eventually. Phritigernes received permission from Valens to move his faction south of the Danube. When this was accomplished, Phritigernes encouraged his people to adopt the religion of Emperor Valens, who followed Arian Christianity. Ulfilas apparently accommodated himself to this and thereafter taught a modified Arianism (Frend 1976, 12).

After the transfer to Moesia south of the Danube, Ulfilas continued his ministry for thirty years. His devoted service and exemplary life commended him to the Goths. He also exercised a lasting influence by translating much of the Bible into the Gothic language. To do this he had to compose an alphabet and grammar for the Gothic language. This work may have been the first Bible translation by a missionary (Neill 1964, 55).

It is difficult to judge the impact of Ulfilas on the conversion of the Goths. It seems clear that the majority became Christians because they moved into Roman territory. However, Ulfilas played an important role in consolidating the conversion of the tribe. His long ministry must have borne much fruit, and his translation of the Bible not only influenced the Goths but was also the basis for the translations of other tribal languages. Stephen Neill describes him as “one of the most notable missionaries” in the history of the church (1964, 55).

Martin of Tours (316–97) was an evangelistic and saintly bishop whose life was an example to many. Martin grew up in Italy and became a soldier like his father. He disliked military life and longed to become a monk. At the age of eighteen he was baptized, and two years later he was able to win his release from the army.

He studied for a time with Hilary of Poitiers and then joined a monastery near Milan. Later he rejoined Hilary at Poitiers and established a monastery nearby. He soon became famous as a miracle worker, and the people of Tours chose him as their bishop. He reluctantly agreed but insisted on living in a monk’s cell in the monastery he established just outside the town.

As a bishop, Martin traveled widely throughout Gaul and won thousands of converts by his preaching and wonders. He destroyed pagan shrines and replaced them with churches or monasteries. Hundreds of churches were named after him. Historians remember Martin for his success in evangelizing the rural areas of Gaul and for introducing monasticism to that land (Severus 1952, 26).

Ambrose of Milan is remembered for his outstanding preaching and influence on Augustine of Hippo. He won many pagans through his preaching in his own diocese, but he also encouraged missionary work in the Tyrol. On one occasion Frigitil, queen of the Marcomanni people in that area, met a Christian traveler who witnessed to her. She accepted Christ and asked the traveler for instruction in her new faith. The traveler advised her to consult Ambrose. When the queen wrote requesting instruction, Ambrose replied in a long letter written in the form of a catechism. He also urged her to persuade her husband to keep peace with the Romans. She persuaded her husband, who federated his kingdom with Rome. Eventually all of her people became Christians (Paulinus 1952, 39).

John Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople, an outstanding preacher of that era, demonstrated a continuing concern about missions. He wrote an apologetic with the aim of winning pagans and Jews. Chrysostom sent missionaries into pagan areas, particularly the land of the Goths. While he was in exile in the Caucasus, he encouraged missionary work in Cilicia and Phoenicia (Latourette 1937, 1:186).

The bishops won many through direct missions as shown above, but they also influenced many converts through their benevolent ministries. These ministries had attracted many in the ante-Nicene period, and they continued to do so in the post-Nicene era. The favor of the government brought the church a prosperity that enabled the bishops to do much more than they had done previously. The church maintained hospitals, orphanages, and hospices for travelers, widows, and the indigent.

Monasticism and Missions

Monasticism began in the deserts of Egypt, where hermits like Anthony of Thebes sought holiness through solitude. Before long, the hermits began to develop the communities that eventually became monasteries. There was always a tension in the monastic movement. Some of the monks wanted to renounce the world completely and live in solitude, while others saw the need to preach to the pagans.

Many monks tried to resolve this tension by spending time in the monastery and then going out on preaching missions. When the monks were ordained, it was done primarily so they could devote themselves to missionary work. Some of the most daring and effective missionaries were monks who went out boldly to spread the gospel (Yannoulatos 1969, 224).

Though the great age of monastic missions was still to come, the early monks accomplished some remarkable things. During a time when Athanasius and his followers were being persecuted, the monasteries near Alexandria were disrupted by the army, and the leaders of the monasteries were sent into exile. Macanus and another monk were sent to an island in the Nile delta where there were no Christians. All the people there worshipped in a pagan temple and believed their priest was divine. When the monks arrived, the priest’s daughter was suddenly possessed by a demon who berated the monks. The monks cast out the demon and presented the girl to her father, who promptly accepted Christ. The inhabitants followed his example and destroyed all their idols. They changed their temple into a church and accepted baptism (Socrates 1952, 4:24).

Hilarion of Gaza (291–371) was one of the great missionary monks of the East. He had studied in Alexandria and was attracted to Anthony of Thebes. Following Anthony’s example, he lived for a time in the desert, but he later returned to Palestine to establish monasteries. He founded these monasteries to be centers of missionary activity. His monasteries had a wide influence. Many pagans came to Christ, including the family of Sozomen, who became a noted church historian. Whole villages became Christian as well as groups of nomadic Arabs in the desert of Kadesh (Yannoulatos 1969, 221).

Among notable missionary monks in the West was Ninian of Britain. Ninian was the son of an important local official in Britain. The Romans took him to Rome as a hostage. He remained there for many years and was trained as a presbyter. About 395 the church at Rome sent him to do missionary work among his own people. On this journey Ninian met Martin of Tours, who made a deep impression on the young missionary (Moorman 1973, 7).

After some months with Martin, Ninian completed his journey, arriving in Britain about 397. He immediately built a monastery at Whithorn in Galloway. He whitewashed the stones so the monastery would be conspicuous. With the white house as their base, Ninian and his monks preached to the savage Picts along the Roman wall, along the east coast of Scotland, and as far as Wales. W. H. C. Frend says, “The conversion of Celtic Britain in the fifth century must in a large measure be attributed to the Celtic monks” (1976, 16).

Outstanding Missionaries

As in the ante-Nicene period, individual missionaries continued to itinerate after Nicea. Philaster, who was called a “second Paul,” traveled throughout the Roman Empire preaching to pagans and Jews. He carried on a notable evangelistic work in Rome itself and eventually became the bishop of Brixia (Latourette 1937, 1, 186).

The most famous of the missionaries of this era must surely be Patrick of Ireland. Patrick (389–461) was born in Britain and raised in a Christian home. His father was a deacon, and his grandfather was a presbyter. When he was sixteen, he was captured by a band of marauders and taken to Ireland. Living as a slave, he tended cattle for six years. When he was allowed to leave, he boarded a ship that was blown to Gaul by a storm. Patrick was enslaved again in Gaul, but he managed to escape and return to his family in Britain. Not long after his homecoming, he experienced a vision in the night in which he saw an angel carrying a letter entitled “The Voice of the Irish.” It said, “We beseech thee, holy youth, to come and walk with us once more.” Patrick interpreted this as a divine call and against the wishes of his family went back to Ireland to preach.

Patrick ministered in Ireland for more than thirty years. In his Confession he speaks of baptizing thousands and ordaining presbyters to lead the new congregations. He faced a great opposition from pagan priests and antagonistic rulers. He tried to win the local rulers and through them the masses, but this was not always successful. He was faithful to teach Roman Christianity, though he was a man of little education.

Patrick was probably not the first to preach in Ireland. Other Christians were taken prisoner, no doubt; and, most likely, Christian traders had some contact with the Irish. This does not denigrate Patrick’s work, but it should be seen in its proper perspective. J. B. Bury writes that Patrick accomplished three significant things: (1) he organized the Christians that were already in Ireland; (2) he converted many districts that were still pagan, especially in the West; and (3) he brought Ireland into relationship with the Roman church (Bury 1905, 212).

Lay Missionaries

Lay missionaries played an essential part in the expansion of Christianity after Nicea just as they did before that time. Captives, soldiers, and merchants were all active in evangelizing. Frend says, “The Christian merchant of this period was the propagator of his faith as the Moslem merchant has been in more recent centuries” (Frend 1982, 240).

The kingdom of Axum (Abyssinia) was won to Christ through the witness of two young travelers, Aedessius and Frumentius. Captured by the Abyssinians, they quickly impressed the king and became the stewards of his household. The king died, but the new king gave them even greater responsibility. The two young Christians held regular worship services and invited visiting traders as well as the Abyssinians to participate. After some time they received permission to return to their home country. Aedessius returned to Tyre, their hometown, but Frumentius went to Alexandria to report their activities to Bishop Athanasius.

When Athanasius heard the story, he said, “Who better than yourself can scatter the mists of ignorance and introduce among this people the light of divine preaching?” Immediately, Athanasius consecrated Frumentius as a bishop and sent him back to Abyssinia. There he worked diligently and founded the church that continues in Ethiopia until now (Theodoret 1854, 1:22).

The Iberians, a warlike tribe that lived north of Armenia, were won to Christ by Nino, a Christian woman taken captive by them. Even in her captivity Nino worshipped the Lord faithfully, fasting and praying as she normally did. The Iberians, impressed with her piety, inquired about her religion but were not convinced by her testimony.

An Iberian child became sick, and after consulting many people the child’s mother brought him to Nino. When Nino prayed for the boy, he was healed instantly though he was at the point of death. Some time later Nino prayed for the queen of the Iberians, who was also healed. The queen became a Christian and encouraged her husband to do so. Eventually he too became a Christian and urged all his people to accept Christ. The people agreed, built a church, and sent a delegation to Emperor Constantine to request priests (Sozomen 1952, 2:7).

The Growth of the Church at AD 500

By 500 the church’s situation was much different than in 300. Conversion had become a matter of norm and convenience rather than a bold act of faith. By 500 the vast majority of people within the Roman Empire called themselves Christians. Though the church had been shaken by doctrinal battles, by this time it had settled into Nicean orthodoxy.

The church expanded both inside and outside the boundaries of the empire. Many barbarian tribes settled within the empire during the fourth and fifth centuries. These tribes, including the Visigoths, Burgundians, Franks, and Vandals, all accepted Christianity. This pattern also held true in the eastern provinces. Several Arab tribes became Christian after they settled in Roman territory.

The church expanded outside the empire into Ethiopia, Arabia, Mesopotamia, Persia, India, Germany, Georgia (Europe), and Ireland. The expansion to the east was inhibited by Persian opposition and by the strength of Zoroastrianism (Latourette 1937, 1:227–29).

Led by missionaries such as Saba (d. 487), who won an entire city to Christ, the church in Persia continued to grow. Throughout the East, however, Christians always remained a minority. The Eastern church never attained the dominance that the Western church did. Nevertheless, by 500 there were definitely Christian congregations in India and Ceylon, as well as Arabia and Persia (Latourette 1937, 1:231).

Factors Affecting Post-Nicene Expansion

Why did the church expand so rapidly during the fourth and fifth centuries? Basically it grew after Nicea for many of the same reasons that it grew before. First, the church provided an element of stability and security in a society that was disintegrating. Second, as Harnack insisted, monotheism met the religious needs of the day. Paganism was spiritually bankrupt, and the people of the empire were ready for a change. Third, the moral living of the Christians demonstrated the superiority of Christianity day by day. Fourth, Christianity grew because of the zealous missionary activity carried on by the bishops and individuals. And fifth, it expanded because of the miraculous power its preachers demonstrated. Ramsay McMullen states that the missionary work of this period was characterized by power encounters. The early missionaries like Martin of Tours demonstrated the power of Christ over that of pagan deities. One could hardly overestimate the influence of these power encounters on superstitious rural folk (McMullen 1984, 112).

There were also new factors that affected the church’s growth after 300. First, the official favor of the Roman government created a climate that encouraged church growth. Indeed, some of the emperors took an active role in enlarging the church. As noted above, though, this favor was a mixed blessing. Neill observes that with her newfound liberty the church was able to expand as never before; but at the same time, the world came into the church as never before (1964, 47).

Second, monasticism became a force for church growth. Frend writes that monasticism brought about “the total eclipse of rural paganism throughout the Greco-Roman world” (1976, 15). The common people admired the monks greatly because they exorcized demons, healed the sick, helped the poor, and defended the oppressed against abusive public officials.

Third, Christianity enjoyed the momentum of success during this period. Success breeds success, and growth brings more growth.

Finally, Christianity grew because of the movement of tribes into Roman territory. E. A. Thompson holds that none of the Germanic tribes, with the exception of the Rugi, were converted while still living beyond the Roman frontier. He says, “It would seem to follow that the act of crossing the imperial frontiers and settling down on Roman soil necessarily and inevitably entailed the abandonment of paganism and conversion to the Roman religion” (Thompson 1963, 77–78). Church growth experts teach that whenever a group migrates, it is open to assimilating new ideas. This was certainly true of the Germanic tribes.

Conclusion

By AD 325 the church existed in every part of the Roman Empire. The number of Christians was at least three million, and some have suggested figures as high as eight million. By 500 the vast majority of people in the empire called themselves Christians, and missionaries had carried the gospel to many lands outside the empire.

The church did not employ secret formulas to achieve growth. Rather, the church followed the example of the apostles in preaching and teaching. The main innovation of the sub-apostolic church was literature evangelism, particularly the apologies. Still, the key remained, as it does today, the lives and witness of individual believers. The great missionary itinerants and bishops carried the banner of Christ, but it remained for the rank-and-file Christians to make most of the contacts and conversions.

Chapter 12

Medieval and Renaissance Missions (500–1792)

Justice Anderson

Overview

Overly sanguine and obviously uninformed Christian writers have been known to proclaim that Christianity won the whole world in the first five centuries of its history! Unfortunately, they are wrong! Christianity did win the Roman Empire, which was quite an accomplishment, but there remained much of the world to reach in the year AD 500. Other ancient empires remained untouched by the fledgling faith.

Rome became the base for an equally amazing expansion of the faith into the rest of the Western world. This Greco-Roman faith became the anchor of the growing Western civilization that, in turn, spawned the Enlightenment. According to many missiologists, the Enlightenment set in motion the modern missionary movement (1792–1992), which actually made Christianity a universal faith for the first time in its history.

As Christianity moved into the sixth and seventh centuries, it confronted a different world. Its powerful patron, the Roman Empire, was in an advanced stage of deterioration and was becoming Byzantine. Christianity’s “cradle culture” was being transformed. Beginning as a minor Jewish sect, Christianity had eliminated its major rivals, except its parent, Judaism, and had overly integrated with the Greco-Roman culture—only to find that culture in fatal decadence! Its Roman citizenship, once a definite advantage for Christianity, suddenly became a disadvantage as the faith spread into Persia, China, and India.

What was to be the fate of Christianity? Was it stubbornly to retain its identification with the waning Roman Empire and with the fading cultures of the Copts and Syrian-speaking peoples? Some forms of Christianity chose this option and became besieged remnants and slowly dwindling minorities (Latourette 1938, 1). Or was Christianity to reach out and be able to respond to new and vigorous cultures?

This chapter traces the vicissitudes of Christianity from the sixth century to the end of the eighteenth century, placing major emphasis on its missionary expansion against almost insurmountable odds. Splintered into its Celtic, Roman, Orthodox, and dissident forms, Christianity struggled for new ways to expand. It is the story of a missionary saga.

For more than a thousand years (500–1650), Christianity’s destiny was not certainly determined. Many of the gains of the first centuries were negated. It won the peoples of northern Europe but lost practically all of North Africa, much of the Nile valley, part of southeastern Europe, most of Asia Minor, Syria, and Palestine, whatever it had held in Arabia, and nearly all of Persia and Central Asia—areas where Christianity was in direct confrontation with Islam and Buddhism. It was identified with subject peoples and dissident subcultures. In this ebb and flow, the main currents of civilization seemed to be passing it by.

Fortunately for Christianity, the tide turned near the end of the fifteenth century. Vast movements of people groups had brought down many of the monolithic empires; the discovery of the new worlds by Europeans opened new opportunities; the Protestant Reformation brought spiritual and biblical renewal to both Catholics and Protestants; the inner vitality of Christianity produced courageous missionaries who dared to penetrate hostile areas; the monastic orders became proactive and missionary; the peoples they confronted were more open to a vital faith incarnated in the missionaries; the Pietist movement produced missionary activity; and last of all, the vital, universal nature of the reformed faith was a factor in the turnaround. The era prepared the way for the modern missionary movement (1792–1992).

Advance and Retreat (500–1215)

East of the Roman Empire in the year AD 500 Christians had spread into Mesopotamia and Persia along the trade routes. Our knowledge of these communities is fragmentary and inadequate because most of these peoples had disappeared by the fifteenth century. The time was one of advance and retreat.

The Spread of the Nestorian Church

Prominent among those who contributed to the spread of the Christian religion were the Nestorians, exiled followers of Nestorius, the disposed bishop of Alexandria. Although unorthodox in doctrine, the Nestorians were strongly missionary and spread rapidly in the caravan cities of central Asia. These Syrian Nestorians extended into southern India and are today known as the Mar Thoma churches, a Christian group possibly founded by the apostle Thomas (Neill 1964, 142ff).

The Nestorians first introduced Christianity into China in AD 635. The most authentic source of information regarding the Nestorian mission is the Nestorian Stele (monument), carved at Xian in the eighth century and discovered in 1625. The inscription on the monument tells in detail the story of the origin and spread of Christianity in China. The new religion was well received by the emperor and spread through ten provinces and one hundred cities. It survived as a minority religion for two centuries until an imperial decree against monasteries, aimed at Buddhists, forced the Nestorians out. Remnants of the Nestorians, however, remained and surprisingly opposed the Franciscan missionaries when they entered China in 1294.

The Nestorian church has been called “the missionary church par excellence.” The church expanded across large areas of Asia until abruptly stopped by Mongol invasions of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries (Verstraelen 1995, 16). Although their austere monastic nature prevented them from identifying with the Chinese culture, and contributed to their demise, they deserve a special place in missionary history.

The Christianization of Europe (500–1215)

Great Britain. Although there is clear evidence of strong Christian churches in Britain before the year 300, the Anglo-Saxon invasions of the fifth century almost wiped them out. Consequently, Christianity had to evangelize Britain again in the sixth century. Celtic missionaries from Ireland and Benedictines from Rome accomplished the task. Because Ireland had less concern about pagan invasions, she became a base for Celtic missionary activity. The well-known missionary, Columba, was an Irishman who, with several companions, formed a missionary center on the island of Iona. For two centuries, missionaries emanated from Iona to evangelize Britain and continental Europe.

At the same time, Gregory the Great, the Roman bishop, who had desired to go to Britain as a missionary, sent forty monks to England under Augustine. King Ethelbert was ultimately converted, and the Roman form of Christianity gradually crowded out the Celtics in England.

Continental Europe. Celtic missionaries from Iona penetrated the continent. Switzerland and Gaul were evangelized by Columba. Willibrord and eleven companions became the first missionaries to the Frisians of the Low Countries. In the eighth century, the famous missionary Boniface spent forty years evangelizing the indigenous peoples of Germany, who were animistic in their worship. It was he who gained fame by daring to chop down the “sacred oak” of Thor at Geismar in Hesse. This early “power encounter” method is still followed by missionaries among primal societies today. Boniface also tried to reform the corrupt Frankish church but to no avail (Olson 1988, 96–97). Continental Europe was evangelized primarily from England rather than directly from Rome.

Scandinavia. The Vikings of Scandinavia were a constant threat to England and the continent during the ninth century. So devastating were their raids that they almost negated the outreach of the English church. In spite of this scourge, valiant missionaries made evangelistic raids into Denmark, Norway, and Sweden but with little success. Emperor Louis the Pious dispatched missionaries to Denmark whose work resulted in the conversion of Denmark’s King Herald. The outstanding missionary of the period was Anskar (801–65), a French monk trained in the famous monastery in Corbie founded by Columba. Anskar, with the approval of the pope and the emperor, became an official legate to the Swedes, Danes, and Slavs of northern Europe. Anskar turned his see into a missionary center that summoned monks from Corbie to go to all parts of Scandinavia.

In Denmark the new faith had many ups and downs before becoming established in 1104. Norway was converted through the work of its kings who were influenced by visits to England. King Olaf Tryggvason (963–1000)—handsome, huge of stature, daring, and fearless—used favors and force to bring Christianity to his realm. Under his successor, Olaf Haraldson, Christianity became the majority faith at the turn of the eleventh century.

Sweden received the faith from England and Denmark. Anskar and his successors introduced the faith, but the kings actually promoted its establishment in 1164.

Eastern Europe. In eastern Europe the two streams of Christianity were the Roman and the Byzantine. The patriarch of Constantinople and the pope of Rome struggled for hegemony in the area. However, the Byzantine patriarch prevailed in the East, and the Eastern Church separated from Rome in 1054. The patriarchs were usually under the control of the eastern emperors. The Orthodox churches, Greek and Russian, grew out of this schism. These eastern churches can claim fewer missionary conquests but did establish themselves in eastern Europe. From the time of Mohammed to the fall of Constantinople (1453), the great Byzantine Empire was a bulwark against Islam in eastern Europe, and Constantinople was by far the most civilized city of the Christian world.

The two outstanding missionaries in the evangelization of eastern Europe were two brothers, Cyril and Methodius, who went first to Moravia (today Czechoslovakia) and pioneered the translation of Scripture as a missionary method. They reduced the language to writing and began to translate the Bible. They used the vernacular instead of Greek or Latin in worship. After their deaths, the Moravian Christians were forced to flee to Bulgaria, where King Boris had been converted. By the time Boris died in 907, Bulgaria had become the center of Christianity in the Slavic world. From there, Russia and Poland were evangelized by the end of the twelfth century. When Prince Vladimir was baptized in Kiev in 988, the Ukraine was evangelized, and Christianity took permanent root in Russia. Finland came under Christianity when the Swedes conquered it in 1155.

By the year 1215, the Roman Catholic Church was in its heyday, and Christianity was predominant in all of Europe. Direct missionary activity and the conversion of kings were the methods used. Many kings who were more pagan than Christian were baptized! Whatever one may think of the methods used, history cannot deny that the addition of these European regions to the Christian world was the work of the whole apparatus of medieval Christianity. Since Charlemagne first took the sword to promote the conversion of the Saxons, the anxious question about “coerced Christianity” has plagued Christian history. Without doubt, the resulting Christendom was a superficial form of Christianity, but it did open up Europe to the more spiritual evangelism of those smaller groups of evangelicals who persisted in different parts of Europe over the centuries that we call the Dark Ages, 400–1400 (Kane 1978, 37–47).

Encounter with Islam (600–1215)

The irruption of Islam from the Arabian boot into the conquest and conversion of half the Mediterranean world is the most extraordinary phenomenon in medieval history. At the precise moment of Christianity’s victory over animistic paganism, the faith had to turn and face one of its most formidable enemies: militant Islam. In the seventh and eighth centuries and again in the fifteenth, Islam was to become the greatest barrier to the missionary enterprise of Christianity. Twenty-five years after Mohammed’s death, Islam had reached east as far as Afghanistan and west into Tunisia. By the early eighth century, the religion had reached Morocco and was moving through Spain into France.

Charles Martel, at the famous Battle of Tours in 732, brought the Islamic conquest of Europe to a sudden stop. After centuries, the reconquest of Spain and Portugal was accomplished (in 1493) by Christian Europe as a part of the infamous Crusades, a spurious missionary method that regained territory but greatly damaged Christian integrity. The only major faith younger than Christianity, Islam has become a world religion, second only to Christianity in its missionary zeal and worldwide outreach.

Christian history should not assume that the Muslim conquest was accomplished only by the sword. Although millions did convert under the threat of the sword, Islamic policy was to respect Christians and Jews as “peoples of the Book.” The rapid capitulation of all of North Africa, once a bulwark of Christians, is still a disturbing question in the minds of many Christians. Apparently, over several generations the superficial, nonindigenous Christianity of North Africa under the military, political, social, and religious pressures brought about apostasy from Christianity and genuine conversion to Islam.

It would be remiss to overlook the tremendous impact of the Christian Crusades on missionary history. Seven Crusades in all occurred at intervals between 1095 and 1272. Organized and effected by different leaders—among them Peter the Hermit, Bernard of Clairvaux, and Richard the Lion-Hearted of England—they had the general sanction of the Roman Catholic Church. Like any human undertaking, the crusaders’ motives were mixed. There were economic, political, and even personal factors, but the religious factor predominated.

Several objectives were evident. First, there was the almost universal desire to recapture the Holy Land from the Seljuk Turks, Then there was the eagerness of the Roman Church to assist the Byzantine Empire threatened by the inroads of the Turks. Third, there was the desire of the Roman see to heal the 1054 breach with the Eastern Church. Unfortunately, the Crusades failed to accomplish these primary objectives. However, the Crusades did introduce Europe to the advanced civilization of the East and brought an end to the proverbial “Dark Ages.” Also, they stimulated travel by land and sea and contributed to maritime trade and economic development (Kane 1978, 53–54). Christians became aware of another world and of a civilization in many ways more advanced than their own.

In spite of these noble intentions and favorable results, the Crusades were an almost irreparable disaster for Christian missions. They fomented a somber cloud of hatred in the name of religion. Atrocities were committed in the name of Christ. They left a trail of bitterness across the relations between Christians and Muslims that remains to the present day. Recent events in the Middle East confirm this fact. The Crusades also lowered the moral temperature of Christendom. Violence and savagery characterized the enterprise. The crusader missionary strategy with its reputation for cruelty and revenge has been, and is, the albatross around the neck of the Christian missionary in the Middle East.

Reaction and Renewal (1215–1650)

The robust Western Christianity in its Roman Catholic form was at the height of its religious and political power in 1215. The church was in charge of temporal and spiritual matters of the empire. Not so was the situation in the East. Most of the Christian pockets in the East were besieged. A fortress mentality prevailed. The time for a burst of missionary activity from the West was ripe.

A small minority of Christians were aware of the unreached peoples of the Orient. Some real spiritual efforts were begun. Emanating from the monastic renewal, Roman Catholics mounted significant missions with the support of Christian emperors. The Protestant Reformation, initiated by Martin Luther in 1517, in reality, was a schism from a growing Catholic reformation begun several centuries before. However, the Catholic reaction, called the Counter-Reformation, spawned a new outburst of Catholic missions and a new missionary order called the Jesuits. A brief consideration of these missions is now in order.

Roman Catholic Missions (1215–1650)

The Roman Catholic Church, at the zenith of its power during the Holy Roman Empire, completely dominated the political, cultural, economic, and religious life of Europe. Its greatest losses occurred during the Protestant Reformation. What the church of Rome lost in Europe, however, it regained through its missionary endeavors in Asia, Africa, and the New World. While the new Protestant churches were trying to define their roles and consolidate their doctrines, the Catholics annexed great areas of the non-Christian world.

The development of Roman Catholic missions coincided with the rise of the overseas empires of Spain and Portugal. But even before this, certain isolated Roman Catholics demonstrated a global vision. During the time of the Crusades, two Franciscan monks, Francis of Assisi and Raymond Lull, opposed the crusader complex and recommended a different approach to the Muslims. Both suggested dialogue and persuasion as ways to win Muslims to Christ. Francis, better known as the founder of the Franciscan order, made three attempts to reach the Muslims, none of which was particularly successful.

Lull, a wealthy Catalan nobleman from Majorca, was the first real missiologist in Christian history. Leaving a life of debauchery, he became a Dominican monk, later a Franciscan, and gave fifty years of tireless service to the purpose of converting infidels to Christianity. Others shared his ardent desire to evangelize, but Lull was the first to develop a theory of missions—a detailed plan on how to reach and convert unbelievers. Called the “fool of love,” he planned to convince and convert by reason, using the instrument of debate.

To this end Lull wrote his Ars Magna, which was intended to answer convincingly any question or objection that could be put by Muslim or pagan, and devised a kind of intellectual computer into which various factors could be registered and the right answer would come forth. In 1276 he opened a training center for Franciscan monks to reach out to Muslims and ultimately made three missionary trips to North Africa. The first two resulted in prison and banishment, and the third possibly resulted in his being stoned to death. Recent researchers who can read Catalan suggest that Lull probably survived the stoning and died of an unknown cause later. Without doubt, Lull was a man ahead of his day and merits a special place in missionary history as a forerunner of modern missiology.

Another early Catholic missionary effort became the first to attempt to penetrate the Chinese empire. This effort began with the ministry of a Franciscan friar, John of Monte Corvino. From 1294 to 1330, 100,000 converts were won. The intransigence of the Roman see with reference to the use of Latin and the adoption of certain cultural forms, plus the impossible transportation problems, prevented what could have been a mass movement to Christianity in China. Christianity would not enter China again for two hundred years (Moffett 1992, 471–75).

In 1454 Pope Alexander V granted to Portugal exclusive patronage privileges in Africa and the East Indies. When Spain came to power, Portugal’s monopoly was threatened. To avoid conflict, Pope Alexander VI in 1493 issued a bull (a decree) that divided the known world between Portugal and Spain. The line gave Africa, East Indies, and Brazil to Portugal and the rest of the New World to Spain. This system of royal patronage made Spain and Portugal responsible for the spread of the faith and the conversion of the heathen in their overseas dominions. These religio-political events spawned several Catholic missionary entities. Missions was made a function of government.

Missions under Portuguese Patronage. Missions under Portuguese direction followed distinctive patterns. The Portuguese built a trade empire and, except in Brazil, held only small enclaves along the coasts under direct rule. There they suppressed the ethnic religions, drove out the upper classes who resisted, and created a Christian community composed of their mixed-blood descendants and converts from the lower strata of society.

Some of the most creative missionary endeavors occurred in the Portuguese colonies in Japan, Mongolia, China, and India by Jesuits, but they were opposed by the Portuguese authorities. Franciscans and Dominicans under the Portuguese established beachheads along the coasts of Africa. Under the laws of patronage, Portugal had the responsibility of converting Africa after 1454. The monks set up Christian work in the Congo, Angola, Guinea, Mozambique, and even Madagascar in this period, but most of these beginnings had evaporated by the beginning of the eighteenth century. The enervating climate and the lack of medicine took the lives of many of the missionaries. Also, the unholy alliance of the Portuguese with the evil slave trade, the failure of the church to develop national leaders, the intertribal warfare, and the superficial missionary methods all contributed to the rapid demise of the early establishments.

Missions under Spanish Patronage. Spain, on the other hand, tried to transplant Christianity and civilization, both according to the Spanish model. Ruthless exploitation killed off the Carib Indians and stimulated the heroic struggle for the rights of the remaining Indians by Bartholomé de las Casas and others. After these efforts abolished slavery and forced baptism, the Spanish missionaries were made both civilizers and protectors of the Indians.

The Spanish Catholics, mainly the Jesuits, introduced the famous Reductions, which were settlements where indigenous peoples were gathered into colonies for instruction and protection. The Reductions served as both monasteries and fortresses—monasteries to teach and fortresses to protect. The Indians were taught regular subjects as well as the religious practices of Catholicism.

The Spanish also employed the encomienda system. Under this arrangement, indigenous peoples (Indians) were given to various Spanish commercial interests to teach, train, and protect. Actually, the encomienda system became merely a pious way of condoning slavery; and missionaries, such as Las Casas, opposed and eventually overcame them.

Missions under French Patronage. French missions, only beginning in the period under consideration, followed a different policy. Like the Portuguese, their mission communities were bases for trade and protection against their enemies, principally the British in Canada. Their missionaries lived with the Indians in their villages and fulfilled their religious duties of preaching, baptizing, and performing the rites, but they allowed their converts to remain Indians!

Missions under the Propaganda. Near the end of this period (1622), the Roman see created the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith. Attempts had been made from the time of Raymond Lull to centralize the Roman Catholic missionary work. The personal initiative of Pope Gregory XV; the spirit of the Counter-Reformation; the realization that turning the expansion of Christianity over to the patronage of Spain and Portugal was a mistake; changes in the world political configuration with the appearance of England, the Netherlands, and France as colonial powers; and the growing conviction that missions is universal—all these were motives for the organization.

Although the Propaganda has never been successful in uniting Catholic missions, its written instructions reflect a program of indigenous mission philosophy. It rejected colonialism, urged its missionaries to refrain from politics and trade, and recommended that an indigenous clergy be developed and trained. In general, Catholic missions were reluctant to follow the Propaganda for many years.

Representative Roman Catholic Missionaries (1215–1650)

Roman Catholic missions in these years highlighted the work of remarkable missionaries. The stories of these men contain beautiful accounts of dedication and outreach. No better way to study missionary activities exists than to consider the lives of these modern apostles.

Francis Xavier. Many regard the Portuguese Francis Xavier as the greatest Roman Catholic missionary of all time. He pioneered Jesuit work in southwest India and Japan. In 1542 he began a three-year ministry in south India, moved to another three-year ministry in the Malay Peninsula and on to what is now Indonesia, and then on to Japan to open work there.

Xavier and his companions arrived in Japan at an opportune time. Their labors resulted in a Christian community of 500,000 in 1600. Unfortunately, a sudden change of government brought a cruel persecution that practically wiped out overt Christianity for more than 230 years.

Matteo Ricci. Matteo Ricci reintroduced Christianity to China in the latter part of the sixteenth century. The Jesuit Ricci used the Portuguese colony of Macao as a jumping-off place to enter China. To win the favor of the Chinese, Ricci adopted their culture and appeared in the guise of a Confucian scholar. By presenting clocks to local officials, he gradually worked north, and after twenty years, in 1601, he finally reached Peking.

Intellectuals flocked to consult him. Many became converts. Through Ricci’s influence, other Jesuits entered China. By 1650 there were a quarter of a million converts. Unfortunately, doctrinal conflicts and Rome’s insensitive missiology negated this growth by the middle of the next century.

Father Legaspi. Father Legaspi pioneered missions during the Spanish colonization of the Philippines beginning around 1564. He and other Augustinian monks evangelized, built hospitals, schools, colleges, and gradually trained an indigenous clergy. Within a century the Augustinians had baptized two million converts. Through their efforts the Philippines became the first nominally Christian country in Asia.

Robert de Nobili. Robert de Nobili, an Italian Jesuit, is considered one of the greatest missionaries to India. He arrived in Goa in 1605 but later moved to Madura, where he became aware of tremendous cultural barriers. Posing as a Roman Brahmin, he adopted the Indian way of life, including food and dress. Soon Hindus were flocking to him. For forty-two years he labored among the upper classes, making thousands of converts. His followers continued his methods, but the Roman church ultimately rejected his philosophy as too accommodating.

Outstanding Spanish Missionaries. Many outstanding missionaries served under the Spanish church in these years. The first missionaries to the New World were Franciscans and Dominicans. The former arrived in Brazil with Cabral in 1500, Haiti two years later, and in Mexico in 1523. The Dominicans began their missionary work in Haiti in 1510, in Cuba in 1512, in Colombia in 1531, and in Peru in 1532. Augustinians arrived earlier. In 1549 the Jesuits began to arrive in Brazil. By 1555 Roman Catholic missionaries, following the intrepid Conquistadores, had planted Roman Christianity in the West Indies, Mexico, Central America, Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Chile, and Brazil.

A principal obstacle to the evangelization of the indigenous people groups was the cruelty with which they were treated by the Spanish colonists. The Indians, however, did not lack their champions among the missionaries. Bartholomé de las Casas, for example, although preceded by the liberating work of Antonio de Montesinos on the Isle of Hispaniola, became the most famous champion of the Indians. In 1542 he persuaded Emperor Charles V to outlaw the abuse.

Among these Spanish missions, perhaps the most successful were the Jesuit Reductions in Paraguay, which ironically were cruelly suppressed by Spanish and Portuguese colonists later. The largely Roman Catholic population in Latin America today is the direct result of the intrepid missions of the Spanish and Jesuit fathers. Isolated from ecclesiastical developments in Europe, the Roman Christianity in Latin America never felt the refreshing breezes of the Protestant Reformation until the end of the nineteenth century.

Orthodox Missions (1215–1650)

The spread of Christianity from the eastern Roman Empire in this period must be briefly mentioned. Greek and, later, Russian Orthodox Christianity have not been as overtly missionary as Western Christianity. These groups have tended to introvert and express themselves through monasticism and asceticism. They were always closely aligned with the state, and, thusly, their expansion has been perceived as political more than religious. It was Russian Christianity that recorded gains on the northern frontiers where many Christians had gone to escape the Mongol hegemony.

A representative missionary was Stephen of Perm (1330?), who as a young man committed himself to work among a Finnish people group located northeast of Moscow. He dared to pass through the ordeals of the pagans and won their allegiance by his courage in the “power encounters.” Other orthodox monks scattered across Russia’s north, while Franciscans and Dominicans made some feeble attempts to penetrate Russia.

Considering the obstacles it faced, Greek Christianity was amazingly successful in propagating itself. Taking advantage of the prestige of the Byzantine Empire, it faced hordes of barbarian peoples. Where it confronted only animism or polytheism, ultimately it prevailed; but it made little headway against other forms of Christianity, Zoroastrianism, or Islam in this period (Latourette 1938, 2:262).

Medieval Dissidents (1215–1650)

During this period there were significant subterranean movements of Christians who differed with the Roman and Orthodox forms of Christianity. Because they were persecuted by the dominant churches, their records and documents have been destroyed, repressed, and misrepresented. Without doubt, there was a continuing succession of truly evangelical believers throughout these centuries who surely would have mounted missionary endeavors if it had not been for persecution. A list of some of these groups would include the Petrobrusians, Amoldists, Henricians, Waldensians, Bohemian Brethren, Lollards, Hussites, and Taborites. These groups were all forerunners of the Reformation, which established the doctrinal basis for the modern missionary movement.

The Protestant Reformers and Missions (1517–1650)

One of the puzzling riddles of Christian history is the lack of missionary zeal on the part of the Magisterial Reformers—Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and Knox. It took the Protestant churches almost two centuries to begin any really significant missionary enterprise. How can we account for what Gordon Olson calls “the great omission”? (Olson 1988, 107). Missionary historians have compiled lists of human factors that partially explain this supposed aberration.

Reasons for the “Great Omission.” One matter that led to the relative omission of missions from the thinking and activity of the Reformers was faulty hermeneutics. The successors of the Reformers took passages in Romans 10 and Psalm 19 to explain that the Great Commission of Matthew 28 was completely fulfilled by the apostles and their immediate successors. Therefore, Christians of their day were not under the mandate.

A second factor in the great omission sprang from the Reformers’ struggles to establish their reforms. The Reformers were so engaged in the life-and-death struggle to defend and promote their principles that they had no time to think of a world mission.

Religious wars also contributed to the neglect of missions among the Reformers. The whole period of the Reformation was a time of mortal conflict between Catholics and Protestants that required a fortress mentality and that prevented any mobilization for offensive missionary activity.

Another factor that led to the great omission was the Reformers’ limited contact with people of other religions. Protestants were surrounded by Catholic enemies. This fact limited direct, geographical contact with people of other religions. This situation provided little challenge to share their faith with persons from other religious backgrounds.

Perhaps one of the central reasons for the lack of missionary outreach among the Protestants related to their lack of effective missionary organizations. Protestantism rejected monasticism. Monasticism was the missionary arm of the Roman Catholic Church. The Reformers did not replace these monastic orders with anything else. This lack of organized missionary groups limited Protestant endeavors.

The Reformers were also handicapped from missionary activity by a provincial ecclesiology. The Reformed tradition championed the territorial church. This concept considered those in a certain territory as belonging to a certain church. Further, all the Reformers maintained the state church. When the church is seen as a department of state, the church’s mission is confined to national interests. The territorial churches of Protestantism greatly limited any concept of a universal mission.

A faulty eschatology dealt a death blow to Protestant mission thinking and activity. The Reformers and their successors felt they were living in the last times. The apocalyptic events convinced them that Jesus was to return in their generation. Therefore, any long-range missionary project would be unnecessary and futile.

The intense desires of the second-generation reformers to codify their beliefs led to a preoccupation with that effort. This determination led to extreme dogmatism and creedalism. Violent, divisive controversies always divert missionary zeal.

The Reformers were men of their day. They allowed the above factors to cloud over sparks of worldwide evangelism. Alarmingly, these same factors, in modern forms, continue to impede and threaten the missionary enterprise.

Protestant Missions in the Period. The two centuries after the Reformation were not completely devoid of Protestant mission awareness. Near the end of this period (1650), several isolated individuals challenged the popular belief and initiated some significant, yet abortive attempts to mount a Protestant missionary movement. Some Calvinist Huguenots established a Protestant community and mission on the coast of Brazil (1555) with the approval of John Calvin. This colony soon succumbed to internal corruption and Portuguese attacks. The few survivors were killed by the Jesuits (Kane 1978, 76). A Hungarian, Verceslaus Budovetz, was probably the first Protestant missionary to the Muslims. A product of John Hus and John Calvin, Budovetz lived in Istanbul from 1577 to 1581 and witnessed to Muslims with little success (Olson 1988, 108).

Several men of the period emphasized the need for missions. Hadrian Saravia (1531–1613), a Reformed pastor from Belgium; Count Truchsess (1651), a prominent Lutheran layman; and Justinian Von Welz (1664), an Austrian nobleman, all wrote treatises urging the churches to assume their missionary responsibility. They were ignored, refuted, and ridiculed by their contemporaries. Von Welz died in Dutch Guiana (now Surinam), putting into practice what he had tried to promote in Europe.

In addition to the individual efforts at the end of this period, several missionary societies were organized among Anglicans in England to support missionaries in the New England colonies. The work of John Eliot, David Brainerd, and others among the Indians was partially supported by these societies.

Although the Reformers necessarily neglected the missionary overt mandate, they did lay the doctrinal foundation for later missions. The Anabaptist and Pietist movements built their missionary zeal on the basis of Reformed theology, and they became the harbingers of the modern missionary movement.

Reform and Revival(1650–1792)

As the Protestants began to consider their missionary responsibility in 1650, inspired by the rise of the Pietist movement, the Roman Catholics were consolidating the tremendous gains they had achieved during the Counter-Reformation. Under the general direction of the new Propaganda Fide, the monastic orders continued their work in different parts of the world.

Roman Catholic Missions (1650–1792)

The Propaganda immediately began to redefine Catholic missionary philosophy. Missions had to be freed from the stranglehold that Spain and Portugal had been able to maintain. More bishoprics and more secular clergy were needed to offset the preponderance of the orders. Also, an indigenous clergy must be developed as rapidly as possible. These reforms were seen as a way to erase colonial associations that condemned Christianity to be a foreign religion.

Another significant development was the growing influence of the new Paris Missionary Society. With the decline of Spain and Portugal, France came more to the front as the vanguard of Roman Catholic advance. This growing indigenous missionary philosophy met strong opposition from the different orders and the secular authorities, but it marked a new direction for Catholic missions.

In India, the philosophy of Robert de Nobili came under fire. The question had to do with the accommodating methods many felt affirmed the Hindu caste system. The controversy raged back and forth, but finally de Nobili was exonerated. However, his success among the Brahmins was quite limited. The mass movements came among the lower castes.

In China, the flourishing Catholicism was stunted by conflicts over liturgical terms in the vernacular and the well-known “rites controversy.” In other words, could some traditional religious practices, such as ancestor veneration, be maintained in Christian worship? After many ups and downs, Rome ruled that Roman practice, exactly as it was at Rome, was to be in every detail the law of the missions. The attempt at accommodation had failed and paternalism was to govern Roman missionary practice for the next two hundred years.

The final years of the eighteenth century witnessed a collapse of Roman Catholic missions. The Catholic patrons, Spain and Portugal, were challenged by the Protestant powers; the monastic orders were in mortal combat; and the final blow was the dissolution of the Jesuit order by the political powers in 1767. There was no indigenous clergy to marshal the masses of nominal adherents. Catholic advance paused, only to experience revival in the nineteenth century.

Protestant Precursors (1650–1792)

Protestantism just after the Reformation lacked spiritual depth. The state churches with their dead orthodoxy were not in condition to launch a missionary movement. The needed renewal first sprang from a movement within the Lutheran state churches called “Pietism.” The pioneer of Pietism was Philip Spener (1635–1705), who sought to renew the spiritual life of Lutherans by small-group prayer meetings and Bible study. His principles were published in his book, Pia Desideria, in 1675.

Spener’s disciple, August Francke (1663–1727), started pietistic meetings, which cost him his job at the University of Leipzig. He helped form the new University of Halle in 1694. This university became the center of the new movement and a base for Protestant missions.

Pietism spread to the royal court of Denmark when Frederick IV converted and ordered his chaplain to seek missionaries to go to the Danish colonies in the Orient to evangelize the native populations. Unable to find missionaries in Denmark, he secured two candidates from Halle, Bartholomew Ziegenbalg and Heinrich Plutschau, had them ordained, and sent them to Tranquebar in southern India. This resulted in the famous Danish-Halle Mission that set in motion the sending of other missionaries like the venerable Christian Schwartz and John Grundler. The Tranquebar mission prospered, and in 1719 there were about 350 converts.

Another famous pietistic missionary was Hans Egede, a Norwegian Lutheran, who from childhood had dreamed of a mission to Greenland. Arriving in Greenland in 1721, under the auspices of the Pietists, Egede overcame physical and linguistic problems and finally produced converts.

The most famous of all the Pietists, however, was Count Ludwig von Zinzendorf (1700–1760) and the Moravian mission. Zinzendorf, a disciple of Francke, spent his life and his fortune supporting the cause of world missions. The Moravian missionaries, who were sheltered on Zinzendorf’s estate named Herrnhut, traversed the whole world. Missions were started in the Virgin Islands, Greenland, Surinam, Gold Coast, South Africa, Jamaica, Antigua, and among the American Indians in Georgia. These Pietist efforts became forerunners of the Wesleyan revival and William Carey’s Baptist Missionary Society.

One other Protestant missionary antecedent must be mentioned: namely, the Anglican societies’ work among the Indians of New England. Beginning around 1639, three of these societies—the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in New England, the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, and the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts—served the colonists and the Indians. Famous among their missionaries were John Eliot and David Brainerd. These organizations served as a model for William Carey’s Baptist Society.

Conclusion

As the eighteenth century came to an end, the foundations for the modern missionary movement were laid. Roman Catholic missions were ready for renewal. Protestant missions, empowered by a robust Wesleyan revival that had spread to the New World, were ready for a take-off. The Moravian and that New England pioneers, spurred on by their militant Pietism, were reaching out to the ends of the earth. The stage was set for the Great Century of Christian missions.

Chapter 13

The Great Century and Beyond (1792–1910)

Justice Anderson

As the story of Christian missions moves into the nineteenth century, denominated “the Great Century” by Kenneth Scott Latourette (1941, 4:1–8), the saga chronicles Christianity’s most extensive geographic spread. By the close of the eighteenth century, Christianity resided in five of the six continents. This expansion had resulted from the great missionary movements of the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries. Partly due to the phenomenal explorations, commercial enterprises, and conquests of Christian Europeans, the ubiquity of Christianity had essentially arisen out of the religious awakenings of the eighteenth century, which, for potency, were without equal in previous Christian history (Latourette 1941, 4:2).

Zealous Protestant missionaries, fueled by the Pietist movement of continental Europe and the evangelical awakenings in England and North America, had established pockets of believers in the coastlands of Asia, India, Africa, and the Middle East. Significant communities of Roman and Orthodox Catholics already occupied these areas.

Now, in the nineteenth century came a new, robust expansion of Christianity, mainly Protestant, which helped to temper the enervating influence of the Enlightenment’s rationalism. Roman Catholic missions were at a standstill due to the geopolitical decadence of Portugal and Spain, the dissolution of the Jesuits, and the mortal conflict with the deadening rationalism spawned by the French Revolution. In contrast, the Second Great Awakening in England and North America sparked fresh missionary enthusiasm among Protestants and free-church dissidents such as the Baptists.

The Protestant movement of the nineteenth century was more ecumenical than denominational. It formed parachurch societies that emphasized personal conversion, a devout regenerate life, new zeal for witness to God’s saving love in Christ, and social concern. From the end of the eighteenth century, dozens of new missions organizations were formed in the North Atlantic world. Ecclesiastical mission work was not totally lacking, but the dominant form of organization was that of the independent missionary societies (Verstraelen 1995, 237–38).

For what is termed in this chapter “the nineteenth century,” the boundary dates are not 1800 and 1900. A “missiological great century” will be substituted: namely, 1792–1910—from the founding of William Carey’s Baptist Missionary Society to the first World Missions Conference in Edinburgh.

The historian of missions, faced with the challenge of this century, has a condensation problem because Christianity had reached more peoples and entered more cultures than in all preceding centuries. The situation was not that new continents and countries were entered for the first time. Actually, fresh footholds among peoples already touched were secured, new missions emanated from the old, and Christianity entered into the large majority of countries, peoples, and tribes not previously reached. So many were the movements, so numerous were the individuals and organizations, that the historian is forced to highlight a few major events and outstanding leaders.

European Beginnings (1792–1810)

Although the Roman Catholics founded seventeen new missionary orders during the nineteenth century, their main emphasis was consolidation of their missions into the structure of their hierarchical church. Once freed from their Napoleonic captivity in 1815, they continued work through the Jesuits, the Franciscans, the Société des Missions Étrangeres of Paris, and the Lazarists. Women’s orders began to play an important part. Among the various nations, the French had the leading share in the Roman Catholic missions of the nineteenth century. France, mainly through its colonial expansion, took the leading role that in the preceding three centuries Spain and Portugal had held. Belgium and Germany contributed during the last half of the century. In general, however, Catholic missions were static, concentrating on centralization and the growth of a native clergy. The heart of Christian missionary effort crossed the English Channel and experienced a fresh initiative among British, evangelical Protestants.

The Pioneer in Great Britain

The first British entity organized especially for foreign missions, the Baptist Missionary Society (BMS), was formed in 1792. Its first and most illustrious missionary was William Carey (1761–1834). What Martin Luther was to the Protestant Reformation, Carey was to the Christian missionary movement. He has been called the “father of modern missions,” but it would be more accurate to call him the “father of the modern missionary movement.” The Anglicans, Pietists, and Moravians had “fathered” cross-cultural missions, but Carey organized and fathered a missionary movement!

Carey was aware of, and greatly influenced by, his missionary predecessors. Yet his rationale for, and organization of, a voluntary, cooperative denominational society did represent a turning point in the English-speaking world. Carey was an obscure, bivocational Baptist pastor, having left the Church of England at the age of eighteen under dissident influence. He married early and earned a living for his family by teaching school, mending shoes, and preaching. An avid reader, his hobbies were botany and languages.

An indefatigable student, Carey taught himself several languages. His passion for geography led him to read the popular works of Captain James Cook; his warm religious convictions based on in-depth Bible study in the original languages led him to concern about unevangelized peoples. He was profoundly influenced by the examples and writings of John Eliot and David Brainerd. These, with the apostle Paul, became his heroes.

In 1792 he wrote his famous treatise, An Enquiry into the Obligation of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens, which became the constitution of the modern missionary movement. The title indicates one of the difficulties with which he had to contend in his Particular Baptist denomination, namely, hyper-Calvinism. This doctrinal position decried human instrumentality and claimed that the conversion of the heathen would be the Lord’s own work in his own time. Carey’s older colleagues considered him a miserable enthusiast!

Carey’s response in the Enquiry was a polite, methodical survey of the world and of the whole history of Christian efforts to bring the gospel to it. He presented a devastating refutation of the common Protestant belief that the Great Commission had already been fulfilled. He answered common objections to missionary work and concluded with practical suggestions for organizing a society.

The appeal of this pamphlet, published with funds provided by his friend Thomas Potts, was reinforced by his famous sermon entitled “Attempt Great Things; Expect Great Things,” based on Isaiah 54:2–3. Four months later, twelve Particular Baptist pastors organized the BMS. One of the pastors, Andrew Fulsler, became the society’s home secretary and primary promoter. In June 1793 Carey left for India with his family and a companion, John Thomas, a physician who already knew Bengali. His arrival in the Hooghly Estuary near Calcutta five months later set in motion the overseas missions from the English-speaking world. It was English-speaking missionaries who became the vanguard of the new movement.

Political opposition, family problems, and financial crises confronted Carey in India and drove him into forced exile in the interior for several years. He worked for an indigo plantation while mastering the Bengali language. He was persuaded to join Joshua Marshman and William Ward, newly appointed BMS missionaries, in the Danish colony of Serampore in 1799. They formed the famous “Serampore Trio,” one of the most productive and influential missionary teams in the history of Christianity.

Carey’s surprisingly contemporary philosophy of mission was five pronged. He sought to balance widespread preaching, distribution of the Bible in the vernacular, church planting, profound study of the non-Christian religions, and ministerial training, in a comprehensive program (Neill 1964, 263). Carey died in 1834 without ever returning to England. His legacy is legion—more than forty translations of the Bible, a dozen mission stations all over India, the production of grammars and dictionaries in many languages, three sons who became missionaries, the abolition of some of the grosser social evils of Hinduism, the translation of Hindu classics into English, and even premier horticultural research (Olson 1988, 123).

Missionary Societies before 1810

Perhaps the greatest legacy of Carey was the “society basis” of doing missions. When Carey could not persuade the Baptist congregations of England to form a church-based, ecclesiastical missions entity, he organized a Baptist society patterned after the already-existing Anglican societies. Largely through his sacrificial example and his prolific letter writing, his BMS received unexpected attention. There followed a proliferation of missionary societies in Europe, dependent on the initiative of consecrated individuals and relying for financial support on the voluntary gifts of interested Christians. Carey’s Baptist Missionary Society was first established in 1792; followed by the London Missionary Society (LMS) in 1795, the first interdenominational society; the Scottish and Glasgow Missionary Societies in 1796; the Netherlands Missionary Society in 1797; the Church Missionary Society (CMS) of the Anglicans in 1799; and the British and Foreign Bible Society in 1804.

Outstanding Missionaries before 1810

Besides the Serampore Trio—Carey, Marshman, and Ward—other outstanding missionaries of other denominations served during this early period. A contemporary of Carey, Henry Martyn, a chaplain of the East India Company, was profoundly influenced by the Evangelical Revival. He arrived in Calcutta in 1806. Although a high-church Anglican, he became a close friend and colleague of the Serampore Trio. He threw himself into the translation work. Because of his personal brilliance and his philological training, he finished translations of the New Testament in Urdu, Persian, and Arabic before his untimely death in 1813.

Another missionary of note, Robert Morrison, opened Protestant mission work in China in 1807. The LMS appointed him to China after ministerial training in London. At that time, China was closed to foreigners because of Chinese xenophobia and the problem of the opium trade. Because of his language skills, he settled in Macao as an employee of the East India Company and began his translation of the Bible. His first convert came after seven years, and his Chinese Bible was finished after seventeen years.

In 1796 the LMS, inspired by the accounts of Captain James Cook, organized a team of thirty male missionaries, six wives, and three children to go and evangelize Tahiti, Tonga, and the Marquesas of the South Sea Islands. Ill prepared and poorly trained, the team was practically overcome by the hostile response of the cannibalistic natives and the too-warm welcome from native women who freely dispensed sexual favors. Several missionaries were killed, others “went native,” and only a few were able to make converts. However, the experiment did lay the basis for a more effective mission work later, which brought mass conversions and spawned an indigenous missions movement in the Islands.

Another outstanding missionary, John Theodore Vanderkemp, became a pioneer missionary of the LMS to South Africa. He arrived in Cape Town, occupied by the British, in 1799. He took up the cause of the Bantus and the Hottentots who were in constant conflict with the British settlers. He created a city of refuge for the Hottentots and attempted to defend their rights. His relationship with the British settlers soured even more when he married an African in order to identify better with the culture. Vanderkemp died in 1811. He manifested the virtues of a pioneer and laid the foundation for more prudent missionaries later.

American Involvement (1810–32)

The impact of William Carey and the Serampore Trio was making itself felt among all Christians early in the nineteenth century, especially among American Christians. Carey, although an ardent Baptist, was a promoter of ecumenism in missions. He had proposed that a general missionary conference should be held in 1810 in Cape of Good Hope. It is interesting to reflect what would have been the representation if “Carey’s pleasing dream” of a missionary conference of mission-minded people around the world had materialized. Such a conference would have measured the extension of the missionary movement to that day.

Japan and Korea would not have been present and hardly a soul from China or Southeast Asia, except for a few from Indonesia; a small group from the Pacific isles and a rather large group from India; no one from the Muslim world; a handful from West Africa but no one from the interior; a fair-sized group from the West Indies but (this being a Protestant dream) no one from Central or South America (Neill 1964, 252–53). All of these areas were to be reached before 1910, when the “pleasing dream” became a reality at the World Missions Conference in Edinburgh.

First American Efforts in the United States

A major factor in the century-long expansion of Christianity, which made it a worldwide faith for the first time in its history, was the entrance of the North American entities. American overseas missions were an extension of their home missions. The whole climate of American Christian thinking was expansion along the frontier and the evangelization of new cities (Carpenter and Shenk 1990, 9). The distinction between home and foreign missions had scarcely been formulated; and if one admitted an obligation to convert the native Americans, then it was a short step to admitting a responsibility for people everywhere (Hutchison 1987, 58).

Organization had begun among the churches in the United States as early as 1787, and a score of societies came into being, all having a worldwide objective (Winter and Hawthorne 1992, 65). However, the frontier settlements and the native Americans absorbed all their resources. Once again it was the influence of the Carey model on New England that sparked a student movement in the early 1800s that broke the deadlock and launched the overseas mission through the formation of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM) in 1810, largely sponsored by the Congregationalist denomination.

The First American Societies

The student movements at Andover Seminary and Williams College in New England, led by Samuel Mills, provided the first missionaries to be named by the new board. They were Adoniram Judson, Samuel Newell, and Samuel Nott, with their wives, and bachelors Gordon Hall and Luther Rice. Before their appointment, Judson was sent to England to consult with the LMS. On the way he was captured by a French privateer, imprisoned, and finally escaped to England, where the British mission leaders suggested that the Americans should sponsor their own mission. As a result, in 1812 the ABCFM sent the missionaries to India to work with Carey.

The three couples and the two bachelors traveled on separate ships because of the danger of sea travel and the recently declared War of 1812 with England. Knowing that they would have to debate the question of infant baptism with the Baptists, they studied their Greek New Testaments on the way. As a result, the Judsons and Rice became convinced Baptists and, on arrival, were baptized by William Ward.

The Judsons and Rice resigned from the Congregational board and offered their services to the Baptists in America. They decided that Luther Rice would go back to the United States to secure support for the Judsons, who, because of visa problems, sailed to Burma (now Myanmar), where they joined Carey’s son Felix in a new work. On arriving in the US, Rice was commissioned to tour, eliciting support from the small Baptist congregations scattered from New York to Savannah. With his unusual persuasiveness, Rice became the chief apostle of foreign missions among Baptists of North America and the architect of Baptist denominational life.

The result of all this unplanned, providential development was the founding of the second significant missions society in the US. Rice struck up a friendship with Richard Furman of South Carolina, a revolutionary hero and eloquent Baptist pastor who not only pledged his personal support but urged Rice to try to organize the whole Baptist denomination rather than foster the creation of innumerable small societies (Cauthen and Means 1981, 9). Rice’s mission was successful, eventuating in the formation at Philadelphia in May of 1814 of the General Missionary Convention of the Baptist Denomination in the USA for Foreign Missions (later called the Triennial Convention).

Furman was the first president; the Judsons, the first missionaries; Burma, the first mission field; and Rice became the first promoter. Although called a “convention,” the entity soon became a foreign missions society controlled mainly by the Baptist churches of the North. In 1817 the constitution was changed to include the support of western domestic missions among the Indians, started by John Peck and Isaac McCoy, an arrangement that continued until the Home Mission Society was formed in 1832.

In 1816 the American Bible Society was organized and became a colleague of all evangelical missions. Other mission boards were organized in rapid succession by the Methodist Episcopal Church (1819), the Protestant Episcopal Church (1821), the Presbyterian Church (1831), and the Evangelical Lutheran Church (1837). Practically all North American denominations created mission boards; and these, plus a myriad of interdenominational societies, brought American missions into the leadership of the modern missions movement by the mid-nineteenth century (Kane 1981, 88).

Outstanding Missionaries and New Fields before 1832

Adoniram Judson is usually considered the first American foreign missionary. However, an unsung liberated slave, George Lisle, was really the first American to go abroad to plant a church. With the help of a Baptist military officer, Lisle went to Jamaica in 1782, secured work, and became a bivocational Baptist preacher. In 1791 he constituted a church and requested help from the BMS in England. In 1814 John Rowe arrived, and the two developed a thriving Baptist work in Kingston. Later, these Jamaican Baptists sent missionaries to Latin America.

Hiram Bingham and the ABCFM missionary team arrived in Hawaii in 1820.8 This famous mission many years later received wide acclaim through James Michener’s novel, Hawaii. The party of nearly twenty found that a considerable amount of Christian influence had preceded them, brought to Hawaii by Christian merchants. Aided by two chiefs who had been converted previously, the mission prospered, fueled by a sweeping revival, similar to the Great Awakening, from 1839–41. Although narrow and ethnocentric, the mission succeeded in winning many from the indigenous Hawaiian population.

Lott Cary and Collin Teague (1821), former slaves, with their families, were sent to Liberia, West Africa, by the Richmond African Baptist Missionary Society. This society had been organized as an auxiliary of the Triennial Baptist Convention. Before leaving, they constituted themselves in the Providence Baptist Church; therefore, on their arrival, they represented the first Baptist church of missionary origin on the continent of Africa and were antecedents of the large Baptist constituency still in Liberia today (Estep 1994, 44).

George Dana and Sarah Boardman (1827), missionaries of the Triennial Baptist Convention to Burma, worked among the tribal people in the north. They were accompanied by Ko Tha Byn, the first convert of the Karen tribe, who became a flaming evangelist among his own people. The Karens, illiterate and despised by the Burmans, believed that in times past they had lost favor with the Creator God and had lost his book. When the missionaries arrived with a message of a Creator God and a holy book, hundreds responded and constituted the Karen Baptist churches, the largest evangelical group in Burma. When George Dana died in 1831, Sarah continued the work and later married Judson, whose first wife, Anne Hasseltine, had died (Kane 1972, 148).

Other Pioneer Missionaries from Europe

Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) was the scene of mission work by the British societies: the LMS in 1804, the BMS in 1817, the Methodists in 1814, and the CMS in 1817. The ABCFM sent personnel to Jaffna to work among the Tamils. All these experienced widespread resistance. They received a few hard-won converts and noted slow but steady growth in the predominantly Buddhist culture.

Sierra Leone on the west coast of Africa was the home of thousands of freed slaves exported to Africa. They were the object of missions by German missionaries of the CMS beginning in 1804. Loss of life, typical for the white man in West Africa, was terrible; in twenty years the CMS lost more than fifty men and women. Sacrificial persistence gradually produced a stable but somewhat static work. In 1827 the CMS founded Fourah Bay College for the higher education of Africans, perhaps their greatest contribution to this field.

Robert Moffat (1816) and John Philip (1820) were the two outstanding missionaries of the LMS in South Africa. Moffat arrived with little education and no formal theological training, a characteristic of many LMS missionaries. He settled among the Bechuana at Kuruman and, through his own diligence and industry, created an oasis in the wilderness (Neill 1964, 312). He mastered the language and won converts, but espoused a paternalistic missiology that produced a dependent constituency. He was a pathfinder who prepared the way for missionaries like his famous son-in-law, David Livingstone.

Unlike Moffat, John Philip, the LMS superintendent for the area, was a supporter of the rights of the black man, so denigrated by the European settlers. He contended that the African, given the opportunity of education, would be the equal of the European. He evoked the ire of the Boers, Dutch settlers, by his social reforms, which led to their treks to the north and the founding of the South African states.

John Williams (1817) was the most famous of the pioneers in the Pacific South Seas. Sent out by the LMS, he was assigned to the Society Islands, but as he stated, he could not be content within “the narrow limits of a single reef” (Neill 1964, 298). He went from island to island training teachers. On the isle of Erromanga in 1839, he was set upon and clubbed to death by the natives who devoured his remains in a cannibal feast. However, his martyrdom challenged Presbyterians John Geddie and later John Paton to enter the New Hebrides. Whole islands became totally Christian through the daredevil service of these missionaries.

Alexander Duff was a Church of Scotland missionary who arrived in Calcutta, India, in 1830. His term of service briefly coincided with that of William Carey. His goal was to reach the high-caste Hindus through higher education in English. He was successful in winning about thirty-three upper-caste converts during his eighteen years of service, although his philosophy did not lead to mass conversions. He is better known in missiological history for the chair of evangelistic theology (missiology today) that he founded in 1867 in his home seminary in Scotland. In modern missiology he is known as the “father of the study of missions in theological education.”

European and American Missiology (1832–65)

Overall, the amazing expansion of the Christian faith through the European and American societies was characterized by a paternalistic, missionary-directed, financially subsidized missiology. The societies and their missionaries were amazingly reluctant to develop indigenous leadership. After 1832 the societies began to evaluate their work, and several outstanding missiologists emerged to redirect the burgeoning movement.

The Anderson-Venn-Wayland Trio

In 1832 Rufus Anderson became the senior secretary of the ABCFM. As a young student he had witnessed the ordination service of the first ABCFM missionaries. In 1820 he volunteered for overseas service, but the prudential committee (the executive board of the ABCFM) recognized his administrative skills and kept him on staff as assistant secretary until 1832, when he assumed leadership. Anderson’s program for missions was based on two basic convictions. First, he expected the triumph of the Christian religion and civilization—a mild triumphalism with a touch of manifest destiny. Second, he held a trust in the working of the Holy Spirit. Anderson insisted that the gospel, once implanted, can be relied upon to foster true religion, sound learning, and an indigenous Christian civilization (Hutchison 1987, 79–80).

Anderson felt he was being faithful to the original Serampore Trio-Judson philosophy, which, although it sought individual conversions, wanted to foster the growth of a church that would be independent and well sustained by a literate, Bible-reading laity and administered by an educated indigenous ministry. However, he felt that thirty years of societal missions had crept into a paternalistic syndrome, which had developed central mission stations where the converts clustered in economic and social dependence on the missionaries. The stations and their churches had become overprofessionalized with their schools, hospitals, and printing presses. A missionary was pastor and ruler of the community. Western culture was imposed, and “civilizing” replaced “evangelizing.” Such a system had little place for an indigenous pastor as Carey and Judson had envisioned.

In 1854–55 Anderson undertook a survey trip to Sri Lanka and India. What he saw confirmed his fears. He ordered the ABCFM missionaries to break up the huge central stations, to organize village churches, and to ordain native pastors over them. He decreed that education in the vernacular should be the general rule and education in English the exception (Winter and Hawthorne 1992, 67).

At the same time, Henry Venn, the general secretary of the CMS in London, was enunciating mission strategy in England. In 1854, he had published his well-known “three-self formula” for indigenous churches—they should be self-supporting, self-governing, and self-propagating. The two men arrived independently at the same principles and, in later years, mutually influenced each other. They felt the missionaries should be preachers, evangelists, and church planters above all else.

Sharing these same views, and greatly influenced by them, was Francis Wayland, general director of the Triennial Baptist Convention in the United States. Wayland reflected the views of Adoniram Judson and staunchly defended the radical views of Anderson. As a moral philosopher and longtime president of Brown University, he insisted that the appeal of the gospel can and must be made directly, without the mediation of education or any sort of civilizing (Hutchison 1987, 84).

Although these arguments of the missiological triumvirate against civilizing motives and functions encountered immediate opposition at home and abroad, their boards implemented them, and they were the order of the day during this period (1832–65). British missions tended to resist Anderson’s views on vernacular education. American missions adopted his strategy and in theory held to his system for more than a century. During the next generation, the theories of Anderson, Venn, and Wayland, without their progenitors to enforce them, fell victim to the robust colonialism of the secular world. They were filed and temporarily forgotten, but, anchored as they were in a pure-gospel tradition long antedating these nineteenth-century figures, they would reemerge in twentieth-century missiology.

Outstanding Events and Missionaries

While the missiological development continued from 1832 to 1865, some outstanding missionaries were at work, and some salient events were occurring that had a bearing on Christian missions. These significant persons and events of the period greatly impacted missions.

Significant Events. One significant event, the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) in 1845, brought into being the Home Mission Board and the Foreign Mission Board of the SBC (1845). These entities have become the largest single organized, mission-sending body in the world. These two boards were the result of the separation of Northern and Southern Baptists in the USA in 1845. In 1997, the Foreign Mission Board was renamed the International Mission Board and the Home Mission Board renamed the North American Mission Board.

Since the organization of the Triennial Convention in 1814, there had been a sharp difference of opinion among North American Baptists—mounting from their General and Particular Baptist origins in England—about how to organize and carry out the Christian mission. The northern brethren favored the “society basis”; the southerners, the more centralized “convention basis.” These latent issues became acute in the 1840s when the abolitionist movement entered Baptist ranks. The Triennial Convention and the Home Mission Society, dominated by the north, refused to appoint candidates from the south who had some involvement with slavery—after agreeing that the issue would not be a factor in missionary appointments. The southerners felt betrayed and met in Augusta, Georgia, in 1845 and formed the Southern Baptist Convention, not to defend slavery but to be able to fulfill the Great Commission (Estep 1994, 55–58). The cooperative, voluntary method of missions support, pioneered by the SBC, has been highly productive and has been adopted by most of the denominational missions entities in the United States.

A second significant event in this period sprang from the demise of the East India Company. This British company had been a quasisovereign power in India (1858). The proclamation of the ending of this entity restored the confidence of the Hindus and Muslims. The new pattern also declared freedom for Christian missions in India from the prejudices and discriminations fomented by the company’s regime.

The forced opening of Japan by Commodore Matthew Perry in 1853 marked a significant event that impacted missions for the next years. Taking advantage of the opening, the first Roman Catholic priest of modern times entered Japan in 1858. The first American diplomatic minister, Townsend Harris, an ardent Episcopalian, held Christian services in his residence. The barriers that had shut out missions to Japan were at last broken. The Christian effort had a new mission field.

The treaties with China in 1842, 1858, and 1860 were among the most significant events of the period in the development of missions. European powers wrested these treaties, which gave foreigners the right to settle in the coastal cities and to travel protected by their own laws in the interior of that populous empire, from China. Although the result of the infamous opium trade and gunboat diplomacy, the peaceful penetration of China by Christian missions was now possible. Though not built on spiritual motivations, these treaties, still called “unjust treaties” in China, enhanced missionary work.

The Second Evangelical Awakening broke out in America among laymen who emphasized prayer and pious living. This significant event led to a number of new societies formed on the nondenominational pattern like the old LMS, and large numbers of recruits for mission service volunteered (Neill 1964, 323–25). The significance of the revivals for missions can be seen in some of the outstanding missionaries who resulted.

Outstanding Missionaries. Thomas Birch Freeman, a West Indian half-caste who was educated in England, became the pioneer Methodist missionary in the Gold Coast (now Ghana). With his arrival in 1838, the mission began work with the Ashanti tribe. The Africans always considered him a white man, but his origins gave him a natural affinity with them. The climate, hard work, and the diseases that took so many did not seem to affect his iron constitution. His friendly respect for the African culture enabled him to develop an indigenous church. He also served as a middleman for missionaries of other societies (Kane 1972, 337).

Karl F. A. Gutzlaff, a missionary of the Netherlands Missionary Society from 1826 to 1828 who later became independent, was a swashbuckling, fearless pioneer and linguist who served brief terms in Thailand, Korea, and finally China. Stephen Neill states that “he may be variously judged as a saint, a crank, a visionary, a true pioneer, and a deluded fanatic” (1964, 285). He is best known for his plan to evangelize China through Chinese colporteurs. His enthusiastic naivete was exploited by his Chinese helpers, and his strategy ended in a scandalous debacle. Perhaps his greatest contribution to missions was his influence on Hudson Taylor and David Livingstone, both of whom credit his impact on their callings and strategies.

David Livingstone served from 1841 as a LMS missionary, later acted as an explorer of the British Royal Society, and always continued as a crusader against the African slave trade. He became, perhaps, the most famous missionary to Africa. His well-known exploratory treks opened up central Africa to both missionaries and colonialists with controversial results. His enigmatic personality, stubborn determination, family problems, and restless character have evoked conflicting evaluations of his ministry. An in-depth study of his life and writings reveals him as first and foremost a missionary who considered travel and commerce as means to realize his mission. His Missionary Travels and Researches, published in 1857, generated enthusiasm that propelled hundreds to dedicated service in Africa.

Henry Townsend, a CMS missionary to Nigeria, in 1844 initiated the very productive work among the Yoruba tribe. Abeokuta became the center of the Yoruba ministry. Townsend helped T. J. Bowen, the first Southern Baptist missionary to Nigeria, establish his work in 1850 and later worked closely with the Methodist T. B. Freeman, who moved from Ghana to Abeokuta. The first native Anglican bishop, Samuel Crowther, was a Yoruba who worked closely with Townsend, Freeman, and Bowen in the rapidly growing, but physically perilous, work in West Africa.

John Taylor Jones, an American Baptist missionary, in 1843 completed a translation of the New Testament in Siamese, the language of Thailand. This translation proved of great assistance to the struggling missions of the Presbyterians and the Baptists in Thailand. To this day, missions in Thailand have shown limited results.

Allen Gardiner (1850) was a British naval commander who after his conversion left the navy to dedicate his life to missionary labors. After abortive attempts to evangelize in South Africa, New Guinea, and central South America, he founded the South American Missionary Society, mainly supported by Anglicans, and directed his attention to Tierra del Fuego at the southern tip of South America, home of the lowly Patagonian Indians. Because of a breakdown of logistics in 1850, he and his companions starved to death on a desolate shore of the island. His innovative mission strategy failed completely, but his martyrdom inspired others, who, in the 1870s, evangelized practically all of the remaining Patagonians. His story has inspired evangelical young people in South America to dedicate themselves to world missions.

C. G. Pfander, a missionary of the Basel Evangelical Missionary Society in the Middle East, was an accomplished Islamic scholar. He wrote the famous polemical book against Islam, Balance of Truth, in 1829. Pfander’s work in several countries such as Persia and Turkey followed the method of confrontation and debate. He is famous for his public debate in 1854 with a group of Muslim scholars. Actually, Pfander simply revived methods recommended years before by Raymond Lull.

Ludwig Ingwer Nommensen (1862) began one of the most powerful and effective missionary works among the Batak people of Sumatra in Indonesia. By the use of indigenous principles, Nommensen set in motion a people movement after the conversion of some of the chiefs. Although the Rhenish Society tended to be quite paternalistic and confessional, Nommenson vowed to develop a Batak, and not purely a Western, church. As the masses became Christian, a native clergy was trained and a system of lay elders was entrusted with spiritual responsibilities. Although the missionaries maintained positions of authority, a truly indigenous church resulted. The great majority of these representative missionaries were affiliated with church and denominational mission societies and boards. Their noble, selfless, and dedicated service remains both an inspiration and example for all.

The Golden Age of Colonialist Missions (1865–1910)

In 1865 a new type of mission entity appeared. It added a new dimension to the missionary movement. These years saw missions less bound to churches and denominational societies and more related to the political realities of advancing colonialism.

Philosophy of Mission

The last quarter of the nineteenth century was the heyday of Western colonialism (Neill 1964, 322). It was also the heyday of the Protestant missionary movement. Throughout this period there tended to be a close association between missions and colonialism. Indeed, in Africa, David Livingstone actually encouraged penetration by colonial powers, so that the heinous slave trade and intertribal warfare could be put to an end (Olson 1988, 143).

Ambivalence characterized the attitude of the missionaries toward colonialism. It gave access to many new fields, it brought political development to some areas, and it brought education to others. From the missiological standpoint, however, colonialism was an evil. It started with gunboat commercialism; it was exploitative; and its greatest evil was the resentment against Western Christianity that developed in many nationals. Therefore, the majority of the missionaries saw colonialism not as a good but as a lesser of two evils. A few saw it as an evil instrument used by God for his sovereign purpose and took advantage of it. The missionary movement helped to ameliorate the evils of colonialism; but without doubt, missions of this period took on certain characteristics of the colonial world.

Despite the continued adherence to the Anderson-Venn-Wayland formula, there was a great change in missionary mentality and strategy. Hurried attempts to apply the indigenous principles of Anderson resulted in some fiascos in India and Africa. These failures fomented a pious paternalism and furthered a benevolent imperialism. This imperialist viewpoint was an ecclesiastical variant of the growing devotion to the theory of “the white man’s burden” and reduced the growing indigenous churches to colonies of the foreign, planting church (Winter and Hawthorne 1992, 68). Paternalism thwarted development, and most of the missions were paternalistic and associated with the colonial mentality at the turn of the century.

Most missionary strategy of the late nineteenth century was aimed at individual conversion, church planting, and social transformation through evangelism, education, and medicine. Evangelism included preaching, organizing and fostering churches, Bible translation, literature production, and Bible distribution. Education at first was practical and industrial but soon turned academically upward, and a vast missionary educational system was in existence in Asia, the Americas, and to a lesser extent in Africa. The first missionary doctors went out to minister primarily to the missionaries but soon were recognized as a means to respond to the felt needs of the peoples. All types of social work were incorporated into the missionary task. For some mission groups, civilizing the culture replaced evangelizing the people.

With regard to the other religions, mission strategy and theology were aggressive and espoused a radical discontinuity. Other religions were to be displaced, tabula rasa, but this hard-line rejection began to decline near the end of the century as a creeping theological liberalism infiltrated the missions. Other religions were viewed as bridges to the gospel, or as “broken lights” to be repaired by Christianity. Exclusivism was the order of the day, but first evidences of the modem inclusivism and pluralism were seen on the horizon.

In the 1860s the first women missionaries were appointed. A few of these were appointed by the boards and societies that generally had opposed them. Other female missionaries received appointment from new societies formed exclusively to appoint single women. Female education proved to be one of the most effective forces for the liberation and social uplift of women—and this was one of the greatest contributions of the modern missionary movement.

Faith Missions and Fundamentalism

During the first half of the Great Century, the missionary work was mainly carried out by denominational missions. Even though the earliest boards were interdenominational (LMS and ABCFM), ultimately they became denominational. By the middle of the century, a number of interdenominational boards emerged. The most famous of these, the China Inland Mission (CIM), stirred the imagination of other leaders and stimulated a flood of other missions. The founding and ministry of the CIM contributed significantly to what missiology calls “the faith missions movement.”

James Hudson Taylor, founder of the CIM in 1865, arrived in China in 1853 but, disillusioned and distraught, returned to England in 1860. After experiencing a spiritual and physical renewal, he returned to China and organized the CIM. The new mission was interdenominational, required no formal education for its candidates, had its headquarters in China, adopted Chinese dress and customs, and advocated widespread evangelism by itineration. Taylor had a knack for organization and a magnetic personality that drew men and women to his new mission. In his own lifetime the CIM burgeoned to more than eight hundred members. It spawned the North Africa Mission (1881); the Christian and Missionary Alliance (1887); CIM’s American Branch (1888), which emerged out of the Fundamentalist movement; the Sudan Interior Mission (1893); and the Africa Inland Mission (1895).

These groups have been called “faith missions” because Hudson Taylor emphasized the faith principle of missionary support in order not to be in competition with existing agencies. For forty years, Hudson Taylor directed the work and shaped the character of the movement. Fueled by the Fundamentalist movement in America, and the worldwide Student Volunteer Movement, these “faith missions” multiplied after 1865. Therefore, the missionary movement in the last quarter of the nineteenth century was a hodgepodge of four kinds of missions: the interdenominational, the denominational, the faith mission, and the specialized missions designed to meet the felt needs of certain peoples and areas.

Outstanding Missionaries of the Era

Besides the point man, Hudson Taylor, a cadre of capable missionaries served during the period 1865–1910. Some of the most outstanding remain as inspirations today.

Timothy Richard (1870), a Welsh Baptist, spent fifty years in China working among Chinese intellectuals. Unlike Hudson Taylor, who developed a policy of diffusion, Richard believed in a policy of concentration. It became his aim not so much to convert individuals as to penetrate the rising intellectual class with Christian ideals. Through educational and literary production he helped to found several Chinese Christian universities (Neill 1964, 337).

John L. Nevius (1890) served in China for many years, but his major contribution to missionary history came in 1890 when he visited the new Presbyterian mission in Korea. Shortly before this visit, Nevius had reexamined the missionary methods used in China and radically changed his views of missionary philosophy. He published his findings, which he shared with the new missionaries in Korea. They adopted the new policies, which emphasized indigenous leadership, itinerate mission work, and financial self-support. Many feel that the tremendous growth of evangelical Christianity in Korea sprang directly from the application of these policies from the beginning of the mission.

Joseph Hardy Neesima (1874), a Japanese national, escaped to the US as a young man and received an education at Amherst and Andover. He then returned to Japan as a missionary of the ABCFM. He founded the famous Doshisha University from which came many of the Christian leaders of Japan.

Mary Slessor (1876), a native of Scotland, was appointed by the Calabar Mission to what is today Nigeria. Living in a mud hut and eating local food, she threw herself into an exhausting ministry that included supervision of schools, dispensing medicine, mediating disputes, and mothering unwanted children. She also was a circuit preacher. Slessor pioneered a place for hundreds of noble female missionaries who were being appointed by the emerging independent faith missions.

Charlotte “Lottie” Moon (1873) became one of the pioneer female missionaries of the Southern Baptist mission. Sent to China in 1873 to be a missionary teacher, she soon felt called to be an evangelist and church planter. Despite her field director’s initial opposition, she successfully conducted evangelistic work and planted some churches. She literally gave her life to China, dying in 1912 on her way home as a result of semi-starvation—the result of her sacrifices for the Chinese people.

William Buck Bagby (1881) was a pioneer Southern Baptist missionary to Brazil. Bagby and his wife, Ann Luther, were supported by Texas Baptists and appointed by the Foreign Mission Board of the SBC in 1881. They were inspired to select Brazil by A. T. Hawthorne, an ex-Confederate general, who served as an agent of the FMB and, earlier, as a colonizer in Brazil. Working out of a colony of expatriate Confederates, they began the national work that has resulted today in the burgeoning Brazilian Baptist Convention (Estep 1994, 125–27).

Pablo Besson (1881), an evangelical pioneer in Argentina, became an advocate for religious liberty. A native of Switzerland from a Reformed background, Besson emigrated to Argentina in 1881, after serving as a missionary of the Boston Board (Northern Baptist) in France during the 1870s. Having reached Baptist convictions because of his study of the Greek New Testament, he started Baptist churches in Argentina and initiated a campaign to secure religious rights for evangelicals. His test cases led to the civil registry in Argentina. The large Baptist denomination in Argentina claims Besson as its founder.

Amy Carmichael (1893) contributed to missionary outreach through her many years of service in India and her numerous books. She became one of the most widely known missionaries of the twentieth century. A native of Ireland, she felt called to missions in a Keswick spiritual-life conference. After a brief time in Japan, she was led to India, where she spent fifty-five years serving young women and children. She rescued untold numbers of young girls destined to be temple prostitutes in the Hindu worship. She founded the Dohnavur Fellowship, which supported her long and fruitful ministry (Tucker 1988, 130–32).

Christian Keysser (1887) served as a pioneer missionary of the Rhenish Mission and founded the Lutheran Church in Irian Jaya (New Guinea). Keysser, who probably penetrated more deeply into the mind of the Papuan than any other European, initiated the missionary policy of “tribal conversion,” later popularized by Donald McGavran and the modem church growth school. Christian instruction would be given until a whole tribe became Christian; baptism would be reserved for those who demonstrated fidelity over a long period of time. Native evangelists, with little education but deeply committed, carried out the ministry, and a great church was the result (Neill 1964, 355; and Keysser 1980, viii–ix).

Samuel Zwemer (1890s) was called the “Apostle to Islam” by his contemporaries. Called to missions as a student at the Reformed Seminary in New Brunswick, New Jersey, he went to Arabia to replace the recently deceased Scotch missionary, Ion Keith-Falconer. Zwemer was a rare combination of the pious and the practical, the saint and the scholar. He was a world traveler, a prolific writer, a dynamic speaker, a brilliant scholar, and a great personal worker (Kane 1972, 306–7). He came to know more about Islam, and the Christian approach to Muslims, than any other man of his day. He spent the last years of his life as a professor at Harvard.

Alfred Tucker (1893), the celebrated Anglican bishop of Uganda, served his church from 1893–1911. In the midst of a people movement, he began to concern himself with the emerging African church. He was one of the first missionary statesmen to recommend a truly indigenous church, in which national and missionary should serve together on a basis of perfect spiritual unity. His plan for the Native Anglican Church, presented in 1897, was shattered by his own missionary colleagues, but his vision never faded, and it has become a permanent part of healthy missionary philosophy today (Neill 1964, 387).

Charles H. Brent became an Episcopal bishop and missionary to the Philippines in 1902. When the United States occupied the islands after the Spanish-American War, practically all the Protestant mission societies started work among the predominately Roman Catholic population. Rapid growth was experienced by evangelicals, mainly at the expense of Catholics. However, Bishop Brent, later to be a prime mover of the Protestant ecumenical movement, refused to evangelize Catholics and concentrated his efforts on unevangelized hill tribes. His efforts in the mountains of Luzon produced a large and living church among the Igorots (Latourette 1943, 271).

These outstanding missionaries are representative of a great host of unheralded men and women who served the missionary cause. The missionary historian, facing this period of the Great Century, must paraphrase the famous words of the apostle John: “But there are also many others; were every one of them to be treated, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written” (John 21:25).

Evaluation of Colonialist Missions

In 1910 the first World Missionary Conference was held in Edinburgh, Scotland. One hundred years after “Carey’s pleasing dream,” it became a reality! Other regional conferences had preceded it, but Edinburgh 1910 surpassed them all. More than 1,200 representatives—Protestants and evangelical free-church persons—from all over the world attended. No Roman Catholic representatives were invited. Missionary optimism ran high. It spawned the famous watchword of the conference, “The Evangelization of the World in this Generation,” coined by J. R. Mott and the robust Student Volunteer Movement in the 1880s and 1890s.

Motives and goals in mission are closely bound up with, and strongly affected by, their social, religious, and cultural context—and that context in 1910 was extremely sanguine! Secular developments such as the French Revolution, industrialization, the abolition of the slave and opium trades, and the European colonial expansion fostered a virile manifest destiny and an evangelical triumphalism. In the religious realm, the Enlightenment, liberalism, and cultural optimism, coupled with Pietism and a “free church” neopietism, produced an evangelical revival in the established churches. All these happenings gave substance to the enthusiasm of the delegates at Edinburgh. Comparison between the state of missions in 1810 and in 1910 seemed to justify the hope of unparalleled expansion.

Although missions have been called “the hunting dogs of imperialism” by secular historians and radical revolutionaries, were they simply a religious expression of Western colonialism? Without doubt, Protestant missions in 1910 were paternalistic and colonialist, culturally speaking; but overall, political and cultural-humanitarian motives did not play a dominant role. Their goal was not the glory of the Western empires but the glory of God’s kingdom.

In spite of some paradigm shifts toward colonialist and cultural motives, the essential motivation behind the optimism of Edinburgh 1910 was basically pietistic: love for Christ and one’s neighbor, desire for the salvation of non-Christians, and the duty of all Christians to share their faith. As Robert Speer expressed it, “There is a false imperialism which is abhorrent to Christianity, and there is a true imperialism which is inherent in it” (Hutchison 1987, 91). The following period of missionary history was to be a time of “ripening harvest” and “gathering storm.”

In summary, a paraphrase of Kenneth Scott Latourette’s tribute to the nineteenth-century missionary is an apt evaluation “in miniature” of the whole missionary movement:

Bigoted and narrow they frequently were, occasionally superstitious, and sometimes domineering and serenely convinced of the superiority of Western culture and of their own particular form of Christianity. When all that can be said in criticism of the missionaries has been said, however, and it is not a little, the fact remains that nearly always at considerable and very often at great sacrifice they came out . . . and labored indefatigably for an alien people who did not want them or their message. Whatever may be the final judgment on the major premises, the methods, and the results of the missionary enterprise, the fact cannot be denied that for sheer altruism and heroic faith here is one of the bright pages in the history of the race. (Latourette 1929, 824–25)

Chapter 14

The History of Missions in North America

Charles L. Chaney

This chapter surveys the expansion of the Christian faith in what is now the United States of America from a Protestant perspective. Historically, the American home mission of Protestant Christianity was in no way separate from the rising Protestant world mission. John Eliot and the Thomas Mayhews Jr. and Sr. in New England had the greatest impact on the rise of the global mission through their work with Native Americans (Beaver, 1962, 18). So clearly was the mission in North America seen as part and parcel of the Protestant world mission that William Carey wrote in 1800, “The various tribes . . . appear to have a claim upon the American churches; . . . we may say, that one great end of the existing of the churches in America is, to spread the glorious gospel among the heathen in their vicinity” (Carey 1800, 63).

English Protestants came to the New World with a rich theological heritage within a wilderness/paradise motif. Influenced by the Continental Reformation, they viewed the church as always under the cross and always sent through the world. Both the world that the church must go through and the arena of its conflict were often characterized as wilderness. Wilderness was an excellent word to describe the physical circumstances that the colonists found in North America, but it was soon internalized to mean also the wilderness of the hearts and communities of men. So prevalent and recurring is this theme that it will give structure to this chapter.9

Invading the Wilderness: the Struggle for Empire (1565–1720)

For almost two centuries, various colonial groups from several different European peoples labored to gain a foothold on the North American continent. Invariably one of the major motives for colonization, stated by those who went to the New World, was to erect the kingdom of Christ among the native peoples.

Mission in Context

Competition for empire among European nations marked the ebb and flow of missionary activity. Certain regions of North America passed back and forth among Spain, France, England, and Holland before and after the American Revolution. In addition, the Society of Jesus was suppressed by European kings after 1763 and was finally dissolved by the pope in 1777. The repercussion of the Jesuit collapse sent tidal waves through all Roman Catholic missions and ripples of eschatological joy through Protestant missionary leaders.

Spanish Missions

The cultural, military, and religious dynamic of Spain after 1492 was nothing less than amazing. Spain staked out an extensive colonial empire in the New World within two generations. Spanish culture and religion left an indelible mark on much of the Western Hemisphere. By 1720, four primary fields had been occupied.

Florida. The Spanish made early efforts to colonize and evangelize in Florida. Fr. Luis Cancer was killed, in 1549, near Tampa Bay, making him one of America’s earliest missionary martyrs. The Spanish governor of Florida brutally expelled an early French Protestant (Huguenot) colony at the mouth of St. John’s River the year he established St. Augustine in 1565. Jesuit missionaries came, realized scant success, and departed in 1573. Four years later the Franciscans arrived. Their labors bore fruit. Many Indians became Christians, and several regional mission stations were established.

The Jesuits. For 150 years, the Jesuits executed their missions, often involved in political intrigue and sometimes involved in insurgent military action to protect the Indians. Their missions ranged from the Great Lakes into Canada to the north and into Maine and New Brunswick to the south. They followed their migrating Indians all the way into the Mississippi Valley, and from there into Biloxi and New Orleans on the Gulf Coast. They proceeded across the north to Minnesota and down the Ohio River to the south. By 1700 most of the Indians in Illinois and Indiana were nominally Christian. Strong Indian and French communities existed on the Wabash, the Illinois, and the Mississippi. Because of the Europeans’ insatiable rage for political, military, and commercial power on the colonial frontiers, the Jesuit missions were much maligned because of their defense of the Indian tribes. Their missionaries, in spite of heroic efforts, realized little lasting success.

Nevertheless, the Jesuits’ commitment to the missionary task as they understood it, their identification with the tribal people, their mastery of the various languages, and their willingness to pursue their goal, even through suffering and death, makes the French Jesuit mission in North America in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries one of the most salient in history.

English Missions

All colonization efforts by the English were cast in religious motif. A significant number of English colonists believed that, along with their attempts at planting colonies, producing profits, and expanding the possessions of the English crown, they were part of an overarching divine plan. This “higher” goal that the English colonists perceived expressed itself in two forms. The most obvious was the evangelization of the Indians. John Eliot asserted “that all languages shall see [God’s] glory, and that all Nations and Kingdoms shall become the Kingdoms of the Lord Jesus” (Whitfield, 1651, 120). Sir Walter Raleigh’s colony baptized the first Indian convert to Protestant Christianity in 1587.

The second expression of God’s “higher” purpose was the colonization enterprise itself. The entire colonization effort was habitually drawn within an eschatological frame and related to God’s ultimate purpose in the world. English Puritans felt that their mission to America had central significance in God’s ultimate plan for the redemption of the world.

Missionary Organizations and Actions

Missionary labor among Indians and European immigrants was more extensive than is usually alleged. Two significant missionary societies were organized in England before 1720 under the energetic leadership of Thomas Bray, namely the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge (SPCK, 1698) and the Society for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts (SPG, 1701). These societies came from a surge of missionary concern rampant in England at that time. This resurgence was accompanied by a desire to reclaim former Anglicans after their loss to the sectarian Quakers, Baptists, Congregationalists, and Presbyterians. Many of these sectarian groups came to the New World and established their colonies—Catholics in Maryland, Baptists in Rhode Island, Quakers in Pennsylvania—and promoted their faiths. However, SPG missionaries did not invest themselves in frontier peoples. They mainly worked to reclaim Anglicans from the sects, and therefore, their efforts among the Indians never had success.

The Middle Colonies

Johannes Megapolensis, who came to New Netherlands in 1642 and began work at Fort Orange (Albany) in 1643, started one of the earliest Protestant missions to the Indians. His work preceded that of both Thomas Mayhew and John Eliot (Elsbree 1928, 13).

The founding of Pennsylvania, in 1682, was cast in missiological rationale as the earlier colonies had been. The Quakers set a new standard in their relationship with Native Americans. They did not have much success among the Indians because of their exclusivist meetings but did come to control most of the Jerseys and Delaware, as well as Pennsylvania.

The most significant development for the future of domestic missions developed primarily in the middle colonies during this period. While missionary societies were being developed in England, American Christians developed a new concept that led to a second way of doing mission work. “Church planting” through the agency of larger ecclesiastical bodies was a new thing in the history of Christianity. This new notion properly marks the beginning of “home missions” for American churches (Chaney 1976, 115).

Irish Presbyterians organized in 1706 and became a synod in 1717. In 1707 five Baptist churches, mostly Welsh-speaking, joined in forming the Philadelphia Baptist Association. This association was destined to expand north and south after 1750 through the instruments of itinerant missionaries, becoming the mother of other missionary associations. The first general association of Congregationalists organized in 1709 and became a force in the missionary expansion of the frontier.

The first New Englander to make a concerted effort to preach to the Indians was Roger Williams. Before 1635, he had preached to most of the Indians in the vicinity of the English settlements. He claimed that he could have baptized entire villages. But due to the precarious political situation and the turmoil in his own mind that led him from Anglican, to Congregationalist, to separating Congregationalist, to Baptist, and finally to Seeker, his work was temporary and sporadic (Gaustad 1991, 30–35).

In 1642, Thomas Mayhew received a grant that included Martha’s Vineyard and several neighboring islands. Like any English lord of the manor, he assumed responsibility for the spiritual welfare of the inhabitants. His son, Thomas Mayhew Jr., became pastor of the English church and missionary to the Indians. By 1652, when he was lost at sea, the younger Mayhew had baptized more than one hundred converts. The father took up his late son’s work. For twenty-four years he labored among the Native Americans until more than 75 percent of those of the islands had become Christians. Baptist churches also were formed among Native Americans on Martha’s Vineyard and Nantucket (Vail 1907, 160).

The largest and best-known mission was that launched by John Eliot in 1646. Eliot fled England in 1631 before the rush of Laudian persecution. He began to study the Narragansette language. Fifteen years later he began to preach to them. Eliot believed that the commonwealth of England, the colonies of New England, and, indeed, the whole world should be organized after Moses’ model for organizing Israel (Eliot, 1661). He structured the villages of the praying Indians in this fashion. By 1680 there were fourteen towns established with schools and farms. He was instrumental in bringing about the formation of the first Protestant missionary society that was designed to support the Indian mission. The Long Parliament, in 1649, created “The Society for Propagation of the Gospel in New England.” It was closely tied to government both in England and New England, being the agent of the New England establishment. New England, reluctantly, and America were moving toward religious diversity and separation of church and state.

Clearing Land/Breaking Fallow Ground/Firstfruits: The Evangelical Awakenings (1720–1820)

Changing Times

By 1720 a paradigm shift was already beginning. New England piety was in decline. Cotton Mather had anticipated the dawn of a new Pentecost for two decades. Solomon Stoddard’s church had experienced four of the five “harvests” of his lifetime. German Pietism was felt in both England and America. Reforming societies had proliferated in England and had sent their emissaries to the New World. The foundations for the larger ecclesiastical bodies in America had been laid. The pivotal year was 1727: the Holy Club had formed at Oxford; Jonathan Edwards assisted his grandfather Stoddard in Northampton; revival came to small Dutch churches in New Jersey, where T. J. Frelinghuysen preached; and Nicholas von Zinzendorf was participating in the rebirth of the Moravian church. The sun was rising on a new day. Americans developed a new concept of missions and a second way of doing mission work. Both discoveries came to flower in the eighteenth century and bore full fruit in the nineteenth century.

This second missionary method was “church planting” by larger ecclesiastical bodies. The first generation of the New England Puritans conceived both the planting of English churches and the gathering of churches among the Indians as a part of its errand into the wilderness. The SPG identified “mission” with the planting of congregations of a particular persuasion. This idea, new at least in power and prominence, if not in essence, had its rise in the evangelical revivals.

The Great Awakening and Its Wake (1720–62)

Frelinghuysen and the Dutch Church

Dutch Reformed churches did not increase significantly in the four decades before the English conquest of New Netherlands. By 1700 there were twenty-nine Dutch Reformed churches, nine Presbyterian churches, one Anglican, and eleven other congregations in New York. A number of Dutch families moved to the Raritan Valley in New Jersey, an area that was to become the “Garden of the Dutch Church” (Corwin 1899, 123–24). To this region, Theodore Frelinghuysen came in 1720. After six years of controversy, confrontational preaching, and threats against his life, revival broke out. This was the beginning of the Evangelical Revival in the American colonies. Revival did not result in dramatic missionary activity in the Dutch Church.

Moravians

Revival came at almost the same time to the Moravian Brethren in Germany. Led by Philip Jacob Spener, about 1665, and August Hermann Francke, about 1675, Pietism arose from the rubble of the Thirty Years War (1618–48). By 1720 Spener, Francke, and the University of Halle had worldwide reputations and influence. Missionary action in Europe and abroad was one consequence. The Unitas Fratrum of Moravia was the most devastated of all Christian groups by the long war. Scattered families began moving, about 1720, onto the Saxony estates of Nicholas Ludwig von Zinzendorf, a Lutheran nobleman and devout Pietist, trained by Francke at Halle. Eventually, the Unitas Fratrum was reborn. Zinzendorf became one of its bishops. On August 13, 1727, at Herrnhut, the principle center for the Moravians, the whole gathered church experienced an outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Zinzendorf referred to this event afterward as the Moravian Pentecost. In the following decades Moravian missionaries were sent literally to the ends of the earth.

August G. Spangenberg and a small group of nine Moravians arrived in Georgia in 1734. They wanted a base to evangelize the Creeks and Cherokees and a possible place of refuge should they be forced out of Saxony. In 1738, Peter Böhler and David Zeisberger began evangelizing African slaves in South Carolina. The Moravians did not flourish in Georgia. In 1740 George Whitfield employed them to build a school for freed slaves on land he had purchased in Pennsylvania. The Moravians accepted and moved to Nazareth. Within a year they purchased land nearby. On Christmas Eve 1741, Zinzendorf, newly arrived in America, christened the new community Bethlehem (Hamilton 1895, 441–42). From Bethlehem and Nazareth the Moravians were to go far and wide, working primarily among Germanic and Native American peoples.

Zinzendorf spent almost two years in America. He organized Moravian churches, opened schools, undergirded a nascent Indian mission, and implemented a plan for itinerant evangelists to reap the harvest among Germanic immigrants. When he left, Zinzendorf inaugurated a plan of governance. Nine churches had been organized, two in New York, seven in Pennsylvania. Before 1744 they had penetrated as far south as Georgia and as far north as Maine. By 1748 they had thirty-one congregations, the most extensive Native American mission in America, and an organized and efficient missionary agency for taking the gospel to the wilderness. The direct influence of the Moravians on the mission to America was significant. Their indirect impact through Methodism and itinerancy in general was greater still.

The Society in Scotland for Propagating Christian Knowledge (SSPCK)

The SSPCK was actually chartered by Queen Anne in 1709. In 1731 the SSPCK asked Governor Belcher and other prominent New England leaders to serve as a board of correspondents in New England. This board was given power “to chuse persons qualified . . . as missionaries, and not employed by any other society, to fix the salary . . . and to specify the particular places where they should serve.” Three men were sent to posts on the frontier. Over the next five years the missions all failed, and the missionaries were dismissed in 1737.

Spontaneous Missionaries

The Great Awakening became a great public movement after 1740, and the Holy Spirit touched thousands of people. As the awakening penetrated New England, preachers began going to the Indians spontaneously. Eleazar Wheelock, a Connecticut pastor, became part of the awakening. He finally settled down in Lebanon and opened a school. Wheelock added another school for training Native American youth. English and Indian students were trained together and prepared for missionary service on the frontier.

Presbyterians

Revival came to some Presbyterians before the general awakening got underway in New England. Gilbert Tennent, a Presbyterian, went through a personal renewal, aided by Frelinghuysen. Tennent began to confront the carnality in his parish and to preach the necessity of new birth. From 1728 a series of revivals moved through many of the Presbyterian churches, especially those related to the Log College, a training center conducted by William Tennent, Gilbert’s father. The Great Awakening bore abundant fruit among them.

The Great Awakening bore fruit in the mission to the Indians. David Brainerd began his work at the forks of the Delaware. He extended his ministry among the Indians from Freehold, New Jersey, to the Susquehanna River in the West. No American missionary is better known than Brainerd. His Journals, which Edwards edited and put into a biography, continues to impact missionaries to the present day. Brainerd died after five years in the mission but not before a significant ingathering occurred. His brother, John, took up the work until his death in 1781.

Lutherans

German Lutherans began coming to the colonies in the 1680s. By 1708 immigration became a flood. Swedish and Dutch Lutherans preceded the first German immigration. John Cayser Stoever, though not commissioned, arrived in 1728 and became an itinerant Lutheran church planter. Henry M. Muhlenberg was a friend of G. A. Francke and was closely tied to German Pietism. In 1741 Francke asked him if he would accept a call to America. He was soon on his way, approved by ecclesiastical authorities in both Germany and England. His vision was larger than the local congregation. His motto, “ecclesia plantanda,” expressed it. Correctly called the “father of Lutheranism in America,” he was soon itinerating, preaching, solving problems, organizing churches, finding pastors, and literally building a denomination.

Baptists

Most existing Baptist churches in 1740 were not directly affected by the Awakening. Many churches in New England were General Baptist churches, as were the scattered Baptist churches in the backcountry of the South. They tended to be critical of the awakening. The Philadelphia Baptist Association’s (PBA) minutes never mention the revival (Gillette 1851, 41, 43, 57). However, by 1755, men who had been converted in the Awakening came into positions of leadership in the association. They were decidedly Calvinistic. The PBA began to reach out to the South, West, and North. In 1749, Oliver Hart, a promising young man in the PBA, became pastor of the Baptist church in Charleston. Hart remained for thirty years. He led in forming the Charleston Baptist Association in 1751, modeled after the PBA.

In 1751 the PBA started sending itinerant missionaries across the Blue Ridge in Virginia. Small General Baptist churches were revived and restructured. The Opkeckon and Ketocten churches joined the PBA in 1754. John Gano, friend of Hart and Gilbert Tennent, surveyed the Carolinas in 1754. In 1755, PBA put more extensive mission plans into effect, and the Charleston Association sent Gano to evangelize the Carolinas. In 1757 emissaries of PBA began to gather Baptist churches in New York and western Connecticut.

In New England the rise of New Light churches was well underway by 1750. Some people were no longer at home in lethargic churches that gave no emphasis to the new birth. Hundreds of these were gathered into Baptist churches as well as New Light Congregational churches. By 1755 New Light Congregational churches began becoming Separatist Baptist churches in New England. These churches became a missionary force after 1762.

The most exciting story of Baptist church planting before the American Revolution is that of the Separate Baptists on the southern frontier. Shubal Stearns and Daniel Marshall arrived in Sandy Creek, North Carolina, in 1754. Both were New Englanders and true sons of the Great Awakening. They moved into a vacuum. Evangelistic journeys were launched in all directions. Before 1762 Marshall had carried the torch to Virginia. By 1767 the movement had reached as far north as Orange County, where it met the Regular Baptist movement that had been nurtured by the PBA. By 1762 Baptists were poised for explosive growth.

Methodists

Methodists came late to America. The first preachers came on their own, without Wesley’s blessing. Philip Embury and Robert Strawbridge arrived in the 1760s. They never came under the authority of Wesley or Asbury. Nevertheless, they gathered several societies before Wesley’s missionaries arrived in 1769 (Norwood 1974, 65–66).

The Era of the Revolution (1762–84)

The Anglicans, through the SPG, reached their American acme between 1763 and 1776. By the end of the war, the SPG missionaries were all gone, and the Anglican churches were demoralized and in disarray. The Congregationalists were hindered by all the political unrest but did spread into Maine and to some points in the West. Not until 1786 did the Congregationalists begin to church the wilderness. This became the scenario of the Baptists and Methodists.

Separatist Baptist missionaries were active in New England very early. In 1764, the PBA sent James Manning and Hezekiah Smith to Rhode Island to encourage the development of a Baptist college. Manning became president of Rhode Island College (Brown University) the following year and the “church planting” pastor of the Baptist church in Warren, Rhode Island. By 1767 he had persuaded the Separate Baptists in New England to form the Warren Baptist Association. Hezekiah Smith had previously itinerated as far south as Georgia. An effective evangelist, he preached in both Baptist and Pedobaptist churches.

The Warren Association became so important in the struggle for religious liberty that its role as a mission agency has been overlooked. Isaac Backus was the primary leader and agent of the association. He was an indefatigable fighter for separation of church and state and also an inexhaustible itinerate.

In the South, the growth continued even while the American Revolution was in progress. After 1762 Phillip Mulkey and Daniel Marshall from the Sandy Creek Association moved into South Carolina. In 1771 Marshall crossed the Savannah River into Georgia. The Kiokia Creek church was formed in 1772. In 1771, the Sandy Creek Association became three associations: Congaree in South Carolina, the General Association in Virginia, and Sandy Creek in North Carolina. In 17 years the Sandy Creek church, with 16 founding members, became 42 churches with 125 licensed or ordained ministers.

For some eighty years, close control and minute management descended on American Moravians. The Moravian church failed to expand with the new nation. At the same time, the most extensive and successful Indian mission developed under the leadership of David Zeisberger. No group in America was more committed in theory, resources, and actual performance to evangelizing pagan people than were the Moravians. Three quite large Indian communities developed, with thirteen thousand acres in cultivation, log cabin villages, and large churches. From 1773 through 1778 great peace and prosperity reigned. But in 1781, American militiamen discovered them, herded them into barns, and massacred men, women, and children. The mission was never successfully reestablished (Gray, 1956). No missionary effort was more tragically destroyed by war and violence than that of the Moravians.

Methodists were also very active in this period. In 1769 the first missionaries sent by John Wesley arrived in America. Francis Asbury arrived in 1771, Thomas Rankin in 1773, and two more in 1774. Asbury and Rankin insisted that the preachers in connection had to travel. In 1769 six hundred persons were in societies. By Christmas 1784, when the Methodist Episcopal Church was formed, there were fifteen thousand members in societies from New York to Georgia.

The Second Great Awakening and Missionary Explosion (1785–1820)

After 1785 the Evangelical Revival began a second surge in America. Methodists, Baptists, and Presbyterians experienced awakenings in the 1780s. This surge of new life aroused a fervent missionary spirit and crystallized into numerous missionary organizations. Leaders of the new societies counted their efforts a vital part of the rising Protestant world mission.

Baptists: Traveling Preachers and Missionary Associations

When the PBA met in 1787, reports of great growth among the Baptists abounded. This growth prompted Whitfield’s remark near the end of his life: “All my chickens have turned to ducks.” The Second Great Awakening became general in 1797, but Baptists had already experienced significant growth. Itinerating missionary-preachers (often traveling at their own expense without pay) and small associations (with contagious enthusiasm for gathering new congregations) were the chief instruments of expansion. By 1792 Baptists had become the largest religious group in the new nation. When Luther Rice arrived from India to attempt to organize Baptists in America to support Adoniram and Ann Judson, who were serving in India at that time as missionaries in the Orient, there was already a long-standing commitment to sending missionaries to destitute places.

The General Missionary Convention of the Baptist Denomination in the United States for Foreign Missions (Triennial Convention) was formed in Philadelphia in May 1814. In 1817 it took up the domestic mission and theological education as well as foreign missions. A twenty-one-member Board of Foreign Missions was elected to manage its affairs. Luther Rice, corresponding secretary, was the primary dreamer of an all-inclusive mission board that would manage missions, benevolence, and education for the denomination. The board was granted authority “to embrace home missions and plans for the encouragement of education.” Preparations were already in place. John E. Welch and John Mason Peck were sent to St. Louis, gateway to the trans-Mississippi. James R. A. Ronaldson was sent to New Orleans, with Indians, blacks, and whites his triple assignment. Isaac McCoy went to the Indians on the Wabash and Humphrey Posey to the Cherokees.

By 1820 the antimissionary controversy was underway. In the early years, antimission advocates were not opposed to making disciples and planting churches. They were opposed to special-purpose societies and fully salaried missionaries. In 1826 the Triennial Convention was restricted to foreign missions alone. Associations, missionary societies, and boards conducted the domestic mission for the next half dozen years.

Presbyterians: National Organization with Missionary Purpose

The most important missionary action taken by the Presbyterian Synod of New York and Philadelphia was to permit the ordination of licentiates sine titula, for the express purpose of itinerating and creating new presbyteries on “missionary ground” in the wilderness. The missionary spirit among American churchmen waxed higher and higher. In 1810 the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM) was formed in New England, in 1814 the Baptist Triennial Convention for Foreign Missions, and in 1816 the American Bible Society (ABS).

Congregationalists: Recovery and Reaction

The most pressing problem for Congregationalists at the end of the American Revolution was the Indian missions, which had been supported by the SSPCK. New England missionary forces were largely in a state of dependency on foreign support. The SSPCK eventually restored support. The new nation under the Articles of Confederation struggled with overwhelming problems. This period was the “critical period of American history” (MacDonald 1965, 133–54). Shay’s Rebellion (January 1787) and continued reports of the success of Baptists and Methodists on the frontiers spurred New England leaders to form the Society for Propagating the Gospel among the Indians and Others in North America (SPGNA).

Methodists: Exploding in North America

The impact of missionary-sending associations and part-time itinerant preachers helped Baptists become the largest denominational group in America by 1790. However, the Methodist Episcopal Church, formed at Christmas 1784, was essentially a missionary agency, and its missionaries itinerated full time. Methodists leapfrogged over the Baptists by 1820 to become the most numerous Christian group. Two keys to Methodist success were the extraordinary, sacrificial commitment to the mission by lay persons and preachers alike and a structure that lent itself to both expansion and assimilation. Volunteer preachers were assigned to circuits that did not then exist. These circuit preachers, an incredible missionary army, were willing to labor at little or no salary and became the core of the Methodist domestic mission. By 1820 Methodists had almost 250,000 members.

Cultivating the Garden and Reaping the Harvest: The Crusade for Christian Nationhood (1820–86)

Nationalism and the Domestic Mission

Nationalism was a major force in the developing domestic mission. After the War of 1812, nationalism became vocal. “Manifest Destiny” became its rally cry. American nationalism was not as aggressive as European nationalism in overseas empire building, but missionaries almost always participated in Indian treaty making, usually as advocates of the national government. Some resisted Native American removal; others advocated it. The American Baptist Home Missions Society’s rally cry in the nineteenth century was “North America for Christ.” Mexico, Central America, and Canada were included in their vision. The assignment of Cuba and Panama to the Home Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention (HMB/SBC) illustrates nationalism in missionary thought and action. Cuba and Panama were destined to be in the orbit of the United States.

Civilization and the Domestic Mission

American Protestants, after 1886, experienced a “Babylonian captivity of the Great Commission” (Chaney 1967). Matthew 28:19–20 was interpreted to have reference only to “foreign missions.” The mission to America, for many, lost its identification with the church’s apostolate to the nations. The redemptive task of the churches to make disciples and plant churches was lost in the goal of creating an ideal human society.

The shift came early for Congregationalists and Presbyterians. Soon the missionaries of these two groups became involved in nation building, in the realization of a truly Christian civilization (Handy 1984, 180–81). Whatever philosophy missionaries followed, they were invariably advocates of education, founders of colleges, and supporters of a moral civil government. As the century progressed, the primary goal of the domestic mission for many became the perfection of a Christian nation, not making disciples of Jesus Christ and gathering them into churches.

Keeping Down the Weeds (1820–65)

The growing defensive posture of the domestic mission can be illustrated endlessly. Major energy was expended on “keeping down the weeds.” Home missions over the century became the great “divine plow” to keep the garden clean. This idealization of New England culture persisted for 175 years. Lyman Beecher’s Building the Waste Places and Plea for the West, Horace Bushnell’s Barbarism: The First Danger, and Josiah Strong’s Our Country are often cited as pivotal books for understanding home missions in the nineteenth century. All four call for the extension of nineteenth-century New England culture to the entire nation, to “New Englandize” the continent.

Two great threats faced the nation: uneducated masses and the flood of Roman Catholic immigration in its first high tide. Rulers of Catholic nations, to solve their own social problems and destroy America’s free republic, were sending their poor and morally depraved people to America (Beecher 1812, 50–51). Beecher’s sermon was one of the first extensive exposés of a Roman Catholic missionary strategy in America. It became a powerful tool in the developing anti-Catholic crusade.

In 1847 Horace Bushnell further illustrated the growing defensive posture of the leaders of the domestic mission. The slavery controversy was white hot. Radical abolitionists had been organized for ten years. Methodists divided in 1844; Baptists in 1845. The Mexican War, for Bushnell a war to extend slavery, was in progress (Bushnell 1847, 20). Romanism was only a secondary threat. Barbarism was the greatest threat to the future of America. Slavery had to go, an essential step to eradicating barbarism. America is the “brightest hope of the ages.” This effort to root out the tares continued beyond the Civil War. The long and violent effort to eradicate slavery was the greatest of all the Protestant crusades in the century designed to purify the New Israel.

Parceling Out the Field (1837–85)

Along with this effort to keep down the weeds, the home mission forces were busy in parceling out the garden. The evangelical united front collapsed in the 1830s. High church, exclusivistic doctrines invaded the denominations in the 1840s. It was the time of the rise of the Landmark doctrine among the Baptists, the organization of the Missouri Synod Lutherans, the ascendancy of high-church claims among the Episcopalians, and Old School Orthodoxy among the Presbyterians. Even the Methodists regarded Methodism as the “purest existing type of Christianity, and as a priceless heritage of doctrine and discipline.” Denominational exclusivism helped shape the mission to America into competitive church extension along denominational lines.

Revival and Doctrine

The first distributions of territory arose out of the Frontier Revival of 1801–5. The Disciples of Christ were organized in 1832, when two strands of a restoration movement were united in Lexington, Kentucky. Barton W. Stone, a convert of the preaching of James McGready, hosted a camp meeting at Cane Ridge in 1801. The weeklong, day-and-night meeting launched a general revival across Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee that multiplied churches for a decade (Ahlstrom 1972, 439). Stone’s initiative resulted in the Christian denomination; the Campbellite strand of the Disciples resulted eventually in the Church of Christ denomination. Both of these joined in the missionary extension of the nation. In 1849 the Disciples formed the American Christian Missionary Society, which, though it attempted missions in Jerusalem, Jamaica, and Liberia, spent most of its energies and monetary resources on the mission to North America (Tyler 1894, 157–58).

The second significant group to arise out of the Frontier Revival was the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. It became a church before the merger of the Campbellite and Stonite movements created the Disciples of Christ. We must return to the camp meetings at Red River conducted by James McGready in 1800. McGready was a Presbyterian itinerant missionary and pastor and later became the pioneer missionary for Presbyterians in southern Indiana. The Cumberland Presbyterian Church had its first General Assembly in 1829. That year an additional presbytery was formed in Texas. This communion was a frontier church that was essentially, through its synod and presbyteries, a missionary structure.

Abolition and Slavery

The slavery controversy divided the churches before it divided the nation and finally culminated in the Civil War. It changed the face of American Christianity for 150 years and directly and comprehensively left an ineffaceable imprint on the domestic mission. In the next decade the abolitionist movement of the Presbyterians called for immediate emancipation and excommunication of all slaveholders. The Presbyterian Church of the Confederate States of America was formed in Atlanta in December 1861.

In the 1840s dissenting abolitionists started withdrawing from the major denominations and national agencies. The national Baptist societies maintained a middle position for nearly a decade, adopting a policy of moderation. In 1839 the Freewill Baptist General Conference, always opposed to slavery, broke fellowship with other Arminian, free-communion Baptist churches in the South over slavery. The following year, Baptists dissatisfied with what they perceived as appeasement on the part of national agencies organized the American Baptist Anti-Slavery Convention. The Amistad Committee, organized in 1839 in New York to provide legal defense and religious instruction for the human cargo of the slaver Amistad, was one of the first. Finally set free by the United States Supreme Court, this group was transported to Kaw Mendi near Sierra Leone.

The major divisions over slavery did not develop from the abolitionist side of the controversy. The two largest Protestant denominations, Methodists and Baptists, were divided when proslavery forces decided to create their own denominational and missionary organizations. The Methodists formed the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in 1845.

The division of Baptists followed much the same pattern and came about in an almost identical time frame as that of the Methodists. A home mission problem became the occasion for the division in 1845. Antislavery agitation accelerated after English Baptists sent a letter to Lucius Bolles, corresponding secretary of the Baptist Mission Board of the Triennial Convention. In his reply, he rejected their suggestion for avid advocacy for abolition. What had been a campfire became a conflagration. After the American Baptist Anti-Slavery Convention was formed in 1840, both the Baptist Board of Missions and the American Baptist Home Missions Society (ABHMS) issued statements affirming their neutrality. It was a position that they would not long hold. Before the 1844 meetings of the Triennial Convention, the ABHMS, and the American Baptist Publication Society (ABPS), it was discovered that James Huckins and William Tryon, both ABHMS missionaries in Texas, were slaveowners. Agitation for abolition accelerated.

In August 1844 the Georgia Baptist Executive Committee recommended James E. Reeves, a slaveholder, for appointment as a home missionary. The executive board of the ABHMS refused to act, saying that to intentionally raise the question of slavery violated policy. In November Alabama Baptists queried the Baptist Mission Board of the Triennial Convention about whether slaveholders were equally eligible with nonslaveholders for appointment as agents and missionaries. The negative response made the division inevitable.

Baptists from the southern and southwestern states met in Augusta, Georgia, on May 8, 1845. Two mornings later the Southern Baptist Convention was constituted, and a Board of Managers for Foreign Missions and a Board of Managers for Domestic Missions were elected. By 1860 there were 13 state conventions, 316 local associations, 7,760 churches, and 645,000 members related to this convention. Its Domestic Mission Board assumed the work of the Indian Mission Association in 1853, formed in 1840 by Isaac McCoy. The northern national societies met in 1846. The name of the Triennial Convention was changed to the American Baptist Missionary Union (ABMU). The ABMU was responsible for Native American work until 1865. It soon had missionaries at work all across the North American continent.

Immigration and Emancipation

Other forces contributed to the parcelization of the new Christian nations. Other peoples came to North America to claim a part of the wilderness, and several million African Americans were delivered from the wilderness of slavery to cultivate their own corner of the garden.

African Americans, both slave and free, converted in the Great Awakening and its aftermath, joined white churches. In the South, new believers began early to hold indigenous praise meetings secretly in the woods (Washington 1986, 8–9). Black congregations began to form clandestinely in the 1750s. Under the tutelage of Daniel Marshall of the Sandy Creek Baptist Association and Edmund Botsford, missionary from the Charleston Baptist Association, several black Baptist churches arose near Augusta, Georgia. The Silver Bluff Church, across the river in South Carolina, led by George Lisle, was formed in 1773.

Plantation churches were also being formed during this period. Independent black churches were formed in the North and South after the Second Great Awakening began in 1787. Biracial churches continued with many more black members. By 1810 there were independent, all-black churches in Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, southwestern Illinois, and Ohio.

The first African-American Baptist associations were formed in free states, on the borders of slavery. Two national conventions were organized before the Civil War. After the first American Baptist Anti-Slavery Convention met in April 1840, in New York, the African-American churches in New York, Pennsylvania, and New England founded the American Baptist Missionary Convention (ABMC). The ABMC was committed to African missions, but most of its efforts were expended in the domestic mission, helping evangelist/church planters and weak, pastorless churches. The second antebellum African Baptist convention was the Western Baptist Missionary Convention (WBMC) organized by the Wood River Association in 1853. It met annually through 1859.

Four major questions faced these agencies and fostered disagreement between them. First, what would be the policy toward white Southern Baptists? Should reapproachment be speedy or slow? Second, how should money be allocated? Third, who should do the work? Fourth, who should allocate the money? The ABHMS claimed the nation as its domain. The two black conventions and the ABHMS felt that the freedmen should be the field of African American Baptists. This strong conflict between the ABHMS and the two black groups and the inability of many ABHMS leaders to consider full equality and social compatibility of blacks hindered cooperation and merger. Years later action was taken to move toward a lasting national organization of African-American Baptists. Its impact on American culture was to be significant in the twentieth century.

Two generations ago, H. Richard Niebuhr described the denominations as a distinctive American form of the church, decried what he called the ethical failure of a divided church, and insisted that social forces, rather than spiritual or biblical factors, helped form the pluralism of American Christianity. He emphasized the place of race, class, national origins, regionalism, and language as the primary factors in shaping Christianity in America. But he insisted that for African-American churches, it was not “wholly a retrogressive step” but a forward step from an association without equality, though independence, toward the desirable fellowship of equals (Niebuhr 1929, 253).

The Garden: Fruitful but Failing (1886–1920)

By 1900 the home mission movement had reached the acme of its prestige and influence in America, but by 1920 it was in serious trouble. The home mission effort had produced the tremendous growth of American Christianity. Most of the existing churches had been planted as a result of home mission work. Institutions of Christian higher education had resulted from the work of the domestic mission. It was primarily responsible for the patriotism and manpower that won the Civil War (Clark 1903, 343).

Earlier, the domestic mission was defined as evangelism and church planting, but by 1900 the overarching view of some was that the home missionary was more a nation builder than an evangelist and church planter. In 1881 Austin Phelps contended that the domestic mission had priority over the foreign. In 1876 Cyrus D. Foss, president of Wesleyan University, proclaimed the truth that God has a plan for nations as well as for men; the advancement of the kingdom of God and of the American nation was one. Such was the perception of many of the most prominent Americans at the turn of the twentieth century. This religious “manifest destiny” was to plague home and foreign missions for years to come.

Preconciliar Protestants

As Lyman Beecher was the prophet of the evangelical united front, and Horace Bushnell was the prophet of the new Christian empire, Josiah Strong was the prophet of the unified effort to realize the ideal human society, or, according to him, “the kingdom of God.” Strong was “the dynamo, the revivalist, the organizer, and altogether the ‘most irrepressible spirit’ of this understanding of the domestic mission, which resulted in the ‘Social Gospel Movement’” (Ahlstrom, 1972, 798). The kingdom of God, he believed, would be actualized in American society and then to the world. The mission to America was no longer integral to the world mission of the church. The domestic mission was subservient to the mission of the nation. The national mission had become identical with the mission of God. America had become the new Israel.

In 1914 J. Paul Douglas wrote more about the new day, made an assessment of the domestic mission, and spelled the new social perspective that home missions had to assume. Douglas’s vision, like Strong’s, was the realization of the social ideal of Jesus in human society, the kingdom of God fully come (Douglas 1914, 227).

Preevangelical Protestants

As optimistic views concerning the actualization of the kingdom of God were expounded vigorously, a different perspective arose in North America concerning both the world mission and the domestic mission. This movement was both like and unlike the movement just described. The first was essentially postmillennial, insisting that through the preaching of the gospel, the penetration of the social order, and the inevitable progress of human achievement, a thousand-year reign of peace would dawn on earth. This was the divine purpose, and America, the new Israel, was to be its instrument.

The second movement was premillennial, insisting that the realization of a millennial kingdom without an apocalyptic intervention by God through the return of Christ was hopeless. These premillennialists believed that the gospel would triumph over the nations. They did not expect it in the present age. The final and universal turning of the nations to Christ would take place after he had returned to earth and set up his millennial kingdom (Gordon 1891, 12–16). These dispensational missionary advocates did not endorse the concept of America as the new Israel, or the Western hemisphere as the place of the millennial reign. The millennial kingdom would have its seat in Jerusalem.

The attitude toward America was mixed. First, the nation was viewed as the arena of missions. As the frontier closed, the growing cities of America, with their tens of thousands of immigrants and migrants, became the targets of mission. Young people and adults were trained for mission service in American cities as well as overseas. Bible institutes were born for this purpose. “They arose in response to the demands of urban ministries and the desire to train lay leaders for evangelism [and] . . . foreign missions—always a prominent concern” (Marsden 1980, 128).

The “great” city church, usually with a strong pulpiteer as pastor and teacher, multiplied ministries aimed at meeting human need, and direct and aggressive evangelism became the model by the turn of the century. Through Dwight L. Moody, Sam P. Jones, J. Wilbur Chapman, “Gypsy” Smith, William E. Biederwof, R. A. Torrey, and Billy Sunday, the new mission fields—the developing American cities—were evangelized. Though these men did not expect the social order to be transformed before the return of Christ, they were also reformers, fighting corruption, prostitution, the liquor traffic, and other social evils (Weber 1983, 100–101).

Second, these missionary leaders saw America as a Christian nation, a significant part of Christendom, and as the base from which the evangelization of the world would take place. America was a place where the church was established and only needed to do the work of evangelism. Home missions lost its significance. In 1891, at the first meeting of the Student Volunteer Movement for Foreign Missions (SVMFM), a young Robert Speer, a premillennialist, spoke about actually realizing the SVMFM watchword, “to evangelize the world in this generation.” He insisted that the slogan did not suggest the world would be converted, Christianized, or civilized in his generation. It did mean that the gospel could be presented to every person in the world.

By the time America entered World War I, the dispensational premillenialists and their conservative associates had adopted much of the jingoism of the social gospel group. The premillennialists and their conservative associates came out of the war ready to engage in a cultural war to save Christian America from evolution, German liberal theology, and modernism. In terms of the millennium, very little difference exists between the advocates of progressive social Christianity and premillennial dispensationalists.

In the first two decades of this period (1885–1905), these two groups worked together in both foreign and domestic missions. After 1905 a gradual widening of the theological gap between the two extremes occurred. Albert H. Newman identified three groups of Baptists: the liberals, fully devoted to the new theology; the premillennialists, strongly committed to a literal interpretation of the Bible; and the conservative party, the vast majority, most of whom did not know there was a growing controversy (Newman 1906, 600–609). The same situation existed within other mainline denominations.

The Black Protestants

A third segment of American Protestantism that is part of the fragmentation of the domestic mission is the African-American churches, especially black Baptist churches. The American National Baptist Convention met for the first time in August 1886 with the expressed purpose of bringing together three different regional conventions of African-American Baptists in the United States. In 1895 three national conventions came together in a structure much like the Southern Baptist Convention. The three conventions became the boards of education, foreign missions, and home missions of the National Baptist Convention of the United States of America (NBCUSA). The NBCUSA was plagued by dissension and in 1915 divided into two “National” Baptist Conventions. During the century there have been other divisions. Each of the three major denominational bodies has a functioning home mission board, society, or department.

The fantastic record of National Baptist churches in evangelism and church planting in this century, especially in the inner cities of this nation, has been ignored in most discussions of the mission of the American churches on this continent. No word is said of the multiplication of Christians and churches by black Christians in the black communities (Chaney 1991, 213–34). The numbers and broad base of the black churches made black leadership in the civil rights movement a possibility. After the end of the reconstruction period in 1877, the social and political condition of blacks in the South deteriorated quickly. By 1887 many blacks were migrating to the West. In the decade of the 1890s, the largest migration shifted toward the cities. The proliferation of black churches in industrial cities of America had begun (Conn 1994, 55–56).

Southern Biblicists

A fourth significant segment of American Protestantism that demands attention is a group that might be classified as “southern biblicists.” The Southern Baptist Convention, the Churches of Christ, Southern Presbyterians, and Southern Methodists are the obvious examples of this classification. All were, after the Civil War, oriented toward southern culture, participated in the social and economic privations of the South, and suffered the disdain and disregard of the northern denominations. All imbibed the racial prejudice and Anglo-Saxon supremacy ideology of the post-Civil War South and early social gospelism.

Northern evangelicals tended toward premillennialism. Southern biblicists, before 1920, tended to be amillennialists. Their emphasis was on personal salvation with no real expectation that this world and human society would be actually renovated, either by the evolution of human society or by the direct intervention of God to set up a material kingdom to rule the world. Bible-centered, personal evangelism, the work of crusade evangelists, and a strong emphasis on local churches made the southern biblicists avid and successful church planters. Their identification with the defeated Confederacy and the culture of southern sectionalism gave them much in common and kept them on the fringe of both the mainline liberalizing denominations and the developing protofundamentalist movement. Because of the early identification of Southern Presbyterians and Methodists with the conciliar movement and the new theology, only Southern Baptists and Churches of Christ will be discussed here.

The Southern Baptist Convention. In 1882 Isaac T. Tichenor was elected leader of the SBC’s Home Mission Board (HMB). The SBC domestic mission work was at very low ebb because of southern poverty, imprudent leadership, and the aggressive work of the ABHMS. This northern society was working directly with fourteen of the twenty-one state mission boards then in existence in the former Confederate states. For Tichenor and others, the very existence of the SBC was at stake. After moving the board to Atlanta from Alabama, Tichenor’s first action was to develop a relationship with the leaders of the various state mission boards. He urged these to consolidate within state boundaries. By 1892 he could report to the SBC, “The Board [has] demonstrated its right to live, and [has] won the confidence of the denomination” (Tichenor 1892, IX).

In the 1890s Tichenor negotiated an agreement with the ABHMS on cooperative work among blacks in the South, otherwise persuaded the ABHMS to abandon the South as a mission field, and laid a foundation for great geographical expansion. Cuba was entered in 1886, Panama in 1900, Illinois in 1910, New Mexico in 1913, and the Oklahoma and Missouri conventions aligned solely with the SBC.

Before 1920 the SBC rejected both the social gospel theory and the dispensational theory for Christian missions. William O. Carver, professor of missions at Southern Seminary, was the principle missionary statesman for Southern Baptists in the first half of the twentieth century. In his foundational book, Mission and the Plan of the Ages, Carver described and critiqued both missiological interpretations at some length. Defining both a frontier and/or a cross-cultural understanding of the missionary task, he said, “Missions is the proclamation of the Good News of the Kingdom where it is news; further evangelization and ministration make manifest the goodness of the news, emphasizing and applying it in the varied relations of our life” (Carver 1901, 11).

Carver warned against spending time in speculation on the date of the consummation, insisting that Jesus specifically instructed his followers that their time and attention was to be given to bearing witness to the nations. However, Carver held that “the work of missions has a very great bearing on all the plans of God” with reference to mankind. The climax of the missionary age will be the coming of the Lord the second time. What exactly would happen in this new age for the salvation of men was not known. Southern Baptist missions were primarily concerned with evangelism and church planting.

Churches of Christ. During the period under study, Churches of Christ were involved in two major conflicts. In the process, they established their identity, defined their doctrine more precisely, and extended their churches over the South, Southwest, the Midwest, and the Pacific Coast. First they separated from the Disciples of Christ and formed their own denomination.

David Lipscomb was the most influential person among Churches of Christ from the close of the Civil War until his death in 1917. His mentors were Alexander Campbell, Barton Stone, and Tolbert Fanning. Following Fanning, he was able to combine the strong commitment to the restoration of the primitive church of Alexander Campbell with what Richard T. Hughes has called “the apocalyptic sectarianism of Barton Stone.” While Campbell was a postmillennialist and believed that the kingdom of God would be established on earth and the restoration of the primitive church would be the means of realizing that kingdom, Stone was a premillennialist and believed that the millennial kingdom would only be realized by the return of Christ. The mature Campbell was optimistic about American culture and believed that progressively the kingdom would be actualized in American society. Stone was negative about all human culture and governments. They would all be destroyed, including the system of American democracy, by the return of Christ.

With this fundamental approach to the Bible as the only source of divine instruction, they opposed missionary societies as mere byproducts of frivolous human philosophy and useless speculation (Hughes 1996, 124). The primitive order for the church had been restored, and the primitive gospel had been restored in the Churches of Christ. Compromise with other religious societies was not possible. By 1906 the break was complete. Most meetinghouses and most of the wealthy people went with the Disciples of Christ toward the developing ecumenical movement, the new theology, and the social gospel. The Churches of Christ were left with storefronts and strong convictions. Though against missionary societies, they were not antimissionary. They aggressively made disciples and gathered churches across the South and Southwest.

Holiness and Pentecostal Churches

A fifth segment of American Protestantism shared the myopic, fractured vision of the mission to America by 1920: the Holiness and Pentecostal churches. The Holiness movement began before the Civil War and was generally welcomed by the Methodist Episcopal churches.

Almost all denominations were eventually affected by the holiness awakening. Prominent Baptists, Presbyterians, and Friends rose to places of leadership and national recognition. In England, out of D. L. Moody’s campaigns in 1873, the Keswick movement was born (1875). While the Wesleyans stressed holy living even to entire sanctification, the Keswick movement tended to be led by Presbyterians, Baptists, and Episcopalians and emphasized power for ministry more than sinless living through perfect love. Both branches of the movement had a profound impact on missionary commitment and activity in America in reference to both domestic and overseas missions.

The Keswick movement soon related directly to the dispensational premillennial movement already described. The Wesleyan movement began to encounter resistance within the two largest Methodist churches about 1880. They objected to the growing middle-class social values, prosperity and wealth ideology, and theological liberalism common within these two large Methodist denominations. Resistance was three-dimensional. First, Methodists north and south divided about whether sanctification was an instantaneous second work of grace or gradual growth in grace. Second, scores of independent, usually interdenominational holiness associations often led by Methodist evangelists arose free of the control of the bishops. Finally, there was a critical assessment of John Wesley’s doctrine of sanctification. Some Methodist teachers insisted that Wesley was wrong, or at least unclear, on this doctrine and that there was no biblical justification for a second blessing experience. In 1894 the Methodist Episcopal Church South (MECS) all but expelled the Holiness movement.

Some new holiness denominations were organized before the end of the century. The action at the MECS’s 1894 general conference seemed to break open the dike, and more than twenty holiness groups were formed between 1894 and 1900 alone (Synan 1997, 140). Also, in 1880 George Scott Railon and seven female helpers arrived in New York to begin the Salvation Army in America (McKinley 1992, 11–37). In 1881 Daniel S. Warner formed the Church of God, with headquarters in Anderson, Indiana. In 1887 A. B. Simpson merged his two associations into the Christian and Missionary Alliance.

In 1908 the Pentecostal Church of the Nazarene was organized in Pilot Point, Texas, from several smaller groups. Others were added in 1915. The primary mover in bringing about the consolidation was a former Methodist presiding elder in California, Phineas I. Bresee. In 1895 in Los Angeles, he organized a Church of the Nazarene to preach holiness and minister to the poor. Bresee led in the formation of the national body. Other groups were added, and the name was changed to the Church of the Nazarene in 1919.

Though there were numerous occasions of ecstatic tongues in the nineteenth century Methodist and holiness revivals, the Pentecostal holiness movement (not the church) did not come into being until January 1, 1901, when students of Charles F. Parham, a holiness evangelist with roots in Topeka, Kansas, came to the conclusion that the sign that a person had received the baptism of the Holy Spirit was that he or she spoke in a language he or she did not know. The Bible school Parham had conducted near Topeka was closed, and he itinerated for four years, preaching this new doctrinal discovery and personal experience. The baptism of the Holy Spirit was seen as a third work of grace in the believer.

Parham finally stopped in Houston, Texas, where he trained an African American, William J. Seymour. Seymour eventually ended up in Los Angeles preaching to a small holiness church. Forced out of their fellowship, he began to hold services in an old AME building at 312 Azusa Street, in downtown Los Angeles. Ecstatic tongues and other phenomena attracted large crowds. The birth of this revival coincided with the great San Francisco earthquake in mid-April 1906. Thousands came to Los Angeles to see and hear for themselves. Many went home to become founders of Pentecostal churches and fellowships or to lead already established holiness groups into Pentecostalism.

After 1910, while Pentecostalism and holiness churches continued to expand, opposition and controversies began to develop. Many of the holiness and Pentecostal groups, coming with Baptist or Presbyterian roots, repudiated the Wesleyan doctrine of sanctification. With this it was clear that Pentecostals would never be able to unite in one national group. The holiness groups began at mid-century to relate to the rising evangelicals, but both holiness and Pentecostals have pursued an aggressive domestic mission of evangelism and church planting among the lowest levels of society. In 1920 they constituted a significant segment of the fragmented domestic mission.

Wilderness Again or Wilderness Still? (1920 and After)

Space does not permit an account of domestic mission in the twentieth century. Since 1920 the domestic mission has been splintered and unfocused. Those who were on the fringe of Protestantism in 1920 have become the main players in the effort to bring America to the Christian faith. Certainly since the Home Mission Council was merged into the National Council of Churches in 1950, the mainline Protestants have done little to execute the domestic mission in its traditional forms.

With all the diffusion, can the domestic mission be a part of the world mission of the church? Discipling this nation, thoroughly and continuously, can be done only as a part of the discipling of all nations. Today mission seems to mean anything a church or Christian does that is good, that improves the human condition. The mission of the church must be more strictly defined. The mission of the church is essentially the making of disciples and gathering them into churches. The mission to America and the international mission are one.

To conclude this survey, three observations need to be made. First, God has not shifted his missionary calling to the nation instead of the church. By identifying America as the new Israel through which God intends to renovate the world, the nation is once again deluded by allegiance to civil religion and ensnared by militant hedonism, secular humanism, and a new and exotic paganism. Yet church and parachurch leaders assume that America is already thoroughly churched. Mark Noll referred to this same period under the title “Wilderness Once Again?” (Noll 1992, 423). It could better be called “Wilderness Still.”

Second, America is not now and has never been a Christian nation. This age is not the post-Christian era in America. Since the Declaration of Independence, this nation has been moving, as Franklin Littell has said, from state church to pluralism (Littell 1962, 167–68). The churches in America are young churches. America is a mission field where there are multitudes to be discipled, baptized, and taught to be responsible members of responsible churches.

Third, the chief task of the domestic mission in America today is related to evangelism and church planting. There are 270 million people in the United States of America. Something over 60 percent of that number are related to some sort of religious organization. But more than 30 percent, or about 81 million people, claim no allegiance to Jesus Christ or any other lord. There are only nine other nations in the world with a total population of more than 81 million. The American church is in the midst of one of the largest mission fields in the world today. Only three other nations—China, India, and Indonesia—have more lost people.

America must be viewed—to use the term Donald A. McGavran made famous—as “a vast mosaic.” Just because five churches are in a city of ten thousand does not mean that city is adequately churched. There may be numerous churches, but the majority only addresses the gospel to one people group. Among Protestants, black or white, too few churches address themselves to the poor. There is competition between churches for new members, but they are usually competing for churched people of the middle classes. The rest are forgotten or ignored. Most church-planting strategies are aimed at the upper-middle classes. The making of disciples and multiplying of churches among all segments of society is the essential mission of the church in the world—and specifically the mission of the church in the United States of America.

Chapter 15

Missions in the Twentieth and Twenty-First Centuries

R. Alton James

The eminent historian, Kenneth Scott Latourette, in the final volume of his A History of the Expansion of Christianity, described the difficulty of evaluating events that are incomplete (Latourette 1945, 7:1). Even when they are acknowledged and described, their ultimate impact on the future may not be fully understood. In spite of this obvious difficulty, Latourette offered his assessment of world Christianity. I will attempt, on a far smaller scale, to do the same.

The challenges the church has encountered in the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first century may have been the greatest in history. So, however, were the opportunities for growth and victory. In the midst of intense opposition, Christianity has shown marked advances in its geographical expansion, indigenous development, global awareness, and innovative approaches to reaching the world for Christ.

The turbulent seasons of the contemporary times have required the application of diverse transitional solutions. Factors in addition to the ones discussed in this chapter have contributed to this turbulence. For each transitional solution offered, many others existed. For each illustration under the solutions, numerous others could have been noted. Finally, descriptions of the triumphs of missions in terms of geographical expansion would have been helpful but were beyond the scope of this chapter.

Turbulent Seasons: A Historical Overview

As Latourette considered the main features of post-1914 Christianity, he observed that the new century was the fruition of the previous century. He recognized the importance of the technological advancements and observed that the globe continued to shrink in time-distances. A world culture, characterized by the use of science and its technological developments, emerged. Groups of humans were living in closer physical proximity with one another. The world was a neighborhood—a global village—and nationalism and racial strife disturbed its serenity (Latourette 1945, 7:5–6).

Political Turbulence

The twentieth-century world acted in the face of massive political changes. This political turbulence had profound implications for missions. Christian missions came to the year 1914 with an attitude that the future would soon show forth victories over ignorance, poverty, and resistance to Christianity. These promises remained unfulfilled.

Two World Wars and Subsequent Changes. World War I erupted and, unfortunately, did not achieve its noble goal of being the “war to end all wars.” In the decades since 1914, almost all the world has been engaged in military combat. Between 1900 and 1941, an estimated twenty-four international and civil wars were fought. Between 1945 and 1969 there were almost one hundred wars. This escalation of armed combat has continued to the present. These wars have resulted in ancient monarchies being swept away, communism embraced, and communism rejected.

Adding to the political turbulence, the economic depression of the 1930s crippled world governments and crushed financial empires. The optimism after World War I was crushed when the holocaust of World War II exploded upon the scene. This war had devastating results in terms of lost lives, crippled humanity, damaged relationships, and destroyed property. However, all the results were not negative. The war and its subsequent environment provided a laboratory for science and technology. A new day of challenge and opportunity had arrived for missions.

Ralph Winter called the period immediately following World War II “The Twenty-Five Unbelievable Years.” This period was transitional and traumatic for world missions. With great optimism the gauntlet was accepted, and the results were unbelievable! The times demanded creativity, flexibility, and a positive expectancy (Winter 1970, 11–13).

The most significant impact of the two world wars on missions was the shift of the missions base to North America. By 1945 North America was the center for Protestant missions both in terms of personnel and financial support. The citizens of the United States gained an expanded sense of world awareness through the eyes of the soldiers.

A damaging blow suffered by mission agencies during this period was the closing to missionaries of several countries. In Japanese-occupied territories the evacuation of missionaries was temporary. The missionary withdrawal from China, however, was massive and seemingly permanent. The forced exodus dealt a blow to the aspirations of many mission agencies. Yet, God used these displaced “China hands” to open new work throughout Asia. In the early days these workers limited their work to Chinese colonies in the new lands, but soon the work expanded to the nationals.

Communism. Communism has played a major role in the turbulence of the twentieth century. Today, an appropriate epitaph for communism may be “The Failed Experiment.” For most of the twentieth century, however, the threats, horrors, and uncertainties of the Iron Curtain, the Berlin Wall, and the Bamboo Curtain were realities of life.

Marxism’s first victory occurred in 1917 in Russia, but not until after World War II did the communists expand their control. Through annexation, Russia brought all of Eastern Europe under communist control. The communist armies in China gained control in 1949. Communist regimes subsequently gained control in North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos in Asia; Angola, Mozambique, and Ethiopia in Africa; and Cuba and Nicaragua in Latin America. Missionary expulsion was normative throughout the communist world.

Communists attempted to destroy the church through both direct and indirect intimidation. In the former Soviet Union, twelve million Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and Protestants were martyred. Yet, the churches survived and in many places thrived underground during communist domination.

Premier Gorbachev’s “glasnost” policy in the Soviet Union triggered a rapid sequence of events that radically changed the economic, political, and religious situation not only in the Soviet Union but also throughout the communist world. The lowering of the Iron Curtain created a vastly different religious and political environment. Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant churches and institutions are being reestablished, and new ones are being founded. People are turning from atheistic Marxism to religion—Christianity, Islam, and other cultic practices—by the millions.

Nationalism. The number, names, and boundaries of the world’s nations have changed drastically during this century. While fifty-one charter members began the United Nations in 1945, the present membership is 193. This increase may be attributed to the independence of the former European colonies and to the creation of new nations following the disintegration of the Soviet Union. The latest issue of Operation World listed 233 countries (Mandryk 2010, 2).

The cultural phenomenon of nationalism swept away the colonial system that dominated the mission scene. Nationalism has been the greatest force in the Third World during most of the twentieth century. Winter referred to this process as the “retreat of the West” and validated his statement by observing that by the end of 1969, 99.5 percent of the world was independent of Western colonialism (Winter 1970, 12–13).

Even with the withdrawal of political imperialism, economic imperialism (or neocolonialism) continued. With time it became apparent that the capital and technology of advanced nations were necessary for the development of the economies of these new nations.

A negative result of nationalism may be noted by the fate of many minority groups in the newly independent nations. These minorities have, in many instances, experienced worse living conditions and more severe persecutions at the hands of the national governments than from the colonials. At least a portion of the new nations’ problems must be traced to the illogical boundaries inherited from their colonial heritage. The independent people condemned their former colonial masters but at the same time have maintained a respect and admiration for the former’s culture and people (Winter 1970, 13–16).

One of the contributing factors of nationalism was the introduction of Western education. As the nationals became better educated, they desired independence. Herbert Kane suggested that missionaries sowed the seeds of nationalism, but they did not understand exactly what the harvest would bring! Nationalism impacted the churches and the missionaries. With the advent of independence, the role of the missionary, the status of the church, and the image of Christianity all changed—often dramatically. The changes have been difficult but have resulted in stronger indigenized ministries. Independence did not result in revolt against Christianity. In reality, the churches moved closer to the goals of self-government, self-support, and self-propagation (Kane 1982, 257–65, 417).

A recent dissertation study by Robert D. Woodberry, now associate professor in the Department of Political Science at National University of Singapore, focused on why democracy developed and flourished in some of the new nations but failed in others. His research concluded that where “conversionary” Protestant missionaries served, the new nations are more developed economically, medically, and educationally than the nations where the missionaries had not served or where missionaries who held differing theology served. The role of the missionary was not simply part of the development but was “central” to the process (Dilley 2014, 35–41). This was not necessarily the goal of missions, but it was an impact of missions.

Religious Turbulence

Political and economic turbulence in the twentieth century was matched by religious change. Christianity in the non-European world of the twentieth century continued to spread geographically and was more widely represented among different people groups than any religion in history. Furthermore, the impact of Christianity was unprecedented. Another manifestation of the time was the awareness of and cooperation with other Christians globally. To make this more impressive was that these achievements were made with the smallest amount of government support and direction since the time of Constantine (Latourette 1969, 5:526).

This positive evaluation must not be taken to mean that there was an absence of turbulence in the Christian world. On the contrary, the twentieth century included many differences, debates, and divisions in religious matters.

Ecumenical Movement and Responses. One aspect of religious turbulence, the Protestant ecumenical movement, sprang from a missions background motivated by the desire to better focus the forces of the Christian community for world evangelization. The word ecumenical means “worldwide.” The early interest was in an expression of the Christian message to a “worldwide” audience.

One of the early attempts in cooperation came in the form of the “comity agreements.” The various missions divided the countries for their church-planting efforts to avoid competition. These practical arrangements were necessary, they felt, because of the vastness of the fields and the shortage of laborers. In various places and times, the agreements worked remarkably well. However, differences regarding theology and methodology often led to the revoking of the agreements. Also, the success of one group in an assigned area had the tendency to draw other groups not assigned. Finally, comity agreements often broke down when people migrated from one region to another.

John R. Mott (1865–1955), a North American, assumed a leadership role in the ecumenical movement in the twentieth century. Mott served as chairman of the Student Volunteer Movement from 1888 to 1920 and began the World’s Student Christian Federation. Mott, a layman, believed cooperation could enhance and expand missionary service. A defining moment for the ecumenical movement came in 1910 with the World Missionary Conference meeting in Edinburgh. The gathering was significant because it was composed of official representatives from almost all Protestant missionary societies. The Edinburgh meeting included representatives from the “younger churches.” These delegates wrestled with serious questions concerning missions and committed themselves to further study.

The continuation committee of Edinburgh 1910 was reorganized in 1921 at Lake Mohawk, New York, into the International Missionary Council (IMC) to provide a continuing organization to focus on a strategy for world evangelization. The IMC sponsored five world conferences: Jerusalem (1928), Madras (1938), Whitby (1947), Willingen (1952), and Ghana (1957–58).

The growing influence of theological liberalism was reflected in the Jerusalem conference when delegates expressed the belief that non-Christians were not lost and in need of salvation. In 1932, William Ernest Hocking advocated this perspective more aggressively in Re-Thinking Missions: A Laymen’s Missionary Inquiry after One Hundred Years. In this book, Hocking advocated social redemption and suggested the removal of personal evangelism from missionary work. In 1938 half of the Madras meeting’s delegation represented the newer churches and produced a bold summons that called for biblical faith and evangelism. Many evangelical leaders hoped that a reversal had taken place. Subsequent conferences, however, reflected the continuing struggle between the liberal and evangelical viewpoints.

A retreat from evangelism in favor of social action with an emphasis upon service rather than conversion actually increased in ecumenical circles. The fact that struggles existed indicated that all the members were not in favor of the direction in which the organization was moving, but key and vocal leaders held sway over the movement.

In 1948 at Amsterdam 351 delegates from 147 churches located in 44 nations formed the World Council of Churches (WCC). Historically, the major goal of the WCC has been the organizational unity of Christendom. Evangelical doctrine, evangelism, and missions have been at best minimized and at worst ignored. In Accra, the IMC began the process of merger with the WCC, and during the WCC meeting in 1961 at New Delhi, the WCC officially absorbed the IMC.

Many North American “faith missions” formed the Interdenominational Foreign Mission Association (IFMA) in 1917. A group of evangelical denominations in 1945 formed the Evangelical Foreign Missions Association (EFMA), which is now called the Evangelical Fellowship of Mission Agencies. Most of the distinctively evangelical denominations and parachurch groups belong to the Evangelical Fellowship of Missions Agencies (EFMA). One major exception to this organizational trend had been the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. In 1995, however, this organization joined the EFMA.

Some of the more Fundamentalist missions belong to the Fellowship of Missions (FOM). In 1985 the Association of International Mission Services (AIMS) was founded for charismatic agencies but is now known as Accelerating International Mission Strategies (AIMS). Many independent missions are unaffiliated with any association.

It appears that most evangelicals are interested in cooperation and consultation for the sake of world evangelization. An emphasis on a strategy to complete the task of world evangelization by the end of the century grew out of the Global Consultation on World Evangelism by the AD 2000 and Beyond movement in Singapore in 1989. The AD 2000 and Beyond movement is not seeking to control the mission agencies but rather to coordinate effort, provide research, sharpen focus, and enhance cooperation in pressing toward the mutual goals of the agencies. Most of the leaders of the evangelical mission agencies attended the 1995 meeting in Korea. They witnessed the commissioning of thousands of young Koreans to the task of missions.

The organizational thrust of the WCC has not been successful. The member churches are actually shrinking, and their missionary force has become almost nonexistent in comparison to the overall missionary numbers. By contrast, most evangelical boards have experienced substantial growth in missionary personnel. Although the WCC’s push for organizational unity has been lessened and perhaps forgotten, the theological beliefs of many of its members remain outside acceptable standards of evangelical believers.

Liberation Theology and Social Justice. A second aspect of religious turbulence in the twentieth century centered in liberation theology. The concept of human rights has gained wide acceptance in most nations. The acceptance of the concept of human rights and the dignity of the individual have historically been supported by Christians based upon the teachings of Christ. The implementation of these concepts, however, has not been as readily agreed nor acted upon. Various theologies have emerged throughout history in an attempt to deal constructively with human oppression. One of the more radical of these forms has been liberation theology.

After a legion of antecedents, liberation theology was first espoused by a Peruvian priest, Gustavo Gutierrez, in the late 1960s. He proposed that the economic, political, and social inequities of Latin America could be resolved only through a Marxist-style rebellion against oppressive dictatorships. He and other liberation theologians taught that communism was wrapped in biblical arguments based upon the liberation of the Israelites from Egyptian oppression and Christ’s quotation from Isaiah about “liberating the captives.” Liberation theology became a cornerstone for much of the revolutionary activity in Central America in the 1980s.

The continual presence of oppression demands a hearing for liberation theology and other expressions of revolutionary theologies among professing Christians. However, mainline evangelicalism has rejected the expressions of liberation theology. The evangelical rejection of liberation theology has emerged from what evangelicals considered faulty biblical interpretations that failed to apply basic hermeneutical principles for biblical study—leading to Scripture being incorrectly interpreted and applied. In spite of its shortcomings, liberation theology has served as a prick to the social conscience of believers concerning the plight of millions under oppression. The issues the movement raised were and remain legitimate.

Although liberation theology did not permeate evangelical theology the way some envisioned, elements of the theology are being manifested in the quest for social justice. The Lausanne Covenant stated, “We express penitence both for our neglect and for having sometimes regarded evangelism and social concern as mutually exclusive” (Douglas 1975, 4). Evangelical Christians are taking an active role in addressing societal issues that include human trafficking, orphan care, human rights, and environmental issues. The Christians of the millennial generation are especially wedding together proclamation of the gospel and actions of compassion and mercy for those in need.

Pentecostal Explosion. No movement demonstrates the religious turbulence of the twentieth century more than the rise of Pentecostalism. The first decade of the twentieth century saw the birth of the Pentecostal movement from its limited beginnings in Kansas, to its more visible expression in Los Angeles with the Azusa Street Revival, to the present worldwide significance. The movement gained broader appeal through the ministry of Oral Roberts and the formation of the Full Gospel Business Men’s Fellowship International in 1951. David J. du Plessis, “Mr. Pentecost,” led the movement to the international scene. With this Pentecostal expression, a new day arrived in Christian history and missions.

The last generation has seen spectacular growth in the Pentecostal denominations throughout the world. In 1960 there were 12 million Pentecostals comprising 14 percent of all evangelicals in the world. By 2010 their numbers had risen to 178 million and 33 percent of all evangelicals. Charismatics (including historical Pentecostals but also individuals whose denominations are not Pentecostal as well as groups not associated with a denomination) had grown from 167 million to 426 million by 2010 (Mandryk 2010, 6).

Pentecostals have seen incredible church growth throughout Latin America, and now an estimated 72 percent of all Protestants in Latin America are Pentecostal. Research into this growth has indicated that methods rather than doctrine have contributed most significantly to the explosion (Mandryk 2010, 48).

Herbert Kane suggests several reasons for this growth. He observed that the Pentecostal churches have been generally indigenous from inception and have not relied upon foreign support. A heavy emphasis has been placed upon each believer being a personal witness in both private and public settings. Their witnessing efforts have focused upon the lower classes, who are looking for hope and acceptance. The emotional and celebration style of worship has appealed to the emotional nature of the people. They have emphasized the fullness, as well as the doctrine, of the Holy Spirit. The occurrences of divine healing and the miraculous have drawn both believers and spectators (Kane 1982, 148–49).

Charismatic practices have penetrated Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant churches around the world. A growing acceptability of various forms of worship (such as singing of praise choruses, clapping, lifting of hands, praise banners) from charismatic traditions have entered mainstream churches throughout the world. This acceptance of worship forms, however, has not led to wholesale acceptance of Pentecostal doctrines (gift of tongues and interpretation, second baptism, slaying in the spirit). As previously noted, many non-Pentecostals have become practicing charismatics in terms of form and doctrine.

The birth of the Pentecostal movement in the United States occurred during a time when the secular world was struggling with the roles and rights of women. The Pentecostal movement, for a variety of reasons, granted women a more prominent role in the church than any other major movement. Many within the Pentecostal movement view this action as being in keeping with the Reformation principle of the priesthood of all the believers. Throughout the world many charismatic fellowships have female pastors.

The traditional religious communities in the past have either shunned or ridiculed the Pentecostal movement. Neither response is acceptable. The very success of charismatics has led many to join the movement. Success, however, has not always been a proper basis for determining authenticity. Questions concerning Pentecostal forms, practices, and doctrines have been raised around the world. The Pentecostal movement may be embraced, rejected, or modified, but it cannot be ignored.

The turbulence in political, economic, religious, and other aspects of twentieth-century life demand changes in evangelical thought, attitude, and action. Innovations that promise solutions to the new situations remain to be instituted. It is to some of these possible solutions we now turn.

Transitional Solutions: The Significant Innovations

In 1936 Latourette decried the liberalism of the day that focused on “social revolution” instead of “religious conviction.” He maintained that from this type of “Christianity no vigorous foreign mission enterprise can be expected.” The good news was that he firmly believed that the Lord would “break forth again.” This work of God “may be in most unpredictable quarters” as the Lord uses “new movements” to “demonstrate His power” (Winter 1970, 50–51).

After World War II, missionaries surged to the mission fields and implemented new strategies, utilized new technologies, and created new approaches to world evangelization. The period has seen a time of “new movements” coming from some “unpredictable quarters,” which have demonstrated the Lord’s power and could only be attributed to his hand.

New Approaches for Old Concepts

Some of the new approaches in the twentieth century have been modifications of time-proven concepts of the past. The significance has not been with the concepts but rather with the willingness to attempt new variations. There was an acceptance of proven missiological principles coupled with an openness to change methodology.

Faith Missions. Faith missions have been a part of missions since the formation of the China Inland Mission (CIM) in 1865. The term faith missions developed from Hudson Taylor’s practice of not soliciting funds. The missionaries were to have “faith” that God would provide for their needs. The success of this pioneer organization stimulated a succession of new interdenominational missions both in England and America. By 1914 the CIM had become the largest foreign mission organization in the world. The group reached its peak in 1934 with 1,368 missionaries. With the closure of China in 1949, CIM transferred hundreds of its workers to new ministries among Chinese and non-Chinese peoples throughout Asia. This new focus led to a new name for the organization, the Overseas Missionary Fellowship.

Historically, denominational missions have drawn their personnel from their denominational seminaries. Faith missions have received a majority of their missionaries from Bible institutes. Moody Bible Institute has historically been the source of many leaders in this movement.

Denominational missions and newer faith missions owe a debt of gratitude to the historic faith missions. Faith missions have shown tenacity in remaining committed to the task of missions. They have also led the way in developing new strategies for missions. Various faith missions have introduced ministries utilizing radio, aviation, Bible correspondence courses, gospel recordings, cassettes, films, saturation evangelism, and Theological Education by Extension. Faith missions include organizations of various sizes with the largest being Wycliffe Bible Translators and Campus Crusade for Christ (called Cru in the United States since 2011).

Bible Translation. Protestant missionaries since the time of William Carey have been involved in Scripture translation; however, the process has been revolutionized in the twentieth century. Cameron Townsend went to Guatemala in 1917 as a missionary but became frustrated trying to reach Indians through the Spanish language. He began to understand that Spanish was their trade language, but it was not their heart language—the language of the home, the language of their emotions. The proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back came when an Indian asked, “Why, if your God is so smart, hasn’t he learned our language?”

For the next thirteen years, Townsend learned the Cakchiquel language and translated the New Testament. His work was further revolutionized when he began to learn the linguistic patterns of the language instead of forcing the language into his language patterns. Out of this experience in Guatemala came the founding of Camp Wycliffe in 1934 to train linguistic missionaries. Camp Wycliffe developed into the Summer Institute of Linguistics and Wycliffe Bible Translators.

The Wycliffe Bible Translators (WBT) entered Mexico in 1935 as their first field of service. Perhaps the most famous of those serving through the WBT were Jim and Elizabeth Elliot. The world was shocked to hear of the killing of five missionaries by the Auca Indians in 1955. Rachel Saint and Elizabeth Elliot, sister and wife of two of the five martyrs, returned and worked among the Aucas. The Gospel of Mark in the Auca language was given to the people in 1965. Many Aucas have been baptized, including the five men responsible for the murders.

There are more than 6,900 languages in the world, and more than 1,900 do not have any portion of the Scripture. About 180 million people speaking these languages need a Bible translation. There are 2,167 current translation projects underway. There are 513 language groups with the entire Bible in their heart language (http://www.wycliffe.org/About/Statistics.aspx). Groups involved in Bible translation include Wycliffe Bible Translators, United Bible Societies, Pioneer Bible Translators, and the Bible League.

Media. Christian literature has continued to be important to missionary endeavors. The improving world literacy rate and education have resulted in the need for expanded production and distribution of Christian literature. This has involved Bibles, tracts, booklets, books, literacy materials, correspondence courses, Sunday school materials, newspapers, and magazines. This effort, a portion of the strategy for many organizations, has basically become the sole or primary strategy for other groups.

In the twentieth century, different forms of media have increasingly become important for evangelism and discipling. Clarence W. Jones in 1931 began HCJB (Heralding Christ Jesus’ Blessings) in Quito, Ecuador. After World War II, Far East Broadcasting Company was started in Manila and Trans World Radio was established in Monte Carlo. Both have multiplied transmitters in many locations. Thirteen major evangelical organizations are involved in international broadcasting.

Campus Crusade for Christ developed the Jesus Film Project. The film, based upon the life of Christ as portrayed in the Gospel of Luke, has been produced in more than 1,226 different languages. Billions of people have viewed the film with more than 200 million conversions reported (http://www.jesusfilm.org/film-and-media/statistics/statistics).

GRN (Global Recordings Network) produces audio recordings of Bible teaching in more than six thousand languages for the least-reached language groups of the world. They utilize the Bible-storying format for much of their teaching (http://globalrecordings.net/en/).

The twenty-first century has seen the explosion of the usage of electronic and digital media to reach the peoples of the world with the message of salvation. The Internet is being used for “evangelism, discipleship, fellowship, worship, and training” and seems to be only limited by the creativity of believers (Mandryk 2010, 10). Mobile telephones can contain the entire Bible. SD cards for mobile telephones are being utilized to provide materials and training.

Training of National Partners. Christian education and training has been a dominant aspect of Christian missions for two hundred years. In the past most of the process has been accomplished with a Western educational model consisting of a campus offering classes from a central location. This approach has produced many leaders and pastors but also has revealed significant limitations.

In 1963 Ralph Winter and James Emery envisioned a plan of taking the seminary to the student. Study materials were developed for personal study with additional help and insights being provided by an instructor who met with the students periodically in classroom situations at a local yet central location. The teacher moved from one group to another on a planned rotation. Known as Theological Education by Extension (TEE), this type of training has spread all over the world.

Bible correspondence courses have long been utilized as a method of training Christians, but non-Christians who are interested in understanding the Bible have sought introductory courses in great numbers. People who are curious about the Bible can study in the privacy of their homes. This approach has brought many to faith in Christ.

Student Missions. The Student Volunteer Movement (SVM) was born in 1888, under the leadership of John R. Mott in New York City, with an emphasis on calling students to foreign missions. Tens of thousands attended quadrennial missionary conventions held from 1891 to 1936. More than twenty thousand of these young people became foreign missionaries. In 1920, 6,850 students attended the SVM convention in Des Moines, Iowa. Some 2,783 of them registered a commitment to foreign missions. The SVM, however, began to decline from this crest and suspended its ministry in 1936 after the Indianapolis convention.

Following World War II, the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship began sponsoring missions conferences to promote student involvement in foreign missions. Its triennial Urbana missionary conferences have attracted an average of seventeen thousand students. Many of these participants have committed to missions. In addition to InterVarsity, many other groups have significant student ministries that seek to disciple and mobilize youth for missions. Baptist Collegiate Ministry (Southern Baptist), Cru (formerly Campus Crusade for Christ), Navigators, Youth For Christ, and Youth With a Mission are some of the largest student ministries. Southern Baptist seminaries have annual student missions conferences following the Urbana model. These conferences, pioneered by Southwestern Seminary in 1949, have produced hundreds of SBC missionaries, both home and foreign.

The Role of the Missionary. Since World War II, the role of the missionary has been in a state of flux. The national churches have become less dependent on the sending bases for their strength. National leaders have assumed vast areas of responsibility from the missionaries. There has been a growing awareness of the need for the missionary to be in the background with nationals being at the forefront.

Once again, this was a concept that had earlier antecedents. The first Protestant church was planted in Korea in 1884, but even with this late beginning there were more than 300,000 Protestant believers by 1925. The remarkable growth has continued to this day and is one of the bright points for Christian missions. At least a portion of this success may be attributed to the type of church planting that was introduced in Korea in 1898. John L. Nevius met with new Presbyterian missionaries and explained the “Nevius Method” of church growth. They adopted it and implemented it as an innovative experiment.

According to the “Nevius Plan,” new converts should continue in their occupations and provide witness where they live. Church programs and methods should only be developed that the nationals could support financially. Gifted nationals should be developed for evangelistic work. Nationals should provide for their own church buildings and needs without being dependent upon outside resources.

Roland Allen, an Anglican missionary to China (1895–1903), proved to be a prophet when he recognized early in the century that it was indigenous congregations under the leadership of the Holy Spirit that grew and became leaders in “people movements.” His two most influential books, Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours? (1912) and The Spontaneous Expansion of the Church—and the Causes which Hinder It (1927), continue to impact missiology and church-planting practices.

Nevius and Allen have been rediscovered as practical models for doing missions in the twentieth century. Donald A. McGavran and Peter Wagner have added to this emphasis on a more indigenous, nonsubsidized church-planting philosophy.

The term contextualization was coined in ecumenical mission circles in the early 1970s but has also gained acceptance and utilization among evangelicals. The essence of contextualization is that the missionary should communicate the gospel and plant churches that are untainted by the missionaries’ own culture. Such contextualization allowed the gospel to fully integrate into the diverse cultures and societies of the world.

New Approaches for New Concepts

Research. Missions research is not new to the twentieth century, but it has certainly been refined to a science in this period. Research has provided validity for missiological strategies while raising questions for other methodologies. Glaring needs, revealed by research, have called for new strategies.

In 1955 Donald McGavran published his monumental book, The Bridges of God, in which he analyzed what he termed “people movements.” He analyzed the factors that accounted for these mass conversions and advocated research into how ethnic people groups turn to Christ. McGavran suggested that “people movements” are more likely to produce authentic styles of Christianity than the slow process of converting individuals one by one. His teachings and writings led to the birth of the church growth movement. His challenging and controversial ideas have stimulated extensive research and writing by other missionaries and scholars. The espousal of his philosophy by Calvin Guy, longtime missions professor at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, brought church growth theory to the large SBC missionary enterprise and has to be part of its continuing growth.

Contemporary missionary strategy utilizes insights from anthropology, sociology, and social psychology for evaluation and reshaping of mission models. Missionaries have new insights for developing more effective approaches to reach the lost. Missiological periodicals—such as the International Review of Mission, Missiology, International Bulletin of Missionary Research, and Evangelical Missions Quarterly—provide significant insights for missionaries and leaders of mission agencies. Specialized journals provide penetrating articles related to such fields as church planting and urban missions. The American Society of Missiology and the Evangelical Missiological Society provide comradeship and research for those interested in the academic, yet practical, application of mission strategy.

Many Christians became more aware of the needs of the nations with Patrick Johnstone’s publication of Operation World: The Definitive Prayer Guide to Every Nation in 1975. Operation World is now in its seventh edition and continues to be a starting point for understanding the status of Christianity around the world. Research specialists like David Barrett and Patrick Johnstone provided data that was revealing and shocking. Research organizations such as Missions Advanced Research and Communication Center (MARC) and the US Center for World Mission in California; the Overseas Ministries Study Center (OMSC) in New Haven, Connecticut; the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton University; and the research division of the IMB in Richmond, Virginia, have provided physical locations with specialized materials for missiological research. Other research resources include Ethnologue, Joshua Project, World Christian Database, and CPPI (Church Planting Progress Indicators) maintained by the IMB.

Research has enabled missiologists to forecast the demographic changes of the world and their impact upon mission strategy. The first significant change has been population growth. In 1900 the world’s population stood slightly more than 1.6 billion, but by 1995 it was more than 5.75 billion. This has led to famines, fuel shortages, health problems, disease, and wars. In terms of actual numbers, it has meant more non-Christians can be reached (Barrett 1995, 25). World population almost doubled between 1970 and 2010. Although the annual growth rate is decreasing, the world’s population is projected to be 7.3 billion by 2015 and 8.3 billion by 2030 (Mandryk 2010, 1).

A second demographic change has been urbanization. Never in the history of humankind has there been such a massive movement of people to the urban centers. Urbanization, which began as a Western phenomenon, is now occurring faster in the Two-Thirds World. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the percentage was less than 15 percent. Research has forced agencies to look to the cities, which have long been neglected, as the new concrete jungle for pioneer missions (Barrett 1995, 25). The world has 487 cities of more than 1 million and is 51 percent urban (Mandryk 2010, 1).

10/40 Window or World A. During the 1974 Lausanne Congress of World Evangelization, Ralph Winter emphasized the “hidden frontiers” of missions. The more than two billion Chinese, Hindus, and Muslims not being reached for Christ composed these “hidden frontiers.” Winter challenged the Christian community to reach those who have no opportunity to respond to a cross-cultural witness. Winter continued this clarion call to reach the hidden peoples until his death in 2009. The participants at Lausanne I, which was called for by Billy Graham, stated, “We are ashamed that so many have been neglected; it is a standing rebuke to us and the whole Church” (Douglas 1975, 6).

In 1989 at the Lausanne II conference in Manila, Luis Bush proposed the concept of the “10/40 Window.” This window is the area of Africa and Asia between 10 and 40 degrees north latitude. He suggested that this region is composed of the most-neglected peoples of the world in terms of spiritual, economic, medical, and educational opportunities. This geographical area includes much of the Muslim world, India, China, and most of Southeast Asia. This region has been called World A, which includes much of the unevangelized world.

A new concept of viewing the lost of the world is to consider them as “people groups” rather than political entities, or by their geographical locations. An “unreached people group” is “an ethnolinguistic people among whom there is no viable indigenous community of believing Christians with adequate numbers and resources to evangelize its own people without outside (cross-cultural) assistance” (Mandryk 2010, 962). Currently 2.84 billion people (41 percent of the world’s population) is classified as unreached (Mandryk 2010, 25). A further development of terminology includes Unengaged Unreached People Groups (UUPGs), which may be defined as:

A people group is unreached when the number of Evangelical Christians is less than 2% of its population. It is further called unengaged when there is no church-planting strategy consistent with Evangelical faith and practice underway. A people group is not engaged when it has been merely adopted, is the object of focused prayer, or is part of an advocacy strategy. (http://public.imb.org/globalresearch/Pages/default.aspx)

One of the overlooked peoples in the 10/40 Window has been the Muslim peoples. Samuel Zwemer (1867–1952) is known as the “The Apostle to Islam” because of his own missionary activity but also because of his publications related to reaching Muslims. Perhaps the modern version of Zwemer is Greg Livingstone, who began his ministry among Muslims in 1963 and founded Frontiers, which only focuses on reaching Muslims, in 1983. The influence of Livingstone goes beyond Frontiers as he has impacted missiologists and mission agencies to focus on missions to Muslims.

In 1986 researchers at the Foreign Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention introduced a revolutionary concept for reaching what they called “World A.” David Garrison of the IMB suggested that a person should research and survey an unreached people group for the purpose of developing strategies for evangelization and ministry. This missionary then becomes a catalyst in involving many people in different locations and nationalities to reach that specific people group. Originally, these missionaries were referred to as “nonresidential missionaries” because many of them could not live in limited access areas. The name was changed to “strategy coordinators” because more areas were open due to the lowering of the “Iron and Bamboo Curtains” (Garrison 1990, 13). Terminology has continued to morph, but the emphasis to be a catalyst to see the unreached peoples engaged with the gospel has remained consistent.

One of the outgrowths of the strategy coordinator role was seeing the development of church planting movements (CPM). A CPM is “a rapid multiplication of indigenous churches planting churches that sweeps through a people group or population segment” (Garrison 2004, 21). Much research and debate has taken place regarding CPM. Many missiologists and missionaries have turned the page from the discussion, while others advocate the principles learned from CPM research. The concepts of church multiplication (CM) and disciple making movement (DDM) are espoused by others as alternative approaches to CPM, but others use the terms as being synonymous.

Personnel for Missions. The twenty-first-century missionary has had multiple options for ministry. The 2010 edition of Operation World reflects statistics and data from 3,210 mission agencies representing more than 80,000 teams and locations (Mandryk 2010, xxvi). Today multitudes of mission agencies and local churches are doing missions, and the number is rapidly expanding. The diversity is extended to include not only the expansion of quantity but also the multiplication of types and functions of service. Various options are available for duration of service.

A growing number of mission volunteers serve as “tentmakers” and gain entrance into a limited access country. Frequently they teach English, or some technical subject, or serve as journalists or business professionals. Business As Mission (BAM) is not simply the development of platforms for reaching unreached people. The Lausanne Movement global think tank noted BAM is:

Profitable and sustainable businesses; Intentional about Kingdom of God purposes and impact on people and nations; Focused on holistic transformation and the multiple bottom lines of economic, social, environmental, and spiritual outcomes; [and] Concerned about the world’s poorest and least evangelized peoples. (http://www.lausanne.org/en/connect/topics/business-as-mission.html#about)

The opportunities are almost unlimited.

The development of short-term missions (STM) continues to be a valuable resource for reaching the peoples of the earth. Short-term workers are being used to pursue the goals of established teams but are also being used to pioneer into new places without an established missions presence.

The greatest increase in the mission force today is from churches in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, called the Two-Thirds World missionary movement (because they constitute two-thirds of the world’s population and territory). The report from Lausanne I stated, “World evangelization requires the whole Church to take the whole gospel to the whole world” (Douglas 1975, 5). The countries receiving missionaries would begin to see their role in fulfilling the Great Commission. The missions responsibility was not limited to Caucasians. Larry Pate’s 1988 survey of Two-Thirds World missionaries revealed an explosion from about 13,000 in 1980 to about 36,000 in 1988, working in 2,425 people groups in 118 countries. At first, most of the emphasis was for unreached ethnic groups within their own nations, or to their own ethnic communities in other lands. This has changed, and a new, robust, cross-cultural foreign missionary force is making an impact on the world of missions (Pate 1989, 12, 22). Today, the missions community refers to this force as Majority World missions.

Conclusion

John Polhill maintains that the book of Acts is yet to be completed. The missionary message of Luke’s record may be that the story “remains open” for “there must always be new beginnings” in sharing the salvific message of Christ (Polhill 1992, 63). The twentieth and twenty-first centuries have had many new beginnings, but the story remains unfinished until the return of our Lord Jesus Christ. The past has been turbulent and transitional, but the Lord has been triumphant!

Section 5

Applied Missiology

Chapter 16

Culture: The Milieu of Missions

Ebbie Smith

Missions, a totally supernatural endeavor, operates exclusively in the milieu of human societies. This double truth indicates that those engaged in missions must comprehend spiritual realities and cultural implications. Missionaries must understand (1) the central place of God’s power, will, and prayer; (2) the meaning and nature of culture; (3) ways to adjust personally to cultures; (4) the methods of accommodating the gospel to cultures; (5) the dangers and limitations of such accommodation; and (6) the biblical foundations for such accommodation.

The Nature of Culture

I was enjoying one of the most pleasing regions (Menado) of one of the most beautiful islands (Sulawesi) of one of the most gorgeous nations (Indonesia). The beauty of the event was the more memorable because of a delicious meal with some fine Christian friends. As we shared the meal, one particular dish captured my attention. The local Christians obviously held this meat dish in highest esteem. I joined the group and “dug into” the special dish. Even in a land of spicy food, I had never tasted anything that approached the peppery heat of that first bite. It seared my mouth, cleared my sinuses, and made like a miniature lava flow as it burned its way down my throat.

Though different, the meat was delicious. I ate as much as my tender, Western mouth could take. Only later did I discover that it was dog meat!

Why do people in Menado consider dog the finest and best of foods, while most North Americans experience at least slight repulsion at the thought of eating “man’s best friend”? The difference is culture.

Culture guides people in any society to what is considered good eating, to ways that are acceptable and unacceptable to eat it, how to dress, how to relate, and how to speak. Missionaries must achieve an understanding of culture—their own and the host culture—if they are to realize effective missionary service.

Humanity exhibits a striking combination of needs and a variety of responses to those needs. Humans everywhere have similar needs, but they have developed vastly diverse cultural ways of satisfying these needs. Cultures develop from these various responses to environments as peoples in differing societies seek to satisfy their basic needs in differing ways in unique situations.

Defining Culture

Confusion arises as authorities attempt to define culture. This confusion rests on differences in popular and technical uses of the term. Popular use of “culture” often indicates that one is accomplished in the arts and/or social graces. The technical use of “culture” better follows the meaning of the word as derived from the Latin verb colere (to cultivate or instruct) and the noun cultus (cultivation or training).

In its broadest, anthropological sense, culture means the totality of human learned, accumulated experience that is socially transmitted within a given societal group. Culture is the shared and integrated patterns of behavior exhibited by a particular group.

Some anthropologists have likened a culture to an organism in that every culture is an integrated group or system of ideas, values, plans of action, ways of implementing, and feelings that keep a particular society moving in specific directions and acting in particular ways. Each part of the culture gives its unique contribution to the whole. Each aspect of the culture influences as it is influenced by all other aspects. As an organism, a culture operates in the most healthy way when all systems contribute in their intended ways.

Other authorities suggest that culture resembles a map that guides a people in the society to the ways of acting and interacting that that group considers correct. In this line of thinking, Paul G. Hiebert defines culture as “the more or less integrated system of ideas, feelings, and values and their associated patterns of behavior and products shared by a group of people who organize and regulate what they think, feel, and do” (Hiebert 1985, 30).

Eating is a biological necessity shared by all humans in every society. What is eaten and how it is eaten is learned and therefore cultural. Marriage is general among all peoples, but the exact type of marriage (patrilineal, matrilineal, monogamy, polygamy) is learned and socially transmitted and therefore cultural. Culture then, by definition, is the learned design or pattern of living for a particular group of people.

Components of Culture

Culture, while an integrated whole, is composed of a number of components or characteristics. Understanding these components and the cultural realities they represent clarifies the deeper meanings of culture. These components (or traits) define the similarities and differences in cultures.

A culture is a way of life, that is, a pattern by which a particular society adapts to its physical, social, and ideational environment. The pattern guides the people in ways of food production, technology, housing, clothing, and travel. Houses may be round, as in many parts of Nigeria, or long and narrow, as in Kalimantan (Borneo).

Culture also provides a pattern or design for coping with the social environment. These designs relate to the political system, the economic plans, kinship rules, communication patterns, and general ways of relating. In the Inca Empire, the populace was divided into three classes, separated rigidly by dress, education, housing, and behavior. Japanese pride themselves on having little social stratification. Societies cope with their ideational environment by cultural norms that affect knowledge, art, magic, science, philosophy, ideology, and religion. Most North Americans depend on fertilizer and insecticides when attempting to raise a garden. Melanesians, in the Pacific Islands, depend on the impersonal, supernatural power (mana) they believe may reside in a rock or other artifacts.

Culture provides the map or the plan for life in a given society facing a given environment. The society is served by culture in much the way a blueprint serves in the effort to erect a building. Culture, in essence, is “a way of life.”

The different patterns found in various cultural expressions indicate that culture, while “a way of life,” is only “one way of life.” There are many valid ways or designs for adapting, and some of these different ways are selected by different peoples.

Among Islamic, Tikopia people of the western Pacific, the father possesses significant powers in the family. Succession, inheritance, and leadership reside in the male line. This patrilineal pattern contrasts with the matrilineal pattern of the Trobriand Islanders, who pass all property through the female lines of the society. Even discipline in the home, among the Trobrianders, is handled not by the actual father of the children but by the oldest brother of the mother. Neither way is the only way! Both are valid in their own environments.

An important anthropological principle, cultural relativity, teaches that varying cultural patterns are not good or evil in themselves. These designs are right to the extent that they meet the needs of the society. One may prefer one pattern over another—for example patrilineal over matrilineal. One pattern is not, however, innately superior to the other.

Cultural relativity does not equate with ethical relativity. Some actions in some societies, while strictly cultural, are obviously not ethically correct—for example, child sacrifice. Cultural patterns should not, however, be judged right or wrong (good or bad, advanced or undeveloped) simply by how closely they reflect Western patterns. No one pattern fits every people in every environment. Culture is a pattern for living but is only one way of living. This fact deals with the specific problem of ethnocentrism: namely, the feeling that the way my culture does it is the correct, wise, proper way, and any deviation from my pattern is evil, backward, or perhaps quaint. Whatever pattern a culture develops, the pattern holds together in an integrated system.

Culture, then, is an integrated system. The component of integration means that all aspects of a culture tend to function as a whole. Cultures resemble an organism, or a fine-tuned machine, in which each part performs its function in direct and close relationship to every other part.

Cultural integration can be seen clearly among the Kapauku of Irian Jaya (west New Guinea), where pig raising provides prestige, political power, and legal authority. To raise more pigs demands much food—primarily sweet potatoes, which are grown in gardens. Garden work is done by women, who also care for the pigs. To raise many pigs, one must have many women who have to be compensated for tending the pigs. To have many women demands a constant and expanding supply of wealth. These relationships are not exhaustive in Kapauku culture, but they do illustrate how the culture is integrated around the pig.

So important is the concept of integration to culture that anthropologists have noted that change in any one part of a culture often leads to changes throughout the culture. Lauriston Sharp shows how the introduction of steel axes into a stone-age culture in Australia led to disintegration throughout the life of the society (1952, 69–90). Sharp’s account has been called the story of the steel ax that destroyed a tribe. Culture is an integrated pattern of living.

Every definition of culture emphasizes the aspect that culture is learned. This is important for the cross-cultural missionary. Culture comes through a process of socialization (enculturation) rather than any biological instinct. The society transmits its cultural traits and values to the new generation through careful training. The learned aspect of culture lends each society its stability and its resistance to change.

A child born to genetically Japanese parents would become culturally Mexican if raised totally by Mexican parents in Mexico. This child would speak the Mexican language (Spanish or an Indian tongue), prefer black beans to sushi, and be comfortable in Mexican clothing rather than Japanese. People learn culture; they are not born with it!

Paul G. Hiebert points out that North Americans are socialized to think of the floor as dirty while Japanese think of the floor as clean. North Americans wear shoes in the house while Japanese do not. North Americans use chairs, beds, and platforms so as not to sit, lie, or sleep on the floor. The difference in the perception is the difference in enculturation (1985, 42–43).

Culture is, therefore, neither totally biological nor inventive. It is the socially acquired part of the environment. The cultural factors are socially transmitted through teaching. This capacity to teach and to learn culture separates humankind from the rest of creation.

Many anthropologists teach that all human behavior originates and persists in the use of symbols (Haviland 1975, 37). Paul Heibert underlines the word associated in his definition of culture. This concept, he says, shows that human behavior and products are not independent of culture but closely linked with the peoples’ ideas, feelings, and values. This association of a specific meaning, emotion, or value with a certain behavior or cultural product is called a symbol. For example, in North America, sticking out the tongue at someone signifies ridicule or rejection, while in Tibet the same behavior symbolizes greeting and friendship (Hiebert 1985, 37).

Every culture boasts many sets of symbols with language usually representing the foremost example. Symbols, like the words in a language, most often are artificially constructed entities that associate meaning with certain sounds. Having attributed meaning to different sounds, languages then develop detailed rules for combining words to express more detailed messages.

Human beings attribute meaning to symbols other than words. Flags, clothing, gestures, implements, ceremonies, and other acts and products express different meanings in different cultures. Touching a child on the head in Western culture represents a sign of endearment or love. In many parts of the Muslim world, it may mean an attempt to place a curse on the child. Two men walking and holding hands, while producing an uncomfortable feeling in North America, is a perfectly acceptable practice in many other parts of the world where it expresses nothing more than a brotherly feeling.

Culture bases meaning on symbols. Only one enculturated in the society will understand the meaning of the various symbols. Many cultural mistakes stem from one or both parties to intercultural interaction failing to interpret correctly symbolic behavior.

Cultures are dynamic and adaptive. They develop to allow people in societies to adjust to their total environments. This adjustment to environment—physical and ideological—allows the survival of individuals, populations, species, and cultural systems (Beals, Hoijer, Beals 1977, 700). Peoples who reside in arid environments develop cultural traits that fit such a region, while peoples living in regions of abundant rainfall will often develop a rice-based culture.

Cultures also adapt to ideological factors. Science-based worldviews stress the physical realities behind various actions and beliefs. Cultures based on relationships and belief in spirits conceive results as stemming from unseen powers and unexplainable spiritual factors. Every culture adapts to help people explain their environment and situations.

Culture is both stable and changing. Culture serves to create stability in the society; culture serves also to allow change. The factors of stability and change are active in every culture. While cultures seek to maintain the status quo and the accepted ways of relating, cultures also provide for continuous adaptation to changing circumstances, situations, and challenges.

The automobile significantly changed the lifestyles of North American peoples. The new situation created by the almost unlimited travel possibilities demanded different standards of conduct and relationships. Cultures, of necessity, seek new adaptive ways in changing times and situations. Cultures thus possess the dual qualities of stability and tendency to change.

Culture also adapts to change. Cultural systems represent devices for helping a group of people adapt to their environments. In fact, the very survival of a society depends on the set of relationships the group maintains with its physical and ideational environment. One authority states that “if all goes well, it is these relationships [cultural traits] that permit the members of a cultural system to obtain and distribute the energy and resources required for its continuation” (Beals, Hoijer, Beals 1977, 44).

Environment occupies a central and important—but not an absolutely determinant—place in the developing of a culture. Cultures in similar physical environments may develop differing ways of dealing with these environmental factors. Environment, both physical and ideational, often sets limits on the cultural traits that can develop. A society located in a rain forest will not develop an economy based on animal husbandry nor wheat as a major food product.

People groups have access to, and in general will select from, a vast array of social arrangements. They develop widely differing ideas about the nature of things. Societies thus respond to their environments to develop basic worldviews and cultural traits. As these arrangements support the society in the ways the people respond to the environment, the culture will and can persist. People remain faithful to their cultures so long as these traditions aid them in living and relating.

Every culture, then, is a way of life, but only one way of life, for a particular people. This integrated system of ideas, values, and symbols that is learned by people in a given society allows them to adapt to their environments. The design or pattern for life has both the characteristics of stability and openness to change. Every society or group of people will develop a group of traits or components of culture that allow them to live in a particular environment—physical and ideational.

Though vastly different from one another, every culture exists to help people adjust to its environment. The necessity of adjusting to environment, and the concomitant enculturation process in every culture, provide both similarities and differences in cultures. The necessity of adjusting to cultural realities in the course of life and service in any culture places immense demands on all cross-cultural workers, especially Christian missionaries.

Missionary service requires adjustment to culture—in the lifestyle of the missionary, in the communication of the message, in the determination of the type of churches established, and in the manner by which Christianity is lived out. The adjustment of the individual to a particular culture relates to the concept of “culture shock” and adjustment in lifestyle.

Adjusting Personally to Culture

Missionaries must become aware of culture—their own and the culture in which they serve. This awareness leads the missionary to learn to use the symbols of the host culture. The cross-cultural minister will be aware that cultures, though displaying stability, also demonstrate a willingness to change. The adaptive nature of culture means that the missionary must show the people how the Christian faith and life will better help them meet the challenges of their environments.

One central and demanding question for the missionary is how he will relate personally to a specific culture. This personal adjustment to living and ministering in the new culture constitutes an early and imperative demand upon every cross-cultural worker. It marks an early opportunity of achieving effective service in the new culture. Adjusting to culture is a distinctive and demanding missionary task.

The missionary must avoid some unhealthy means of adjusting. Living within the new pattern often places intense stress on the person entering a different cultural environment. Learning to communicate, both in the verbal and nonverbal patterns of the host culture, often leads to what Louis J. Luzbetak has called “culture jolts” (1988, 204–6).

Culture jolts are those new experiences and demands that lead to feelings of discomfort and sometimes distress. Cross-cultural ministers may react with either healthy or unhealthy responses to culture jolts. Taken together, cultural jolts and these unhealthy reactions to them eventuate in “culture shock,” which basically constitutes a series of unhealthy reactions to life in a different culture.

Among unhealthy responses to culture jolts, the tourist response, the rejection response, and the toleration response are the most serious. Some cross-culture workers begin their adjustment to the new culture by seeing everything through “tourist eyes.” This tendency leads the new worker to see the people and the cultural traits in the new culture with unquestioning and positive responses. Missionaries in the tourist stage of adjustment bestow on the new culture a vision of idealistic perfection.

This tourist stage may be followed by one of rejection as the early positive responses prove unfulfilled and personal difficulties arise. In the rejection stage, the cross-cultural worker may find the sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and relationships of the new culture unacceptable, disgusting, difficult, or degenerate. Persons infected by the rejection response often hold exaggerated remembrances of their own culture.

Workers who remain in the rejection stage may forfeit the opportunity to serve in the new culture. Rejection response will most likely result in the local people rejecting the cross-cultural workers! Real effectiveness in Christian service becomes virtually impossible when the cross-cultural worker remains in the rejection stage.

Some cross-cultural workers move from the rejection stage to the toleration stage, which may have nearly the same detrimental effects on service as the rejection stage. The toleration stage causes the workers simply to accept the situation in the culture without genuine appreciation or affection for the people. The workers simply “put up with” the way of life and mannerisms of the people. Such toleration, without identification, glaringly shows through and distorts relationships. Better means of adjusting to new cultural ways are available—namely, accommodating to culture.

There are healthy ways of adjustment. The most productive way for the missionary to adjust to the new culture lies in properly accommodating the cross-cultural worker’s lifestyle and mannerisms to the new (for him) culture. Accommodation to culture rests on an acceptance of the new culture—its ways, its sounds, its tastes, its means. This acceptance begins with respect for the culture. This respect, however, goes beyond simply understanding what the people do and why they do it. Respect leads the cross-cultural worker to appreciate the ways of the new culture and to be able to behave in culturally approved ways that do not conflict with biblical teachings.

The cross-cultural worker must move beyond mere toleration to this respect of the new culture. Respect leads to acceptance of the food, the ways of relating, the ways of speaking, the types of music, the means of dress, and the general patterns of living. Accommodation means neither a total denunciation of one’s own culture nor acceptance of sinful ways of acting. Proper accommodation does involve a genuine attempt to accept the people and their ways and act appropriately in the new culture. Accommodation results in a cross-cultural worker who behaves in the ways of the local culture.

The respect that leads to acceptance involves what is known as identification. Identification follows the pattern of Jesus and his becoming human in the incarnation. While no human will approach the quality of Jesus’ identification, the incarnation remains our example and goal. The fact that we will never reach the fullest meaning of identification does not deter us from becoming as nearly identified as possible.

The identified missionary lives with the people, appreciating and participating in their cultural ways. He follows the example of Hudson Taylor, who said upon reaching China, “In all things not sinful, Chinese.” It is almost impossible for the cross-cultural worker to go “too far” in identification.

The problem of “going native,” or accepting indiscriminately the ways of the culture, differs from identification. Going native lacks the sincerity of genuine identification. Persons who go native often are seeking knowledge or position. Those who seek identification do so from the sincere motives of loving the people and seeking to introduce Christ to the people in order to serve them.

Identification leads the worker to live with the people, accept their ways, share their anxieties and fears, and participate in their joys. Identification refuses to separate from the people and their ways. The cross-cultural worker who has accommodated to culture can share Christ better because he shares the totality of the people’s lives.

The goal of adjusting to culture is proper accommodation resulting in identification with the culture. Accommodating the message and the methods of missions rests on this prior and elemental personal adjustment to culture, which results in identification and effective service.

Adjusting Message, Church, and Life to the Receptor Culture

Just as the individual must personally adjust to culture, so must the methods of communicating the gospel, the churches founded, and the expression of the Christian life adjust to the local ways. These adjustments are among the most demanding and rewarding areas of the missionary task.

The process of adjusting message and church to culture is also called accommodation. Louis J. Luzbetak, the Roman Catholic anthropologist/missionary, shows the difficulty and importance of accommodation in these words: “Fear of making a mistake by accommodating to native ways and values is one of the most common obstacles to accommodation. The only one who will not make a mistake in carrying out the policy of missionary accommodation will be the missionary who never accommodates—but that is precisely the biggest mistake” (1970, 344).

Many of the serious deficiencies of cross-cultural ministry stem directly from faulty accommodation of the gospel, the church, and the Christian life to the culture of the local people—often called the receptor culture.

It is important to understand the meaning of accommodation in this sense. Adjustment of the gospel to the receptor culture, sometimes called accommodation, and at other times contextualization, describes the methods by which a person from one culture changes the way the message is communicated so as to make the truth more accessible to the people of another culture. Accommodation also indicates how the living of the Christian life can become both biblically based and culturally relevant.

In the West, students of preaching are generally taught to use strict, logical, scientifically constructed sermon outlines. In many cultures, for example, that of Indonesia, messages are communicated without a great deal of organization on the part of the message giver. The Indonesian orator will more likely look at one thought from several different angles. To communicate most adequately, and achieve more accommodation in Indonesia, one would need to change from the Western to the Indonesian method of communicating.

Correct accommodation of the gospel to a particular culture demands adjusting the type of churches to fit the needs and desires of the people of the culture. In many cultures, group decisions are made by consensus. In the West, group decisions follow patterns of strict parliamentary procedure and majority rules. The church in an accommodated pattern will use the local ways in decision making rather than by imported, foreign ways. In general, the more foreign the nature of the churches and the practice of Christianity, the less effective the growth and development of the movement.

There are some principles of successful accommodation.

Faithfulness to the biblical foundation from which any accommodation may be made remains the most important principle of accommodating the message. Donald A. McGavran, in 1975, declared that the “faith once delivered to the saints” can be known strictly from the Bible. He points out that the great creeds, while helpful as intense studies of the Bible, are not inspired documents. Likewise, the practices of the sending cultures, of great worth in the sending culture, are not demanded for the receiving culture (McGavran 1975, 37–38). The Bible, the Bible alone, and not cultural forms from the sending culture, forms the foundation for Christianity in the receptor culture.

A second principle of accommodation relates to keeping this biblical foundation pure—that is, accommodation must avoid any and every form of syncretism. Alan R.Tippett defines syncretism as the union of two opposite forces, beliefs, systems, or tenets so that the united form is a new thing, neither the one nor the other (1975, 17). Tippett shows that joining Christian teaching with a pre-Christian myth, thus producing a new kind of teaching, marks a definite syncretism that at all costs must be avoided. He shows, however, that singing a Western expression of theology (for example a Calvinist statement) to an African drumbeat, previously used only for religious dances, is not syncretism but only the cultural forms in which the message is expressed (Tippett 1975, 17).

A third principle in accommodation of the message calls for expressing the purely biblical, Christian message in ways that are meaningful, relevant, acceptable, and communicative for the local people. The goal is not only to express the biblical message in the basic language of the people (including the heart languages) but also in the thought forms, the idiom, and the emotional expressions. The linguistic principle of dynamic equivalence becomes a useful methodology in this principle.

Harry L. Poe speaks to this principle, suggesting that Christians often demonstrate the tendency to communicate the gospel from the perspective of their own spiritual issues rather than to the perspectives of their audiences. He says this tendency leads the cross-cultural worker to speak of those aspects of the gospel that mean the most in his culture, rather than in terms that might offer the most to persons in the receptor cultures (Poe 1996, 9).

A fourth principle of accommodating the message calls for aiding the local people to understand and to express the Christian message in their own terms, words, and mannerisms. The necessity for the missionary to continue to interpret the Bible and formulate the message points to a failure to properly accommodate the message to the local culture. The process of accommodation of the message to culture is not complete until the people in the culture formulate their own expression of the message and begin to guide another culture to do the same. The process of leading and allowing the local people to formulate their own expressions of the biblical message is often called contextualization.

Another question arises: namely, How do you accommodate the local church? Not only must the message become local, but the type of organized expression of Christianity must likewise become local. One way to express this principle relates to what has been called the “indigenous church,” or even the “dynamic-equivalent church.” An indigenous church can be described as a church that in every way conforms to the local ways of living, meeting, deciding, acting, and serving. The services will be at times and in the modes of the local culture. The building and decor will be in terms acceptable to and by the local culture. The music will be in the tunes and beats of the local culture. The local people will feel comfortable in these churches—they will feel that this church is theirs.

As with the message, the accommodation of the church will not include cultural matters that are sinful or prohibited in the Scriptures. Should the ordinary interaction of groups in the culture involve materialism, vindictiveness, or manipulation, these factors will not be incorporated into the church. The church will simply be guided to become an organism that can live and reproduce in its own milieu.

The matter of accommodating both message and church can be seen in the apostle Paul’s experience in the New Testament act of changing from the Jewish pattern of the early years to the Greek and Roman pattern of Paul’s missionary journeys. Jewish ways of expressing the gospel and Jewish cultural factors (circumcision, dietary rules, holidays) were relaxed. Ways more compatible with the Greek and Roman peoples were instituted. The Jerusalem conference of Acts 15, which allowed beautiful contextualization, constituted one of the great missionary breakthroughs of all history.

Accommodating the church and the expression of Christianity involves guiding the local people to formulate an expression of corporate Christianity that remains faithful to the biblical foundation and at the same time is fully responsive to the local culture. Without sacrificing either the truth or the demands of the Bible, accommodation seeks to help establish a church and other expressions of Christianity in local ways. Unnecessary features (times of worship, forms of church government, ways of dress, demands of training) of the churches in the sending culture should never be forced upon the churches in the receptor cultures in an accommodated expression of Christianity.

It is also necessary to accommodate the Christian life. As the message and the church are accommodated to the new culture, so should the expression of the Christian life be indigenized. As with message and church, the accommodation of the Christian life must never incorporate sinful, unbiblical features. The expression of the Christian life in the new culture also has no need of incorporating unnecessary prohibitions or patterns from the sending culture. The Christian life can and should be expressed through culturally appropriate means.

Much harm has been done to the Christian movement in various cultures by the imposition of behavioral mandates, important in the sending culture but not significant in the receptor culture. Missionaries have insisted on standards of modesty in dress, important to their Western views, that resulted in less-than-modest statements in the receptor cultures. Missionaries have insisted that local peoples stop certain activities (dancing, for example) that in the missionaries’ culture were considered sinful but in the receptor cultures were neutral or acceptable.

In teaching the ways of Christian living, the Christian movement in any culture must center on biblical teachings and eschew cultural demands. The fact that a certain expression of Christian living is demanded in the missionary’s culture does not demand that the same expression be introduced into the receptor culture. The fact that a certain action is rejected in the sending culture does not automatically mean it must be rejected in the receptor culture.

Accommodation, in its fullest sense, relates to message, church, and the Christian life. The most effective form of Christianity will be that form that relates most closely to the local ways, while retaining the biblical truth. Accommodating to message, church, and Christian life remains one of the most difficult and meaningful of the tasks of cross-cultural ministry.

Some methods of accommodation should be noted. The important task of accommodation must be effected by means of acceptable methodologies. As accommodation must not incorporate unbiblical features into the message, the church, or the Christian life, the methods by which the accommodation is realized must not employ means that are unbiblical or sub-Christian.

Alan R. Tippett captures the importance of the accommodation as discussed in this chapter saying, “The greatest methodological issue faced by the Christian mission in our day is how to carry out the Great Commission in a multi-cultural world, with a gospel that is both truly Christian in content and culturally significant in form” (1975, 116).

Among several different procedures for achieving this level of accommodation, the following have been suggested in missionary literature.

Transformation as a Method of Accommodation

Transformation remains a viable factor in missionary accommodation. Individuals are guided toward personal change from the religions of darkness to the light in Christ. Cultures are moved from the unbiblical, un-Christian ways of death to those of life in Christ. By transformation, missiology does not imply the restructuring of a society in the likeness of Western society. On the contrary, it is transforming the unbiblical and un-Christian into the ways appropriate within biblical Christianity.

Missionary anthropology does not seek to make every cultural trait a part of the developing Christian movement and teaching. Some behaviors are biblically unacceptable. Child sacrifice, wife abuse, sexual promiscuousness, materialistic focus, hatred, vindictiveness, selfishness, greed, and many other behaviors cannot be tolerated in biblical Christianity. Accommodation makes no attempt to teach that such behaviors are acceptable.

Rather, a proper approach to accommodation calls for expressing Christianity in local terms but never in adjusting sinful local behaviors to the Christian movement. At times, proper accommodation demands that certain behaviors be set aside and replaced by biblical standards. Avoiding syncretism understandably rests on the proper understanding of what must be changed and what can be continued. Transformation of culture often becomes the one important outcome of missionary activity.

When transformation must be achieved, the missionary anthropologist must keep several matters firmly in mind. The first is that any destruction of cultural matters must be effected by the competent authority in the culture, not by an outsider such as the missionary. The change must come through the head man in the society, the father in the household, or the accepted institution in the culture (Tippett 1969, 102).

A second matter to consider is that the outsider can only advocate change and only an insider can innovate change (actually introduce a genuine change). As said above, the real change must come through the innovator, who must be from within the culture, one who has the cultural authority to bring about change. Difficulties arise when the outsider, the advocate, attempts to act as the insider, the innovator, and force change on the society. Such action usually leads to rejection or reversion.

A third matter for consideration relates to the advocate sufficiently understanding the culture so as to realize what must be changed (transformed) and what does not need to be changed. One group of missionaries attempted to force women in a particular culture to begin wearing blouses when they became Christians. To the missionaries, this act spoke of Christian modesty. The people of the culture saw the matter quite differently. In that culture, wearing a blouse signified the woman had become a prostitute. The local arrangement spoke of modesty and proper behavior. The missionaries mistakenly sought to change that which needed no change.

A fourth matter to remember relates to transformation and continuing church growth. Donald McGavran speaks of Nigerian missionaries who planted churches on islands in Lake Chad. The converts from Islam were encouraged to worship on Fridays and to pray five times each day in much the same way as Muslim practices. McGavran states that this adaptation may be valid but the proof is: Does this adaptation result in solid church growth through Christian conversion? McGavran, speaking only partly of transformation, says, “Missiology should beware of any adaptation which does not help the church grow on new ground” (McGavran 1975, 243).

A fifth matter to remember in seeking transformation of individuals or societies is the fact that transformation is usually a process. Change begins where people are. In most cases, change will not be instantaneous. Transformation usually follows the process of leading the people step by step to Christian maturity in their own settings. The wise missionary leads the local believers to examine their own cultures in the light of Scripture and to change their lives and societies through the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Hiebert and Hiebert 1995, 19).

Accommodation may and should lead to significant changes in the society and in those who live in the society. Some matters in individual and social life will be transformed to conform with biblical standards. The most creative aspect to the missionaries’ task is deciding what must be changed and what can be retained, then helping the local believers discover these needs and respond to them.

Possessio as a Method of Accommodation

A second method of accommodation, possessio, has been advocated by Peter Beyerhaus. This German missiologist declares that possessio should be understood as more than a technical term of missionary strategy. Possessio should be considered as the basic act of the Lord who takes into possession that which by eternal right is already his sole property. Beyerhaus points to the messianic Psalm (2:8) in which God speaks to his Anointed One: “Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage, and the ends of the earth your possession” (1975, 119).

In general, possessio refers to the methodology of selecting from the receptor culture a cultural trait that can be assimilated and permeated with biblical, Christian meaning. The effort of possession is based squarely on the bridgeheads God has established in the world. These bridgeheads become the basis for a progressive reconquest of the entire ethnic and cultural territory that these traits represent. Final possession will take place only in the eschatological age when the devil will be completely removed and the kingdoms of the world will become the kingdom of the Lord (Rev 11:15).

Through the biblical period and in the periods since, a certain amount of assimilation of elements from the cultural and religious environment occurred. The assimilation was practiced in a peculiar way—that is, it occurred with an affirmation rather than a loss of spiritual identity.

Beyerhaus declares that proper possessio is achieved by proper selection, rejection, and reinterpretation (1975, 136). Selection proceeds from the conviction that only such elements would be adapted as could be fully incorporated into the prophetic and messianic tradition. Only those elements that represent bridgeheads for the Christian revelation should be selected for possessio.

The second step, rejection, does not simply mean refusing some cultural items, but it carries the idea of rejecting or ruling out all elements in the un-Christian cultural meaning that are incompatible with the Christian faith. Beyerhaus points out that while the Lord’s Supper is indeed an analogy from the heathen sacrificial meals, it is the complete contrast with these “meals” that fills the Lord’s Supper with meaning. In the “pagan” meals the food was offered to demons. In the Supper, dedication is given to God. Paul said, “What pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be participants with demons” (1 Cor 10:20–21 ESV; cf. 2 Cor 6:16) (Beyerhaus 1975, 136–39).

The third step in possessio, reinterpretation, according to Beyerhaus, goes beyond the expulsion of the inappropriate. Reinterpretation means the complete change of propriety, function, and direction of the pre-Christian concepts, practices, and goals. The new reality of God’s grace in Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit fill the pre-Christian ideas and actions (1975, 139).

Beyerhaus points to W. A. Visser de Hooft’s example of Paul’s use of the term “regeneration,” metamorphoo, from which the English word “metamorphosis” is derived. In the Hellenistic mystery religions, the term expressed the physical penetration of the initiate by the nature of the god through some magical ritual. Paul adopted this term, one of the few religious terms with no Old Testament correspondence, and filled it with unmistakably new Christian meaning and significance.

In Christian usage the term means that the convert through his or her repentance, regeneration, and faith in Christ is changed into conformity with the mind of the Lord (Rom 12:2). Thus, the place through which a mystico-magical union formerly was occupied by a deity is now occupied by Christ. The term and its religious meaning was selected and reinterpreted to have fully Christian meaning (Beyerhaus 1975, 139).

In every case of proper possessio, the Christian communicator will take from the receptor culture some expression, ritual, or action and divest it of non-Christian elements and permeate it with true, accurate, biblical understandings. Beyerhaus warns against any form of possessio that embraces the un-Christian without rejection and reinterpretation, calling this the “greatest menace in the present encounter between ecumenical Christianity and non-Christian religion” (1975, 139). Possessio remains one of the better strategies for accommodating genuine, biblical Christianity to specific cultures.

Felt Need, Power Encounter, Functional Substitute as a Method of Accommodation

Alan Tippett declared that accommodation should follow a pattern of discovering the felt needs of the people in the culture, leading them to a power encounter that definitely and finally marked a break with the old, and turning to the new; then helping them provide a functional substitute for those cultural items that had to be replaced.

Felt needs are those necessities the local people themselves conceive as imperative. People respond when their felt needs are addressed. A Javanese Muslim farmer understands that human power alone cannot produce a harvest. For the rice to grow, produce, and not be destroyed requires help from other than human sources—supernatural power. This supernatural aid in producing rice is a felt need of the farmer.

This farmer seeks supernatural help by sacrificing to the field spirits who protect the rice. Allah, explains the Muslim, is a big God who is concerned about mosques, trips to Mecca, and holy wars. He has no time for the rice in the fields—this is the task of the field spirits.

When this Muslim becomes a Christian, his faith and worship must be directed to God—not the field spirits. Should he be instructed to stop sacrifice to the field spirit, immediately he would most likely either continue behind the missionary’s back or revert to the former religion. Stopping the practice of sacrifice to field spirits is the power encounter, a definite and public break with the old and commitment to the new.

To insist that the new convert merely stop the sacrifices to the field spirits leaves a vacuum in his life that must be filled. The element to fill this vacuum would be a functional substitute—in this case perhaps a Christian ceremony with songs, Scriptures, prayers, and dedications to God. In this way the Javanese farmer’s need for divine help can be directed away from field spirits to the living God.

The process of moving from felt needs, to power encounter, to functional substitute is an imperative movement. Tippett says he has never seen reversion when suitable functional substitutes followed genuine power encounters. He also indicates that seldom does reversion fail to occur when suitable functional substitutes are not provided (1987, 201–2).

Dynamic Equivalence as a Method of Accommodation

Charles Kraft has championed a method of accommodation that he terms dynamic equivalence. The term comes from the science of linguistics. The meaning relates to translation that goes beyond merely formal correspondence to reflecting the feeling, the force, the inner communication of the original in the language of translation. Rather than a stiff, mechanical translation, dynamic equivalent translation conveys thought, feeling, emotion, and power.

Kraft calls not only for dynamic equivalence in translation but dynamic equivalence in churches. Dynamic equivalence churches produce the same impact on the society and its people that the New Testament church had on its members. Leadership, times, and worship will be processed to fit the local culture.

Missionary accommodation will work with the local believers to allow experimentation with indigenous forms. The effort will be to assist locals as they develop church life that meets their needs and their community without sacrificing any biblical or Christian content. Kraft concludes that “dynamic equivalence is the model for churches that we should practice and teach” (1973, 109).

Conclusion

These methods of accommodating the gospel, the churches, and the Christian life to local cultures are not exhaustive. Many other valid methods have been taught and are being used today. The primary questions that arise in relation to any method of accommodation are: Is this change necessary for the full and proper expression of biblical Christianity? Is the method and all its components congruent with biblical teachings of love and responsibility? Does the method result in a biblical expression of individual and church life? Are the local people a major part in the proposed adjustments? Do the adjustments provide for guards against reversion to older patterns? Do the changes allow for and achieve ongoing church growth?

When these questions can be answered affirmatively, then the process of proper accommodation to culture is most likely to be sound. Every attempt at accommodation should be subjected to such tests. Only those that comply with the spirit and means of acceptable accommodation methods should be retained.

Chapter 17

Cross-Cultural Communication

Grant Lovejoy

God calls Christians and churches to communicate about him across cultures. That should not be a surprise to anyone who has read the Bible; it repeatedly expresses God’s concern for all cultural groups. God blessed Abram with the intent that “all peoples on earth will be blessed through you” (Gen 12:3).10 By “peoples,” God included ethnic, language, or clan groups. In its worship, Israel prayed, “May God be gracious to us and bless us and make his face shine on us—so that your ways may be known on earth, your salvation among all nations” (Ps 67:1–2). Because God created every cultural group, all of them should have an opportunity to know him as their Maker, Savior, and Lord. With his blood, Jesus “purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Rev 5:9). Having done that, he told his closest followers, “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations” (Matt 28:19a).

From the first book of the Bible to the last, God expresses his desire that individuals from every ethnic group and every language group have the blessing of knowing him and worshipping him. The main way God expects that to happen is by Christians telling the world about him. Obeying God inevitably leads us into communicating across cultural lines. This chapter is an introduction to some aspects of cross-cultural communication. We will think about the role of culture and context in communication, review God’s own example as a cross-cultural communicator, and suggest ways to improve our communication across cultures.

The Role of Culture in Communication

Cultures provide the setting in which communication takes place. Cultures differ in their communication practices, so being effective in cross-cultural communications depends on understanding our own preferences (cultural biases) as well as those of people from other cultures. “Missionaries and Christian leaders who are unaware of their cultural biases and the biases of others will inevitably be ineffective as agents of transformation. . . . To become agents of transformation requires significant self-awareness with regard to one’s cultural bias” (Lingenfelter 1996, 10).

Cultural Differences that Affect Communication

Virtually every aspect of interpersonal communication has cultural dimensions: who communicates, with whom, when and where it happens, what is communicated, why it is communicated, and how. Duane Elmer, who has provided cross-cultural training to people in business, mission organizations, and educational institutions, has identified several pairs of values where cultural differences produce confusion in communication (Elmer 2002, 117–92; Richards and O’Brien, 2012, explain how these same factors affect biblical interpretation).

Time and Event

Western cultures tend to be time oriented, whereas many non-Western cultures are event oriented. Westerners often focus on how long a meeting or worship service lasts, whereas non-Westerners often focus on the quality of the event and whether it is a good experience for the people attending it.

Task and Relationship

Some cultures emphasize getting jobs done, projects completed, and deadlines met. Other cultures emphasize developing and maintaining interpersonal relationships even if the task gets done more slowly.

Individualism and Collectivism

Individualism is a value associated with the cultures of Europe and North America, but with globalization it is spreading. Slogans like “Follow your passion” and “Be true to yourself” express individualism’s emphasis on each person’s autonomy in decision making and seeking success or fulfillment. Collectivism emphasizes the importance of the group more than the individual. At work, collectivist cultures emphasize being a loyal employee, fitting in, and working for the group’s success and recognition, not individual awards. In sports the team is far more important than any single player.

Categorical and Holistic Thinking

Some cultures see life as consisting of elements that can be separated from one another, whereas other cultures see life as a single tapestry woven into a unified whole. For example, US presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama emphasized that the United States was not fighting against Islam and Muslims in general, only against Al Qaeda and other Muslim terrorists. That categorical distinction makes sense to many people in the West, but much of the Muslim world does not make this distinction. They see the Muslim world holistically. News reports indicate that “most of the babies born in Muslim Northern Nigeria during this war [were] being given the name Osama” (Elmer 2002, 144). Muslims in Nigeria identified closely with their fellow Muslim Osama bin Laden, even though he was a Saudi Arabian of Yemeni origin and was fighting the US and its coalition partners half a world away.

Logic: Straight or Curved

Some cultures, especially in the West, value communication that is direct and to the point, moving step by logical step. Other cultures prefer “curved” approaches to communication and process. Their communication about an important matter is like a spiral that begins wide and gradually moves in an ever-tighter curve until it gets to the central concern.

Achieved Status and Ascribed Status

In many of the world’s cultures, individual statuses come from relationships and roles that the culture attributes to each. They are born into a family, caste, clan, or tribe that largely determines their status. Birth order and gender may make a huge difference in their status. In contrast, other cultures emphasize the possibility of improving one’s status by achievements in school and work, becoming affluent, “marrying up,” gaining power, moving into desirable neighborhoods and joining prestigious groups.

Guilt and Shame

Both shame and guilt are part of cultures, and the differences between them are not easy to describe. To generalize, shame cultures look to external sources of approval (parents, community, or circumstances) to determine whether a person’s conduct is acceptable. In guilt cultures, which are typically also more individualistic cultures, people are expected to internalize laws or the rules of a moral code and obey their conscience. Violating the rules produces guilt.

When communicating with people from other cultures, we typically evaluate them, their culture, and their communication according to our own culture. We may not even be aware that is what we are doing, but we do it. When we learn more about other cultures, though, we can begin to recognize our cultural biases, anticipate where cultural differences can lead to misunderstanding, and take steps either to prevent the problem or to correct our mistakes. In this way we begin to communicate more effectively across cultures.

Communication as Code

We often think about communicating through language as an instance of using code. If we have a message that we want to transmit, we encode it into the system of signs, sounds, or symbols that the language uses. We then convey the coded message to recipients. They receive our message, decode it, and (hopefully) understand the message that we wanted to communicate (Gutt 1986). The code model of communication can be represented like this:

This basic model of communication implies that the participants use the same code in order to exchange meanings precisely. It also implies that we transmit the total message through the coded language.

But can we be sure that we have exactly the same code? The frequency with which we misunderstand even our own family members suggests that we need a better model of communication. The French anthropologist Dan Sperber and the British linguist Deidre Wilson developed Relevance Theory to address weaknesses in the code concept of communicating (Gutt 1986, 10; see Sperber and Wilson 1982, 1985, and 1986, and Wilson and Sperber 1986). Relevance theory has proven useful to many disciplines, including Bible translation and Christian missionary work. For clarity’s sake, Sperber and Wilson often use “she” to refer to the communicator and “he” to refer to the recipient. I follow their pattern in the next section without intending any inferences about gender roles or gender stereotypes.

Communication as Relevant Implications

Proponents of relevance theory say that in communication, the communicator gives evidence of her thoughts and intentions through her use of language. She expects her recipient to infer her meaning not only from the language that she uses but also from the context of the communication and what he already knows about her thoughts and attitudes. Using all of this information, the recipient infers what she intended to communicate. Relevance theory emphasizes that much of what the recipient infers comes from these sources that are in addition to what is actually said (Gutt 1986). This is one major reason why the code model is insufficient for understanding communication generally and, as we shall see, even less suitable for explaining cross-cultural communication.

The Relevance Principle

Wilson and Sperber claim that both the communicator and the recipient subconsciously adhere to the “principle of relevance” in their efforts to infer what others intend to communicate (Wilson and Sperber 2002, 251–54). According to relevance theory, an utterance is relevant to the extent that it provides meaningful “contextual implications” that flow from the combination of the utterance and the context. An utterance is relevant because it goes beyond only the language used or only the context; it brings the two together to provide beneficial implications for the listener. Implications are beneficial “by answering a question he had in mind, improving his knowledge on a certain topic, settling a doubt, confirming a suspicion, or correcting a mistaken impression” (Wilson and Sperber 2002, 251).

Some statements are more relevant than others, of course; the more contextual implications an utterance produces, the more relevant it is. But statements’ relevance are also influenced by how much effort the recipient has to expend to process the utterance. “The more processing effort it requires, the less relevant it becomes” (Gutt 1986).

Relevant Language

Utterances are easier to process when they are both (1) simpler linguistically and (2) accessible contextually. All other factors being equal, recipients prefer one sentence to three sentences. All other factors being equal, they prefer simple and clear utterances to complicated ones. Both communicators and recipients intuitively favor linguistic simplicity because it makes communication more relevant.

Contextual Relevance

According to relevance theory, the communication context includes both (1) the immediate context of the communication, such as utterances made earlier in the conversation, and (2) the much broader context consisting of the information stored and accessible in the recipient’s memory. Utterances are more relevant when they use context more efficiently. Recipients intuitively perceive utterances as more relevant when they can easily determine the utterance’s connection to the immediate context. Close linkage to the immediate context makes the contextual implications more evident. If the utterance does not have an evident connection to their immediate context, recipients will perceive it as less relevant. They will have to work harder to understand it. The effort that the recipients put forth to understand communication is called “processing cost.” People intuitively prefer communication that has lower processing costs, but they will expend considerable effort when they perceive the utterance to have high benefits to them (Wilson and Sperber 2002 , 252).

The same principle applies to the broader context. Retrieving almost-forgotten information from our memory in order to understand the broader context for someone’s message has a high mental processing cost. Unless listeners perceive someone’s message to be beneficial, they may not be willing to pay that processing cost and thus will not treat the input as relevant (Wilson and Sperber 2002, 252–53). To summarize this principle positively, the most relevant communication conveys as many contextual implications as possible at as little processing cost to the recipient as possible (Gutt 1986). People intuitively prefer the relevant and economical communication that is possible when the communicator uses language and contextual information skillfully.

This principle leads to a related reality. Once a recipient finds contextual inferences that seem relevant in light of his understanding of the communicator’s language, context, thoughts, and attitudes, he has little reason to keep searching for other, less-probable inferences that she might have intended. He intuitively accepts the most relevant inferences as having fulfilled her communicative intent. That being the case, “A speaker who wants her utterance to be as easy as possible to understand should formulate it (within the limits of her abilities and preferences) so that the first interpretation to satisfy the hearer’s expectation of relevance is the one she intended to convey” (Wilson and Sperber 2002, 259).

Summary

If relevance theory is correct, making inferences from context is a critical factor in effective communication. By definition, cross-cultural communication involves people from different cultures, hence different contexts. Individuals bring their culture’s assumptions, knowledge, values, and accepted ways of doing things into every communication situation. Recipients usually infer the intended meaning of communicators by intuitively interpreting it according to their own context, not the speaker’s context. If the listeners’ interpretation in light of their own context makes sense to them, they stop with that interpretation and probably will not look for other possible interpretations of what the communicator said. We thus need to be cautious of cross-cultural meanings that seem “obvious” or “logical.” To be effective cross-cultural communicators, we will press beyond the first interpretation, the one coming from our context, and do our best to understand the meaning from the communicator’s cultural context. This does not happen automatically. Cross-cultural understanding takes intentionality.

God as a Cross-Cultural Communicator

God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit have had relationships among themselves for eternity. They communicate among themselves in their own ways. Their thoughts and their ways of expressing their thoughts among themselves are not like human thoughts and ways (Isa 55:8–10). In essence the Father, Son, and Spirit have their own “culture.” That being the case, God’s communication with us is cross-cultural communication.

From the beginning God created people for a relationship with himself, a relationship characterized by intimate communication. At creation he conversed freely with Adam and Eve. They were without shame or fear. After they sinned, God continued to converse with them, but their communication was marred by the ongoing effects of their sin. Since then God has communicated with humanity, across cultures, in a variety of ways from which we can learn.

He Is Receptor-Oriented

Charles Kraft, a professor of anthropology and of intercultural communications, has argued in Communicating Jesus’ Way that the God of the Bible is a receptor-oriented communicator (Kraft 1999). God the Father intimately understands people: “I the Lord search the heart and examine the mind” (Jer 17:10). He understands us completely. God speaks person to person; he does not say, “To whom it may concern . . .”

Like the Father, Jesus understands human nature. In his private conversations and outdoor preaching, he showed an extraordinary understanding of people. Jesus identified with both men and women from various social classes, races, and ethnicities. He took special interest in marginalized people, men and women who were poor, sick, alienated, or immoral. He treated them with respect and dignity. He listened as well as taught. He offered himself in loving, respectful, enduring, transformative relationships with them.

He Draws from Humans’ Experience

Because he understood his listeners and had good relationships with most of them, Jesus communicated well with them. Jesus used imagery and experiences drawn from his hearers’ world: vineyards and pruning, weddings, sheep and goats, a wayward son, and many more. He knew what was in people’s hearts, so he addressed the crucial issues of their faith and life. He said what the Father told him to say and did it with powerful impact on their lives.

He Uses Familiar Forms of Communication

Jesus and the apostles lived in an oral world. Printing presses did not exist; documents had to be written and copied by hand. This was time consuming and costly, so few people had the Hebrew Scriptures in their homes. They were far more likely to hear the Scriptures read aloud or quoted from memory than to read them for themselves, silently (Lovejoy 2010). “The literacy rate in those biblical cultures seems to have ranged from about 5% to 20% depending on the culture and which sub-group within the culture we are discussing. Not surprisingly, then, all ancient peoples, whether literate or not, preferred the living word, which is to say the spoken word” (Witherington 2009, 1). Knowing this, Jesus used forms of communication well suited to oral contexts: he modeled what he wanted others to be and do, developed close relationships with people, and gave assignments. He used stories, proverbs, dialogue, and object lessons (Lingenfelter and Lingenfelter 2003). We urgently need to figure out how other cultures communicate and do our best to follow their processes, even if—especially if—their processes are different from ours.

Approximately 80 percent of the world’s population still prefers oral communication. Some need oral communication because they are nonreaders or have low levels of reading comprehension; others prefer it because oral art forms are familiar and aesthetically satisfying to them (Lovejoy 2012).

Oral communication methods are much more fruitful with oral-preference learners. The Fruitful Practices research project, for example, surveyed approximately 5,800 effective Christian workers in an effort to discover what factors were present when new churches were established in Muslim communities. Researchers then interviewed 280 of these effective practitioners, who were from 37 nationalities and 57 different organizations, as they evaluated 94 missionary practices discovered through the surveys. Researchers discovered that where missionaries deliberately used oral communication strategies with oral people groups, on average the teams reported 4.4 times as many churches. Researchers also found that using the local language instead of a regional language was strongly associated with greater effectiveness in church planting. Using the local, not regional, language fluently to implement oral communication strategies was the approach that best predicted which ministries would see multiple churches planted (Woodberry 2011; see the technical paper on the CD accompanying the book).

He Teaches Understandably

One day Jesus’ teaching consisted largely of a series of stories (Mark 4:1–32). In summarizing the events, Mark observes that “Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand” (4:33b). Jesus sometimes spoke words or taught concepts that were beyond his disciples’ comprehension, but here Mark notes how Jesus chose to adjust his communication to his listeners. That seems like such a simple, obvious principle of communication that no one would ever fail to follow it. But most people can describe someone who failed to teach in such a way that others could understand. Often this happens when teachers simply do not understand their students or how to adapt to their needs. Sometimes, however, it happens for selfish reasons. We may want to dazzle them with our superior knowledge. Or we may teach the way we like to learn without regard for students’ learning preferences. Sometimes we teach in ways that are easier on us. Maybe we are content only to “cover the material,” leaving listeners on their own to figure out what we mean. Jesus’ example was dramatically different from all this.

Jesus modeled servanthood as a cross-cultural communicator. He laid aside the prerogatives he had enjoyed in heaven in order to live among the people of Galilee and Judea. Jesus lived a lifestyle similar to them but modeled a more excellent way of living. He learned their languages and ate their food. He made himself readily available to people and listened to them. Jesus’ way of communication demonstrates a servant spirit, self-giving love, and humility. It involves dying to self and laying aside our rights and prerogatives in order to communicate effectively. These spiritual issues make or break cross-cultural communication.

Saying Jesus accommodated his listeners is not to say that Jesus’ teaching was simplistic or ear tickling. Far from it. His teaching stretched his hearers. Jesus spoke the truth even when it was unpopular; eventually it spurred his enemies to plot against him. He faithfully taught everything he had heard from the Father, even when it was misunderstood.

He Lovingly Persuades without Overpowering

Jesus showed respect for the people he talked with, including allowing them to disagree with him or to reject his teachings (Mark 10:17–22). Although Jesus was a person with great power, he did not use his power against people. He sought to persuade them, but he did not coerce them physically, financially, or psychologically. Jesus appealed to people’s minds, hearts, and wills because he did very much want to see them transformed by the gospel of the kingdom. At times he wept over those who rejected his message, but he accepted their decisions. He knew coercion is incompatible with biblical faith.

Jesus’ example reminds us that cross-cultural communication is more than only skill with words. It is more than instruction during official teaching and witnessing situations; it includes the kind of people we are in relationship to those around us. How we relate to people before and after a Bible study or worship service is part of the total communication. How we conduct our business in the community all week is part of the total communication. How we treat our own family in the eyes of the community is part of it. A credible, God-honoring, Spirit-led life is a powerful part of cross-cultural communication. Peter articulated a sweeping principle that applies to cross-cultural communication: “Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins” (1 Pet 4:8).

Making Adjustments

In Cross-Cultural Connections, Duane Elmer offers extensive guidance in dealing with cultural differences and culture shock. He points out that it is possible to cultivate attitudes and skills that aid in cultural adjustment. Among those key attitudes are openness, acceptance, and trust (Elmer 2002, 87–105). Elmer develops this topic in much greater detail in Cross-Cultural Servanthood (2006). Cross-cultural workers can also cultivate skills that aid cross-cultural communication, such as giving ourselves time to make cultural adjustment. We can learn to monitor our emotions, analyze what is causing our feelings, and respond wisely. Effective workers skillfully build trust cross-culturally, but they also know when to make a strategic cultural withdrawal for a limited time in order to gain perspective before reengaging. They learn to laugh at themselves and at life. Additionally, when dealing with cultural dissimilarities to which the Bible does not speak, they reorient themselves by repeating, “It’s not bad, just different” (Elmer 2002, 106–14).

Going Deeper in Culture: Worldview and Story

Worldview

A worldview is a way of looking at the world. It is foundational for cultures. “World view is fundamentally a system of ideas, of logical relationships, through which actors in a sociocultural arena explain and rationalize their thoughts and actions” (Lingenfelter 1996, 220). These convictions about how the world “just is” influence how individuals and cultures interpret the phenomena that they observe in the world around them. “Worldviews are thus the basic stuff of human existence, the lens through which the world is seen, the blueprint for how one should live in it, and above all the sense of identity and place which enables human beings to be what they are” (Wright 1992, 124).

A worldview is an originating perspective that contributes to the development of beliefs, values, behaviors, symbols, ceremonies, arts, and social and economic structures. A culture’s macro story is developed, sustained, and transformed through individual stories, symbols, ceremonies, and other communicational activities. But the flow of influence is not one directional. People’s behaviors and experiences also influence their values, their beliefs, and ultimately their story and worldview. Lingenfelter argues against models of culture that do not adequately account for the interplay of ideas, economic interests and other interests, and social relationships that result in contradictions and complementarity within a cultural system and its relationships. Contradiction is a normal part of cultures and not an aberration (Lingenfelter 1996, 225–27). Cultural insiders may see two truths as being complementary, although cultural outsiders would perceive them as contradictory (Lingenfelter 1996, 228).

Story

Historian and theologian N. T. Wright insists that the primary way a worldview generates and perpetuates a culture is through stories that address the critical questions that every culture must answer:

Who are we as human beings?
What is the nature of the world?
What has gone wrong?
What can we do about it? (Wright 1992, 123)

The most familiar examples of these cultural stories are the mythological narratives studied by anthropologists. These origin stories typically explain explicitly how the world began, where the first people came from, how suffering entered the world, and how people can make the world better. Some cultures answer the core worldview questions with stories that are more implicit than explicit. They may not resemble classic mythological stories, but they fulfill the function nonetheless (Wright 1992, 38–39; compare Mussmann 2014).

If, as Wright claims, (1) worldviews are at the core of a cultural belief system, and (2) worldviews are conveyed through cultural narratives, then the most effective way to offer alternative beliefs, values, and behaviors to a culture is to tell a better narrative. The Christian worker’s task is to tell individual Bible stories and the overarching biblical story in such a way that those who hear it discover that it is a truer, more compelling, and more satisfying account of how the world actually is. Evangelism is thus, at its root, a contest of stories. Christian discipleship involves laying the biblical narrative alongside the stories of our own culture and allowing the Holy Spirit to use the biblical narrative (plus the rest of Scripture) to correct, replace, or affirm our cultural story and all that grows out of it.

How do people evaluate whether the biblical story is superior to their cultural narratives? Wright asserts that,

There is no such thing as “neutral” or “objective” proof; only the claim that the story we are now telling about the world as a whole makes more sense, in its outline and in detail, than other potential or actual stories that may be on offer. Simplicity of outline, elegance in handling the details within it, the inclusion of all the parts of the story, and the ability of the story to make sense beyond its immediate subject-matter: these are what count. (Wright 1992, 42)

These observations have huge implications for cross-cultural communication in missions.

Communication Strategies

Narrative is the primary way that the world talks about real events. Christians therefore should embrace narrative as a natural, Scriptural method of talking about the God who has acted on the earth in real events. Biblical narratives describe the activities and primary attributes of God. They contain theological propositions, which are an essential part of the Christian message, and provide the basis for theological reflection. The epistles of the New Testament are themselves rooted in the basic story line of the Bible, as Ben Witherington III argues in Paul’s Narrative Thought World (1994). Like Paul, contemporary listeners should compare biblical stories with one another, reflecting carefully on them and other Scriptural passages in a way that in due course leads to biblical theology and Christian doctrine.

Millions of individuals in cultural groups around the world have responded positively to “Creation to Christ” (C2C) gospel presentations, which are oral, seven- to 15-minute panoramic summaries of the story, the redemptive message of the Bible. Stephen and Paul did this (Acts 7 and 13 respectively). C2C presentations begin with stories from Genesis 1–11. The most effective of them deliberately shape the C2C presentation to include biblical themes, imagery, and summarized biblical stories that speak meaningfully to the host culture’s worldview, experiences, beliefs, values, and aspirations (Stringer 2010; Terry 2008, 2010).

It is essential to include the biblical stories of creation and the sin of Adam and Eve in accounts of the biblical story, including C2C presentations. Those two stories are vital for narrative and theological completeness.

In too many cases Christian communicators think of the Scriptures simply as a source of true facts and sound doctrine. It provides both, but we must understand that the Bible’s compelling quality lies in its imaginative power as well as its factual accuracy and intellectual coherence. Both imagination and reason are necessary parts of presenting the biblical worldview in the most effective way.

Oxford scholar Michael Ward contends that one reason C. S. Lewis was so influential on Christianity in the twentieth century was his ability to pull together a reasonable faith with a story that appeals to the human imagination. Lewis wrote, “All our truth, or all but a few fragments, is won by metaphor.” Furthermore, he wrote, “For me, reason is the natural organ of truth, but imagination is the organ of meaning. Imagination . . . is not the cause of truth, but its condition” (Ward 2013 , 38, quoting Lewis 1969). Ward points out that before reason can make its evaluative judgments, it first has to understand. Understanding comes through the imagination because imagination is the realm of metaphor and story. “In other words, we don’t grasp the meaning of a word or concept until we have a clear image to connect it with” (Ward 2013, 38). The story itself must precede our reflection on the story. It is premature to expect non-Christians or new Christians to reason doctrinally when they do not yet have a grasp of the core biblical stories and the larger panoramic biblical story.

Conclusion

God calls his children to communicate across cultural differences, most crucially to call people from every culture to know and worship him. This cross-cultural communication is complex. Fortunately, Jesus modeled it and both the Bible and the Holy Spirit guide us in it.

Cross-cultural communication competence begins with understanding ourselves and our culture in light of the Bible. The Spirit and the Scripture reshape our identity, challenging our stubborn insistence that our culture is superior to every other culture. By God’s grace we can learn to relate to others in humility. These changes in character are key elements in cross-cultural communication. If we are unloving, better communication techniques will not take us far.

Character, however, is not everything. We can also study other cultures. We can learn to distinguish cultural differences that reflect a failure to follow the Bible from those that are neutral biblically. We can learn to monitor and adjust our own responses to cultural differences. Beyond that, we can learn to communicate relevantly, informed by contemporary research into communication and guided by the example of Jesus himself, the Master Communicator.

Chapter 18

Indigenous Missions

Keith E. Eitel

The mission had done its work in a particular central African country for about a century. Initially, missionaries braved the climate and expectations of a brief life to fulfill their manifest destiny of spreading the gospel to all the nations of the world, albeit shrouded in Western forms. Many missionaries have come and gone in these past hundred years.

Few of the missionaries, however, have taken on the perspective of the people and engaged the culture enough to understand or appreciate the African worldviews that they contacted. Now a critical issue emerges. The secular government in the country is investigating the role of foreign residents and evaluating the need for maintaining visa quotas given to the mission at the time of independence, some thirty-five years ago. Both the American sending agency at home and the mission administration on the field are scrambling to assess their legitimacy and present a cogent argument for their presence in that country.

The Problem

After a century of development, what should be the nature of the relationship between a foreign mission entity and a national constituency? Because the mission entity still controls the basic cash flow within the national organization, how much of a voice can the nationals have realistically? Why does the national organization still depend on foreign funding anyway? Are the national leaders titular heads? Are they trusted with real authority? Is this national body composed of indigenous churches? Does the term indigenous even have meaning in such a context?

This type of problem is faced daily when mission agencies and national constituencies have not come to grips with the challenge of working out a meaningful model for coexisting, or even partnering, in a modern mission context. The question of indigeneity provides a point of departure for establishing a partnering model.

The organization of national churches is in a position to muse over the significance of their existence as indigenous churches, even as Shakespeare’s Hamlet pondered whether “to be or not to be?” This chapter investigates the intriguing question of the place of indigenous churches in the world today.

The Objective

This chapter examines indigeneity and associated terms. Sections in this chapter aim at defining each major term, surveying selectively the historic development of these concepts in the modern missions era, and providing a strategic assessment of the issues involved.

The scenario described above is realistic, and many mission sending agencies, along with their national counterparts, are facing, or could easily face, similar circumstances. On the surface, it might seem an easy situation to resolve. Yet these questions remain: Who decides what is to be done? How is it decided? Who takes the first steps?

Every alternative entails complex missiological dynamics that require intense prayer and careful analysis. Solving the immediate crisis is not the real issue. Creating an atmosphere of trust and partnership that will endure long after the crisis is over is the ultimate aim. Transition into a genuine partnership between the sending mission and the national body of churches is imperative.

To accomplish this task, the background missiological concepts (which were apparently ignored in the earlier years of the mission’s efforts) need to be analyzed. This begins with defining major concepts such as indigeneity, accommodation, enculturation, and contextualization. The terms can be subdivided into two sets. The first set, indigeneity and accommodation, describes realities external to the receiving culture. Missionaries confront the receiving culture with the gospel message. Eventually, new churches are planted in that cross-cultural context. Initiation of this sequence of events is external to the host culture and its new believers. The second set of terms, enculturation and contextualization, describes the internal or subjective momentum that surfaces as national churches begin to wrestle with the complexities of applying the gospel in their own social context. This process is usually initiated from within the host culture. Culturally sensitive missionaries may stimulate thought in this direction among new national believers, but enculturation and contextualization should take place within the receiving culture. At an advanced level, the momentum is both external and internal to the host culture and results in a spirit of partnership with the foreign entity.

External Momentum: Indigeneity and Accommodation

Indigeneity (or its adjectival form, indigenous) is an agricultural term. It describes a plant that thrives in a specific type of soil, in a given location, or a specific climate (Tallman 1989, 190). It is easy to see the metaphorical correspondence between the agricultural and the missiological use of such a term. As missionaries cross cultural borders, the aim or goal ought to be to plant viable churches that are able to cultivate a natural appearance and form culturally relevant growth patterns.

Both Protestant and Roman Catholic missions have applied this concept. Catholics have used the term accommodation more than indigeneity to describe their methods. “Catholicism endorsed the principle that a ‘missionary church’ must reflect in every detail the Roman custom of the movement” (Bosch 1991, 294). Accommodation would, therefore, entail adapting or adjusting a culture to fit a received church tradition (such as that found in Catholicism).

While Protestant missionaries in the past century usually had less formal traditions, they nonetheless did have traditions that prescribed the nature and function of the churches. Usually, control and directional flow of either an indigenization or accommodation process has been external to the national Christians. “It was the missionaries, not the members of the young churches, who would determine the limits of indigenization” (Bosch 1991, 295). The paradoxical circumstance of attempting to plant a church that is native to its own context, while at the same time doing so by means of external control, has proved to be the crux of the problem when applying the principle of indigeneity. Missiologists have recognized this contradictory dilemma and responded in various ways.

Functionally, there are two emphases entailed in the indigenization process. First, missionaries raise questions about “what should be the relation of a Christian church to the non-Christian past which it has inherited?” Second, there is a concern for freeing national churches from outside constraints in order for them “to develop on their own lines without rigid control from the west” (Neill 1971, 275).

Formulating either of these two emphases into action plans and attempting to apply them can prove difficult. Certainly, when missionaries have entered a new cross-cultural church-planting environment with these ideals in view, the process has gone more smoothly. Difficulties arise when a church has been established without due regard for indigenous principles. Later, those in charge (usually the missionaries) decide to impose regulations that would seriously alter the status quo of mission-church relations.

“To be indigenous means that a church, in obedience to the apostolic message that has been entrusted to it and to the living guidance of the Holy Spirit, is able in its own particular historical situation, to make the gospel intelligible and relevant in word and deed to the eyes and ears of men” (Beyerhaus 1971, 278).

Indigenous churches reflect a functional autonomy that means they are in control of their own affairs (McGavran 1980, 18). Churches may partner with a mission to implement their aims and aspirations, but the churches and the mission are always aware that the right of self-determination rests in the local churches or convention of churches.

It is likely that such autonomy will develop in stages. Logically there is an initial period when the missionary church planter enters the host culture with the gospel message in hopes of establishing a church. Yet even in this pioneer phase, the aim should be to entrust new believers with leadership rights and responsibilities. In essence, the missionary should enter the church-planting process planning to phase out external direction or control over the affairs of the newly established indigenous church as soon as possible (Steffen 1993, 12–54).

Missionaries, from their external perspective, often assume the responsibility of defining the characteristics of indigenous churches. Valid insights may be gained from that perspective. Yet a healthy indigenous church that follows New Testament patterns has “within it sufficient vitality so that it could extend throughout the region and neighboring regions by its own efforts . . . [be] governed by men who were raised up by the Holy Spirit from among the converts in the locality . . . [does] not depend on foreign money in order to meet the expenses of the work” (Hodges 1976, 12).

This presupposes an indigenous leadership is in place and functioning; national leaders are accountable to their own constituents and work in partnership with the sending mission agency. While this ought to be the case, it often has not been so. Historically, missionaries have been reluctant to let go of their leadership roles. As the churches develop within a mission context, nationals eventually begin to question the relationship they share with the sending agency. They begin to look inward to ascertain just how the gospel brought by the missionaries, often in foreign cultural forms, ought to be translated and lived out in the midst of their own people.

Internal Momentum: Enculturation and Contextualization

When national believers become introspective and seek to integrate the gospel message with their own culture, they sense the need for enculturation or contextualization. While both terms are in use throughout the mission world, the concept of enculturation seems to have originated within Catholic circles, while contextualization emerged in ecumenical Protestantism (Shorter 1988, 10, 11). Both terms address the subjective process of culturally ingesting the gospel message.

Enculturation refers to “the on-going dialogue between the faith and culture or cultures. More fully, it is the creative and dynamic relationship between the Christian message and a culture or cultures” (Shorter 1988, 11). Contextualization presupposes the autonomy inherent in the term indigeneity, but it goes beyond and “takes into account the process of secularity, technology, and the struggle for human justice which characterizes the historical moment of nations in the Third World” (World Council of Churches 1972, 20–21). David Hesselgrave and Edward Römmen trace the development of the term in Protestant circles (1989, 28–32).

The difference between enculturation and contextualization is one of emphasis. Both terms relate to how the gospel message engages culture. The former deals primarily with resolving the tension between Scripture and culture in general (albeit using various methods), while the latter is more specifically focused on the social issues emerging from within the context.

National believers must wrestle with the fact that the gospel message came to them clothed in the forms of foreign cultures. At the same time, these national believers must realize that they can easily make the same ethnocentric mistake made by some missionaries, but in reverse, by allowing their own cultural forms to escape scrutiny of the gospel message itself. Some missionaries may have unwittingly transplanted foreign elements in conjunction with the gospel, but this does not justify absolutizing the new believers’ cultural forms when found to be in contrast to the Bible. African theologian John Mbiti indicates that “Christianity is supra-culture, . . . it transcends all cultures. Unless our cultures see this beyondness of Christianity, it will fail to command sufficient authority and allegiance over our peoples to enable them to yield unreservedly to its transforming grace” (Mbiti 1973, 92).

Mission sending agencies have attempted to plant churches in cross-cultural contexts in numerous ways. Leadership development and other moves toward indigeneity have used different patterns. In attempting to resolve the tensions between the mission and the convention in the scenario described above, it would be helpful to go beyond definitions and investigate how discussion of indigeneity and contextualization, as strategic missiological concepts, developed historically in modern mission circles.

Concern for establishing indigenous churches is as old as the gospel itself. The term indigeneity is more recent, but the reality itself is present in the New Testament. The apostle Paul left records in his epistles of his dealings with the churches he planted. In the book of Acts, Luke records broader developments, inclusive of Paul’s ministry, in the ancient church. Patterns seen in the New Testament usually become the basis for discussion about how to establish churches in frontier regions of the world today. The intent is to plant new churches in as nearly the same manner as the New Testament missionaries did in the Roman Empire.

Indigenization and Modern Missions

The modern mission era began with the challenge of a Baptist pastor who supplemented his income by mending shoes and teaching school. Scrutinizing the New Testament in light of his growing awareness of distant lands and peoples described by European explorers, William Carey came to the logical conclusion that Christians ought to use all possible means to carry the gospel to the unevangelized. In 1792 Carey published his Enquiry, and it spawned a movement, particularly among English-speaking Protestants (George 1991). Significant discussion about the concept of indigeneity developed during the intervening two centuries.

Protestant denominations responded to Carey’s challenge about the Great Commission by forming mission agencies to recruit, equip, send, and support missionaries to the sections of the world deemed most in need of the gospel. Initially, many Protestant societies showed interest in India. This biblically inspired adventurism coincided with secular trends of that day. Economical and political interests stimulated Western powers to engage in imperialistic expansionism.

The second phase of Western colonialism was rising in the eighteenth century and flourished in the nineteenth (Neill 1966, 80–93). There is a sense in which Western economic and political forces created a social dynamism that easily paralleled religious optimism growing out of the Second Great Awakening in Europe and America.

Embarking on their journey to fulfill the Great Commission, missionaries first established works in the coastal regions of Latin America, Africa, and Asia (Winter 1981). They carried with them an evangelistic zeal for the spread of the gospel and intrinsically westernized versions of church structure and polity. They often neglected development of the “visible form and ministry” of the churches they established. “As a result . . . native Christians became both spiritually and materially dependent upon European or American missionaries” (Beyerhaus 1964, 393). Eventually it became apparent that things could not continue in such a state. The continued dependency of churches established in the initial phases of mission work would handicap sending agencies as they attempted further expansion.

Three-Self Formula

Rufus Anderson (1796–1880) and Henry Venn (1796–1873) directly addressed the issue of dependency and emerged as perhaps the most influential missiological thinkers of the nineteenth century. Both were influenced by the missionary enthusiasm of the early decades of that century. Both had fathers who were directly involved in helping to establish major mission agencies. From 1832 to 1866, Anderson served as the chief administrator of the American Board of Commissioners of Foreign Missions (ABCFM). Venn served in a similar capacity for the British-based Church Missionary Society (CMS) from 1841 to 1872.

Both Anderson and Venn were concerned about mission principles, especially as they related to the natural, autonomous growth and development of churches. Anderson and Venn developed similar ideas about characteristics that would evidence a healthy church. Both are associated with the “three-self” formula. American and British mission theorists were strongly affected by the formula that called for churches to be established as self-supporting, self-propagating, and self-governing entities. All three items in the formula did not come into use at the same time. The controlling idea of autonomy is evident early, and the corollary self concepts appeared and blended as Anderson and Venn separately developed their ideas.

As early as 1841, Anderson expounded principles he felt were apparent in the New Testament. He saw that New Testament churches had their own leaders in the first stages of the church-planting process. “In this way the gospel soon became indigenous to the soil, and the gospel institutions acquired, through the grace of God, a self-supporting, self-propagating energy” (Anderson 1841). Anderson published a series of volumes on the ABCFM’s history and cited development in the “Sandwich Islands” (present Hawaii) as a prime example of missionaries establishing indigenous churches and departing from the scene. He considered a “native pastorate” was necessary for a healthy church that was independent of mission subsidy and control (Anderson 1881, 244–50).

Venn first used the elements of the three-self formula when issuing advice to missionaries in 1855. He indicated that they should always aim at establishing new churches “upon the principles of self-support, self-government, and self-extension” (Venn, 1855 in Shenk 1977, 475).

It is not certain that Anderson and Venn ever met each other. Yet they did correspond with one another and exchanged observations over the years. In both men’s tenures as mission administrators, they seemed not to use the three-self formula in a dogmatic way. This was left to later theorists and practitioners. They only viewed the “selfs” as guiding goals. “Scrutinizing missionary experience and the conditions of the emerging churches, they attempted to discern the mysteries of the processes of church growth” (Shenk 1981, 171).

The Nevius Plan

In China during the last half of the nineteenth century, John L. Nevius (1829–93) devised a method for indigenous church planting that further developed the ideas of Anderson and Venn. Nevius went to China in 1856 under appointment with the American Presbyterians. Soon after arriving in China, he learned about a subsidy method commonly used to establish national churches. Using this methodology, a missionary began by hiring Chinese to be evangelists, Bible sellers, and managers of mission compounds.

Nevius grew dissatisfied with the results. It inculcated a sense of dependency among the nationals from the very beginning of the missionary’s relationship with them. The “old system” inhibited the missionary’s aim of encouraging self-reliance in church members. Nevius distinguished the “old” method from the “new” method:

While both alike seek ultimately the establishment of independent, self-reliant, and aggressive native churches, the Old System strives by the use of foreign funds to foster and stimulate the growth of the native churches in the first stage of their development, and then gradually to discontinue the use of such funds; while those who adopt the New System think that the desired object may be best attained by applying principles of independence and self-reliance from the beginning. (Nevius 1958, 8)

By encouraging national believers to stay in their social and economic station, Nevius was demonstrating his opinion of Chinese culture. Generally, it was not so tainted by paganism that believers would need to be extracted from their socioeconomic contexts. Permeating the remainder of the society with the gospel required Chinese believers to retain their social and cultural connections. “Christianity has been introduced into the world as a plant which will thrive best confronting and contending with all forces of its environment; not as a feeble exotic which can only live when nursed and sheltered. All unnecessary nursing will do it harm” (Nevius 1958, 26).

Most likely because of the deeply ingrained pattern of financial subsidy and missionary domination, the “Nevius Plan” was never fully implemented in China. In 1890, by invitation, Nevius visited Korea and encouraged Presbyterian missionaries, who were in the initial stages of their work there, to implement his principles. While some observers criticized the plan, Presbyterians in Korea today attribute the rapid growth of Christianity in Korea to use of the Nevius Plan 11 (Neill 1971, 437–38).

Indigeneity and Ethnocentrism

Indigenous church principles, if imposed as a set of doctrinaire rules without concern for the host culture, may hinder developing autonomy. National believers ought to participate in the decision to implement indigenous concepts from the beginning. This procedure helps ensure a sense of ownership over the decision to be autonomous. If care is not given to making the church and the gospel relevant within the culture, relevance will not be realized and the resulting indigeneity will not be recognized by the very people the missionary desires to evangelize.

Missionary attitudes toward indigenous cultures affect the process and influence leadership development in the emerging church. Nationals who might be “entrusted” with the care of the church may think and act more like the missionary than their cultural peers.

The noted German missiologist Gustav Warneck (1834–1910) cautiously embraced the ideals behind the three-self formula, though he was critical of hastily using the principles. His reservations may have been due, in part, to an attitude that developed among missionaries in the last quarter of the nineteenth century regarding the superiority of Western cultures. This attitude fostered continuation of missionary control over national churches longer than allowed by the three-self formula, as espoused by Anderson and Venn, or the “new system” as advocated by Nevius. “The inferiority of a great part of the non-Christian humanity of today . . . does itself create a necessity for missionary superintendence even as a bulwark” (Warneck 1903, 349).

Western colonialists propagated their cultures as well as Western economics and politics. Missionaries “were affected by the new emphasis on colonialism and imperialism, an idea which they were quick to translate into ecclesiastical denominationalism and missionary paternalism” (Käsdorf 1979, 81). It was not until the early decades of the twentieth century that this subtle but unfortunate trend became evident and was addressed by the global missions community.

Roland Allen and Pauline Methods

Affirmation that God could and would work in and through cultures to establish his church requires a degree of trust in the superintendence of the Holy Spirit in the process of church planting. As the nineteenth century closed, there was a sense of Western triumphalism in relation to the host cultures that missionaries lived and worked within. A prophetic voice emerged that called the mission world back to the biblical foundations that originally inspired the modern mission era.

Roland Allen (1868–1947), an Anglican clergyman, served as a missionary in China from 1895 to 1904. Illness forced him to return to England, where he served as a parish pastor and wrote extensively with keen critical insight of the missionary methods he observed around the world. His classic work Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours? compares and contrasts the methodologies found among missionaries of Allen’s day with those used by the apostle Paul.

According to Allen, missionaries tend to trust the Holy Spirit’s role in their own work but fail to “believe in his work in and through our converts: we cannot trust our converts to Him. But this is one of the most obvious lessons which the study of St. Paul’s work teaches us” (Allen 1930, x).

Allen issued a sequel to Missionary Methods that detailed the basic trust factor inherent to truly indigenous thinking. In this book, The Spontaneous Expansion of the Church and the Causes Which Hinder It, he criticized missionary practices that would inhibit new converts from assuming their rightful role (including leadership responsibilities) in newly emerging churches. “They have a right to be a Church not a mere congregation . . . we cannot baptize people and then deny their rights, . . . When we baptize we take responsibility for seeing that those whom we baptize can so live in the Church” (Allen 1949, 202, 205).

Rudimentary ideas of a partnering concept are evident in Allen’s writings. By recognizing the supreme role of the Holy Spirit in the entire process of planting churches, learning to trust the Spirit’s work in and through new believers, being willing to hand over leadership responsibilities early, and fostering a healthy independency from the beginning requires missionaries to recognize their own tendency to critique failures in others and not in themselves. Partnership requires mutual trust between the parties and confidence in the Holy Spirit to guide both (Allen 1964, 98–99).

Indigeneity and Rising Ecumenicity

Themes such as those Allen addressed are also seen in the strands of working committees that emerged from the World Missions Conference held in Edinburgh in 1910. In 1938 the International Missionary Council met in Tambaram, Madras, India. The seven-volume report that issued from that meeting has profoundly influenced mission thinking ever since.

Four of the volumes, by title and content, directly addressed the function and role of the church in mission contexts. While recognizing that missionaries were biblically mandated to take the gospel throughout the world, there was a growing acknowledgment of mistaken assumptions about how to engage in planting healthy cross-cultural churches found in these volumes. Representatives from churches in the “younger” as well as the “older” regions of Christendom attended the gathering. Over half of the participants came from Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Recognizing that missionary attitudes toward the cultures in which they worked, as well as their own, played a crucial role in the entire indigenous church-planting process was a significant result of the meeting and led to this affirmation:

An indigenous church, young or old, in the East or in the West, is a church which, rooted in obedience to Christ, spontaneously uses forms of thought and modes of action natural and familiar in its own environment. Such a church arises in response to Christ’s own call. The younger churches will not be unmindful of the experiences and teachings which the older churches have recorded in their confessions and liturgy. But every younger church will seek further to bear witness to the same Gospel with new tongues. (International Missionary Council 1939, 2, 276)

World War II delayed incorporating innovative dynamics into the day-to-day applications of missionary life and work. After that global conflict, Western colonial structures began to break up, and emerging nationalistic political movements flowered throughout the Two-Thirds World. The tenets of rising nationalism affected the thinking of “younger” churches throughout the world as well, not unlike the way colonial thinking had affected missionaries a generation or so before.

In the wake of the demise of European colonial empires and uncertain political circumstances in the former colonies, national conventions of churches came into their own as autonomous entities throughout much of the mission world. Rising theologians in the “younger” churches began to theologize more overtly from within their own contexts.

In 1945 M. Theron Rankin (1894–1953) assumed leadership of the Southern Baptist Foreign Mission Board after he had served with distinction in China. One of Rankin’s accomplishments was to emphasize indigenous thinking to the extent that he challenged missionary practice within Southern Baptist ranks and helped change many of the Board’s policies toward national conventions worldwide (Estep 1994, 252–58; Weatherspoon 1958, 76–77, 115–16).

Self–Theologization

It became apparent to many that in order for a church to be able to become self-propagating, self-supporting, and self-governing it had to be self-theologizing. It is at this juncture that the nationals began to emerge as truer partners in the process. Originally, indigenous action appeared to be monodirectional: it moved from the mission toward the national churches. Where genuine indigeneity had been accomplished before this point, an undercurrent of indigenous theologizing was in motion.

Meaningful indigeneity most certainly presupposes meaningful theologizing. Partly in reaction to missionary dominance in processing indigenous principles, and partly because of the spirit of independence sweeping the world, nationals began to assert their opinions and demand a higher degree of relevance in presenting and applying the gospel. Hence, Two-Thirds World scholars fervently began to contextualize theology in general and Christian forms and functions in particular, thereby factoring into the theological equation sociocultural elements and ideas, emerging from their indigenous contexts. Shoki Coe says:

So in using the word contextualization, we try to convey all that is implied in the familiar term indigenization, yet seek to press beyond for a more dynamic concept which is open to change and which is also future oriented. . . . [But] there is a danger of contextual theology becoming chameleon theology, changing color according to the contexts. Contextuality, therefore, I believe, is that critical assessment of what makes the context really significant in the light of the Missio Dei. (Coe 1976, 21)

Indicating that contextualization is necessary is one thing, but attempting to contextualize is quite another. What may seem a simple idea grows more complex as one considers the issues involved. The component parts of the process require a reassessment of the biblical text, and its authoritative role, in relation to the recipients’ social context. Both the missionary who desires to communicate cross-culturally and the nationals who are receiving and reapplying the message are involved.

The degree to which one holds the biblical text to be absolute and static as received affects the relevancy of the gospel in a given context. Likewise, the degree to which the interpreter considers the cultural context to be absolute, and allows it to dominate in the process, determines how much of the gospel message is left intact. (For analysis of various ingredients, models, and patterns of contextualization, see Bevans 1985; Hesselgrave and Römmen 1989; Schreiter 1985; and Taber 1978.)

Contextualization is, arguably, the most necessary and the most dangerous reality in modern mission settings. To be relevant and to “repent” for past ethnocentrism, Western missionaries may inadvertently capitulate to cultural adaptations of the gospel, generated by their national counterparts, that are neither Christian nor reflective of the host culture. At times “we applaud in the younger churches a synthesis of nationalism and Christianity which we deplore in our missionary grandparents” (Newbigin 1989, 143).

Healthy contextualization should strike a balance between the need to communicate effectively and relevantly within a given culture and the need to maintain the integrity of the gospel itself so that the message received is both meaningful and convicting. The incident noted here demonstrates, in a practical sense, the needed balance, especially as the gospel is lived out among peers. Byang Kato writes:

Well, I heard an interesting story recently of a Christian leader in Zaire at a formal occasion where drinks were being poured on the ground out of respect for ancestors. But this Christian leader, instead of pouring his drink on the ground, lifted it up and thanked God in prayer. They told him he was not being an authentic Zairean. He told them he was a Zairean but not an ancestor worshiper. Rather, he said, he was a Christian whose practice was to give thanks. I thought that was beautiful. Unfortunately, many in Zaire are saying that they are Zairean first and Christian second. (Kato 1975, 14)

During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, mission agencies and national churches alike engaged in a process that is as old as the New Testament. Every generation of believers has faced problems similar to those found in contemporary Christian history when attempting to plant churches in cross-cultural contexts. The term, or missiological idea, of indigeneity came into vogue during the mid to late nineteenth century. Near the end of that century, secularists and missionaries began to view other cultures through the grid of colonialism and the evolutionary hypotheses. This hindered indigeneity because some missionaries were suspicious of the host nationals’ ability to lead their own churches.

More recently, missionaries attempted to rethink their practices amid the rise of nationalism, the demise of colonialism, and the emergence of the concept of cultural relativism. Ultimately, whether indigeneity is needed is no longer the issue. How to accomplish the task of establishing healthy indigenous churches that reflect an ongoing, biblically balanced contextualization process is still the point of much debate and requires serious analysis in any modern mission context.

Inhibitors to Indigeneity

A flash point occurs when explosive materials first mix with an igniting agent. In the modern missions era, specific issues seem to have ignited the explosive undercurrents of frustration built up over decades of neglecting the development of healthy indigenization. Nonnegotiated importation of ecclesiastical polities that govern denominational, organizational, physical, and fiscal structures often inhibit implementation of indigenous principles (Kane 1978, 352–55; Crawley 1985, 205–15).

Mission and church relations move along until a crisis occurs. Government intervention into the host convention’s affairs and the mission’s typically paternalistic response create a flash point that can be extremely dangerous, or it could provide an opportunity for progressive developments. The choice really lies with the leaders of the convention and the mission. Assuming they eventually sit together and lay all their concerns on the table, the mission leaders might realize that there is a sense of long-term abuse in the way the mission has acted toward the nationals.

Models for Church-Mission Relationships

The mission has placed the convention, perhaps inadvertently, in an untenable position. On the one hand, the national convention is expected to assume more responsibility for its own affairs. The mission defines responsibility in financial terms. Logically then, so the missionaries’ thinking goes, the convention may assume more control when and if they put more revenue in their own convention’s treasury.

On the other hand, the mission established and funded the convention’s institutions (schools, hospitals, and a publishing house, eventually “handed over” to the nationals) at a level far beyond the convention’s resources. National leaders want indigenous control over their own churches and are unable to pay for the privilege. Yet the mission officials openly say that they consider the convention to be indigenous. What kind of indigeneity is this?

The illustration on the next page shows various patterns of mission and church relationships. Indigenous structures and contextualized theology exist in varying degrees, depending upon the degree of mutual trust between a mission and national church.

In model A, the founding mission exerts external momentum and control over the receiving church. There is little or no evidence of healthy self-determination on the part of the national church because it has never been allowed to undertake independent action.

Model B illustrates the circumstance that may emerge when the mission agency uses the national church as a “front” to imply autonomy without granting the rights and privileges of that status. The controlling mechanisms may or may not be evident to either the nationals or the missionaries because both may be unaware of the unhealthy situation.

Model C shows a relationship whereby the controlling mechanism is clear and known to the parties involved. The mission regulates the channels for funding the national convention’s work. By default, then, the mission still uses the convention as a front for its own agenda without a genuine partnering spirit.

In model D, the parties come to the Great Commission with the realization that the job is large enough for both of them to be directly involved.

This model does not require the national church to be decades old. A partnering spirit can and ought to develop very near the beginning. The attitude is the essential factor. Missionaries who utilize a partnering spirit from the beginning of the process find that churches are more willing to engage in the task of local and global evangelism early in the process.

Finally, model E illustrates a church that may have separated from a founding mission work and has grown independently of both the mission and historic Christianity. While the bases for separation may have seemed legitimate originally, severing the ties completely may set the church adrift from the collective insights gained down through the centuries of Christian experience. In this model, there is a real danger of syncretistic tendencies that may cause a set of distorted religious forms and functions to develop that appear more cultic than biblical, and may actually be foreign to both the culture and the historic Christian faith.

The relationship between the mission and convention has developed over a century now and is likely a blending of models B and C. If genuine indigeneity is to surface out of the current crisis facing the mission regarding its allotment of visas, both parties will need to come to grips with the attitudes that have created the status quo (models B and C), repent of their past mistakes (because wrong actions by some missionaries do not justify wrong reactions by nationals), and think of tangible ways to move the convention and mission attitudes and relationship toward a truer partnership (model D).

Conclusion

Christ promised to establish his church so that hell itself would not succeed in thwarting it or his purposes. Before his ascension, he commissioned believers of all backgrounds to engage in the process by taking the gospel to the ends of the earth. Missionaries of every successive generation have dealt with the principles and practice of indigeneity, and even the contextualization of theology, knowingly or not.

In modern missions history, good intentions among some missionaries have been supplanted by failure to recognize the encroachment of culture on all who attempt to know and understand the gospel message, regardless of whose culture is in view. Indigenization, while initially stimulated by a momentum that is external to the receiving culture, must be done in such a way as to inspire among new believers an internal momentum for the preservation, nurture, and propagation of the gospel from inside the culture.

As the Holy Spirit illuminates the gospel in the hearts and minds of national believers, there will be a natural self-theologizing that should stimulate genuine desires to propagate, govern, and support the work of Christ’s church (not the missionary’s church) in that culture.

As mission practitioners innovate ways to penetrate regions that have been traditionally viewed as resistant to the gospel, and thereby find ways to reach those yet unreached with the gospel, they should encourage biblically balanced indigenous forms and contextualization of the faith from the very outset of their work.

Missionaries should realize the necessity of changing roles as they work with nationals. Role changes are to move toward and foster biblically balanced and healthy autonomy in the emerging church through a true spirit of trust and partnership in kingdom causes. In the final analysis, the underlying truth is that such healthy autonomy will not result externally until both the sending and receiving churches internally recognize “that the most important factor in the life of the young [as well as old] church is not autonomy but ‘Christonomy’: not independence, but Christ-dependence” (Sundkler 1965, 43).

With these convictions in mind, the mission and convention leaders in that central African country can engage in the development of an indigenous church in spite of their century-old struggle.

Chapter 19

Contextualization and the Missionary Endeavor

Daniel R. Sanchez

Missiology, over the years, has experienced its share of paradigm shifts. The change of focus from indigenization to contextualization is one of the most significant in contemporary missiology. Alan Tippett, for example, considers this change to be the greatest methodological issue facing the Christian mission today (1975, 116).

Indigenization comes from the word indigenous, which means “native to a given area.” In missiology the three classical signposts of indigenization have been self-government, self-support, and self-propagation. If local leadership, churches, and institutions have demonstrated these characteristics, they have been perceived to be “indigenous” by missionaries and mission agencies.

Contextualization is a derivative of the word context, which has its roots in contextus (Latin) meaning “weaving together.” In literary pursuits, context is that which comes before and after a word, phrase, or statement, helping to fix its meaning or the circumstances in which an event occurs. Contextualization can be defined as making concepts and methods relevant to a historical situation. From this definition, missiological contextualization can be viewed as enabling the message of God’s redeeming love in Jesus Christ to become alive as it addresses the vital issues of a sociocultural context and transforms its worldview, its values, and its goals (Taber 1978, 55). The term contextualization, as compared to indigenization, conveys a deeper involvement of the cultural context in the missiological process and a greater sensitivity to situations where rapid social change is occurring (Coe 1976, 19–22).

Contextualization in the Scriptures

Although the term contextualization was coined in recent years (see “Theological Education Fund Report” in Ministry in Context, 1972), the notion that the gospel needs to be relevant to the sociocultural context of the recipients has been with the church from the inception of the Christian mission (Nichols 1979, 51–52; Hesselgrave 1979, 11). The writers of the Gospels contextualized their message to their target audiences (Bornkamm 1960, 64).

The fact that Matthew was addressing a Jewish audience, for instance, “is reflected in his emphasis on messianic prophecy, kingship, and the divine titles of Jesus” (Hesselgrave and Römmen 1989, 8). John’s prologue, on the other hand, sought to express the gospel in terms that the Greeks could understand. He employed the Greek concept of the “Logos,” which meant “world-soul,” and then gave it the Christian meaning that pointed to a personal God (Whatney 1985, 218). He avoided syncretism, however, by opposing the Platonic misconception of the separation of the spiritual and physical worlds. Instead, John stated categorically that “the word became flesh” (Adam 1901, 233).

The apostle Paul also contextualized the presentation of the message. Aware of the fact that he had a Jewish audience at the synagogue at Antioch (Acts 13), he spoke about the patriarchs, the prophets, and the prophecies and presented Christ as the fulfillment of these prophecies.

At Athens, being cognizant of the fact that his audience was made up of Gentile intelligentsia (Acts 17), Paul did not speak about the Jewish patriarchs but instead sought to establish a bridge of communication by speaking to them about the “unknown God” (v. 23), assuring them that he is the Creator of all human beings (v. 26), reinforcing his argument with quotations from their own poets (vv. 27–28), emphasizing the fact that God is calling on them to repent (v. 30), and admonishing them about the coming judgment through Christ whom God raised from the dead (v. 31).

Paul did not compromise the gospel message because there were those who refused to believe in the resurrection (v. 32). Paul even cautioned the Galatians that even if “an angel from heaven came with another gospel,” he should be accursed (Gal 1:8). While Paul emphasized the importance of retaining the unchangeable content of the gospel, he recognized the necessity of adapting its presentation so it could be understood by those who heard it (Kraft 1979, 263–64). He enunciated this principle in 1 Corinthians 9:22: “I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some” (NKJV).

Paul, therefore, contextualized the message by taking into account the sociocultural and religious background of his hearers. The manner in which the evangelists and Paul communicated the message in the various cultural contexts gives evidence of the fact that the early church contextualized the proclamation of the gospel.

The Emergence of Contemporary Contextualization

Throughout history attempts have been made to contextualize the gospel (Ericson 1976, 71–85; Kraft 1979, 30; Costas 1979, 23–30). Since the 1960s this concept has acquired specialized meanings (Hesselgrave and Römmen 1989, 33–35) and has become one of the most significant issues in missiological circles. The impetus for this originated in parts of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. International church leaders, Western and Two-Thirds World, developed a growing awareness that the theologies and methodologies that had been inherited from the older churches of the North Atlantic community often did not address some of the major concerns of their sociocultural contexts. An additional motivating factor was the growing realization that, to a large extent, all theologies, including those from the West, are influenced by cultural factors (Brown 1977, 170; Nichols 1979, 26).

African Consultations

This growing interest in contextualization was reflected in numerous international ecclesiastical consultations.12 In order to provide a foundation for this discussion, some key consultations will be examined.13

Some of the earliest consultations on contextualization convened in Africa. The 1955 conference in Ghana (then Gold Coast) represents perhaps the earliest organized African attempt to explore the relation between Christianity and African culture. This conference occurred at a time of multiplication of independent churches that leaned toward syncretistic expressions of Christianity. This was viewed by some as a repudiation on the part of these African Christians of the theology, church structures, patterns of ministry, and liturgical forms that had been imported by Western Christian missionaries (Fashole-Luke 1976).

Another meeting committed to contextualization, the Consultation of African Theologians held at Ibadan, Nigeria, met in 1965. As the delegates reflected on elements of continuity and discontinuity between the gospel and pre-Christian traditions, this consultation attempted to express the teachings of Scripture in the cultural forms of the indigenous groups in Africa (Idowu 1969).

East Africa was also the scene of consultations dealing with contextualization. One of these was held at Makerere University, Uganda, in 1972. Having selected the theme “African Theology and Church Life,” the participants explored ways to relate theology to the urban as well as the rural life of modern African communities. At the Uganda meeting, Anglo scholars were excluded, while Black Power representatives from Britain and the United States were given positions of high visibility. This fact was seen by many as a protest against Western theological domination (see Fashole-Luke 1976).

Several issues surfaced in these African conferences. The first of these was the role of the Old Testament witness in the process of theologizing in Africa. The following questions were addressed: (1) Can the Old Testament be dispensed within the formulation of African theologies? (2) Do the traditional religions take the place of the Old Testament and provide the “stocks on which the Christian Gospel is grafted”?

The second issue was the place of traditional religions in the development of African theologies (Fashole-Luke 1976, 135). This discussion centered on the question, Is there continuity or discontinuity between the gospel and the pre-Christian religious heritage of the African people? The third issue was, Who are the legitimate agents in the formulation of a contextualized African theology? Should Africans be the only participants in the contextualization task? The fourth issue was the extent to which a contextualized theology should take into account the urbanization that was being experienced in the continent of Africa.

These conferences raised issues that had not been treated at length before in the debate on contextualization. One of the new discussions considered the relation of the gospel to traditional religions (Luzbetak 1981, 37–57).

Latin American Consultations

Efforts toward contextualization also took place in Latin America. One of the earliest groups to address this subject was the Iglesia y Sociedad (Church and Society) movement known as “ISAL.” Established in 1962 in Brazil, ISAL began publishing the periodical Cristianismo y Sociedad (Christianity and Society). Through its publications it sought to interpret the Latin American situation and to deal with the implications of rapid social change for the church. This group, which included some of the more radical segments of Roman Catholic liberation theologians (Escobar 1987, 77–78), sought to reflect theologically on such Latin American themes as history, humanization, and ecclesiology (Escobar 1987, 77–81).

These discussions called not only for a reinterpretation of certain biblical texts (e.g., the Exodus would be viewed as political liberation) but for the utilization of a particular method for the analysis of the sociocultural context (the Marxist analysis that views society in terms of class struggles and posits a classless society as the ideal).

As time progressed, however, there began to be serious concerns on the part of some Latin American theologians regarding the “radicalization” of ISAL. René Padilla, for instance, explains that “gradually it [ISAL] began to accept the conviction that what was needed was not a ‘Christian’ answer to revolution but integration with the revolutionary process that moves our peoples today” (Padilla 1984, 120).

Among Latin American evangelicals, the establishment of a theological fraternity, Fraternidad Teológica Latinoamericana (FTL), marked the beginning of a concerted effort to address issues pertaining to contextualization. In its initial meeting in 1971, this fraternity sought to establish a consensus regarding the biblical position upon which necessary theological reflection could be intensified. This consultation recognized the lack of theological reflection among evangelicals (see Savage 1972, 124) and vowed to “take the situation of the churches in the historical moment in which they lived in the continent seriously” (Escobar 1987, 61).

World Council of Churches Consultations

Uppsala 1968

Consultations related to contextualization took on a worldwide flavor beginning around 1968. These consultations avoided the tendency to center on regional realities and to broaden the discussion to the worldwide perspective. The Uppsala General Assembly of the World Council of Churches in 1968 provided the rootage of contextualization, while other conferences were, to some extent, precursors.

Two of its documents, “World Economic and Social Development” and “Towards Justice and Peace in International Affairs” (hence sections III and IV, respectively), treat concepts that related to contextualization. Section III, for instance, stresses the role of the church in the modern context when it states, “No structures—ecclesiastical, industrial, governmental, or international—lie outside of the scope of the churches’ task as they seek to carry out their prophetic role in understanding the will of God for all men” (Desrochers 1982, 511).

The remainder of this document outlines the practical application of biblical concepts of salvation, peace, and justice in today’s world. The document declares that in the struggle for peace and justice the church must bear witness and speak out (Desrochers 1982, 513).

Bossey 1971

The consultation held in 1971 in Bossey, Switzerland, also raised significant issues pertaining to contextualization. At an earlier consultation in Bossey, the subject of rapid social change had been discussed with the conclusion that European churches had fallen into crisis because Christianity in Europe had not addressed the ever-changing sociocultural context of the continent.

The Bossey consultation in 1971 focused on the effects of the rise of a new technological society upon systematic theology. One of its primary concerns was to analyze theological methodology in the light of a rapidly changing world. A. O. Dyson, then principal of Ripon Hall, Oxford, presented a paper entitled “Dogmatic or Contextual Theology?” (1972, 1–8), which became an integral part of the discussion that followed. In the presentation he called attention to the manner in which the scientific revolution has affected dogmatic theology by “unseating those authorities to which theology appealed” and by giving “a strong impulse to a sense of human autonomy, of self-management and self-existence, in which man is an important actor rather than a passive recipient of divine laws and actions” (Dyson 1972, 5).

These factors have contributed to the development of theologies that focus more fully than does dogmatic theology on the issues relevant to particular sociocultural contexts. In Dyson’s opinion, a contextual theology is needed because dogmatic theology has failed to address ethical-social problems in a period of rapid social change. In his critique Dyson pointed out, however, that the dogmatic and contextual approaches to theology have different starting points (Bible vs. sociocultural context): “The dogmatic tendency appeals in the first place to things like revelation, the Bible, Scripture and tradition. The contextual tendency on the other hand refers, in the first place, to data drawn as directly as possible from the (secular) world about us” (Dyson 1972, 1).

Dyson further feels that dogmatic and contextual theology also have different aims. Dogmatic theology deals with the whole, while contextual theology considers fragments. He explains that dogmatic tradition seeks a comprehensive, connected, and even synthetic structure; the contextual method, on the other hand, deals more with theological fragments, analyzing particular themes and situations that arrest attention (Dyson 1972, 2).

The small groups at the consultation discussed the characteristics of dogmatic and contextual theology in greater detail. These discussions included factors relating to the span of time (holistic vs. present) upon which each of these focuses, the validity (universal vs. the local) of these theologies, the manner (ontological vs. functional) in which each of these treats knowledge and being, the focus (unity vs. plurality) of these theologies, the role of human beings (receptive—active) portrayed in these theologies, and the different approaches (deductive—inductive) of these theologies (Fleming 1980, 11–12).

Ministry in Context

The Theological Education Fund (henceforth TEF) Report, entitled Ministry in Context, reflected another international effort in the ongoing discussion regarding contextualization in several continents. The mandate given to the committee that prepared this report was “to help the churches reform the training for the Christian ministry (including the ordained ministry and other forms of Christian leadership in the Church and the world) by providing selective and temporary assistance and consultative services to institutions for theological education and other centers of training.”

The determinant goal of its work was that the gospel be expressed and ministry be undertaken in response to “the widespread crisis of faith, the issues of social justice and human development, the dialectic between local cultural and religious situations and a universal technological civilization” (TEF Report 1972, 17–19).

In order to implement this mandate, the decision was made to make grants with the purpose of “contextualizing the gospel.” The fact that the committee considered contextualization as the chief characteristic of authentic theological reflection is evident in the guidelines that were established for granting funds.

Even though the approach of the TEF was not new, the meaning that was assigned to “contextualization” by the TEF in its succinct 1972 report and the publicity that it received captured the attention of theologians and missiologists in many parts of the world (TEF Report 1972, 21–31).

The Lausanne Movement

Lausanne 1974

Another international consultation on contextualization, the Lausanne International Congress on World Evangelization in 1974, addressed issues pertaining to the subject. The official papers and responses of this meeting are contained in Let the Earth Hear His Voice, edited by J. D. Douglas. The issues discussed in Lausanne were treated in the plenary sessions, seminars, and area reports. An example of this was the paper presented by Byang Kato (general secretary of the Association of Evangelicals of Africa and Madagascar) entitled “The Gospel, Cultural Context, and Religious Syncretism.” This paper reflected the concern of many evangelicals that a distinction be made between the content of the gospel and the cultural forms in which it is expressed.

The report of the group that responded to Kato’s paper described the contextualization task in greater detail. It sought to distinguish between contextualization, indigenization, and syncretism; between form and meaning; and between external manifestations (e.g., musical instruments) and internal manifestations (e.g., thought forms) of contextualization.

Other seminars at the Lausanne congress that dealt with contextualization came under the general heading of “Biblical Foundations and Cultural Identity.” These workshops focused attention on Africa (Mpaayei 1961, 1229–34), Asia (Octavianus 1961, 1238–50), Latin America (Perez 1961, 1251–62), and the Anglo-Saxon world (Anderson 1961, 1278–93, in Douglas, 1975).

The seminar on “The Gospel, Cultural Context, and Religious Syncretism,” as well as those on “Biblical Foundations and Cultural Identity,” was instrumental in raising such other issues related to contextualization.

Some of the most crucial questions raised at Lausanne were addressed in subsequent consultations.

Latin American Theological Fraternity

The series of meetings of the Latin American Theological Fraternity (FTL) are an example of this. The 1974 meeting of the FTL focused on “the Kingdom of God,” while the 1977 meeting dealt with issues relating to “the People of God.” Their 1979 meeting in Lima, Peru, addressed the challenge of the liberation theologies espoused by Roman Catholic and Protestant ecumenical Latin American theologians (Escobar 1987, 62). While objecting to some of the positions adopted by some of the liberation theologies, the FTL acknowledged the need to develop a theology of mission “which is relevant to the Latin American reality and faithful to the Bible.”

The Willowbank Group

Another international consultation produced what has become known as the “Willowbank Report.” The Lausanne committee’s theology and education group and the strategy working group addressed “Gospel and Culture” and other themes related to contextualization in their 1979 consultation in Willowbank, Bermuda. At the outset the following goals were established: (1) to develop our understanding of the interrelation of the gospel and culture with special reference to God’s revelation, to our interpretation and communication of it, and to the response of the hearers to their conversion, their churches, and their lifestyle; (2) to reflect critically on the implications of the communication of the gospel cross-culturally; and (3) to identify the tools required for more adequate communication of the gospel (Stott and Coote 1979, 433).

The Willowbank Report acknowledges the significance of culture in the writing and the reading of the Bible, in the communication of the gospel, in the experience of conversion, in the life of the church, and in the lifestyle of believers. This report outlines three approaches to understanding the Bible. The “popular” approach seeks to apply the message of the Scriptures to the present cultural context. In so doing, however, the popular approach ignores the original biblical context. The second approach to understanding the Bible, the “historical” approach, focuses on the biblical context, while failing to apply the message to the present cultural context. The third approach, the “contextual” approach, takes both the biblical as well as the present cultural contexts into account.

The report shares additional information that contributes to the discussion of contextualization. First, it seeks to establish biblical justification for contextualization. Contextual thinking views the incarnation of Jesus as a model for cross-cultural witness and Paul’s use of Greek philosophy and vocabulary as examples of contextualization. Second, it seeks to distinguish between the cultural form and the meaning of the biblical text. Third, it emphasizes the importance of identifying the “heart of the gospel” in the Scriptures. Fourth, it affirms the positive elements of a culture that should not be discarded as a result of the experience of conversion. Fifth, it suggests “dynamic equivalence” as an effective model of contextualization (Stott and Coote 1979, 440–49).

The Willowbank Report represents an attempt on the part of evangelicals to pay greater attention to the influence of the sociocultural context, while at the same time attempting to ensure that the content of the Scriptures not be “diluted or compromised.”

This effort was especially true in papers by Padilla and Taber, presented and included in the book Gospel and Culture, which dealt with one of the central issues of contextualization, hermeneutics, and culture. In this sense it can be stated that the Willowbank group expanded the parameters of the discussion of contextualization among evangelicals, as it sought to place greater emphasis on the influence of cultural factors upon the Scriptures as well as upon the reader (Conn 1984, 182–83).

At Lausanne, contextualization was initially perceived in two ways: as formal correspondence translation and as dynamic equivalence. Kato’s paper (which called for contextualization of external forms, e.g., liturgy, dress, language) represents the first view. The report of the respondent group (which called for a deeper level of contextualization, e.g., of thought patterns, worldview) represents the second view. There was a third group, however—composed of Conn, Padilla, and Escobar—who felt that it was necessary to go beyond the Willowbank Report and strive for an even deeper involvement with the cultural context (Conn 1984, 182).

Padilla’s dialogical model in “Hermeneutics and Culture” (Stott and Coote 1979, 63) and Escobar’s “The Challenge of a New Praxis” (Stott and Coote 1979, 179) represent an attempt to engage the cultural context at a deeper level while adhering to an evangelical position on the normative nature of Scripture. These three positions continue to be evident in contextualization efforts among evangelicals today.

Detroit 1975

North America also engaged in the discussion of contextualization. The Theology in the Americas Conference, held in Detroit, Michigan, in 1975, is an example of the consultations that have been held since the publication of the TEF report and the Lausanne congress. The aim of this conference was to “contribute to a new theology which emerges from the historical, social, and religious context of the North American experience” (see Torres and Eagleson 1976, xviii).

This conference demonstrated several distinctive features. First, while Third-World countries had been the major focus of contextualization in the past, at this meeting industrialized Western countries (e.g., US) were included.

Second, this conference sought to view minority groups in industrialized countries not as recipients but as participants in the theologizing process.

Third, this conference sought to keep the immediate as well as the broader context in mind as it encouraged affinity groups to theologize together regarding issues relevant to American society in general and to other regions of the world.

Fourth, this conference sought to examine the tools that are employed in the analysis of a sociocultural context (Torres and Eagleson 1976, xxiii and xix).

Other Evangelical Consultations

Two meetings in the United States considered contextualization from the vantage of foreign missions. The first was the 1974 Evangelical Foreign Missions Association Executives Retreat. The principal goal of this group was to provide the guidelines for a correctly applied theology that avoids syncretism as well as a theology that can be applied to contemporary problems (Fleming 1980, 53). This focus on application of theology to contemporary problems led some to believe that the consultation centered more on indigenization than contextualization.

The second meeting relating to contextualization in North America was the 1979 Consultation on Theology and Mission held at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. This group, which included eighty evangelical leaders from thirty-four mission organizations and fifteen theological schools, dealt with the broad topic of “theology and mission” (Hesselgrave 1976). While there appears to be some justification for the observation that the first meeting dealt more specifically with matters relating to indigenization, two papers presented at the latter meeting (Ericson’s and Buswell’s) contributed useful insights to the contextualization debate.

Ericson’s paper gives examples of contextualization from the New Testament (e.g., Paul) and seeks to establish criteria for contextualization. Buswell’s paper distinguishes between the different aspects of contextualization (e.g., of the witness, of the church and its leadership, and of the Word). Both authors operate within the type of evangelical framework that perceives the contextualization task in terms of “disengaging the supra-cultural message from a cultural context and enculturating it into another” (Buswell 1976, 103; see also Schreiter 1985, 8).

Analysis of Key Issues

An analysis of the conferences described above reveals that there were some issues that most of the participants held in common. Most of them agreed that the gospel needs to be perceived as relevant in daily life in the various sociocultural contexts; that there is biblical justification for contextualization; that the relevance of the gospel is being challenged by the new technological society, by the current sociopolitical movements, and by the resurgence of nativistic religious movements; and that it is essential to analyze the sociocultural context in order to know how the gospel needs to be applied to that setting.

Disagreement among the participants centered on several vital issues. The first issue relates to the nature of the gospel. Is the gospel supracultural, or is it culture-bound? Some asserted that the gospel can be disengaged from the culture (like the kernel from the husk) (Buswell 1976, 103), while others felt that it is so interwoven (like the layers of an onion) that separation is impossible (Schreiter 1985, 8).

A second issue relates to the authority of the Scriptures. Are the Scriptures normative in the contextualization process, or do they have parallel significance with the sociocultural context? Proponents of liberation theology generally assign Scripture a parallel or subservient position (in relation to the sociocultural context), while evangelicals view it as the final authority.

A third issue relates to the starting point in the contextualization process. Should one start with the sociocultural context or the biblical text? (see Fleming 1980, 6). For some, the starting point is indicative of the authority that is ascribed to the Scriptures. Others (e.g., René Padilla) feel that, as long as Scripture is held as the final authority, it is helpful to start with the urgent issues of a sociocultural context and then go to Scripture for answers; the important thing for Padilla is that Scripture and not the sociocultural context be normative in the process of theological reflection.

A fourth issue relates to the place of traditional religions. Is there total continuity or total discontinuity between traditional religions and the New Testament, or are there other alternatives? Is there sufficient revelation in traditional religions that the gospel can simply be added to what they have (total continuity), or are traditional religions so devoid of divine revelation that there is nothing in them that can relate to Christianity (total discontinuity)? Proponents of other alternatives suggest that certain elements in traditional religions can serve as bridges for the communication of the gospel.

A fifth issue relates to the participants in the contextualization process in a given sociocultural context. Should the participants be outsiders (only missionaries), insiders (only those who have grown within that culture), or a combination of both? (Bradshaw 1961, 125). A related issue pertains to the outcome of the contextualization process. If only insiders participate in contextual theological reflection, will the outcome be isolated local or regional theologies?

A sixth issue relates to syncretism. Is there a danger that excessive efforts to relate to a given culture can result in syncretism? Some viewed syncretism as an indication that in-depth contextualization had occurred. Others worried that, unless adequate guidelines were established, a syncretistic blending of pagan and Christian teachings and practices could occur.

A seventh issue relates to the tools that should be employed in the analysis of a sociocultural context. Are the Marxist analytical tools (which focus exclusively on conflictual elements in society) or the “anthropological functionalist” approach (which focuses exclusively on elements of harmony and cooperation) adequate for an accurate analysis of a sociocultural context, or is yet another approach needed?

Other issues form a part of the ongoing debate on contextualization. These listed above are among what many consider to be the most vital issues. To a large extent, the view that missiologists take regarding these issues depends on the contextualization model that they employ.

Models of Contextualization

As one might expect, numerous contextualization models have been posited by missiologists and local leaders in the various regions of the world. In this segment, some of the most widely supported models will be examined.

Some contextualization models are based largely on translation theory: “formal correspondence” and “dynamic equivalence” (Luzbetak 1981, 37–57). The formal correspondence view insists largely on a word-for-word translation (Kato 1971, 1216). It is based on the conviction that literal, word-for-word translation constitutes the most effective way to convey the meaning of Scripture from one language to another.

The dynamic equivalence view, however, maintains that languages and cultures are so vastly different that at times a word-for-word translation actually results in distortion or obfuscation of the original meaning. A dynamic equivalence approach, therefore, moves from meaning to meaning. In order to accomplish full meaning, it seeks to find equivalents in the language and cultural forms of the recipient group.

Following the views described above, the “formal correspondence” contextualization model seeks to establish churches, institutional structures, leadership patterns, evangelistic methodologies, and ministry approaches that correspond with those found in the culture of the missionary. The “dynamic equivalent” contextualization model makes a greater effort to achieve relevance in the recipient culture (Kraft 1979, 263–64). It seeks to find or develop equivalent methodologies, structures, and leadership patterns in the recipient culture. Its goal is to establish churches that have the impact in their sociocultural context that the New Testament churches had in their era.

Both of these approaches are to be commended for their commitment to communicate the authentic message of Scripture from one culture to another. While some missiologists believe that the dynamic equivalence model is more effective in relating to the local culture, their main concern is that both models primarily represent what the missionary does to adapt the message and the methodology to the recipient culture and not what the local leaders do. This approach, some missiologists observe, is closer to indigenization than contextualization (see Fleming 1980, 53; and Conn 1984, 182).

A contextualization model that is radically different from the ones described above—the dialectical model—is employed by the proponents of liberation theology. In this model, the starting place is the sociocultural context. After having lived in and experienced the struggles of oppressed societies and analyzed their sociocultural context (employing Marxist analytical tools to understand social-class conflicts), the person attempts to establish parallels between that situation and those found in Scripture. The search, however, is informed by the existential experience of the person. This means that if the person is experiencing political oppression, that experience will allow the person to interpret a given passage of Scripture in that light. The Exodus account, therefore, is viewed as the political liberation of Israel and as a mandate to strive for political liberation in the contemporary situation.

The effort on the part of the contextualizer to have an existential acquaintance with the suffering and struggles of people in a given context is viewed by missiologists as one of the strong points of the dialectical approach. Aside from questions regarding the adequacy of Marxist analytical tools, the principal concerns of some missiologists is the role that this model assigns to Scripture. Revelation, in this model, is not perceived as coming directly from Scripture. Instead it comes from the dialectic between the issues of the sociocultural context (e.g., political liberation) and the parallel passages in Scripture (e.g., the Exodus). Out of the thesis and antithesis there emerges a synthesis. The proponents of this model maintain that is revelation and not Scripture itself.

A contextualization model that seeks to attain a deeper engagement with the vital issues of a given society than translation models—yet do greater justice to the authentic message of Scripture than dialectical models—is the dialogical model. As the title suggests, this model seeks to establish a dialogue between Scripture and the vital issues of a sociocultural context. Posited by René Padilla, this model also requires an existential acquaintance with a given sociocultural context (Padilla 1979, 1975). It is from this experience that the contextualizer emerges with questions that represent the vital issues of that context.

As the contextualizer approaches the Scriptures with these questions, a dialogue is initiated that contributes to greater and greater understanding of the message of Scripture. This dialogue causes the contextualizer to reexamine the questions with which he has approached Scripture. As more knowledge is gained from Scripture, even the questions are modified. This modification goes beyond this adjustment to include the contextualizer’s worldview and culture.

In other words, the Scriptures may question or judge some of the elements in the worldview or culture of the contextualizer. Having gained a greater understanding of his questions and worldview, and having modified these, the contextualizer approaches Scripture once again and is in a better position to understand its message for that sociocultural context. The theological reflection that results is viewed as a contextualized theology that has a relevant message of hope and transformation for that context.

The appeal of this model for some missiologists is that it seeks a fundamental engagement with the vital issues of a sociocultural context while maintaining a commitment to do justice to the authentic message of Scripture.

Guidelines for Contextualization

While the approaches may vary from one continent to another and the issues that are addressed may be different, some general principles to guide the contextualization process can be gleaned from the consultations examined above.

First, the Bible must be the final authority in the contextualization process and not merely a partner or a subservient source in the development of human ideologies or syncretistic doctrines. Culture and cultural items must be judged by Scripture, not Scripture by culture.

Second, the supracultural elements of the gospel must be preserved in the contextualization process. While the cultural forms in which the gospel is expressed need to be relevant, the authentic content of the gospel must be jealously guarded and totally retained.

Third, local leaders need to be at the forefront in the reflection that results in contextualized theological formulations, ecclesiastical structures, and evangelistic methodologies. The task of the missionary is to equip local leaders for theological reflection and not merely to transplant formulations that have been developed in other cultures.

Fourth, theological formulations that are developed need to be informed by previous theological reflection (e.g., dogmatic theology) and to be in dialogue with the broader Christian community to avoid heresy and syncretism.

Fifth, syncretism needs to be avoided in the process of local theological reflection. The starting point, perhaps, needs to be the recognition that contextualization can result in syncretism. The ultimate test in the utilization of a given cultural form is whether the authentic meaning of Scripture is retained (Taber 1978, 8).

Sixth, patience and humility need to be exercised by the broader Christian community (especially missionaries). At times, outsiders may classify local formulations as “heretical” or “syncretistic” simply because they are new or because they challenge some of the traditional beliefs and practices of the broader Christian community. An appropriate question is whether the opposition is based on cultural or Scriptural concerns.

Seventh, adequate tools for an analysis of a sociocultural context need to be utilized. This should include tools that do not have the type of prior commitment to a particular political or philosophical ideology so that the outcome of the contextualization that occurs is already predetermined.

Eighth, a contextualization model that does justice both to Scripture and the sociocultural context needs to be employed. The work of the kingdom is not served by a model that preserves scriptural authenticity but lacks relevance in a sociocultural context, nor by a model that strives for relevance but compromises the biblical message.

Conclusion

The ultimate goal of contextualization is that the church be enabled in a particular time and place to witness of Christ in a way that is both faithful to the gospel and meaningful to men, women, and children in the cultural, social, political, and religious conditions of that time and place (Desrochers 1982, 23). Contextualized approaches seek to present the unchanging word of God in the varying languages and cultures of human beings.

Chapter 20

Missionary Call and Service

M. David Sills

The missionary call is multifaceted and unique to each individual. Just as a convention hall filled with pastors would not hold any two with the exact call to ministry, or any two couples with the same story of how they fell in love, so missionaries each articulate their understanding of their call in a myriad of ways. Yet, certain characteristics appear again and again as common denominators in testimonies of calling.

What Is a Missionary Call?

The missionary call often begins with an awareness of the needs in the world for gospel witness and the commands of Christ in his Word. God often burdens those he is calling with a deep concern for the lost and for the world to know and glorify Christ. A heart fully committed to God begins to move in obedience to the sense of inner “shoulds and oughts,” which are usually accompanied by a strong desire to heed the call. Psalm 37:4 teaches, “Delight yourself in the Lord, and he will give you the desires of your heart” (ESV). The desire to serve in missions came from him, and he gives us the goal of that desire by opening the doors to missionary service.

For a comprehensive exploration of the missionary call, including the biblical, historical, and practical aspects to its existence, discernment, and application, I encourage you to read my book, The Missionary Call, as the space allotted in a single chapter will not allow even a true survey of each aspect of the call. However, before we explore some foundational aspects of the missionary call and then walk through an example of what the call looked like in one man in history, I want to offer the definition that captures my understanding of the call:

The missionary call includes an awareness of the needs of a lost world, the commands of Christ, a concern for the lost, a radical commitment to God, your church’s affirmation, blessing and commissioning, a passionate desire, the Spirit’s gifting, and an indescribable yearning that motivates beyond all understanding. (Sills 2008, 30)

Discerning the Missionary Call

Those seeking to discern a call to missions should be careful not to allow the description of another’s call to become prescriptive of what the missionary call should be. Another missionary’s testimony of a time when Jesus appeared at the foot of their bed in the middle of the night calling them to the Amazon should not be made normative, meaning that he must call you the same way. God calls many to missions, but no two are called the exact same way or moment.

How do you know if you have a call? First, do not expect a quick, three-step plan to discern a call to missions. If you really want to know God’s will, you must know him; and only by getting as close to Jesus as you can, and staying there, will you be able to hear the still small voice saying, “This is the way, walk in it.” To know God, you must know his Word; and the Spirit who inspired it will illumine your mind to understand it, so you must pray. Seek counsel from wise, faithful believers who know you best and have made good decisions in their own lives. Next, consider life experiences that God has given you, and everything that has gone into making you who you are. Then, look at your circumstances. While circumstances should not be the only or primary test for knowing his will, they can certainly inform which options are possible or advisable. Next, remember that it is not unspiritual to consider timing issues, especially as they relate to family matters or life stage. God can lead through these aspects as well. Finally, what do you want to do? Remember the truth of Psalm 37:4. He will give you desires to guide you into his will when you are delighting yourself in him and only want for him to be glorified in your life.

Biblical Perspective

The Bible does not give definitive teaching on the missionary call. The principle of God’s involvement in believers’ lives, moving them to serve him and guiding them in their fulfillment of his call on their lives, saturates the Bible from beginning to end. Yet, we lack a definitive passage explicitly describing or defining the missionary call, thus leaving us to glean from principles seen in biblical accounts of those who were called.

In the calling of Abram, Moses, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, we see that God calls certain individuals for ministry and service that he has designed for them. Believers have differing gifts and roles in the body of Christ as is clear from Ephesians 4:11–14. Paul taught that there are different offices for building up the body of Christ and teaching men and women so that they will no longer be endangered by heretical teachings. When the church in Jerusalem scattered after the stoning of Stephen, they regrouped in Syrian Antioch and became the first truly intentional international and intercultural church, reaching out to non-Jews and living so much like Jesus that they were derisively called Christians, little Christs. The name stuck because it fit. It was in that church when the leaders were praying and fasting that the Holy Spirit said for them to set apart Barnabas and Saul for the work he had for them (Acts 13:1–3). It is important to note that he did not rebuke the rest of the church for not being spiritual or as committed. Some were to go; some were to send.

In Romans 10:13–15, Paul reminds his readers that anyone who calls on the Lord will be saved but then asks a series of questions to stress the importance of the missionary task: “How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent?” (ESV). Some are senders and some are goers. In the missionary enterprise, neither is more important than the other, neither is more biblical than the other, and neither is possible without the other. God’s missionary heartbeat can be seen from the call of Abram when he announced that all nations would be blessed through him (Gen 12:1–3), to the Psalms that call for the nations to worship (e.g., Psalms 45–47, 67, 86, etc.), to the Suffering Servant passages in Isaiah where God says that raising up the tribes of Israel would be too small a thing and instead made him a Light to the nations (Isa 49:6).

Is a Missionary Call Necessary?

The pages of books from generations past represent the historical perspectives on the imperative of missions, and some seem to say that no additional call from God is necessary. Writing in 1901, George Wilson stressed, “Don’t wonder whether you have a call to go. ‘Have you had a distinct call from Christ to stay at home?’” (Wilson 1901, 7). In other words, if you are free to choose a missionary life, just do it; you do not need a call. Ion Keith-Falconer closed his last address to the students of Edinburgh and Glasgow saying, “While vast continents are shrouded in almost utter darkness, and hundreds of millions suffer the horrors of heathenism and of Islam, the burden of proof rests on you to show that the circumstances in which God has placed you were meant by God to keep you out of the foreign field” (Speer 1927, 12).

Robert Speer wrote of his belief that there is no missionary call except for the one that all Christians have received, and that many famous missionaries did not have a call. He claimed that David Livingstone had no calling like the apostle Paul and that along with “Henry Martyn, William Carey, Ion Keith-Falconer, nine-tenths of the great missionaries of the world never had any such calls” (Speer 1927, 7). Speer continued, “The whole matter reduces itself to this simple proposition. There is a general obligation resting upon Christian men to see that the gospel of Jesus Christ is preached to the world. You and I need no special call to apply that general call to our lives. We do need a special call to exempt us from its application to our lives” (Speer 1927, 10). Again, Speer wrote,

There are three elements which enter into the determination of a call to the mission field. The first is the need. . . . A second is absence of any personal disqualification; and we ourselves are not the best judges there. . . . The third element is absence of any insuperable hindrance, and of course the question whether it is insuperable or not depends upon the personal ability to get over the hindrance. (Speer 1901, 4–5)

In summary, “The question for us to answer is not, Am I called to the foreign field? but, Can I show sufficient cause for not going?” (Speer 1901, 6).

This perspective is not one that has been limited to those from previous generations. The confusing sound-bites from the sermons of some of today’s conference speakers and authors give the impression that no further calling from God is needed for an individual to go to the mission field and the only thing lacking is prompt obedience from the believer. A couple of the more common missions challenges represent the contemporary rhetoric: “No one deserves to hear the Gospel twice until all have heard it once” or “The need constitutes the call.” Unfortunately, such rhetoric results in confusion regarding whether a specific call is necessary and, if so, what nature it should take.

To Where Does God Call?

If missions is simply concerned with evangelism among those who have never heard, then someone with a call to a “reached” country or people group could cause confusion. This is one of the most tragic missiological misunderstandings of our time. We have reduced the biblical teaching on missions to the argument that missions equals reaching the unreached. If that were all that missions should be, then the unfinished task and a missionary call could be defined in terms of sending people to preach a campaign among Unreached People Groups (UPGs).

Make no mistake, sharing the gospel with those who have not heard is an absolutely essential part of missions, but it is only a part. Jesus said to make disciples among them, and to teach them to observe everything he has commanded. That certainly slows down the task and makes much more complex the discernment of a missionary calling. “Search” fields are where we must preach to those who have never heard, and “harvest” fields are where we must engage those who have heard and bring them to full understanding, discipling them, and teaching them to believe and obey. The task of missions is both reaching and teaching, and God calls all kinds of people to do all kinds of missions in all kinds of places.

Called to Be Involved, Not Go

Pastors, conference speakers, and authors challenge believers to go to the world with the gospel. My heart resonates with that sentiment and breaks for those hurtling headlong into hell never having heard. I grieve also for those who simply take the little they have heard about Christianity and mix it in with what they had always worshipped before, resulting in a syncretism that the New Testament does not recognize and saves no one.

It is evident that many have believed that their hearers should go to the mission field and not hang around waiting on a clearer call than the general one found in the Bible. Many contemporary missions preachers regularly call for everyone to go without special calling. Hearers must surely wonder why the speakers themselves do not go as missionaries. In fact, of the most popular and regular challengers, none are missionaries nor have any plans to be, and some never have lived as missionaries overseas. Yet they challenge others as if missions to those who have never heard is the highest and best use of everyone’s life, and they call all to go, even though they themselves do not go.

However, these men show by their faithful continued service in the places where God has placed them the proof of the need for a missionary call. The fact that they believe as strongly as they do about the need for missions, and that they are as passionate about it as they are, coupled with the reality that they are still in their home countries, should give ample evidence that they believe you should serve God fervently in the place and way that he leads you. This they are doing but with a passion for missions. Otherwise, everyone who does not leave their home country and go to foreign soil would be in sin. No, these speakers would be the first to say that we are all to be involved in the global missions enterprise, but some are senders and some are goers.

J. Hudson Taylor, the father of faith missions, is often quoted as having said, “The Great Commission is not an option to consider, it is a commandment to obey.” The great Baptist preacher of nineteenth-century London, Charles H. Spurgeon, wrote, “Every Christian is either a missionary or an imposter” (Spurgeon, 1873). I would argue that they were not saying that every believer must move overseas and preach the gospel, but rather that our hearts should be so broken for the world’s lost that we are passionate about giving or going, sending or being sent. I believe that much of the confusion that exists about the missionary call is because some are recognizing that need for all believers to be involved in missions, without being clear to specify that there are different roles as we go. We are all called to be involved in missions. Some will go, and some will send through financial and prayer support.

One Man’s Missionary Call

We have considered some of the foundational overviews of issues related to the missionary call, so now let us turn our attention to what this might actually look like in someone’s life. The perception is often that the call brings with it an immediate sense of clarity as well as specificity. Is that typical? I would argue that it is not, but that the missionary call we will see displayed here is far more typical of those I have taught, served, and mentored over several decades.

One of the most passionate voices calling for young people to go to the mission field in modern history was Jim Elliot. He went, and he died a missionary martyr in the jungles of Ecuador in 1956. How did his missionary call come to him, and what did he think about the necessity of a missionary call?

Jim Elliot was a relentless missions mobilizer during his college years. He constantly held the challenge of missions before his friends and classmates. Consider his heartbeat revealed in one of his journal entries: “Our young men are going into the professional fields because they don’t ‘feel called’ to the mission field. We don’t need a call; we need a kick in the pants” (Elliot 1958, 54). Jim Elliot also wrote, “The command is plain: you go into the whole world and announce the good news. It cannot be dispensationalized, typicalized, rationalized. It stands a clear command, possible of realization because of the Commander’s following promise” (Elliot 1958, 150).

Yet, Jim Elliot’s own missionary call was one that began and developed slowly. It evolved, flamed to white hot zeal, matured, and then grew wise before it settled into the passionate love and commitment that led him to a river beach in the Ecuadorian jungle with four missionary friends—and ultimately to lay down his life for Christ’s sake. His widow, Elisabeth Elliot, preserved and published his journal. In his journal entries we can see his call developing.

Jim began to feel the responsibility of Jesus’ command to go and preach the gospel sometime during his first two years as a student at Wheaton College. An indication of this awakening desire is seen in this entry:

1700 languages have not a word of the Bible translated. 90% of the people who volunteer for the mission field never get there. It takes more than, “Lord, I’m willing!” 64% of the world have [sic] never heard of Christ. 5000 people die every hour. The population of India equals that of North America, Africa, and South America combined. There is one missionary for every 71,000 people there. There is one Christian worker for every 50,000 people in foreign lands, while there is one to every 500 in the United States. (Elliot 1958, 45)

Elisabeth summarized his feelings about missions at that time, “In view of the unequivocal command of Christ, coupled with these staggering facts, Jim believed that if he stayed in the United States the burden of proof would lie with him to show that he was justified in so doing” (Elliot 1958, 44–45).

Jim went during a summer break with a college friend who traveled to Mexico to visit his missionary parents. Jim spent six weeks there, learning some Spanish and joining in their work. After studying Spanish for only a month, he decided to attempt teaching a children’s meeting in Spanish with no interpreter. Elisabeth wrote that at the end of his time, “There was little doubt in Jim’s mind, as he hitchhiked back toward Oregon, that it was Latin America to which God was calling him. He knew then that he could never be satisfied with the ‘usual.’ His face was set toward those who had never heard” (Elliot 1958, 46). Yet the journal reveals that Jim continued to struggle with the where and when of his call. Elisabeth recounts a portion of his journal: “‘Some have not the knowledge of God—I speak this to your shame,’” he wrote, quoting Paul. “And they must hear. The Lord is bearing hard upon me the need of the unreached millions in Central Asia. Why does not the church awake? What a high calling is offered any who will pray, ‘Send me’” (Elliot 1958, 54). The burden continued as seen in a letter he wrote to his mother: “I only hope that he will let me preach to those who have never heard that name Jesus. What else is worth while [sic] in this life? I have heard of nothing better. ‘Lord, send me!’” (Elliot 1958, 60). Later on October 8, his birthday, he reveals zeal to go but uncertainty still about the place of his calling: “Somehow I can’t even pray with fervor that the Lord would let me finish Wheaton. I don’t care what they do with me. Yesterday I prayed that God would take me to Peru or Brazil before I pass another October 8” (Elliot 1958, 70). Readers of his journals may wonder what happened to the Central Asia burden as he struggled sincerely to hear God clearly.

Jim wrote to his parents and retracted a rash statement in an earlier letter in which he had indicated a quick transition to Peru. The Lord impressed upon him through a reading of Proverbs 4:12, in concert with other passages, that he should not rush when not sure of God’s leading. He explained that he had only felt the urgency because of the need to learn an indigenous language, which would be easier earlier than later. “One learns faster at 21 than 25” (Elliot 1958, 72). He also wrote to his mother asking her not to try to dissuade him from missionary service by appealing to the needs at home. “And Mother, please let’s not have any more of this talk about staying home, telling people of the ‘need.’ That would be augmenting the need. There are too many good preachers berating people night after night about a lost world who have never faced the challenge of sacrificial foreign service themselves” (Elliot 1958, 75).

By the turn of the New Year he was able to write in his journal that he felt God was confirming his missionary call and direction: “The Lord has done what I wanted him to do for me this week. I wanted primarily a peace about going into pioneer Indian work. As I analyze my feelings now, I am quite at ease about saying that tribal work in the South American jungle is the general direction of my missionary purpose” (Elliot 1958, 88). Yet, by May he reveals that he had no real peace about the where of God’s leading. “Wish there was more wide-awake interest in the regions where pioneer efforts are needed. But one must be sure of a call to such work and I’m not sure yet just where the Lord is preparing me for” (Elliot 1958, 99; emphasis mine). Jim Elliot believed that the assurance of a call was necessary for missionary service.

At the end of October he wrote, “On reading a letter to Bert from Wilfred Tidmarsh I responded to a simple urge to offer myself for the work there in Ecuador. This morning it struck me as quite a presumptuous action and I covenanted with the Lord quietly that I would not post the letter unless I had some definite word from Himself” (Elliot 1958, 108). In December he was struggling between the work in Ecuador and the work in Bangalore, India, as a place of service and praying about two specific missionaries with whom he could work. He asked, “How is one to decide when the heart is equally torn for both works, and one’s capabilities fit either sphere?” Elisabeth wrote, “This was a new test of faith, in view of the decision to go to South American Indians, which Jim had made earlier at the Student Missionary Convention” (Elliot 1958, 112–13). On December 31 of that year Jim wrote in his journal, “O Lord, You see the places secret in me, You know all my wanderings and reserves. If You see anything in me that is holding back the clear revelation of your will about Ecuador, uncover it to me, I pray” (Elliot 1958, 114).

A few days later he had received an acceptance letter from a training program for learning indigenous languages conducted by the Summer Institute of Linguistics. “I got my acceptance letter from Camp Wycliffe for this summer. Feel as though the Lord would have me take the time there, whether I go to India or South America” (Elliot 1958, 116). Even at this point he was still unsure about the details of his call and was waiting for clarity. In March he wrote of his belief that a sure sense of being called and sent should accompany going out to the mission field. “I sensed afresh last eve the truth of Paul’s word, ‘How shall they preach except they be sent?’ O God, here I am. Send me, oh send me afield” (Elliot 1958, 124). He felt called and saw the need; he felt burdened for indigenous work and was zealous to go. He had revealed that he was unconcerned about finishing college, as that mattered little to him. He simply wanted to know God’s sure call for where, when, with whom, and to whom. All of those answers were still to come.

Jim had been feeling a tug for the indigenous people in the jungles of Ecuador and, specifically, the invitation to join the work of Dr. Tidmarsh to reach large unreached areas of Quichuas. Then he learned of the unreached Aucas, and his heart flamed even brighter with missions zeal. He wondered whether it was finally Ecuador where he was to go instead of India. He set aside ten days for prayer and sought God’s wisdom and direction (Elliot 1958, 129).

Through a series of small and seemingly casual events, God began to confirm in his heart that Ecuador was the place he was to go: he received a twenty-dollar bill and an unsigned note indicating that it was for Ecuador, another letter came from the Ecuador missionary Tidmarsh, he heard a casual remark in a class at Wheaton regarding the Quichua language; and through it all, he began to feel a settled sense of God’s call to Ecuador. He compared his experience to that of the rich man and Lazarus and the rich man’s plea to send some to his brothers to tell the Good News. “Impelled, then by these voices, I dare not stay home while Quichuas perish” (Elliot 1958, 132). In March of the next year he wrote, “Felt assured again that the Lord is sending me to Ecuador, having no more place in the States since so many possess so much truth here” (Elliot 1958, 145).

With that settled, Jim then turned to begin pleading with God to send another man to go with him to Ecuador. In August he wrote,

God just now gave me faith to ask for another young man to go, perhaps not this fall, but soon, to join the ranks in the lowlands of eastern Ecuador. There we must learn: 1) Spanish and Quichua, 2) each other, 3) the jungle and independence, and 4) God and God’s way of approach to the highland Quichua. From thence, by His great hand, we must move to the Ecuadorian highlands with several young Indians each, and begin work among the 800,000 highlanders. If God tarries, the natives must be taught to spread southward with the message of the reigning Christ, establishing New Testament groups as they go. Thence the Word must go south in Peru and Bolivia. The Quichuas must be reached for God! Enough for policy. Now for prayer and practice. (Elliot 1958, 132–33)

That summer he wrote to Elisabeth, “I am asking still for a single fellow to accompany me to the school in Shandia (Ecuador), and a young brother from Seattle seems interested. You may remember Pete Fleming, the rather intellectual young blade from the University of Washington” (Elliot 1958, 149).

Jim had yearned for years to have the confirmation of his calling and clear guidance as to the details. It seemed that the only step between him and the realization of this all-consuming passion was a young man to go with him as God was directing, and Pete Fleming appeared to be the man. Even so, Jim was not so rash as to push men where God was not pulling them. Apparently Pete had been expressing doubts and a lack of assurance about his missionary call. Jim wrote to Pete only a few months before they would leave.

I have no word for you re: Ecuador. I would certainly be glad if God persuaded you to go with me. But He must persuade you. How shall they preach except they be sent? If the Harvest-Chief does not move you, I hope you remain at home. There are too many walls to leap over not to be fully persuaded of God’s will. All I can do is pray for a cleared path for you. The command is plain: you go into the whole world and announce the good news. It cannot be dispensationalized, typicalized, rationalized. It stands a clear command, possible of realization because of the Commander’s following promise. To me, Ecuador is simply an avenue of obedience to the simple word of Christ. There is room for me there, and I am free to go. This of course is true of a great many other places, but having said there is a need, and sensed my freedom, though several years of waiting in prayer for leading on this very point of “where?”, I now feel peace in saying, “I go, sir, by grace.” My experience is by no means restrictive to your persuasion. You may require more or less subjective evidence to find certainty. I have not the foggiest idea how or where God will lead you. Of this I am sure. He will lead you and not let you miss your signs. Rest in this—it is His business to lead, command, impel, send, call, or whatever you want to call it. It is your business to obey, follow, move, respond, or what have you. This will sound meaningless to you, unconvincing and “old stuff,” and that is what it should sound, for it is only a man’s counsel. The sound of “gentle stillness” after all the thunder and wind have passed will be the ultimate Word from God. Tarry long for it. (Elliot 1958, 150)

Jim was consumed with a passion to serve the Lord on the mission field, preaching the Gospel and discipling the unreached indigenous peoples of Ecuador’s jungles. Elisabeth wrote to describe his experience when he finally arrived on the field: “The Quichuas soon won his heart—indeed, they had done so, years before he saw them” (Elliot 1958, 187). This same Jim Elliot, radically sold out to Christ for the nations, and restless until he arrived on the field, waited patiently on the Lord’s leading for years before he took firm steps to any mission field: “Waiting on him for whom it is no vain thing to wait” (Elliot 1958, 152). Even though his powerful and persuasive personality could have swayed Pete to recruit him to the efforts in Ecuador, Jim knew that after all the echoes of sermons in convention halls have faded and the floors swept, chairs straightened, and the crowd dispersed, what remains with sustaining power is a firm conviction of a missionary call that has divine origins. He counseled Pete with the same counsel that had guided him in his own search to know.

Missionary Service and the Missionary Call

As is clearly seen in a fuller reading of Jim Elliot’s journals, the missionary call often grows out of a zeal for God’s glory, love for his Word, passion for souls, and an awareness of the needs of the nations. One’s call should be considered with thought to its fulfillment with certain agencies, and indeed even specific teams within certain agencies. If your understanding of God’s call on your life does not agree with the strategy of the team or agency you are deploying to join, you will be a thorn in their side and they will be one in yours.

The missionary call has often been understood to be to a certain people. That is not to say that a call must be specific right down to the zip code, or that with the initial understanding of the call will be clarity and understanding of the location to which you are to go; but calls in missions are rarely so general as “to simply serve somewhere overseas.” Indeed, the calls of missions history are replete with burdens for peoples and those bound in other religious worldviews. Missionary calls often include a passion to use a gift or skill in the advance of Christ’s kingdom, whether discharged military pilots forming Mission Aviation Fellowship after WWII or Nate Saint’s call to serve using his aviation training. Some desire to work in Bible translation, orphanage work, church planting, or ministry among university students, but the work they hope to do is closely tied to their understanding of their call.

Your call may be as general in nature and specific in timing as Jesus’ call to the sons of Zebedee. Jesus told James and John to leave their nets and to come follow him, changing them from fishers of fish to fishers of men. They obeyed immediately. Other calls are as specific in nature and general in timing as Paul’s call to the Gentiles. In Acts 26, Paul said in that account of his conversion to Agrippa that it was during his Damascus Road salvation experience that Jesus told him that he would send him as a missionary to the Gentiles. Yet, it would be many years later before he actually began to fulfill that call.

Many missionaries feel certain about the country to which God is calling them. Perhaps this is because of having visited there on a vacation or a short-term mission trip or learning about it through reading a missionary biography. A missionary call does not have to be as exact as to the city, country, region, or continent. However, even though a missionary call may begin with a vague burden, it ends with a location somewhere along the way, usually earlier rather than later.

Perhaps it is as overwhelming as a burden of the “shoulds and oughts” or as subtle as the nagging reminder that like other missionaries who have gone before “we could do that too.” The “why we go,” at the end of it all, is a heart that longs to glorify Christ and see as many perishing souls rescued and brought to worship him with us as we can possibly reach.

If You Are Called

As God makes your missionary call clear, the places, peoples, and details will take shape, and you will take steps to fulfill that call. Do not neglect thorough preparation; it is absolutely essential. This does not necessarily mean that you must move to a seminary to earn a master’s or a Bible degree, although that is a wonderful idea. Whether you are able to seek formal education or not, a missionary call comes with a call to prepare. Some are so burdened for the mission field and feel such a sense of urgency that years in seminary or Bible college seem unnecessary. In predeployment education you are digging a well that you, your family, and your hearers will drink from for the rest of your life. Dig it deep to reach clear, clean water with which to quench the thirsts of the spiritually parched wherever God calls you.

The school of preparation for your missions service will not be over at graduation. You must develop the attitude of a lifelong learner. Indeed, you will be a learner whether you have the appropriate attitude or not. The differences between a humble learner and a proud know-it-all are legion. Some missionaries have thirty years of missions experience and others have one year of experience thirty times. Some missionaries are surrounded by national brothers and sisters while others are surrounded by national helpers.

Always remember that God has called and equipped you to do a certain ministry on the field, which means you are not called to do everything. It is a great blessing for the missionary to know clearly his role on the field. A retired Dutch missionary, returning home after a career in the interior of Brazil’s Amazonian region, told of a practice that had served him well for his forty years on the field. He sat down in his study regularly and wrote a list of all the activities that engaged him in his ministry. Then, he lay the list before the Lord and asked him to show him which were good to keep, what was on the list that he had not led him to do and should be removed, and what was not on there that should be.

Many missionaries would find that the answer is quite closely tied to their missionary call. There is often as much peace in knowing what is not yours to do as in doing what God has called you to do in the place he has called you. Yet, to faithfully follow God’s call on your life, you must know what that is.

In the life and maturing call of Jim Elliot, we saw the importance of having a heart for God’s Word to inform and influence his life’s passions and purpose, the slow revelation of the role that God had for him, and his patient waiting no matter how zealous he was to know it more quickly. The great lesson of his life is not how it started (an obedient child in a Christian home) or even how it ended (a missionary martyr pierced by the spears of a violent jungle tribe); it is being faithful to follow God as far as he leads (praying for more light), being faithful in service while waiting on the next step (preaching and serving), and then pursuing it with a full heart and holding nothing back when it is clear. Jim wrote. “Wherever you are, be all there! Live to the hilt every situation you believe to be the will of God” (Elliot 1981, 20).

Have you heard God’s missionary call?

Chapter 21

Traditional Religions: Primal Religiosity and Mission Dynamics

Keith E. Eitel

Thomas Wallbank captures much of the current unrest among missions in Africa in these words:

The new gospel of the Christian missionary and the edicts and taxes of the European official also are part of a strange world in which increasingly he [the modern African] finds himself. His tribal loyalties, ancient gods, and family customs are either being swept away or drastically weakened by the impact of a new culture . . . . [I]s the African fated to lose the old culture that once gave meaning and direction to his life, without being able to assimilate the alien culture of the West? If this last be true, the African would become a man between two worlds, no longer of the old but unable to be part of the new. (Wallbank 1956, 12–13)

These words were written at a time when many African countries were on the verge of gaining their independence from colonial rulers. They were struggling for national self-determination as well as a sense of identity and place in a rapidly modernizing world. In the search for the significance of homo Africanus, Africans of that era naturally looked back in time to traditional beliefs and customs hoping to find a way forward. By the time colonial empires were breaking up, most African traditional religious systems were in the midst of full encounter with the challenges of modernity and the Christian gospel brought by Western missionaries.

American and European missionaries were affected by their own cultures. They framed a perception of the gospel message in their familiar Western contexts and then transported it to receptor cultures. Some Western missionaries were equipped primarily with the truth of the gospel clothed in Western ecclesiastical forms. They ventured forth in obedience to Christ’s Great Commission only to find preexisting, and often hostile, religious traditions rooted in the religio-social heritage of the peoples they lived and worked among. Missionary change agents may ignore a host people’s undergirding religious perceptions, but by doing so they retard effective reception of the gospel and threaten the incipient church’s social and cultural relevance because traditional religious beliefs are deeply rooted in cultural identity.

Religious assumptions about the meaning of life permeate a given culture’s worldview structures and impact the thinking and doing of a people group, especially on individual levels. Missionaries have entered other cultures as intentional change agents. The message they bear can and often does affect traditional beliefs and, if fully embraced, it forever alters the host people’s perception of reality at innermost levels. Those within the host culture that do adopt the gospel message bring with them a prior set of religious assumptions or beliefs, whether acknowledged or not, into the Christian church. These beliefs do not simply disappear. Dynamic spiritual and psychological interchanges take place. The way in which individuals allow such interchanges to shape their lives, and consequently live out their new Christian faith among adherents of traditional beliefs, determines the nature and public character of Christianity as it coexists in the same cultural milieu as traditional religiosity.

What are traditional religions like? Are there any common patterns or elements among the numerous traditional belief systems in the world? What is likely to happen when missionaries inject traditional cultures with the gospel? Can missionaries use compatible religious traditions to enhance communication of the gospel?

Purpose and Scope

This chapter aims at defining traditional religions by assessing the theories of their origin and describing the most common patterns of belief found among them. Not exclusively, but primarily, the chapter is based on African traditional religious experiences. This is due in part to extensive documentation of essential beliefs, as well as patterns of response when African religions interact with various forms of Christianity.

Nomenclature

How does one describe adequately the historic tribal religious beliefs and practices of hundreds of people groups populating the African continent using one comprehensive term? Anthropologists in the past century attempted to do so by reducing the complexities of these intricate belief systems to what seemed to be their most prominent and unifying feature. Because data available in that period indicated some sort of common “belief that natural objects were animated by a soul or spirit,” W. T. Harris and E. G. Parrinder, early scholars, applied the term animism to these religious phenomena (1960, 13).

Eventually, anthropologists modified this term to allow for observed distinctions in the “animistic” worldviews they encountered. Some traditionalists view natural objects as animated with an impersonal energy or life force, but they may also associate other types of life forces with spirit beings that bear the characteristics of personhood. Animism came to refer to “beliefs in personal spiritual beings” while animatism described “beliefs in impersonal spiritual forces” (Van Rheenen 1991, 19).

Because these terms are reductionist and tend not to describe the totality of these religious phenomena, scholars sought other terms that describe their historic, social, or cultural significance. Harold Turner prefers the term primal societies or religions because the term appears “more innocuous and we hope accurate” (Turner 1973, 321). The term primal religions seems to describe traditional beliefs as those still held by many today yet representative of historic religious traditions that are dignified as the first sets of beliefs held by a grouping of people or a culture. However, the most commonly used term, and the one used in this chapter, is traditional religion along with a regional specification such as African traditional religion.

Religious Origins

Exactly what is a religion? It seems so obvious, yet ambiguous, that the question itself implies a humorous intent. The religious phenomena of humankind are difficult to explain, at least in a single comprehensive theory. Defining what constitutes a religion seems to be a logical point of departure for students of religious phenomena. Various definitions parallel the underlying theories or sets of presuppositions that the scholar brings to the discussion. No single definition will suffice for all audiences.

Sociologists or anthropologists may wish to emphasize external factors while psychologists may highlight subjective internal ideas that shape humanity’s religious aspirations. Either may opt for some form of determinism or, in opposition to that school of thought, may affirm more relativistic positions. In other words, one’s religious values may be the result of innate ideas, external pressures, humanly fabricated ideologies, divinely inspired beliefs, or all the above, according to the variety of scholarly opinion.

Evidently the range of options is only limited by the number of researchers. A functional definition of “religion” that is basic enough to encompass the wide range of options is warranted. Religion may be simply termed “beliefs and practices associated with the supernatural” (Lewis and Travis 1991, 23).

Documenting and interpreting the intricate elements of religious belief systems lend themselves to the same struggles. Reductionist models fail to account for complex religious expressions. For example, early anthropologists, being influenced by evolutionary hypotheses, sought to account for religions by examining developmental stages in a given tradition. Religions, according to these scholars, moved from simple to complex forms. Anthropologists of later periods pointed out the fallacy of this kind of oversimplification.

If religions may not be assessed adequately by evolutionary presuppositions and do justice to their already highly developed and complex states, then what approach may one use? Turner notes that

cultural, anthropological, psychological, sociological, political and other models have proved their value in the elucidation of the interaction between religions and their milieu. Religion, however, cannot be equated with culture, society, morality, psychic processes or political systems and the distinctive features of religion escape us if we reduce it to any or all of these other categories, no matter how intimately it is also interwoven with these aspects of the total reality . . . My own preference is for a conception of religion as existing in the interplay between revelation of the transcendent and the response of the human. (Turner 1981, 13)

Thus, one may study religion in general, and traditional or primal religions specifically, as human reflections about temporal existential significance or meaning in relation to ultimate or eternal aspirations, whether derived from some form of revelation or not. The diversity of traditional religions found throughout the world indicates the countless ways such reflections may merge into a religious belief system. Yet, there are observable characteristics or patterns that help distinguish traditional religions.

Common Characteristics of Traditional Religions

The general cosmology of traditional religions can adequately be seen through an investigation of the African traditional worldview. This worldview can be pictured as seen in figure 1.

General African Traditional Worldview

Adherents of traditional religions live in all regions of the world but mostly in the world’s tropical belt. Because this tropical zone encompasses numerous cultural expressions of traditional ideology, it is all too easy to examine one culture and then generalize about the beliefs of all traditionalists. With a sense of caution, it is helpful to note that some similar characteristics are found throughout the traditionalist world.

Likewise, unique elements are in each cultural belief system. For academic purposes, one may describe these more commonly found themes in order to understand traditionalists and their worldviews. Yet, one cannot simply assume that specific patterns of belief will necessarily apply to all traditional societies. In living and working among a people group, it is wise to use early perceptions as only starting points for developing much more detailed ethnographic information.

Traditionalists live in a world full of mystery, wonder, and even fear. They tend not to make arbitrary distinctions between the natural and spiritual realms. A unified cosmology means that interaction “between human beings and animals or between animate and inanimate existence” is more tangible and dynamic. The traditionalist senses the activity of a physical world that is charged with energy (both personal and impersonal). “This life force, or soul-stuff, exists in greater concentrations in famous men, strong charms, revered fetishes, and Powerful gods” (Nida and Smalley 1959, 50–53).

The spirit world communes with the world of men and things openly. The bristle of wind in a forest, the call of an owl from the trees, or lightning in the midst of a storm—all carry significant religious meanings. Such occurrences mean that spirits, gods, or ancestors are moving, acting, or interfering with the ebb and flow of daily life. Both good and evil, as defined by success or failure in maintaining the basic routines of life, result from the spirit world’s often capricious activities.

Religious beliefs emerge out of this mix of experiences and give shape or form to the rites and rituals that arbitrate the interplay between mankind and the spirit world. “To him, [the traditionalist] religion is primarily a technique for procuring the best advantage in the power struggle in the spirit world” (Nida and Smalley 1959, 50–53).

Life, for the traditionalist, is almost consumed by eruptions of spirit power as manifested by cycles of success or failure in business, health or illness, birth or death, and the like. Controlling spiritual entities and their powers requires one to engage in both offensive and defensive acts. A child begins to burn with a high fever. A traditionalist will need to consult those who possess powers to discern what is out of balance in the spirit realm in order to know what reaction is appropriate and to gain full and redemptive control over the situation.

Traditionalists often feel themselves defenseless, weak, surrounded by evils, and unable to cope with life or to achieve the happiness we all long for. They readily become aware that an invisible, more-than-human power surrounds them, and develop their own religious systems to forge links with this power. (Turner 1994, 128–29, 164)

African Traditionalists and the Concept of Time

Most Western observers fail to appreciate the distinct influence that a sense of time has on thinking and acting, especially among those of other cultures. Cultures influenced by the Judeo-Christian view tend to construct conceptual images of time that flow with linear momentum from well-defined pasts into the present and on into the future (Bebbington 1990). Africa has numerous traditional societies, and certainly not all exactly agree with each other on any single ideological element. Yet, John S. Mbiti has documented a trend that is found in varying but similar forms in many traditional African societies. His views are disputed by some, but they are influential in forming an understanding of African traditional cultures and religions (see Bediako 1992, 323–34).

Mbiti’s observations are based on hundreds of case examples throughout Africa. He indicates that time consciousness is so significant that it is “the key to our understanding of the basic religious and philosophical concepts. The concept of time may help to explain beliefs, attitudes, practices and general ways of life for African peoples” (Mbiti 1989, 16).

Among many African traditionalists, the sensation of time’s momentum is almost the reverse of the Western linear pattern. Time is here and now, alive and living, but one experiences time moving toward the realm of the ancestors. In this scenario, the African feels time drawing humans into a “future” that is not actually in the “future” because it is where those who have already lived as humans now reside. Mbiti writes:

For them [African traditionalists], time is simply a composition of events which have occurred, those which are taking place now and those which are inevitably or immediately to occur. What has not taken place or what has no likelihood of an immediate occurrence falls in the category of “No-time.” What is certain to occur, or what falls within the rhythm of natural phenomena, is in the category of inevitable or potential time. The most significant consequence of this is that, according to traditional concepts, time is a two-dimensional phenomenon, with a long past, a present and virtually no future. (Mbiti 1989, 16)

Time’s momentum laces together the primary components of African traditional reality so that ontological consciousness orbits around the roles of ancestors, gods, and spirits so as to sense that life is unified with no distinction between the physical and the spiritual (Obiego 1984, 54).

High-God Concept

As noted above, Westerners must perceive the natural as indistinct from the spiritual in order to understand African traditional religious ideas. Yet, for academic purposes, scholars do describe them separately. African traditionalists live intimately involved with the rhythm and rhyme of the natural or physical world. Because of their close connection to nature, some hypothesize that their view of a supreme or “high god” emerged out of interaction with nature itself (Dupré 1975, 251–54).

Regardless of how the high-god concept developed, it is extant in various African traditional religious belief systems and in various formats. Essentially, traditionalists view the high god as all powerful and all knowing. He is responsible for creating the world of people and things. Yet, he is almost completely transcendent. His remoteness prompts both awe and disdain from humans. It is this gulf that, for traditionalists, creates a relational void and disdains results.

Hence, the Zulu “sky god” “is limited to controlling the weather and to capricious acts which the Zulus can neither predict nor anticipate” (Lewis and Travis 1991, 84). His transcendence makes him unique in relation to all other spirit powers or gods. “There is no one that can be compared to the Supreme Being in ATR [African Traditional Religion] . . . He is unlike anything or anyone we may know” (Gehman 1989, 191).

High god’s creative power is the source of all power. He is the force behind both that which is morally good and evil, just and unjust. Yet, high god may give a sense of justice on behalf of a perceived victim. “Men can appeal to God for justice and he rewards evil-doers with lightning, barrenness or inexplicable death” (Parrinder 1962, 33).

Justice is most immediately dispensed by the chief or ruling elder of the tribal society when he acts with the power and representative authority of high god to settle disputes among the people. Such a direct connection between the living ruler and the power of high god has led to speculation about whether the concept of high god predates the advent of competing religious ideologies in and among the given people group, and to what extent the concept is linked with a clan founder-chief that accounts for modern instances of the living chief being treated with divine qualities (Bengtson 1975, 7–11).

This writer is personally familiar with the Bafut people located in the extreme northwest province of Cameroon in west Africa. Christianity and Islam both have greatly affected Bafut religion. Anthropologists writing in 1962 noted that the Bafut seemingly coined a word for their high god after Christianity’s entry into the area. They wrote at a time when those with a living memory of traditional beliefs, prior to the advent of Christian missionaries, were still accessible. Their conclusion was that Bafut religion originally “was pure Fon [the title word for the chief] and ancestor worship” (Ritzenthaler 1962, 124).

The fon (chief) represents a paradox. He is the most central figure in Bafut society. He holds godlike power and is more important than any of the ancestors, who also have influential powers. When the fon dies, he becomes the most important of the ancestors. Each of the last eight dead fons decreases gradually in importance as another fon dies (Ritzenthaler 1962, 124–25). Yet, during events that affect the community, the living fon has to draw upon the powers of the most recently deceased fon for direct intervention.14

Apart from the ruling chief, common adherents consult various religious specialists to interpret day-to-day affairs and regulate them by capturing and channeling spirit power to resolve life’s routine crises or guard against interruption of the outworking of good.

The Spirit World

Sickness, drought, loss of livestock, death, and many other interruptions to hope and happiness will eventually cause a sense of angst in the depths of traditionalists’ souls. They try to understand what or who is causing these painful events. When illness strikes, a traditionalist will likely consult a diviner in order to ascertain the root of the problem.

The diviner guides the one needing information by prescribing an appropriate antidote once he locates the problem. The diviner seeks insight into the spirit world by reading signs. Perhaps he will read the patterned movements of a tarantula as it moves out of its hole or will toss bones to the ground and assess the way each bone falls, one on top of the other. Whatever the method—and methods vary from problem to problem, especially from traditionalist grouping to grouping—the specialist is trained by predecessors to read or discern the spirit world’s ways (Mbiti 1971, 154–57).

Exactly what is it that such intermediaries see or read? Broadly speaking, there are two basic categories of spirits, the living dead and those that high god created as spirits, or that have become such (Gehman 1989, 136–37). The spirits may or may not be more ancient than departed living dead. Nevertheless, these impersonal spirits inhabit natural sacred objects like rivers, lakes, rocks, or trees (Gehman 1989, 136–37).

Together, spirits make up a complex unseen world where lesser gods, ancestors, and impersonal powers reside and from which they make excursions into the lives of those not yet residing in the ancestor realm. It is significant to note that in one quite important sense people cannot consider ancestors to be dead because they are still active personal beings, at least until there is no living memory of them left among non-ancestors (Mbiti 1989, 81–89; Noss 1974, 18–19).

The daily routines of living traditionalists involves paying reverent homage to the living dead. People share with the living dead food and drink and perform household rituals or other types of actions that formally acknowledge their presence among the living. The living dead usually act adversely when ignored. Their powers are especially invoked during life’s major transitional events.

When there is a birth, the attainment of puberty, contracting of a marriage, seeking the status of pregnancy, or death, the living dead actually conduct the rite of passage. Without them, the unseen transition from one stage of life to the other cannot take place (Gehman 1989, 140–47). A priest, prophet, or shaman may, however, in his own unique way, play significant parts in the external rituals performed during passage rites (Van Rheenen 1991, 150–58).

Some intermediaries conduct malevolent rituals that attack other nonancestors. Witches possess special power to capture spirit power for evil purposes and inflict harm on others as well as nature. When a violent wind destroys a crop of corn or maize that is essential to the sustenance of a village, it is likely witches have sent spirit power to do the damage. Sorcerers, on the other hand, do not naturally possess such power, but they do know the secrets of how to conjure up such destructive spirit power.

It should be obvious that traditionalists are affected by a constant struggle with unseen forces that they cannot discern or control without help from others. Much anxiety may arise from hurtful interpersonal relationships if an enemy invokes the evil powers of witches or sorcerers. At every juncture or turn in life, there is a tribute to pay for the comfort of simple peace.

African Traditional Religious Encounters with Christianity

Missionaries came along with European explorers, traders, and government officials into the vast regions of the African continent. Intentional or not, some degree of cultural colonialism was inevitable. Consequently, it is not surprising that there were religio-social clashes between more dominating western societies and increasingly subservient traditional ones. Corollary loss of identity and a growing sense of cultural insecurity were results. Old social customs that once bred a sense of ontological significance began to erode (Mveng 1975, 11–15). African traditionalists suffered from a form of sociological poverty that led to a revolution in religious ideology that can—and in many instances has—spawned reactionary religious movements that are neither fully reflective of traditional religious values nor Christian ones.

These new movements pose the need for a unique mission initiative. They may be defined as “the great range of sub-Saharan movements within the last century, which include movements described as nativistic cults, syncretistic and messianic movements, prophet movements, separatist sects, or independent churches” (Turner 1965–66, 281–82).

While the swirling mixes of sociological circumstances that help trigger new religious movements in African contexts vary, they do share identifiable characteristics. Anthropologists, government officials, cultural psychologists, and others recorded instances of some early movements. Only within the past forty years has data become available to warrant formal academic investigation into these sociological phenomena in order to discern patterns. Normally, these new religious movements are born out of a clash with Christianity (or Islam in some cases). “They exhibit some sense of a revelation of the numinous or the divine, and some response in worship or praise, in prayer, trust, or obedience; they seek some religious blessing of power or illumination for the human situation” (Turner 1965–66, 287).

Is the simple fact that African societies are coming in contact with the larger range of cultures in the world enough to account for such widespread reactions to outside religious influences? Is there some ground for suspecting that the way in which Western missionaries presented or lived out their Christian faith may have something to do with the nearly five thousand new religious movements in Africa? (Barrett 1968, 64–66).

There is at least one major point of difference in the assumptions made by adherents of traditional religions and those of Christianity, as expressed in its Western forms. Since Western cultures have intersected traditional societies, “there has been interaction between the two kinds of religion, the one primal and based on myth, and the other universal and anchored in history” (Turner 1978, 168).

The net effect of this metaphysical difference is contrasting epistemologies, one being more predisposed to esoteric truth claims locked in myth, while the other tends to make propositional truth claims through historical revelation. The one is more intuitive and the other more rationalistic.

Basic philosophical differences, however, are not enough to account for flourishing new religious movements in Africa. With the advent of a new set of competitive cultural values that have the advantage of economic incentives, there is a natural social drift toward that which is atypical. As the drift erodes basic indigenous value systems, reactionary movements develop. Usually these movements, if based on economic or social reasons alone, dissipate within a few decades. Yet, strangely, these new religious movements have lingered and, in many instances, have even flourished (see the example of the Kimbanguist Church below).

Those coming out of their traditional religious systems that may nominally embrace the Christian faith brought by Westerners find some degree of discontent because the new faith found in a foreign form may not mesh with certain traditional religious values. At some points there may be compatibility. At other points, a felt need exists that the Western religious structure failed to address.15

Where there is disjuncture, and Christianity fails to address felt needs arising from within the traditional religious system, circumstances eventually provoke a separatist movement. The result is a tendency to blend the Christian ideas with answers to the felt needs posed by the prior traditional religion (Turner 1979, 10–12).16

Some missionaries brought the gospel to Africa using relevant forms. Others subtly implied that Africans had to conform to the lifestyle and worldview of Westerners and jettison their own traditional heritage in order to reflect Christian values more genuinely. This practice helped create tension between Christian and traditional religiosity. Imported materialism and cultural arrogance from both secular and religious Westerners compounded this problem. It is no wonder reactive movements surfaced (Lausanne Committee for World Evangelism 1980, 20–23). Figure 2 illustrates the mix of pressures and challenges facing African Christians.

Attempting to grasp the contours of social enigmas like these new religious movements is often perplexing. An example helps clarify the features of such a movement. One of the most dynamic new religious movements in Africa is the Church of Jesus Christ on Earth Through the Prophet Simon Kimbangu. This independent African church emerged in western Zaire, the area known as the Kongo. Roman Catholic missionaries evangelized the region as early as the seventeenth century. Protestants began working in the region in the nineteenth century. Simon Kimbangu was born in 1889 in southern Zaire. His name reflected his life and work. “Kimbangu means ‘he who reveals what is hidden’” (Martin 1978, 44).

In 1918 Kimbangu pursued a healing ministry that coincided with a sense of “calling” to do the will of Christ. His healings spawned no small controversy, which eventually led to his arrest and imprisonment. “On October 3, 1921, Kimbangu was tried. He was accused of hostility toward whites, of sedition, and of having hindered a civil servant in the exercise of his functions (Kimbangu had escaped when arrested by Morel)” (Martin 1978, 50). A religious movement emerged around his life and legacy and formally organized in 1959. It grew throughout Zaire, and in 1969 the World Council of Churches recognized the Kimbanguist church as a full member. Many of the church’s doctrinal confessions reflect a syncretized Roman Catholic heritage that predates the Protestant work in lower Zaire.

Kimbanguism teaches a sacramental view of the Christian life in which salvation is prefaced on three distinct conditions: “Salvation = grace + faith + good works” (Undy 1979, 32). The saints are ever-present intercessors. Kimbangu himself is chief among these saints and is thought to have some Christlike attributes (Martin 1975, 143–49). The movement has been characterized in these words:

Kimbanguist theology renders constant homage to those righteous men and women who in time and space were worthy servants of the Eternal and his redeemer Messiah. They do not belong to the past, they are living and active with Christ, interceding constantly in favor of human kind. They support the action of the Holy Spirit in his intercession for us to the Eternal and Christ. (Undy 1979, 35)

Roman Catholic influence is apparent, but underneath that layer of religiosity lies an even more ancient belief system. Wyatt MacGaffey demonstrates a link between the social role of “prophet” among the BaKongo traditional belief system that predates prophet Kimbangu. The social role of public healer goes back through the earlier Antonine movement of 1704 into the indigenous religious milieu (MacGaffey 1977, 184–90). The common thread in all is the role of prophet or, as MacGaffey indicates, “witches and magicians.” In each belief system there is “acceptance of a cosmology describing relations between the visible and invisible worlds. . . . These assumptions compose the structure of Kongo religion” (MacGaffey 1977, 192).

Kimbanguism reflects common tendencies of many new religious movements in Africa. They are reactions against overly Westernized forms of the Christian faith and represent an effort to root religious values in an African traditional heritage. The net result is a synthetic blending of African traditions and imported Christian theologies that are neither authentically traditional nor Christian!

New religious movements pose a fresh challenge to the church in Africa. How can missionaries present the gospel so as to meet the spiritual needs of Africans, be relevant in the process, and not jettison the essentials of the gospel message itself? What kind of missiological principles need to be applied in order to avoid the mistakes of the past and nurture the churches that are choosing to stand within the context of historic biblical Christianity?

Conclusion: Missiological Implications

Alan, a young missionary, was still in language school in Ghana. During the months of learning, he developed quite a close relationship with his instructor, Moses. He was a Christian, but he struggled with the implications of his faith. Especially troubling was the question of his responsibility for fulfilling certain ancestral rites. Moses’s own wife refused to participate in these rites because she considered them contradictory to her faith in Christ.

The struggle for Moses arose because he reached the conclusion “that Christianity has destroyed much of our culture, causing us to lose our sense of destiny. Now that we have accepted European ways and have seen them fail, we are left with nothing. We must regain what we left behind” (Roth 1987, 26).

Moses invited Alan to join him in observing a ritual in his home village. The ritual included pouring libations to the ancestral spirits that regulated the harvest for his tribal lands. Alan, like Moses’s wife, had doubts about attending this kind of ceremony, but he reasoned that it would be a great opportunity to learn more about the culture of the people he would eventually be living and working among. The chief of the tribe indicated that he too was a Christian, but that he had not surrendered the ways of the ancestors. After the chief finished explaining to Alan the heritage upon which the rite is based, he asked Alan to join him in a toast to the ancestors as a testimony to those they honored (Roth 1987, 28).

Missionaries frequently face similar crises of conscience. The young missionary’s attitudes about Moses’s traditional religious heritage and the chief’s attitude toward Christianity likely determined their opinions of each other and framed the boundaries for any strategic initiatives Alan might develop for doing mission in that social milieu. Such issues are real. Solutions are not easily found. If missionaries like Alan ignore such issues long enough, cumulative stresses will take a toll on the life and witness of those affirming the gospel message and likely will lead to an organizational breach.

Missionaries continue to live and work among traditional or primal people groups throughout the world. What should be their demeanor toward the traditional heritage the people already embrace? How does their prior religious heritage affect the way the missionary should communicate the gospel, form churches, and establish a vital Christian presence among them? Answers to questions like these shape the way in which missionaries pursue their work in traditionalist contexts.

Mbiti argues that African traditional religiosity is the preparatory base upon which Christian truth should build. “Far from being the enemy of Christianity, traditional religion is in fact the main contributor to the rapid Christianization of Africa. Without traditional religion, Christianity would take much longer to be accommodated, to be accepted and to penetrate African life” (Mbiti 1972, 56; cf. Minz 1962).

Turner notes that there have been various responses to the Christian faith by those within traditional cultures, and not all of these responses reflect the compatibility implied in Mbiti’s comment. Revivalist movements tend to reject, fully embrace, or fraternize with and blend into religious challenges from outside their heritage. Where working relationships with the missionary change agents are conditioned by feelings of cultural inferiority on the recipients’ part, often consequential of colonial attitudes, an eventual break is likely with mission structures that may lead to the formation of some sort of new religious movement. Such movements, says Turner,

present a quiet new kind of missionary task with its own peculiar complexity. Here we are dealing not with the original primal religion but with a new form that has already made its own response to the encounter with Christianity, that embodies some Christian features, and that probably regards itself as the full and proper new religion for the people concerned, and that may even be engaged in its own mission to those still following the old tribal traditions. (Turner 1978, 168–69)

The missionary challenge is to communicate and live out the gospel effectively both to traditionalists and to those who react against imported Western forms of the Christian faith. The former will forestall reactive trends, while the latter will help regain those who have left the ranks of biblical fellowship. These new missiological challenges require honest, critical evaluation of past initiatives.

Effective cross-cultural communication techniques are essential to the process of doing mission in traditional contexts. Learning the host ways of understanding and surviving in the world is absolutely necessary. Being a messenger who lives out the gospel in the midst of the people so as to prompt a genuine hearing will help gather an audience for the gospel. Reformatting biblical and theological emphases to address relevant spiritual issues facing the host people will enhance their level of understanding of the message. Adapting appropriate technologies to their indigenous ways of communicating will lessen the foreignness of the message and the messenger. In the end, the only scandal left should be that of the cross itself.

Relevant spiritual issues will naturally involve the use and abuse of spiritual powers. Traditional religionists, as noted above, live out their beliefs in an unpartitioned spiritual realm. They interpret all of life’s developments through the spectacles of a spiritually charged world. Reaching them with the gospel requires sensitive, balanced contextualization of missiological methods. This is the same old, yet ever new, challenge facing those who attempt to evangelize, disciple, and nurture adherents of traditional religions in Africa and throughout the world.

Chapter 22

Eastern Religions

Kyle Faircloth

Asia is the largest and most populous continent on earth and the birthplace of most of the world’s major religions. This means the study of Asian religions is a culturally rich, dynamic, and complicated subject. So, to make our task here a bit easier, we will narrow the approach in two ways.

First, we will consider only the Hindu, Buddhist, Daoist, and Confucian traditions as generally practiced across South, Southeast, and East Asia. Yet, because each of these living traditions has its own unique web of beliefs and practices, we must narrow our approach even further. Thus, second, we will look only to a few of the fundamental doctrines that represent a shared heritage within each tradition.

For instance, because Buddhist practices across Asia are so diverse, a basic study of the subject usually categorizes them into three general traditions called Theravada, Mahayana, and Tibetan Buddhism. Nevertheless, as different as these three traditions appear, Buddhist tradition as a whole constitutes a book-sustained community of ethical and religious thought and action. In other words, though members may not always agree on exactly how to interpret their authoritative texts, it is still only these writings that mold their particular patterns of thought and forms of life. With this understanding in mind, let us turn our attention to the doctrinal core of each of these Asian religions.

Hinduism

The seemingly infinite number of teachings, rituals, and beliefs that form Hindu practice today all sprouted from a common root in the Indus Valley (Pakistan) around 3000 BC. For when the people of this region invaded the plains of northern India in the second millennium BC, they took with them their sacred rites, rituals, myths, and sacrificial fires to their many gods.

This event brought about the beginning of the Hindu civilization when the invaders accommodated some of the local practices into their own. The result of this syncretic approach was the development of Hindu society. Also during this time the first Hindu scriptures, the Vedas, were written proclaiming Brahman as the ground of all being. Thus, early Hindu practice is often referred to as “Vedic religion” or “Brahmanism.”

Brahman Is the Ground of All Being

The term Hinduism is best understood as a way to classify diverse religious beliefs and rituals that nonetheless contain a particular feeling or tone resonating among them all. That is to say, what draws together all the different forms of Hindu worship is the cultivation of life according to the Hindu dharma. Though dharma is usually translated as “teaching,” it also means much more than this. The term is meant to describe an all-encompassing way of being in the world that envelops every part of a person’s life, and forms their personal identity and experiences.

In this light, the fundamental doctrine from which all Hindu worship flows is the notion that the pure absolute truth, the ground of all being, is Brahman. Hindu teaching explains Brahman as the universal soul or self. As such, all individual souls come from Brahman, and all souls will eventually unite with Brahman: “That (root) indeed is the Pure. That is Brahman. That indeed is called the Immortal. On it all the worlds do rest, and no one soever goes beyond it” (Katha Upanishad 1960, 49).

There is a sense in which Brahman is transcendent and impersonal, distinct from the rest of existence and cannot be fully known. But as the foundation of all things, Brahman is also immanent and personal, similar in essence with the rest of creation, and known as the “God” among gods.

The Human Dilemma

Whereas the universal self is called Brahman, the personal self is called ātman. The Hindu doctrine of personal self teaches that the physical body has nothing to do with the true nature of personal existence. The body is nothing more than a weak vessel in which resides the thing that is truly human—the pure soul, the ātman.

When people focus only on matters of the flesh, they neglect their true selves and cause a separation between ātman and Brahman. To overcome this separation, people must realize the Ātman within them and within all living things, not as radically different from Brahman but as essentially the same (ātman referring to the personal self, Ātman to the universal self in all living things). So the enlightened truth is that the Ātman and Brahman are ultimately one, and the realization of this unity is the highest ideal in Hindu teaching.

Karma

In terms of simple cause and effect, karma is the notion that every deliberate thought and action leads eventually to an equal measure of pain or pleasure. Good thoughts and actions are rewarded with pleasurable experiences, while bad ones result in deserved punishment.

Thus, people may seek to do good works in order to bring a small amount of peace and contentment in this present life but mostly to build merit for obtaining a better life to come—or rather, better lives to come. Because the doctrine of ātman says the “spiritual” soul is what constitutes a person’s true essence, death is merely the end of the physical body. The pure spiritual self is then reincarnated into a new physical form according to the law of karma.

Sams¯ara

Samsāra is the wheel of life turned by karmic action. According to Hindu teaching, our souls are trapped within this endless cycle of rebirths and “redeaths.” As long as we produce karma, we cannot escape samsāra.

There is certainly much suffering within samsāra, but people who are enlightened to the unity of Ātman and Brahman may nevertheless obtain contentment and pleasure throughout many lives. Though people are bound to samsāra by their actions, this need not be an unbearable circumstance. For through awareness of the true nature of all things, people may do good works and receive pleasure both in the present life and in subsequent future lives. Even so, the greatest pursuit in Hindu belief and practice is to obtain release from samsāra altogether, to achieve moksha.

Moksha

According to Hindu teaching, people who acquire sufficient merit may be reborn in the blissful realm of heaven rather than return to another life on earth. Yet, life in heaven is no more permanent than life on earth, and once a person’s deposit of good works runs dry, the law of karma moves them elsewhere within the wheel of life.

So, when people grow weary of life and all its pleasures and pains, they may seek salvation through moksha. People who experiences moksha sever the cords of samsāra and release their souls from ever being reborn again. In moksha, the Ātman truly becomes one with Brahman because moksha “consists in the non-existence of conjunction with the body, when there is at the same time no potential body existing . . . re-birth cannot take place” (Vaiśesika 1960, 394).

The Many Deities of Hinduism

One of the most distinctive aspects of Hindu practice is the worship of a multitude of gods represented by numerous images and statues displayed in homes, businesses, and temples. Yet if Brahman is the ultimate principle that unifies all reality, why seek after anything less than this one absolute truth? To understand, we must look at the issue from a different angle and consider the inner logic of Hindu doctrine.

Because the Ātman within each living thing is ultimately a manifestation of Brahman, it is then proper for people to provisionally seek the powers of Brahman as exhibited in the divine forms of created order. Put simply, one person may choose to worship Brahman through Vishnu (the power that preserves the universe), while another person might prefer a more personal worship through Kali (the divine mother). Though each of these two devotees looks to a different god, all Hindu paths lead to Brahman.

On the human level, this order of power means people are reborn into particular varna, or castes, as determined by their previous karmic actions. For example, some Hindu traditions believe only people born into the highest caste of Brahmins can serve as priests, and only they may oversee religious teaching and rituals. If others want to know the way to attain moksha, they must receive instruction from a Brahmin priest.

A Missiological Perspective

As we live and minister among Hindu people, we must anticipate how they might interpret our message. We proclaim that God is one and that he manifested his power for salvation through the incarnation and resurrection of his Son Jesus Christ, who is also God. Unless we effectively communicate the uniqueness of God as revealed in Scripture, and clearly demonstrate that ultimate “release” is found only in Christ, then it is simple enough for a confessed Hindu to merely accept Jesus as one of the many ways to unite with Brahman.

Though this section focuses primarily on Hindu doctrine—what Hindus are supposed to believe—living Hinduism is much less cognitive. A life formed by dharma means worship involves sight, sound, touch, and smell together with essential movements and speech, and worshippers carry this devotion into every part of their lives. So, it is not enough for us to simply tell them propositional truth claims about Christ. We must also demonstrate the fullness of a life lived in the Holy Spirit and formed by the love, grace, and mercy of God the Father through Jesus Christ.

Buddhism

From the religious context of the southern Himalayan plains in the fifth century BC, the Buddha preached new meanings into old religious concepts. In so doing, he established his teaching as more than merely a reformed version of the Vedic practices but claimed to possess the one and only true Dharma.

No Such Thing as Self

According to the Buddha, any kind of belief in an enduring personal self, or ātman, is false. That is to say, neither you nor I ultimately correspond to anything that we might accurately call a “self” because, strictly speaking, neither you nor I truly exist. Consequently, the belief in any kind of Supreme Universal Essence—Brahman or Ātman—is likewise false, for the Buddha taught that the true nature of personal existence is anātman, no self.

The Buddha explained that what each person perceives as their “self” is nothing more than a cluster of five interdependent physical and mental elements that he called form, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness (Samyutta Nikāya 2000, 886). The Buddha taught that if we separate these five “aggregates” from one another we find not an enduring self but the dissolution of self.

Neither Self nor No Self

To be clear, the Buddha did not intend for people to replace the belief in a personal self with the belief in no self. The attention is less with the issue of self and more with the issue of the belief in self. For in Buddhist thought, nonbeing exists only in relation to being. So, if being does not truly exist, then neither does nonbeing. Thus a person should no more believe in the existence of no self than in the existence of self, as neither view reflects the true nature of things (Rahula 2005, 51–66).

The Buddha’s Good News

The word buddha means “an awakened one.” A buddha, then, is one who has traveled the path that leads to the realization of all things, has discovered and obtained this truth, and teaches others the way to the realization of this truth.

Yet, Buddhist teaching does not view this kind of “Truth” as something that can be obtained by mere rational knowledge. Intellectual effort alone is not enough. Rather, by their own efforts people must seek to orient every aspect of their lives in such a way that they may become “enlightened” to the emptiness and impermanence of all things. This is why the Buddha does not himself save anyone but simply points out the path by which people must strive to save themselves.

The Four Truths and the Eightfold Path

Nevertheless, the Buddha provided four truth claims to help unenlightened pilgrims along their way. They are: suffering exists (dukkha), craving is the cause of suffering (tanhā), cessation of craving is the cure for suffering (nirodha), and the “eightfold path” is the way leading to the cessation of suffering (magga) (Majjhima Nikāya 2005, 134–35, 210).

The Buddha taught that suffering is the basic human problem, and people suffer because they thirst for existence. To overcome suffering, people must cultivate the appropriate thinking, speaking, and doing that will lead to the cessation of suffering.

Life and Death and Something Else

The Buddha said that the causal movement of karma binds us all within the relentless cycle of samsāra. Yet, because there is no “I” that dies and is reborn, death is simply the dissolution of the five aggregates, and “rebirth” is merely the gathering of these elements according to the deterministic character of karma. Still, any number of possible states of existence might be obtained depending on the nature of previous action.

For example, good fruits of karma may result in the formation of a human life on earth, or even an angel or a god in one of the levels of heaven. Bad fruits of karma, however, may lead to the formation of a lower life-form on earth—like a cockroach—or worse, a tortured inmate in one of the many levels of hell.

Still, none of these various states of existence is eternal, not even the blissful life of a god. The Buddha taught that all things are impermanent, and the thirst for life is nothing more than an ignorant craving for permanence from that which is utterly impermanent. Thus, it is our unfilled desire for life that causes suffering. Relief is not found in quenching the thirst for life but in extinguishing this thirst altogether.

This is why the highest ideal in Buddhist thought, nirvāna, is often described as the destruction or extinguishing of craving (Anguttara Nikāya 1999, 240).

A Missiological Perspective

Though the Buddha developed his doctrine of no self in direct opposition to the Vedic beliefs and practices of his time, this particular teaching still has bearing on Christian witness today. For by calling the belief in a personal and universal self a delusion (moha) arising from ignorance (avijjā), Buddhist teaching may not exactly contradict the Christian witness about the existence of God, but it definitely rejects any notion that the “Creator” is good and omniscient.

For example, Hindu teaching names Brahma (not Brahman) as the god who created the world, and early Brahmanism revered him as the greatest and most powerful deity. Yet, from the Buddhist perspective, existence means suffering. So, if there is a “Superior Being” who caused the world’s existence, then this being symbolizes all that is wrong with the world.

He who has eyes can see the sickening sight;

Why does not Brahma set his creatures right?

If his wide power no limits can restrain,

Why is his hand so rarely spread to bless?

Why are his creatures all condemned to pain?

Why does he not to all give happiness?

Why do fraud, lies, and ignorance prevail?

Why triumphs falsehood,—truth and justice fail?

I count your Brahma one th’unjust among,

Who made a world in which to shelter wrong. (Narada 1998, 271)

Therefore, as we live and minister among Buddhist people, we must seek appropriate ways to demonstrate that God is not Brahma, nor is God like any of the other gods or enlightened ones: “For the Lord your God is the God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, mighty, and awesome God, showing no partiality and taking no bribe” (Deut 10:17 HCSB).

Daoism and Confucianism

Daoism (Taoism) and Confucianism are two systems of thought that developed out of ancient Chinese civilization and still impact the lives of many East Asian people today.

One main characteristic of Chinese philosophy is a concern for cultivating harmony in the midst of opposites, an idea that is depicted in the yin-yang symbol, which illustrates the coexistence of the female yin forces with the male yang forces. Thus Daoist and Confucian teachings generally focus on how to determine appropriate action for obtaining harmony.

Daoism and Ultimate Reality

Daoism is a religious philosophy drawn from the classic book Daodejing (Tao Te Ching). Although some scholars argue this concise, yet highly influential, text was compiled sometime in the fourth or third century BC, tradition attributes authorship to the sage Laozi (Lao Tzu) from the sixth century BC.

The fundamental message of Daoism is that ultimate reality is something called “Dao.” The Dao is the originator of all things and the universal power that flows through all things. The term essentially means the “Way” or “Path,” with the fuller idea that it is simultaneously the way of the universe and the way to lead a harmonious life. Thus, the Daodejing seeks to explain “The Way and Its Power.”

The Nature of Existence

Daoist teaching says the Dao “gave birth” to everything (Lao Tzu 1997, 45). But this act of creation was not the result of any kind of intention or desire because the Dao is simply the invisible substance from which all things come to exist (Lao Tzu 1997, 1, 35). The full meaning of Dao is beyond description, and one cannot say much more than that it is “the Mystery, or rather the ‘Darker than any Mystery’, the Doorway whence issued all Secret Essences” (Lao Tzu 1997, 1).

The Human Problem

To follow the way of civilization—that is, to desire status, position, and worldly knowledge—is to leave the natural way of the Dao. The expectations of “duty” and “loyalty” within the complex structures of government, organizations, and families bring imbalance to people’s lives. As a result, we become anxious, controlling, and demanding of one another; and rather than being the source of peace, civilization causes suffering: “Banish learning, and there will be no more grieving” (Lao Tzu 1997, 20).

The Way of Harmony

Because the artificial nature of human development brings imbalance and disharmony, the way to bring stability is to return to the way of nature. When we contemplate the flow of universal existence and discover the latent connection with the Dao that is within us, we are able to subdue personal desires and accept the inevitable course of natural events. And like natural events, our actions become wu-wei, no action.

The notion of wu-wei does not mean to take no action at all but to take no unnatural action. When we stop trying to force things to happen according to our own designs, we will no longer feel the despair that comes when we cannot satisfy our own desires.

Our actions, then, must not be the result of selfish ambition but in some sense must be spontaneous, moving in harmony with the universal current. For instance, when we finish our work, we should not expect praise or try to obtain a higher status by going beyond our responsibilities. Instead, “when your work is done, then withdraw! Such is Heaven’s Way” (Lao Tzu 1997, 9).

A Missiological Perspective

It is good that Daoist teaching speaks of a Great Originator: the One who was before everything else and the One from which all things come to be and in which all things exist. Philosophically speaking, Christians can find in this idea a helpful starting point for sharing the gospel message. That is to say, where Daoist thinking perceives the “Darker than any Mystery,” we now proclaim the revelation of this mystery in Jesus Christ (Acts 17:28).

Still, the practice of Daoism includes belief in the magic of certain charms and amulets for obtaining good fortune and warding off bad luck. In search of this magical power many Daoists also give offerings to earthly spirits; or if they are physically ill, a Daoist priest will seek to unblock their life energy (chi) and bring it back into harmony with the universal flow.

Though early Daoist teaching had no concept of hell, today many believe that those who are not good enough to enter into the higher abodes of the netherworld must first endure punishment in the lower levels. They can only ascend to the higher levels by their own good works while in hell, or through meritorious acts done on their behalf by living relatives. This means a faithful Daoist will make sure to perform the proper rituals regularly to free their deceased relatives from suffering.

Thus as we seek to share the message of Christ with practicing Daoists, we must help them see that only God has power over the spirits, and only in him do we have assurance of salvation in the life to come.

Confucianism

Some scholars claim that Confucianism more resembles a humanistic philosophy than a religion. This is a reasonable assertion because Confucian teaching is concerned primarily with how to cultivate a harmonious society through appropriate social action. Its doctrines deal more with pragmatic moral and behavioral issues than with metaphysical discussions.

Still, Confucianism does not traditionally exclude religious practice, and Confucius himself believed his message was in accordance with “the will of Heaven” (Confucius 2010, 20). Also, to the extent Confucian philosophy is concerned with ethics and appropriate conduct, it has much in common with the general nature of most religious teaching.

Cultivating Self through Community

Though several authoritative writings make up the body of Confucian teaching—the “Four Books” and “Five Classics”—the most influential of these is called The Analects of Confucius. Later compiled by his disciples, the Analects consists of the teachings of Confucius who was a Chinese official, intellectual, and philosopher in 551–479 BC. The main emphasis of his message concerns the shaping of life around what is best for cultivating individual and communal harmony. To understand what this means, we will look at three guiding principles.

The Principle of Ren

The first concept is called ren. The term means something like “humaneness” and also expresses the notion that there is an innate human capacity for compassion. This means Confucianism regards people as essentially good. Ren is a kind of transcendent yet immanent quality that one must develop. Though we may refer to it conventionally as a principle, virtue, ideal, or even a doctrine, it is the essence of social harmony. The way individuals and communities achieve ren is through certain actions called li.

The Principle of Li

Li are particular rituals or ways of behaving that one must perform in order to “realize” ren. In other words, they are ethical guidelines for how to act and speak appropriately according to the levels of societal relationships. This means people cannot observe these requirements in isolation because li are entirely relational and are the only way to achieve ren. Thus, li practices are a form of virtue ethics, as seen in the Confucian version of the golden rule: “What you do not want others to do to you, do not do to others” (Confucius 2010, 80).

Because the term li is usually translated into English as “ritual” or “rite,” Christians, especially Western evangelicals, are prone to think of it in a negative light. But within a Confucian understanding, li practices are not meant to be mere lifeless motions, nor are they to be rigidly applied in every instance for all time. Yet in order to determine what is “appropriate” at any given time, one must also incorporate the principle of yi.

The Principle of Yi

The concept of yi has to do with “propriety,” “rightness,” or even “creative change.” Yi embodies the notion that the only unchanging element in the world is change itself. The purpose of practicing li is to achieve personal and communal harmony (ren). Yet, because everything changes in time, li actions must also adjust for reaching the Confucian ideal in different times and circumstances (Confucius 2010, 60). Hence, one who possesses the quality of yi will be able to fluidly affect the “appropriate” change for others to follow.

A Missiological Perspective

In the early seventeenth century, an Italian Jesuit named Matteo Ricci was one of the first missionaries allowed to reside inside China’s capital city. He was convinced that much of Confucian thought coincided with Christian teaching; and though Confucianism taught little about “the Lord of Heaven,” Ricci found its focus on virtue and ethics to be fertile ground for sharing the gospel message.

But just as Confucian ethics provides a possible point of contact with the Christian message, it also reveals a possible point of departure. The reason has to do with the very structure of the Confucian moral system, which is built around one’s obligation to parents, grandparents, siblings, friends, rulers, and even ancestors. The duty of honoring deceased family members was such a divisive issue during Ricci’s time that it came to be known as “the rites controversy” (Moffett 2005, 120–26). This controversy still exists today, and Asian Christians disagree as to whether these ancestor rites are religious ceremonies or only cultural.

So, when we share the good news of Christ with those who are influenced by Confucian thinking, we should be mindful of the difficulty associated with the various social pressures in their lives. For if a person feels obligated to submit to their parents’ authority, even when their parents will not allow them to become a Christian, then this is a high cost that they must consider (Matt 10:37).

Asian Religions and the Christian Witness

It is true that if someone plans to minister in India, they should learn more about Hinduism; about Theravada Buddhism for Southeast Asia; or about Chan Buddhism, Daoism, or Confucianism for East Asia. But regardless of where one plans to serve, a general survey of the fundamental doctrines of all of these traditions is useful. Because in practice, few people in Asia are “pure” adherents to any one of these traditions.

For instance, the official religion in Thailand is Theravada Buddhism. Yet a former Thai prime minister confesses, “We are more Hindu than Buddhist in this country. . . . Buddhism is just a philosophy” (Guelden 1995, 17). And the situation is not much different in East Asia. One Chinese scholar notes that “an old Chinese saying has it that the vast majority of people in China ‘wear a Confucian crown, a Daoist robe, and a pair of Buddhist sandals’” (Lixin 2004, 4).

The point is, people who follow the way of Dharma or of the Dao are often more concerned with sustaining relational harmony than with having “true belief.” In this context, the decision to follow Christ is not simply a choice that each person must make alone. Instead, they must also consider how this choice will affect all the other people with whom they have a relationship.

For example, in some places where Buddhism is prevalent, it is customary for a son to become a novice monk for a period of time in order to earn merit for his mother. This sacrificial act is a way for him to show his love and devotion to his mother, both for this life and for her life to come. However, if the son becomes a Christian, he cannot perform this deed for his mother; and it is this kind of “inappropriate” behavior that causes some Buddhists to see Christianity as divisive and harmful to families.

Perhaps a straightforward way to resolve this dilemma is to encourage the son to first place his faith in Christ, and then he can truly honor his parents by sharing the gospel message with them. The problem is, this kind of straight-application approach forgets that many people in Asia do not determine the “right” thing to do based solely on what is deemed true but primarily on what is considered appropriate. In this case, “a younger person should not teach religion to an older person” unless “his status changes from layman to Buddhist monk” (N. Mejudhon 2005, 163).

Thus, missionaries and local Christians must engage in fervent prayer, thoughtful consideration of present difficulties, and careful study of Scripture to work through the various context-specific issues within the Asian environment. For instance, concerning the issue of young people coming to Christ in Thailand, Ubolwan Mejudhon observes that the common practice of local churches is to encourage these new believers to announce their conversion to their parents and relatives as soon as possible, which, as mentioned above, is viewed as inappropriate and “causes anger because the convert violates the values of hierarchy and smooth relationships, as well as accepted social roles and status” (U. Mejudhon 2005, 218).

Instead, she suggests that churches might adopt and adapt the Thai Buddhist process of reconciliation as a way for young converts to inform relatives about their decision. Essentially, it is a period of time in which young converts first “confess” their decision to become a Christian to their parents, which includes seeking their parents’ forgiveness for the grief they have caused because of this decision. Mejudhon says, “When the new converts take the initiative to value the interdependent orientation in Thai culture by asking for forgiveness, they show respect for Thai culture and their parents’ pain” (U. Mejudhon, 246).

This act does not dissolve the usual feelings of anger and disappointment, but it does allow these feelings to be acknowledged, while making reconciliation a primary goal. Also, when young converts seek forgiveness, their parents feel respected and are appropriately empowered—and in some sense obligated—to eventually extend forgiveness in order to reconcile the relationship. Ultimately, the hope is that parents and relatives will realize that Christianity need not divide families, and that they also may come to accept the gospel message. This approach, then, becomes a part of the discipleship process as it provides “an effective means for helping new converts to be reconciled to their culture and to understand ‘reconciliation’ itself” (U. Mejudhon, 251).

This example is, of course, specific to the Central Thai Buddhist context. But it is still a good illustration of the kind of thoughtful, creative, and yet faithful approaches that are necessary for effectively proclaiming the Christian “Way” in the midst of the living religious traditions of Asia.

Chapter 23

Understanding Islam

Zane Pratt

There is no god but God, and Muhammad is his prophet.” These are the words of the Islamic confession of faith, and they summarize the austere monotheism of the religion of Islam. There are approximately 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. The greatest concentration of Muslims is to be found in North Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, South Asia, and Southeast Asia; but hundreds of millions live in Sub-Saharan Africa as well, and substantial Muslim populations are in Europe, the Americas, East Asia, and Australia. Islam is the second largest religious community in the world, after global Christianity, and it is growing.

In recent decades, Islam has been in the news and on the minds of people around the world. Since the Iranian hostage crisis of 1979, Western Christians have tended to think of Islam as an aggressive and threatening religion. Events such as the Palestinian Intifada, the 9/11 attacks in 2001, the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and ongoing terrorist activity by al-Qaeda and its affiliates have simply served to reinforce this fear. Who are Muslims? What do they believe, and how do they practice their religion? What is their agenda for the world? How should Christians think about Muslims and relate to them? This chapter will seek to answer these questions.

How Did Islam Begin?

Islam originated in the Arabian Peninsula in the sixth century AD. Most of Arabia is desert, and for centuries it lay on the edges of the great civilizations and power centers of the ancient world. Egypt was to the west, India to the east. To the northeast was Persia and to the northwest such lands as Syria and Palestine. For the most part, the empires that ruled these lands were content to leave the Arabian Desert alone, as long as Arab raiders stayed in their desert and left the trade routes open.

The ancient Arabs worshipped many gods. One of the most important religious centers for Arabian religion was in the city of Mecca. There was a cubical shrine in the city called the Kaaba, which contained a black rock believed to be a meteorite, and which also housed hundreds of idols. This shrine was the site of an annual religious pilgrimage from all over Arabia. Mecca was also a major trade center, lying as it did on a significant trade route. There was a small but significant Jewish community in Arabia, and there were some Arab Christians, particularly near the Christian Byzantine Empire and near Christian Ethiopia. However, even though Mecca was only a few hundred miles from Jerusalem, and more than five centuries had passed since Jesus gave the Great Commission, the Bible had not yet been translated into the Arabic language, and no serious effort had been made to bring the gospel to central Arabia.

This is the scene in which Islam began. Around the year AD 570, a man named Muhammad was born in Mecca to one of the most powerful tribes in the city. He became an orphan in early childhood, and his uncle raised him. As a young man, Muhammad worked in the merchant trade and on one occasion went with a caravan to the city of Damascus, then a Christian city in the Byzantine Empire. While he was there, Muhammad seems to have met some Christians and to have observed Christian worship. Sometime after he returned, Muhammad married a wealthy widow named Khadijah and was able to retire from active involvement in the caravan trade. He began to meditate in a cave on Mount Hira, just outside Mecca. According to Islamic tradition, one day in AD 610, while he was meditating, the angel Gabriel appeared to him and commanded him to recite what the angel told him. Muhammad was reportedly terrified and went home to Khadijah, convinced that he was losing his mind. Khadijah and one of her kinsmen, however, persuaded Muhammad that he was perfectly sane and that his vision was from God. This was the beginning of the series of visions that would become the content of the Qur’an. The visions continued over a period of twenty-two years until he died in AD 632.

The religious career of Muhammad is usually divided into two parts: the period in Mecca, from AD 610 until 622, and the period in Medina, from 622 until 632. Muhammad began proclaiming his message in his hometown of Mecca. The early revelations reported by Muhammad focused on the theme that there is only one God, that only he has the right to be worshipped, and that idolatry is an abomination to him. He also preached the necessity of ethical behavior. Muhammad made use of the word that Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians had used for centuries for the one true God—Allah, which is related to the Hebrew word for God. Muhammad’s first convert was his wife, Khadijah. His teaching upset many of his relatives, however, and his attack on idolatry was not popular in a city that derived a lot of revenue from the annual pilgrimage to the idol shrine. The Islamic movement grew, but opposition grew as well. Finally, in AD 622, Muhammad and his followers moved to the city of Yathrib, which was renamed Medina (City of the Prophet). This move was called the Hijra in Arabic, and it marked the beginning of the Islamic calendar.

In Medina, Muhammad was asked to arbitrate disputes between clans and factions, and he eventually became the ruler of the city. The revelations reported from Medina have a somewhat different character from those in Mecca. They are longer, on the whole, and they tend to be more political. One issue, in particular, rose to prominence in Medina. Muhammad proclaimed that he was a prophet in the line of the biblical prophets of Judaism and Christianity, and that the religion he was teaching was simply a continuation of the religion of the Old Testament prophets and of Jesus. He expected the Jews and Christians to join his movement. Muhammad initially reported that God told him to have Muslims face toward Jerusalem to pray, not toward Mecca. However, when the Jews of Medina refused to acknowledge him as a prophet, Muhammad turned against them, and they were either killed or enslaved. Muhammad then reported that God had abrogated the command to face Jerusalem to pray and had replaced it with a command to face the Kaaba in Mecca.

Meanwhile, Muslim forces began attacking caravans from Mecca, and war broke out between the cities. In AD 630, only eight years after Muhammad and his followers left Mecca, the city fell to them. Muhammad showed mercy to most of the inhabitants, but he cleared the Kaaba of all of its idols and commanded that everyone in Mecca had to convert to Islam. In fact, Muhammad established political and religious control over all of Arabia and declared that no other religion could be practiced on the Peninsula. To be an Arab of Arabia was to be a Muslim.

The death of Muhammad in AD 632 provoked a crisis in the Islamic community. Who would lead them now? With the death of their prophet there could be no further revelation, but leadership and guidance were still needed in the affairs of the community. Muhammad married many times, but no sons survived him. His one surviving child was a daughter, Fatima. She married his cousin, Ali, the son of the uncle who had raised him. Some thought that the successor (caliph) of Muhammad should be Ali and his children through Fatima. The majority, however, felt that the community could choose the caliph, and one of Muhammad’s closest companions, Abu Bakr, became the leader of the house of Islam. This began the period known to Sunni Muslims as the age of the Four Rightly-Guided Caliphs, who were regarded as models of righteous leadership. The four were Abu Bakr (AD 632–34), Umar (634–44), Uthman (644–56), and Ali (656–61).

This was a highly formative period for Islam. Three things of particular significance occurred during this time. Under the leadership of the third caliph, Uthman, the text of the Qur’an was codified. With the assassination of Ali, the son-in-law of Muhammad, in 661, the split between the Sunni and Shia factions of Islam solidified. For the rest of the world, however, the most obvious development was the dramatic territorial expansion of Islam. Islam burst out of Arabia and took the ancient world by storm.

North of Arabia existed two powerful empires: the Christian Byzantine Empire, with its capital in Constantinople, and the Zoroastrian Persian Empire under the Sassanid Dynasty. These two were at war for more than two decades in the early seventh century. The final result was complete and utter defeat for the Persians. However, the war (which ended in AD 628) left both empires exhausted and drained of resources. The Muslim Arabic invasion that began in the 630s encountered little effective resistance. Damascus was taken in 636, and Jerusalem followed in 638. By 642 both Egypt and Persia had fallen into Muslim hands. The Byzantines regrouped and managed to hold onto Anatolia for another four centuries. However, Muslim armies spread northeast into Central Asia and east into what is now Pakistan. They also took all of North Africa and between 711 and 715 conquered Spain. The Islamic advance into Europe was finally halted one hundred years after the death of Muhammad at the Battle of Tours in France in 732, where Charles Martel, the grandfather of Charlemagne, defeated the Muslims and began the slow process of driving them back southward.

For centuries, the lands of Islam were the most advanced civilizations in the world. While Europe was going through the chaos and disruption of the early Middle Ages, the world of Islam was in its Golden Age. It is true, of course, that Middle Eastern Christians remained the majority of the population of that Islamic empire for centuries, and that conquered Christian scholars and administrators laid the foundation for Islamic greatness. Still, Islamic civilization was far more advanced than European civilization for many centuries, and Muslims have not forgotten it.

Islam continued to spread down to the modern era. The Turkic peoples of Central Asia chose Islam voluntarily, and various Turkic groups became the vanguard of Islamic expansion. One group, the Tatars, ruled Russia for many years and left a lasting mark on the Russian psyche. Other Turks conquered the Byzantine Empire between 1071 and 1453 and went on to invade southeastern Europe, twice penetrating as far as Vienna in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. A third Turkic group, the Mughals, used Afghanistan as a base to conquer India in the early 1500s (not the first Muslim group to do so!) and established an empire that lasted for more than three centuries. On the other hand, Islam spread into Southeast Asia (particularly Malaysia and Indonesia) and Sub-Saharan Africa through merchants and Muslim missionaries. Even today, Muslims are active in spreading their faith in these areas.

What Do Muslims Believe?

Muslims traditionally list the fundamental beliefs of their religion under six headings. These six by no means exhaust Islamic theology, but they are the essential starting point in understanding what Muslims believe.

1. One God. The unity and uniqueness of God are the bedrock of Islamic belief. The Islamic confession begins with the assertion that there is no god but God. Polytheism and idolatry are the worst sins to a Muslim. God has no equals and no partners. Muslims regard the Christian Trinity as a blasphemous violation of the unity of God. Muslims frequently recite the 99 Names of God, derived from the Qur’an and Islamic tradition, as a devotional practice. However, the Islamic conception of God places such stress on his transcendence and his greatness that the attributes ascribed by those names can never bind him. He is simply absolute.

2. His Prophets. Islam is a religion of revelation and instruction. Muslims believe that thousands of prophets have lived all over the world throughout the ages. All of them have taught the same message, which is Islam, or submission to God alone. Islam acknowledges many of the prophets and other major figures of the Bible by name. It also names as prophets certain figures from Arabic tradition. Of particular prominence are Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, John the Baptist, and Jesus. Muhammad is named as the last and greatest of the prophets.

3. His Books. Many of the prophets were entirely local in their ministry. Certain prophets, however, had a special role as messengers. In particular, Islam acknowledges four divinely inspired books: the Taurat (Torah) or Law of Moses, the Zabur or Psalms of David, the Injil or Gospel of Jesus, and the Qur’an of Muhammad. According to Islamic teaching, all of these books taught the same religion—Islam—in their original form. However, they believe that Jews and Christians corrupted their books, so that the original texts no longer exist. Therefore, according to Muslims, God sent Muhammad the Qur’an in order to set the record straight. God dictated the Qur’an to Muhammad, and it is God’s incorruptible word. God revealed his word in Arabic, and the Qur’an is only the Qur’an in the Arabic language. The Qur’an may be translated into other languages, but such translations are not the word of God and do not carry its authority.

4. His Angels. There is a strong belief in supernatural beings in Islam. The angel Gabriel was reported to be the source of Muhammad’s revelations. Satan also figures in Islamic thought. In practical terms, spiritual beings (such as the jinn) play a large role in the thinking of most Muslims, and many of the practices of folk Islam are directed toward keeping these spirits favorable or at least at a distance.

5. His Decrees. God is absolute. He directly wills everything that occurs, both good and bad. What he does cannot be predicted, nor is he constrained by anything, even his own character. The phrase Inshallah—“If God wills”—is frequently heard on Muslim lips.

6. The Final Judgment. Islam has a strong sense of the destiny of history. The world will end, and God will judge everyone. Every person who ever lived will face one of two destinies: paradise, which is described in lavishly sensual terms, or hell, characterized by punishment in fire.

Islam teaches that God created the world, including the first man and woman. However, Islam does not teach that humanity was created in God’s image. Such a thought would presumably infringe on God’s transcendence and approach idolatry. Islam also teaches that the first man sinned. However, in Islamic teaching, Adam’s sin affected Adam only; no concept of original sin spilled over to Adam’s descendants. According to Islam, every person is born both innocent and fully able to obey God completely. The human problem is not guilt and corruption. It is simply ignorance. Therefore, Islam has prophets but no savior. In fact, the Qur’an explicitly denies that anyone could ever pay for the sins of another.

Islam teaches that Jesus was a great prophet. According to the Qur’an, Jesus was born of a virgin. He lived a sinless life and performed incredible miracles. He is called Messiah and the Word of God. He will come again at the end of history to usher in the final judgment. However, the Qur’an explicitly denies that Jesus is God. It denies the possibility that God could have a son. It also strongly implies that Jesus did not die, and traditional Islamic theology has taught that Jesus was spared the cross and taken alive into heaven, while Judas was made to look like Jesus and crucified in his place. The Jesus of the Qur’an bears a superficial resemblance to the Jesus of Scripture. However, it denies the most important elements of his Person—that he is God in the flesh—and his work—that he died on the cross in the place of sinners as a sacrifice to pay the penalty for their sins. It also, by implication, denies his resurrection, as no one can rise from the dead who has never died.

Islamic teaching on salvation is a combination of three factors. There are verses in the Qur’an that seem to indicate that profession of belief in Islam and membership in the Muslim community are the decisive factor in whether one goes to paradise or hell. It is therefore widely believed by Muslims that everyone who dies a Muslim will end up in paradise. Many may indeed go first to hell, but their suffering there will serve as a form of purgatory, and they will all eventually get out of hell. The Qur’an also speaks of works as an element in salvation. These include performing the ritual Pillars of Islam and keeping the details of Islamic law as a counterbalance to one’s sins. In popular thought, for most Muslims this factor plays out in how long one must be purged in hell before gaining admission to paradise—if you die as a Muslim. Finally, there is the factor of God’s sovereign decision, and this is inscrutable. God may arbitrarily decide to forgive the sins of a notorious sinner, or he may arbitrarily decide to condemn a faithful believer. Ultimately, no one can know his final fate.

There are verses in the Qur’an that indicate that Jews and Christians, as people of the book, will end up in paradise. Other verses restrict salvation to professing Muslims. In practice, many courteous Muslims will try to assure Christians that their religions are the same and that they will all end up in the same place. On the other hand, many radical Muslims not only deny that Jews and Christians will be saved but go further and declare Muslims who disagree with them to be apostates from Islam and therefore condemned to eternity in hell.

As a final point in belief, the Islamic stress on the transcendence of God plays out in their understanding of paradise. Islam describes paradise as a place of earthly beauty and earthly pleasures. However, it is not a place where believers experience the presence of God. The transcendent distance of God from those he created endures beyond death to eternity.

How Do Muslims Practice Their Religion?

Islamic practice is traditionally described in terms of the Five Pillars of Islam.

1. The Confession. As stated at the start of this chapter, the Islamic confession of faith is, “There is no god but God, and Muhammad is his prophet.” These are supposed to be the first words spoken into a baby’s ears at birth, and the last words a Muslim says at death. A person converts to Islam by saying these words in Arabic with intention. This confession, written in beautiful Arabic calligraphy, is often found in Muslim homes and on Muslim vehicles. It may be said many times during a day and certainly many times in life.

2. The Prayers. Muslims are supposed to pray five times a day. These prayers come at fixed times: before dawn, at midday, in midafternoon, before sunset, and after sunset. In Islamic countries, the faithful are called to prayer by a ritual summons in Arabic from the minarets of their mosques. The prayers themselves are a set of memorized formulae in Arabic. Most Muslims today are not Arabs and do not understand the words they are praying, but understanding is not required. Islamic prayer is an act of submission and worship, not communion with God. Prescribed rituals of bowing, kneeling, and placing one’s forehead on the floor accompanied the prayers. Muslim believers gain more merit for their prayers if they pray together with others in the mosque.

3. Alms. Muslims are expected to give a percentage of their income to the poor. In Islamic countries, this almsgiving is sometimes taken as a form of income tax. Beggars in Islamic countries sometimes regard themselves as providing a religious service by giving Muslim believers the opportunity to earn merit by giving them money.

4. The Month of the Fast. One month out of the lunar year is set aside for fasting. This is the month of Ramadan, or Ramazan as it is pronounced in some languages of the Islamic world. During the month of the fast, Muslims are not supposed to eat, drink, or smoke anything from sunup to sundown. Once the sun sets, they may eat, drink, and smoke as much as they desire until dawn the next day. In practice, the iftar meal at sunset is a time of celebration, and more food is eaten during the month of the fast than any other time of the year. Those who are sick, pregnant, or nursing are exempt from the fast, but they are expected to make it up some other time during the year. Because the lunar calendar is ten days shorter than the solar calendar, the month of the fast begins and ends ten days earlier each year.

5. Pilgrimage to Mecca. Once in his or her lifetime, every Muslim is expected to make a pilgrimage to Mecca. The pilgrimage occurs at a set time in the lunar calendar each year. Pilgrims all wear the same simple white robes to represent the equality of all Muslims before God. There are prescribed rituals that constitute the pilgrimage, including walking round the Kaaba and throwing rocks at the Devil. Some Islamic countries subsidize the pilgrimage for their Muslim citizens. The Arabic word for the pilgrimage is hajj, and a person who has gone on the hajj is given the title of hajji.

Muslims may pray in the mosque during any of the prayer times any day of the week. However, the Friday midday prayer time is a special weekly assembly, when everyone is expected to gather at the mosque, pray together, and listen to the Friday sermon by the mullah or imam of the mosque.

Two major holidays are in the Islamic calendar, each determined by the lunar calendar. One of these falls at the end of the month of Ramadan, and it is a celebration of the completion of four weeks of fasting. The other is the Feast of the Sacrifice, which is held in commemoration of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of his son. (Muslims believe that Ishmael, the ancestor of the Arabs, was the son involved, not Isaac.) Muslim families sacrifice animals on this day and share the meat with the poor, but the sacrifice is generally regarded as an act of merit, not as an act of atonement. In addition to these holidays, some Islamic countries will also observe the birthday of Muhammad. Shia Muslims have an additional holiday, Ashura, during the Islamic month of Muharram, to commemorate the martyrdom of Hussein the son of Ali.

What Is Shariah Law?

Islam means “submission to God,” and religious law plays a large role in Islamic practice. Islam prides itself on the comprehensive nature of its religion. There is no separation of mosque and state, no division between sacred and secular, and no area of life that it does not rule. The Qur’an is the first source of Islamic law, but it is by no means the only source. According to Islamic teaching, the Qur’an existed eternally in heaven and was dictated to Muhammad verbatim. However, God also guided Muhammad in the day-to-day instruction and guidance he gave to his followers, and his reported sayings and deeds were passed down and collected in the centuries following his death. These traditions, known as the Hadith, exist in several collections, and they are many volumes in length. The Hadith do not have the same official status as the Qur’an, but they function in practice as the definitive interpretation and application of the Qur’an. Together, the Qur’an, the Hadith, and the history of Islamic legal jurisprudence form the basis of Shariah, or Islamic law.

There are four schools of Sunni Shariah jurisprudence: Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki, and Hanbali. Mainstream Shia Muslims adhere to the Jafari school of Shariah law. When most Westerners hear the word Shariah, they think of gruesome punishments such as amputating the hands of thieves and stoning adulterers. In reality, most of Shariah law is far more mundane. As with Rabbinic Judaism, rules exist for every area of life. There are dietary laws, with permitted foods labeled as halal and forbidden foods labeled as haram. (Both pork and alcohol are forbidden to Muslims.) Laws prescribe the details of religious practice, such as how to cleanse oneself before praying and how to know when the sun has set during Ramadan. There is an entire section of family law, including detailed inheritance regulations.

What Groups Exist within Islam?

The biggest split within Islam occurred within the first generation, and it continues down to today. As mentioned earlier, when Muhammad died, the majority of the community thought that his successor (khalifa in Arabic, usually rendered caliph in English) should be chosen from among his companions. This group became known as the Sunnis. A minority thought that it should be hereditary through his daughter Fatima and her husband, Muhammad’s cousin Ali. These were the partisans of Ali—Shiat Ali in Arabic, which came to be contracted as Shia. After Ali was killed, his sons claimed the succession; but one was forced into retirement, and the other, Hussein, was killed by Sunni forces at the battle of Karbala, in modern-day Iraq. The mainstream Shia line lasted for twelve generations, but the twelfth disappeared, giving rise to the belief that God had hidden and preserved him, and that he would come back some day as the Mahdi to rescue his community. The Sunni caliphate survived, through various dynastic changes, until the 1920s, when the newly formed Turkish Republic abolished it. (For several centuries, the Ottoman Turkish sultans had also been the caliphs of Sunni Islam.) Today, Sunnis make up about 85 percent of all Muslims, while Shias constitute 15 percent. Shia Islam is the official state religion of Iran, but Shias are found in large numbers in other countries as well.

Sufism is a mystical movement within Islam. Mainstream Islam stresses law and obedience. Sufism stresses mystical experience and community. There are a variety of Sufi orders across Islam, including the famous Mevlevi movement of Turkey, known more popularly as the Whirling Dervishes. Each Sufi order has its own dhikr (or zikr in many languages of the Islamic world), which is a ritual act of devotion. Some orders practice a silent dhikr, while the Mevlevis whirl around in circles as they recite the names of God, and yet others engage in ecstatic speech. Sufi orders often have a tightly knit cell group structure and can function as secret societies under persecution. Sufism played a large role in the spread of Islam through missionary activity in South Asia, and it also was a huge factor in the survival of Islam under communism in the former Soviet Union.

Wherever they may live, and whether they are Sunni or Shia, the majority of all Muslims practice a form of folk Islam. Folk Islam is not a formal movement but rather a popular combination of the formal structures of Islam with the beliefs and practices of pre-Islamic animism. Islam already has a large concern for spiritual beings such as angels and jinn. Folk Islam tends to concentrate on this area of belief. Folk Islamic practices include such things as using the Islamic confession, or texts of the Qur’an, for magical purposes, the use of amulets and talismans to ward off the jinn and the Evil Eye, the veneration of holy places, and prayers offered to Sufi saints. Strict Islamic purists like the Wahhabis (a movement within Hanbali Sunni Islam) despise folk Islam and regard it as heretical, but it is pervasive throughout the Islamic world.

What Is Islam’s Agenda?

Islam is a missionary religion. It regards itself as the only true faith, and Muslims have an obligation to invite others to embrace Islam. Most schools of Islamic thought regard it as legitimate to use military force to spread the rule of Islam. Islam believes that its destiny is to encompass the world, and it sees itself as the greatest blessing the world could know. However, most of the schools of Islamic law place restrictions on the conduct of warfare, and these restrictions rule out both suicide and the wanton targeting of noncombatants. In other words, to most Muslims terrorism is illegitimate as a tactic for spreading Islam. Certain minority schools of thought regard other Muslims as apostate and see terrorist tactics as permissible. These are the groups that make the news. Most Muslims disagree with these groups strongly, but a sense of Muslim solidarity makes them reluctant to criticize other Muslims to nonbelievers.

How Should Christians Relate to Muslims?

Muslims are human beings, created in the image of God, like everyone else. Muslims are also sinners in need of the Savior, like everyone else. Muslims are neither more nor less lost than any other lost person. Muslims make up many of the tribes, tongues, peoples, and nations of the earth, and Jesus died to redeem a people for himself from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation—including the Muslim ones. It is true that Muslims have traditionally been regarded as resistant to the gospel, but God is no less powerful to save in Arabia than he is in Alabama. It takes no more of a miracle to bring a Muslim from death to life than it does to bring a nonbelieving Westerner from death to life. Most Muslims have never heard the gospel because Christians have been too afraid to take it to them. When Christian witnesses have gone to Muslims, planted their lives, learned the local language, stayed for years, and shared the gospel, they have seen fruit. The issue is not Muslim resistance but Christian disobedience.

The vast majority of all Muslims are not terrorists. Muslims are often highly hospitable. They can make great neighbors and close friends. Here are some helpful ideas for engaging Muslims and sharing the gospel with them.

Be hospitable. Invite them into your home and feel free to accept their invitations into theirs. Reach out to them in friendship without fear.

Avoid serving Muslims things like pork or alcohol, which are forbidden to them.

Talk openly about your faith. Westerners tend to be shy about discussing religion, but most Muslims are not, and they take Western silence as an indication that our religion does not mean much to us.

Pray openly in Jesus’ name around Muslims. Pray at meals, and pray out loud for them at the close of any visit.

Demonstrate to them that there is a difference between being an American (or Canadian or Australian or whatever you are) and being a Christian. They tend to think they are the same thing, and they evaluate Christianity by what they see in Western movies and TV shows. Make it clear that although you were born into your nationality, you had to be born again into faith in Jesus, and that your faith in him puts you out of step with your own culture.

Muslims use many of the same religious words as Christians, and they have at least some version of many of the same stories. However, the worldview of Islam is radically different from that of the Bible. What they mean by those words and those stories is quite different from what the Bible means. They need the correction of a biblical worldview for the gospel to make sense to them, and that is best gained through knowing the whole narrative of Scripture. Tools like Chronological Bible Storying can be quite useful in giving Muslims the context in which to understand the message of the gospel.

If a Muslim tells you that the Bible has been changed, ask him where, hand him a Bible, and challenge him to read it and show you where it has been changed. If a Muslim challenges you to explain the Trinity, do not approach the subject philosophically but rather in terms of biblical theology. Show him where the Bible teaches that there is only one God. Show him where the Bible teaches that Jesus is God. Show him where the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit is God. Then show him where the Bible demonstrates that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are Persons relating to one another. Whenever asked any question, keep going back to the text of Scripture.

Try to discuss the gospel with Muslims one on one. In groups, Muslims often feel pressure to adhere to the party line. By themselves they are more likely to listen and interact openly.

Muslims, like everyone else, need to know they are lost before they will realize their need for the Savior. Muslims generally have a low view of sin, regarding it as an external act rather than a matter of the heart. The law of God in the Bible, and particularly the Sermon on the Mount, are particularly good tools for showing Muslims their true condition before God.

Get them in the Word of God. Get them reading it themselves. When all is said and done, prolonged exposure to the Word of God and to the lives of Christians have been the key factors for most Muslims who have come to faith in Jesus.

Pray. This is a spiritual battle. Pray daily that God would open their hearts and minds, set them free from bondage to sin, and protect them from anyone or anything that would keep them from Jesus.

Persevere. Few Muslims come to faith the first time they hear the gospel. It takes loving perseverance on the part of Christians to see Muslims embrace Jesus.

Chapter 24

Contemporary Cults

R. Philip Roberts

The words of the preacher of Ecclesiastes, “There is nothing new under the sun” (Eccl 1:9 NKJV), have great legitimacy especially when this statement is applied to the issue of cults and new religions. Heterodox theological opponents to the person and work of Jesus Christ seemingly were present from the early part of his ministry and plagued the church throughout the New Testament era. Evidences of the presence of these “false gospels” are reported in Matthew 7:15–20; Galatians 1; 2 Corinthians 11:4; and Revelation 2:1–7.

These first-century worldviews emanated from the mystery religions, Gnosticism, Stoicism, emperor worship, pagan religions, and superstitions. They challenged the church to be at its best in every sense of the word—doctrinally, apologetically, and missiologically. While those movements emerged, rose to an apex, went into a plateau, declined, and eventually met their demise, new movements throughout the history of the church have arisen to take their places.

Today cults often recast the old errors of Arianism, or Gnosticism, as well as other ideologies, in new forms with new names. For example, Mormonism in many respects appears to be a replay of ancient fertility cults, just as Jehovah’s Witness is a replay of the third-century Arian Christological heresy. Opposition from false teachings has been a fellow traveler with the church throughout its existence.

The church of the present era faces challenges as great as it has faced across its history. The missionary progress of the gospel advances in the context of enormous religious diversity. In the United States alone, the church faces opposition from some 1,650 distinct religious movements that have 2,000 members or more and that exhibit a discernible organizational structure (Melton 1993, 72). While the worldwide increase of cults is notable, the variety of these groups is most concentrated and different in North America. Numbered among these varied worldviews are those that may be clearly identified as “cultic” and that bear the marks of religion outside the mainstream. Understanding such groups and developing an acquaintance with their particular features is essential for the contemporary missionary enterprise.

In the present life of the church, as in the past, cults appear on the scene with great vigor and vitality while promulgating what appear to be enlightening and novel ideas. Their organizations usually are effectively administered. Their members can be zealous and determined. Once a heresy has taken on form and energy and becomes a cult, it is more than a cloistered ideological movement. As organized religions, cults pose institutional, evangelistic, and missiological challenges and become competitors with traditional, biblical, and orthodox denominations. Hence, both their exposure as well as the organization of legitimate efforts to evangelize their members become mandatory for the Christian church.

The church of Jesus Christ must be alert and prepared as part of its missio dei to defend the faith against insidious error as well as to engage aberrant doctrinal groups with the powerful and saving message of the cross.

This chapter has a fivefold purpose. First, we will define a cult. Second, the cults will be categorized and classified. An explication of the term cult from an evangelical and theological approach then will be included, followed by an attempt to delineate the appeal of cults. Finally, some encouragement regarding the church’s appropriate response to new religions will conclude the chapter.

Defining a Cult

The term cult stems from the Latin word cultus, which carried the meaning of worship or praise-adoration. The Oxford Dictionary defines it, among other ways, as “a system of religious worship especially as expressed in ceremonies; devotion or homage to a person or thing.” But one of the most disputed and debated elements of cult study, especially outside of evangelical circles, relates to how one provides an accurate and appropriate definition of a cult. Part of the confusion relates both to the unclear use of the word within modern English nomenclature as well as the fact that various academic disciplines and other areas of interest provide different understandings of “cult.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary includes this among its definition of cult: “Religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious.”

Richard Kyle, in fact, lists six difficulties with the usage of the term cult. Included among these difficulties are: (1) the word is often used only pejoratively and evokes only skewed negative stereotypes; (2) there is considerable debate over what is to be considered legitimate religious practice; (3) conceptual understandings of denominations and/or sectarian groups are sometimes difficult to apply consistently to any religious group; (4) scholars tend to focus on cult definitions only from their own academic perspective; (5) the diversity of religious groups, in both belief and practice, often requires unhealthy generalizations; (6) cults and sects often share characteristics that confuse the two (Kyle 1993, 22–23).

Adding to the confusing use of the term is the fact that it is often utilized and applied differently from discipline to discipline. Among understandings of cult, one finds the psychological definition, that is, cults are groups that practice mind control, are mentally manipulative, and use harassment, and so on, to control their adherents.17 Also the political usage exists that says cults are groups that form anarchical antigovernment dissent. In addition, one sees the sociological usage that defines cults as small-minority religious movements forming a subculture within the mainstream.

Other definitions of cult include the media or press usage that interprets cults as small and malevolent groups engaging in brainwashing or other psychological manipulations under charismatic and often perverse leadership. The theological usage defines cult as a religious practice, belief, and worship that amounts to a strictly etymological/philological usage. The religious usage considers a cult to be a new religious movement, recently emergent and unique from mainstream thought. Finally, the biblical (or evangelical) usage declares that a cult is an aberrant and heterodox religious movement, often claiming to be the one true religion. This chapter concentrates on the biblical or evangelical usage.

In the evangelical world, the term is of rather recent development, having been popularized by J. K. Van Baalen’s The Chaos of the Cults (1962), Anthony Hoekema’s The Four Major Cults (1963), and Walter Martin’s The Kingdom of the Cults (1965). In the evangelical/theological sense and definition of the word, a cult as defined by Martin would be considered “a group of people gathered about a specific person or person’s interpretation of the Bible” that “contains not a few major deviations from historic Christianity.”

The evangelical understanding of cult needs explanation. The following ideas clarify the concept of cult:

Cult, in the sense in which it is used here, is a contemporary term popularized in the twentieth century by two or three notable evangelicals who used it to define aberrant, heretical, or counterfeit Christian groups. While theologically speaking such a term is useful, it has been to date mainly undefined. It has also been used emotively and pejoratively by various religious groups without enough serious thought given to its exact usage.

Consequently, evangelicals often use other terms such as new, aberrant, or deviant religious movements to provide clarity and to avoid a measure of the sensational often associated with the term cult. In fact, the fraternal organization Evangelical Ministries to New Religions has avoided using the term cult.

The word cult has come to refer to emerging religions. It relates to that form of religion that by its beliefs and practice sets itself apart from the accepted majority form of religious belief, customs, and practice. Virtually every religion at the point of emergence was classified as cultic; indeed, Christianity itself in its early history was similarly understood. Early believers were accused of cannibalism (eating human flesh in the Lord’s Supper), incest (brotherly universal love), and atheism (rejecting Caesar worship and denying the gods of paganism). Particularly offensive to ancient pagans was the Christian conviction that Jesus was the sole Savior and Lord. Once standards of doctrine are established, scripture is canonized, and parameters of ethics are accepted, new forms of religion may generally be rendered “aberrant” or “cultic.” This dynamic is true of orthodox Christianity as its evangelical and reformed expressions routinely label the emergent groups as cults.

Classification of Cults

The classification and categorization of various cultic groups is an essential and required element of study. Various approaches to categorization have been used.

Ronald Enroth in his book The Lure of the Cults has established five basic categories of new religious movements.

The Eastern mystical category, which emphasizes “a subjective approach to truth and value experience over reason and doctrine.” These groups originate in Eastern mysticism and include the Hare Krishna movement, Zen Buddhism, and the Divine Light Mission.
There are Christian groups “closer to the margins of mainstream Christianity” but outside its doctrinal parameters.
The third category includes psycho-spiritual or self-improvement groups “focused on psycho-spiritual concerns” reflecting interest in mind/body and soul interaction, for example, EST, TM, and Scientology.
Eclectic-syncretistic groups formulating truth from various spiritual/mystical traditions and reformulating them into a singular new system, for example, Eckankar and the Church Universal and Triumphant.
Finally, psychic-occult-astral groups preoccupied with “psychic and occultic phenomena often involving the hidden teachings of ancient masters,” for example, the Aetherius Society, UFO cults, Association for Research and Enlightenment (Enroth 1979, 22–34).

Enroth goes on to note that when cults are discussed today in evangelical circles, a sixth category might be necessary, and that is “institutionalized or established groups,” including Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Christian Science, Unity School of Christianity, and others. These groups are no less heterodox in their theology, but they are strongly institutionalized. They are easily recognized by the general public because of their organizational profile.

J. Gordon Melton lists eight categories of “alternative religions” as follows: (1) The Latter-day Saints or Mormons—a category by itself because of the size and success of the churches. (2) Communalists who claim a life of mutual sharing. (3) “The metaphysicians,” who stem from the thought of Phinehas P. Quimby, who was the guru of the mind sciencers and the founder of New Thought religion from which Christian Science emerged. These persons often deny “the metaphysical reality of evil” in their pursuit of health and wealth. (4) The psychic-spiritualist groups who are built around the regular manifestation of psychic activity.

Melton’s second group of four “alternative religions” includes: (5) “Ancient wisdom schools”—occultic teaching movements from ancient sources in Egypt, etc. (6) “Magic groups”—movements practicing “occultic cosmic powers” and often identified as wiccan or pagan. (7) “Eastern religions”—derived from Buddhism, Hinduism, or Asian religions. And (8) “the Middle Eastern faiths” of Islam or Judaism and which often possess a “distinctly mystical stance” (Melton 1982, 19–20).

A more generalized and world-religions approach to cult classification would be that utilized by Irving Hexham, who writes of two major traditions of world religions: the “Yogic and Abramic” (Hexham 1988, 460–61). Briefly stated, the Yogic tradition would be characteristic of those cults spinning off of the Eastern/mystical religions of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism. On the other hand, the Abramic tradition would describe those religions tracing their traditions to Abraham, hence reflecting monotheism and a historic tie to a “book,” principally the Old Testament or Hebrew Scriptures, the Bible, or the Qur’an. These traditions include Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In chart form, Hexham’s definition of cults could be diagrammed as follows:

Abramic	Cultic Offshoots	Cultic Offshoots	Yogic
Judaism	Black Hebrews	Aum, Shinrikyo	Zen Buddhism
Christianity	MormonismJehovah’s WitnessesChristian ScienceUnification Church	Hare KrishnaEckankarNew AgeTranscendentalMeditation	Hinduism
Islam	Nation of IslamSufismBah’ai	TapaTerapenthinsAdhyamatma	Jainism

While space prohibits full discussion of each category of cult, it is essential to describe what Enroth denotes as “aberrational Christian,” “institutionalized,” or “established groups” and what Hexham denotes as “Abramic-Christian.” A consideration of this cultic category will be purely theological as they present quite a specific ideological challenge to biblical Christianity and as they are distinguished most clearly from orthodox Christianity by their deviant doctrines. Particularly relevant, therefore, is the fact that these cultic groups claim to be the embodiment of true Christianity.

Christian Cults

Jesus in his parable regarding false prophets (cf. Matt 7:15–20) warned against judging superficially on the basis of appearance. It is imperative not to make a theological or spiritual judgment that does not go beneath the surface in the case of “institutionalized, established Christian cults.” In their activities, nomenclature, or even governance, it might be thought that these groups are Christian. For instance, they use biblical terminology in describing themselves: “Witnesses of Jehovah,” “Latter-day Saints,” and so forth. Even in some of their practices, they may appear to be biblical.

Both the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Latter-day Saints practice baptism by immersion for professing believers. Most groups in this category appoint persons to offices such as elder or deacon. What is required for complete understanding of these groups is a thorough theological assessment to determine their claims to biblical legitimacy. The decisive elements that reveal systemic cultic characteristics are theological in nature. It is to those that we now turn.

These groups have major theological/practical characteristics in common and that clearly merit analysis. Dennis Higley lists twenty-two characteristics of “counterfeit Christian churches” or cults, but this chapter will focus on the major systemic and theological elements of these counterfeit movements. Because of the doctrinal nature of their classification and description, we shall label these groups “aberrational-heretical Christian movements.”

The primary characteristic of an aberrant Christian group is a founder/leader who claims exclusive and new revelation from God. This element is not simply a matter of a leader possessing personal charisma or manifesting inspired or creative teaching, but it is inevitably the case of the founder/leader announcing new extracanonical truth revealed or communicated straight from the Creator. Such truth, as will be noted later in more detail, sets itself in opposition to the norms of Christian orthodoxy.

In the case of Joseph Smith Jr., such new revelation took the form of a direct visitation from God, “in a body of flesh and bones,” and according to a later version of his vision, of Jesus Christ. As a result of his search for the proper denomination or church to join, the heavenly father through his “son” Jesus told Joseph to “join none of them.” Instead, Joseph would be given the privilege of reestablishing and resurrecting the true church.

The vision, therefore, is essential to the establishment of Joseph Smith’s unique posture and authority as a seer, prophet, president, and revelator of the church. His authority and sayings were canonized through the claim of the Church of Latter-day Saints (LDS) that their “doctrines and covenants,” the inspired and binding sayings of the prophets, were scripture themselves. In the words of the Doctrine and Covenants, the president of the church shall be given inspiration by the “Holy Ghost” to which words the church shall “give heed”: “For his words,” said God, “ye shall receive as if from mine own mouth” (Doctrine and Covenants 21, 1–5). The office of prophet and president was thus established both for him and his successors. The “prophets” are hence recognized by the church as being God’s spokesmen and sole revelators capable of conveying doctrine and truth to the church.

The history of new religions conveys similar histories such as that of Charles T. Russell of Jehovah’s Witnesses fame. Russell claimed to unlock finally the Bible’s “real truth” regarding Jesus Christ as God’s adoptive son in his Bible teaching, and it was that teaching that eventually was included in the Kingdom Hall’s New World Translation.

In the same vein, one may turn to Sun Myung Moon of the Unification Church, who did what Jesus did not do and married in order to birth God’s family on earth. As such, Moon established himself as “Messiah” and “Savior” and God’s unique spokesman as the “truth of God was sealed into his hands.” Such claims go well beyond the role of gifted leader or anointed teacher/preacher. They comprise the establishment of new divine authority.

As a second characteristic, “cultic-Christian” groups establish themselves as the one true exclusive church of Jesus Christ. It is important to note that exclusivity is especially presented in the sense of the church’s ability to administer salvation or at least the fullness of salvation. This notion extends, it may be claimed, to sacerdotal churches that reserve a sense of saving uniqueness in the administration of sacraments. Traditionally, these churches may include both the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox churches.

The Eastern and Orthodox sacramental traditions tie the efficacy of sacraments closely to the person and work of the historic and biblical Jesus Christ and not a new Christ of their own creation. While Baptist confessions mark clearly the biblical parameters of “church,” in contradistinction to cults, Baptists never claim that other churches, even outside the denomination, do not bear the marks of New Testament churches. Baptists affirm that where there are true believers, true churches may appear, seemingly apart from denominational authority or label. The Second London Baptist Confession of 1689 (Article XXVI, Section 2) declared: “All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ . . . not destroying their own profession by any errors . . . may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted” (Lumpkin 1959, 285).

The cult claim to ecclesiastical uniqueness is a claim in and for itself apart from any historical linkage or orthodox confessional position. Their claim is generally based upon the mystical experience or esoteric knowledge of the founder. He has discovered or received a truth that establishes the movement as the embodiment of the one true church. Once again, using the LDS church as a primary example, Joseph Smith, as he asked God to tell him which denomination to join, claimed that Jesus exhorted him to join no existing church. Smith heard explicitly mentioned Presbyterian, Baptist, and Methodist fellowships for they’re “all wrong . . . their creeds are an abomination . . . and their professors [members] were all corrupt” (Pearl of Great Price 1:19).

The doctrine of the “great apostasy” explains that at the close of the New Testament era, the gospel was “hellenized” and thus corrupted. The church apostatized and did not reemerge until April 6, 1830, when Smith founded the LDS church. By rediscovering and restoring the true gospel, i.e., the teachings of Mormonism, he laid claim that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was the restoration of the one true church. The nomenclature “Latter-day Saints” was applied to designate their true identity because no saints truly existed from about AD 90 to April 6, 1830.

In the same vein, the exclusivity of cultic groups extends to other new religions and is readily noticeable in relation to Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Unification Church. Such groups do not recognize one another as legitimate expressions of the true church. There is never any measure of evangelistic cooperation between, for example, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons, like there might be between Protestant and/or evangelical groups, for instance, in a Billy Graham campaign.

A third characteristic of cults is that new religious/cultic groups add to the fundamental evangelical tenet of sola scriptura (the Bible only) by revising it to the point of inclusion of a new canonical authority. In Mormonism, four “standard works” supersede the Bible alone. Hence, on request in a Deseret (LDS) Bookstore, when a copy of the “Scriptures” is requested, a bound (often leather-encased) volume will be presented to the customer containing four written works: the King James translation of the Bible; the Book of Mormon, Another Testament of Jesus Christ; Doctrines and Covenants (the prophecies and proclamations of the LDS president/prophet); and The Pearl of Great Price. All of these writings have been canonized by the LDS church. As well, the Bible is accepted with a provision that it may be believed “as far as it is translated correctly.” A loophole is thereby established to allow the Bible to be questioned.

The addition of other written authorities will often take various forms. In the case of Christian Science, it is the authoritative biblical commentary of Mary Baker Eddy, Science and Health with Key to Scriptures, apart from which followers of Christian Science think the Bible cannot be correctly understood. In other cases, a singularly authoritative and exclusive translation of Scripture will be made, as in the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses—the deceptive and inaccurate work, The New World Translation.

Fourth, not only are cults characterized by their addition of a supplemental written authority but also by their manipulative use or abuse of the Bible itself. I list nine misuses of the Bible here, although others might be mentioned.

Cults will often employ inaccurate quotations of the Bible such as the Unification Church’s abuse of 1 Corinthians 15:45 to read a “third Adam” instead of the “last Adam.”
Perhaps the most renowned misuse of the Bible is the production of twisted or new translations. The most obvious example of this abuse is the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New World Translation. Joseph Smith, Mormonism’s founder, “corrected” the Bible and produced the Joseph Smith translation, or Inspired Version. While not used “officially,” this translation is often referred to in the footnotes of Mormon-published King James Version Bibles.
Cults also use the Bible to attract the attention of the curious.
Cults often ignore the immediate context of a Bible text.
Cults sometimes refer to the Bible but never cite a specific text.
Cults will use the selective citing of texts with clarifying texts or contexts ignored.
Cults misuse the Bible by attaching esoteric meanings to texts that are understood only by an enlightened few.
Cults also read content into a text, e.g., Jehovah’s Witnesses referring to Leviticus 17:10–11 as prohibiting blood transfusions.
Cults misuse the Bible by interloping modern fulfillment or meaning into texts that contain no obvious connection to the fulfillment. An obvious example of this latter abuse is Mormonism’s reference to Isaiah 29:4 as a prediction of the discovery of the Book of Mormon.

As a fifth characteristic of cults, one finds a serious alteration or aberration of one or more essential doctrines of the faith. Such doctrinal lapse marks a certain sign of cultic Christian religion. An “essential” doctrine may be defined as a doctrine that is decisive for one’s salvation and that is distinctively Christian. Among the beliefs that cults alter or skew are the doctrine of the triune nature of God and the person of Christ. The deity of Christ is expunged and notions of his Sonship or even humanity are seriously altered. The concept of salvation by grace through faith (cf. Eph 2:8–9) is changed to make inclusion and conformity with the requirements of the new religion an essential component of salvation.

Eschatology, as well, is never completely consistent with traditional Christian doctrine. Views may vary from Mormonism’s four-tiered vision of the afterlife ranging from deification in a celestial kingdom to perdition. Annihilation for non-Jehovah’s Witnesses combined with the “earthly paradise” for members of the Kingdom Hall outside the realm of the heaven-bound 144,000 is a clear demarcation from Christian doctrinal tradition.

Other doctrinal redirection could be mentioned, but the above four areas reflect the essential areas of difference. A review of the diagram below will acquaint the reader with the specific areas of difference.

As a sixth characteristic, cultists or new religionists generally have a “Great Commission mentality.” Several of the cults are particularly noted for their enthusiastic and diligent programs of making proselytes. They have exploited often with great diligence, but with mixed results, the New Testament emphasis on the sharing of the gospel as they define gospel.

Both the larger American-based cults have grown through strong programs of proselytization, a word not eschewed by either entity. The Mormon Church currently has more than 50,000 active, full-time missionaries in the United States and in approximately 150 other countries. Of the approximately 27,000 students at Brigham Young University, 15,000 are, have been, or will be missionaries. Such activity, involving door-to-door canvassing, referrals for visits from missionaries, referrals and contacts made with visitors at various church sites or visitors centers, as well as inquiries to television promotional spots, has precipitated hundreds of thousands of inquiries and students in missionary lessons. While the lessons are often slow to promote Mormon theology, they generate well more than 300,000 baptisms a year of converts from other denominations and religions to Mormonism.

Jehovah’s Witnesses, as well, produce an extraordinary mission energy. Because missionary/proselytizing activity is a part of the fulfilling of the requirements of salvation, the motivation for missions may be quite different from evangelicalism. Evangelicals generally do evangelism from the basis of a love for God and a desire for his glory to be seen and confessed, simple obedience to Scripture, and love for a lost humanity. While these views may be expressed by Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and other cultic groups, the cultic motive for self-salvation cannot be dismissed.

Jehovah’s Witnesses, with a standing membership of 975,000 nationally and more than 5 million worldwide, produced in 1995 more than 1 billion visiting hours. While their growth is slow in the United States and basically stagnated at 1 million in North America, overseas it increased from 3.7 million in 1989 to more than 5 million in 1995. Vigorous evangelical educational programs in the United States may account for their lack of growth in the US. Their simple but consistent door-to-door canvassing and literature distribution program contributes to their international appeal, particularly in eastern Europe and Africa.

Mormonism faces genuine problems overseas, including the lack of development of indigenous leadership, exclusion of internationals from LDS leadership, and a large inactive rate in the Philippines and elsewhere (Dialogue 29, Spring 1996). On the other hand, Mormonism’s interest in and promotion of education has served as a key attraction for non-Mormons. A positive approach in attempting to “love” and hence attract or at least disarm non-Mormons has helped to smooth the rough edges of Mormon claims.

It is a basic tactic of Mormon proselytizing—a term used regularly by Mormons as they attempt to bring converts into full membership of the church—not to express clearly their full doctrinal positions. Mormon missionaries and members are told that this is “casting your pearls before swine” (cf. Matt 7:6); it is serving meat to those who are ready only for milk (cf. 1 Cor 3:2; 1 Pet 2:2). Hence, the most radically heretical claims of Mormonism—the procreation of Jesus, the necessity of membership in Mormonism for the “fullness of salvation,” the denial of the cross of Christ as the essence of the full atonement for sins—are kept from an inquirer. Ultimately no major doctrine of Mormonism has officially been altered or changed.

According to Dart Anderson, who has been promoting a strategy of “loving” Protestant ministers so as to blunt their opposition to Mormonism, his ultimate goal is still to look to the day “when whole congregations will come into the church through their own leadership. We see quite a few ministers come into the church. There isn’t any reason a minister couldn’t lead them in the truths we teach as in some other truths. If we do it wisely they could” (The Latter-Day Sentinel, December 31, 1988).

Why do new religious movements grow? What is the cause of their formation and growth, particularly in the West? Insight into these questions can be gained from a study of the New Age movement in the West.

The New Age Movement

How does the New Age movement illustrate how and why new religious movements grow? Where does it fit in the cult spectrum? The New Age movement is a decentralized but powerful movement of a variety of spiritualistic, mystical, psychical, or even alternative-holistic health societies committed to a Westernized Eastern mysticism and worldview. Several components of it are vital and essential to note.18

Initially New Ageism is committed to monism. This belief holds that all of the material and/or spiritual order share an essential unity both spiritually and materially. “All is one” and “I am U” are the heart cries of the movement. Monism is clearly Eastern and makes no distinction between Creator and created order. Its ultimate goal is to remove any conception of individuality.

Pantheism, naturally, is considered next as it is the belief that God is one with all things. Other beliefs shared with Eastern mysticism include a relativistic moral viewpoint, an affirmation of the need to accrue positive karma in order to advance in the reincarnational spiral, and an emphasis on the need to experience spiritual enlightenment through certain psychical or spiritualistic rites or rituals in order to discover one’s own divine nature.

The New Age movement is a conjoining of Eastern mysticism with elements that resemble a grafting of Christian perspectives. In some ways New Ageism bears a resemblance to early Gnosticism. One element of this merger of divergent worldviews can be seen in elements of Christian morality that creep into New Age thought or attempts to co-opt the Bible or its teachings for New Age purposes. Perhaps most dynamically, however, this trend is seen in efforts to transform Jesus Christ from Jewish Messiah and Gentile Savior into New Age guru.

The appeal of the New Age movement is apparently its ability to offer a spiritual and mystical sense to life while not demanding allegiance and obedience to a sovereign God. Rhyme and reason can be found in the stars but not in the One who made the stars. Religiosity is retained, but absolutes are removed or truncated. At the same time, however, the jettisoning of a personal, loving, righteous, and holy God in exchange for being a part of some nebulous world force is hardly a step up in spiritual values or perspective. The New Age movement offers no improved worldview.

Society and the Cults

Why do new religious movements grow? What is the cause of their formation and growth, particularly in the West? Thomas Robbins and Dick Anthony note at least five spiritually and sociologically appealing elements in the growth of new religions.

Initially cults may, in their opinion, offer “spiritual keys to wealth and power.” This is a form of the revival of magic but in a particularly Western/materialistic framework. Such an offer of success is often appealing. Some groups offer not only heavenly rewards but earthly ones as well while cloaking them in the guise of genuine spirituality. A form of “spiritualized materialism” proves potent in the contemporary Western world as well as the emerging economies of Two-Thirds World nations. A form of this movement can especially be seen in the neopentecostal Word of Faith movement energized by such personalities as Benny Hinn and Kenneth Copeland.

Second, secularization—particularly within mainline Protestant denominations by their lack of emphasis on supernaturalism—has caused some spiritually hungry persons to pursue satisfaction elsewhere. The spiritual vacuum created by the elimination of doctrine and biblical spirituality from churches and congregations in the West has provided a powerful momentum for alternative religions. For example, James Redfield—author of the successful New Age novel The Celestine Prophecy—noted that his defection from the Protestant church was in large part because of the failure of the church to deal with spiritual issues. He was “frustrated with what he found to be the church’s vague message of how to achieve salvation” (Atlanta Constitution, April 25, 1994). While many people may retain membership in a mainstream denomination, they tend to take their involvement in the New Age movement, spiritism, or occultism far more seriously.

Third, “moral ambiguity and value confusion” in our modern society provides an appeal for legalistic, strict, or even abusive cultic movements.

Fourth, social dislocation in the modern world has created a search for community or even culture, which new movements tend to provide. The cults become surrogate families and help to create familial roles and experiences for the socially or psychologically dispossessed. Cultic labels and nomenclatures such as “the family” as well as the sophisticated Mormon culture and financial infrastructures, often exercised in manipulative ways, attest to this development.

Finally, holistic self-conceptions that new religions attempt to foster in converts and members help to provide security, identity, and self-worth. This is particularly appealing in a society where depersonalization and growth of technology have diminished individual significance. Several studies have revealed the significance of the personal appeal of cultic movements (Robbins and Anthony 1987, 394–405).

Cultic attraction is often also due to a reaction to biblical Christianity or to the inadequate practice of biblical Christianity. It has often been stated that “cults live off the unpaid debts of the church.”19 Where ineffective discipleship takes place, the newly converted may easily be victimized by cultic movements. Likewise, incomplete or superficial evangelism will produce inauthentic disciples who may well become the next generation of new religion followers. Church controversies and squabbles, particularly over secondary or tertiary elements of church life, tend to produce discontent and disillusionment among Christians.

The Western church must develop a greater sense of community and responsibility among its own members. Body life as well as mutual accountability is reflected in such passages as James 5:18–19 and Matthew 18:15–20. Church discipline must be rediscovered and reapplied along with vigorous and thoughtful evangelism. Ecclesiology, a mature and biblical understanding of the unique nature of the church as the body of Christ, needs to be revitalized for the evangelical world. In so doing, members will be fortified in their commitment to the church.

The failure of the church to be active and proactive about new religious movements or cults will provide opportunity for the proselytization of Southern Baptists and evangelicals. The church must envision cultic ministries not only in a polemical or defense posture but as a vital evangelistic opportunity. It is possible that a large number of persons proselytized by cults may have been initially receptive to an evangelical witness if evangelicals had reached them first.

The evangelization of cultic groups usually requires the building of meaningful personal relationships. The use of thoughtful Christian and biblical apologetics and a working knowledge of the cultic movements can help make the results effective and dramatic. The conversion of Mormon missionaries and officials, while rare, has been noted (The Evangel, 1996). Leadership and workers among the Jehovah’s Witnesses and other movements, however, have been won. While some evangelicals argue that cultic members are apostate Christians, the biblical evidence seems to weigh heavier on the side of the mandate to reach all persons outside of faith in Christ.

Individuals involved in cults can be reached for Christ, and entire movements can be changed and even brought into the fold of orthodox Christianity with the appropriate approaches. The recent alignment of the Worldwide Church of God with mainstream orthodoxy is unique in the annals of modern heretical groups. It does illustrate that when thoughtful principles are applied and meaningful dialogue and discussion are precipitated, real change for the better can occur.

Recent adjustments in the Mormon church illustrate the volatility that may be latent within such a strong and determined missionary movement. We see within this group attempts to demonstrate agreement with the Bible, a public relations campaign to identify itself as evangelical, and the use of evangelical terminology and expressions such as, “I have a personal relationship with Jesus,” “I’ve trusted Jesus as my Savior,” or “I’m born again.” These concessions can often serve as wedges to explore the real essence of such clichés.

Even such a radical movement as Jehovah’s Witnesses, in its refutation of the 1914 generational prophecy, may open itself to criticism from within its movement. Thereby its members become more receptive to biblical evangelism.

Factors in Christian Witnessing

What elements contribute to an effective witness for Jesus Christ? How may a follower of the biblically revealed Jesus Christ evangelize members of new religions? A mechanistic or wooden approach to reach convicted followers of heterodox movements will not work. Following are some sound general principles and concepts.

Truth

Truth is the initial and foundational element in all interfaith evangelism. It is only by knowing Jesus, who is the truth, and knowing of the realities of his claims that one can claim to be a bearer of the good news. Therefore, it is essential to know the basic elements of biblical truth regarding the person and work of Christ as well as to be versed in Christian apologetics. Questions and challenges will be leveled at the Christian. Attempts to confuse with verbal manipulation, word redefinitions, proof-texting, or faulty quoting of Scripture are often used against a Christian witness.

A working understanding of the rudimentary theology of the cults is vital as well. This understanding should include a realization of the difference between the use of terms common to Christians and cults. A knowledge of the history of these cults can equip a witness to ask probing questions.

Certitude

Confidence and certainty in interfaith evangelism are essential. It was after hearing Peter and John’s declaration that “there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12 NKJV) that the skeptical and unbelieving opponents of the gospel realized that these two disciples “had been with Jesus” (Acts 4:13 NKJV).

Church historians have long agreed that this certitude of the exclusive claims of Christ led to the rapid growth of the church in its first two centuries (Hinson 1981, 287). If the claims of Christ are true; if he was truly God incarnate, born of a virgin; if he did die a substitutionary death on the cross for the sins of the world; if he was physically raised by the power of God from the grave; if he is consequently the sole mediator between God and man—then exclusivism is called for and morally required. True caritas demands a clear, careful, pervasive, and impassioned presentation of these truths.

Love

Unless a person senses true Christian compassion, he will not respond to a Christian witness. In fact, it may be questioned whether the gospel presentation is genuinely caritas if it is not characterized by love. Love and compassion implies no compromise of the truth. Rather, it is the realization of the truth of God’s love for us, even while we were sinners, that inspires love (Rom 5:8). Love rejoices in the truth (1 Cor 13:6).

The followers of false gospels are within the parameters of the Great Commission. It was the whole world—Hindu, Moslem, cultist, humanist, formal Christian—for whom Christ died. It is the Christian’s obligation to them and to his Lord to do everything possible to make Christ known to them (Rom 1:14–15).

Chapter 25

Christian Theology of Religions

Keith Johnson

As a result of globalization and mass migration, Western Christians live in an increasingly pluralistic environment. Heightened awareness of religious diversity raises some important questions: How should we view non-Christian religions? Does our commitment to Christ as the way, the truth, and the life require that we dismiss the teachings and practices of other religions? How do we account for exemplary behavior among Buddhists, Hindus, or Muslims? Although these questions are relevant to all Christians, they are particularly important for those serving cross-culturally. Indeed, any viable theology of mission must include a theology of religions.

The purpose of this chapter is to introduce the discipline of the theology of religions. First, we will answer the question: What is a theology of religions? Second, we will discuss three positions that have shaped contemporary discussion. Finally, we will explore several key topics that need to be addressed in the process of developing a Christian theology of religions.

What Is the Theology of Religions?

If you scan the table of contents of systematic theology texts written by prominent evangelicals (e.g., Wayne Grudem, Millard Erickson, etc.), you will not find a chapter titled “Theology of Religions.” This the case for several reasons. First, while these theologians may address some topics germane to a theology of religions, theological interpretation of religious diversity has been of greater interest to missiologists than theologians (Tennent 2010, 192). Second, although theological reflection on the relationship between Christianity and other religions can be found throughout the history of the church, the contemporary theology of religions emerged only in the latter half of the twentieth century (and even more recently among evangelicals). Third, the theology of religions cannot be easily located under any single theological category. It touches many of the traditional loci: God, creation, providence, anthropology, fall, person and work of Christ, pneumatology, salvation, ecclesiology, and eschatology. Finally, the theology of religions not only involves the interpretation of biblical texts but also descriptive analysis of religious traditions, using tools that differ from those employed in biblical and theological studies.

The Christian theology of religions attempts to answer the following question: How, from a biblical and theological perspective, should we think about the presence, practices, and beliefs of non-Christian religions? In the process of answering the latter question, several subquestions must be explored:

How should we think theologically about the phenomenon of human religiosity?
Can we affirm the presence of truth and goodness in non-Christian religions and, if so, on what basis?
Is it possible for adherents of non-Christian religions to experience salvation apart from hearing the gospel and responding in faith?
What role, if any, do non-Christian religions play in mediating the saving work of Christ?
To what end, and on what basis, should we engage in interreligious dialogue?
Is it appropriate to adopt sayings, proverbs, categories, institutions or practices found among non-Christian religions as we contextualize the gospel?

Broadly speaking, we can group these questions into four categories: (1) theological interpretation of human religiosity (q. 1), (2) truth and goodness in non-Christian religions (q. 2), (3) salvation in non-Christian religions (qq. 3–4), and (4) contextualization in Christian mission (qq. 5–6).

These questions can also be explored in relation to specific religious traditions. For example, focusing on Muslim belief and practice (in its many forms), one might develop a Christian theology of Islam. A theology of Islam would address questions such as the following: When Christians and Muslims speak of “God,” are they referring to the same being? Is it appropriate for native Arabic-speaking Christians to address the triune God as “Allah” in worship? Is it appropriate for Muslim converts to continue worshipping in mosques? Because every missionary operates with implicit interpretations of the beliefs and practices of the religious group(s) to which they minister, explicit theological reflection on non-Christian religions is vital.

The Christian theology of religions differs from other disciplines by virtue of its explicit dependence on the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. Whereas the history of religion, philosophy of religion, and comparative religion attempt to offer tradition-independent analysis of religions, the Christian theology of religions arises from, and is constrained by, the self-revelation of the triune God in Holy Scripture. (Of course, like these other disciplines, it also engages in descriptive analysis of religious traditions and may use similar tools in the process.)

Exclusivism, Inclusivism, and Pluralism

The debate over a Christian theology of religions has been framed by the exclusivist-inclusivist-pluralist typology. Exclusivism is associated with the view that Christian salvation (constituted by a relationship with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and culminating in the new creation) is possible only on the basis of the incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and enthronement of the incarnate Son, Jesus Christ, and the renewing work of the Holy Spirit (regeneration, indwelling, sanctification, and glorification). Non-Christian religions play no role in accomplishing or applying this salvation. Prior to the twentieth century, exclusivism represented the dominant position in the church. It still represents a widespread view among conservative evangelicals. Todd Miles makes a strong case for exclusivism in his book A God of Many Understandings: The Gospel and a Theology of Religions (Miles 2010). While exclusivists generally emphasize the necessity of explicit faith in Christ for appropriating the saving benefits of Christ’s work, some exclusivists adopt an agnostic stance on the fate of the unevangelized.

Inclusivism generally refers to the view that the saving work of the triune God extends beyond the witness of the church (such that adherents of other religions can experience salvation apart from conscious faith in Christ) and that non-Christian religions may play some positive role in salvation-history. The Second Vatican Council (Vatican II, 1962–65) marked a decisive shift in Catholic attitudes toward non-Christian religions (Ruokanen 1992). In the years since Vatican II, inclusivism (in a variety of forms) has become the dominant position in the Catholic Church. Catholic theologian Karl Rahner (whose theology was influential in the theology of Vatican II) coined the phrase “anonymous Christians” to describe adherents of non-Christian religions who experience God’s grace and salvation (mediated through their religious traditions) without knowing it.

Influenced by Catholic (and mainline Protestant) reflection, evangelical inclusivism in North America emerged several decades later. In his book A Wideness in God’s Mercy, Clark Pinnock articulated his “hermeneutic of hopefulness,” suggesting that numerous adherents of non-Christian religions may experience Christian salvation through their response to general revelation, apart from conscious faith in Christ (Pinnock 1992). The same year, John Sanders made a case for universally accessible salvation in a lengthy book titled No Other Name: An Investigation into the Fate of the Unevangelized (Sanders 1992).

Although they agree that salvation extends beyond the witness of the church through the universal work of the Holy Spirit, inclusivists are divided on the question of whether non-Christian religions represent means through which saving grace is mediated. This represents an area of significant disagreement among contemporary Catholic theologians (compare D’Costa 2000 with Dupuis 1997 and 2002). Evangelical inclusivists have generally been more hesitant to view non-Christian religions as means through which Christian salvation is mediated.

As an interpretation of religion, pluralism denotes the viewpoint that all religions are more or less equally valid paths to “salvation” (which is construed in a variety of ways). One of the most articulate pluralists in the English-speaking world was a British philosopher, John Hick. Hick claimed that all religions are culturally conditioned, yet authentic responses, to the same divine ultimate reality, which he called “the Real” (Hick 1989). Hick began his theological career as an exclusivist but later moved to pluralism (Hick 1980, 1–9). Harold Netland, a former student of Hick, offers a compelling critique of Hick’s “pluralistic hypothesis” (Netland 1991, 196–233; 2001, 158–246).

Although the exclusivist-inclusivist-pluralist typology has framed discussion in the theology of religions for several decades, four limitations beset it. First, a number of proposals cannot be easily located under any of the three categories. For example, Karl Barth is sometimes identified as an exclusivist; however, to the extent that Barth may legitimately be recognized as a universalist, his position defies easy categorization. Second, even among theologians who explicitly identify themselves with one of the three positions above, considerable diversity exists in the substance of their proposals. Third, the threefold typology is structured around soteriology. There are a number of important issues the typology does not address (e.g., the presence of truth in non-Christian religions). Finally, use of the label “exclusivism” within the threefold typology is pejorative and obscures the fact that all the positions outlined above are “exclusivist” in the sense that inclusivists and pluralists assume that their position is ontologically and epistemologically correct and defend their interpretations against rival explanations (D’Costa 2000, 19–98). While some theologians continue to use the typology, many have abandoned it and attempted to develop alternative paradigms.

Toward a Christian Theology of Religions

Four topics need to be addressed in developing a Christian theology of religions: theological interpretation of human religiosity, truth in non-Christian religions, salvation in non-Christian religions, and issues of contextualization related to non-Christian religious practices and beliefs. Because contextualization is discussed elsewhere in this volume, we will focus on the first three topics.

Human Religiosity

The Bible has no concept of “religion” as the term is used today (Bavinck 2003, 237). In the Old Testament, the objective dimension of religion is constituted by God’s revelation and reflected in “covenant” and “torah,” while the subjective dimension is captured in “the fear of the Lord” (2003, 237–38). In the New Testament, the objective dimension centers on God’s self-revelation in Christ, while the subjective dimension is expressed in “faith” and “love” (2003, 238).

Lack of a general concept of “religion” is also reflected in early Christian discourse. Prior to the seventeenth century, Christians used three primary categories to understand those outside the church: pagans, heretics, and Jews (Griffiths 2001a, 165). For nearly a millennium, Christians viewed Islam “as a Christian heresy rather than a non-Christian religion” (Griffiths 2001b, 3).

The concept of “religion” as a genus of which there are various species emerged from key developments in seventeenth-century Europe, including religious wars and growing awareness of non-European cultures (2001b, 3–7). This approach to religion was further reinforced with the advent of the formal study of religion in the nineteenth century, using psychological and sociological tools. This history does not mean that we should not use the term religion, but it is important to understand the history of this term.

Religious traditions include a number of elements: worldviews, stories, beliefs, ethical norms, rituals, social patterns, and religious experiences (Tennent 2010, 193; Netland 2001, 193–94, 328–29). Although religion and culture are distinct (such that the former cannot be reduced to the latter), the line between religion and culture is often difficult to discern. This presents a significant challenge in the area of contextualization. When evaluating the appropriateness of certain practices in cross-cultural contexts, missionaries often ask, “Is this practice cultural or religious?” The problem is that many practices are both cultural and religious. Christmas represents a case in point. There are both cultural and religious dimensions to the celebration of Christmas in North America. Moreover, the meaning of specific elements is shaped, at least in part, by context (e.g., “O Holy Night” playing softly in a shopping mall vs. sung by followers of Christ in a Christmas Eve worship service). In A Trinitarian Theology of Religions: An Evangelical Proposal, Gerald McDermott and Harold Netland offer a helpful discussion of the complex relationship between religion and culture (McDermott and Netland 2014). To adequately address issues of contextualization, we need a theology of culture alongside a theology of religions (Tennent 2010, 159–90).

The Christian doctrine of creation represents the starting point for theological reflection on human religiosity: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Gen 1:27 ESV). Although scholars debate the precise entailments of the imago Dei, capacity for relationship with God should be seen as a central component (Carson 1996, 210). This means that our religiosity is an essential element of our humanity. As Dutch theologian Herman Bavinck explains,

According to Scripture, humans were human beings from the first moment of their existence, created in God’s image, hence religious beings from that moment on. Religion was not something added later by a separate creation or a long process of evolution but is automatically implied in the fact of humanity’s having been created in the image of God. (Bavinck 2003, 278)

In light of this, it is not surprising that we encounter forms of religious expression in every culture.

Just as the eye is designed to see light and the ear designed to hear sound, God has given human beings a “natural aptitude for perceiving the divine” (2003, 278–79). Theologians have used a variety of terms to characterize this aptitude. John Calvin speaks about an “awareness of divinity” (divinitatis sensum) implanted in the human mind (Calvin 1960, 43). He also affirms that God has sown a “seed of religion” (religionis semen) in every human being (1960, 47). Although people sometimes use religion to deceive, this deception would not work were it not for the presence of this seed: “But they would never have achieved this if men’s minds had not already been imbued with a firm conviction about God, from which the inclination toward religion springs as from a seed” (1960, 45). Thus, we might think about non-Christians religions “as expressions of a genuine, although misguided, search and longing for God” by those who have been created in the image of God (Netland 2001, 334).

Of course, we cannot end our analysis of human religiosity with the doctrine of creation. We must also consider the devastating effects of the fall. The rebellion of Adam and Eve not only brought guilt and condemnation but also death and corruption (Genesis 3; Rom 5:12–21; 8:19–25). Every aspect of human life, including the religious dimension, has been corrupted by sin. The biblical category of idolatry is particularly important for understanding the scriptural analysis of human brokenness and rebellion resulting from the fall (Exod 20:3–6; Lev 19:4; Rom 1:18–22). Humans continually turn from God to other “saviors” (a recurring indictment in the Prophets). Thus, a paradox exists. Created in the image of God, humans long for a relationship with God; however, as sinners they rebel and hide: “While religion can be a way of reaching out to God, it can also be a means of hiding from him” (Netland 2001, 335). A final doctrine that must ground a proper understanding of human religious life is the demonic. While it is certainly wrong to attribute all non-Christian religious activity to demonic influence, some reflects demonic influence (Deut 32:16–17; 1 Cor 10:20; Eph 6:10–20; 1 Tim 4:1–3; 1 John 4:1–4; Rev 9:20).

Truth in Non-Christian Religions

A second issue a Christian theology of religions must address concerns the presence of truth in non-Christian religions. (When we think about truth in religious traditions, we tend to focus on doctrinal beliefs concerning God, the world, and human beings; however, it is also important that we include moral and ethical norms under the category of truth.) We can frame the question this way: Can we affirm the presence of truth and goodness in non-Christian religions and, if so, on what basis? One might assume that exclusive commitment to Jesus Christ as the way, the truth, and the life (and not a way, a truth, and a life) requires a negative answer to this question; however, as Harold Netland explains, “There is no reason to maintain that everything taught by non-Christian religions is false or that there is nothing of value in them” (Netland 2001, 333).

On what basis can one make such an affirmation? It is not because non-Christian religions represent an alternative means to the salvation purposed by the Father, accomplished by the Son, and applied by the Holy Spirit. Nor do we affirm the presence of truth because non-Christian religious texts, like the Bhagavad Gita, are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Elements of truth and goodness can be affirmed on the basis of general revelation, indirect influence of special revelation, and common grace. (In a sense, we account for truth in non-Christian religions in some of the same ways we account for truth in human culture more broadly.)

If God is to be known, God must reveal himself. Throughout the history of the church, theologians have distinguished two types of divine revelation: general revelation and special revelation. General revelation denotes the act of grace whereby God reveals himself to every human being through nature, conscience, and providence (Ps 19:1–6; Matt 5:45; Acts 14:16–17; 17:24–28; Rom 1:18–21; 2:14–16), while special revelation refers to the act of grace by which God reveals himself through historical acts (e.g., parting of the Red Sea), dreams and visions (e.g., Joseph’s dreams), divine speech (Exod 3:14), the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments (1 Tim 3:16), and the eternal Word made flesh (John 1:1–18; Heb 1:1–2). While Christian theologians have differed in their understanding of what may be known on the basis of general revelation (e.g., medieval debates whether God could be known as a Trinity of persons through general revelation), there is a general agreement that human beings have some awareness of the existence and nature of God. The gracious self-revelation of the triune God through nature and conscience represents the first basis for affirming the possibility of truth in non-Christian religions. As Bavinck explains, “But, however severely Scripture judges the character of paganism, it is precisely the general revelation it teaches that enables and authorizes us to recognize all the elements of truth that are present also in pagan religions” (2003, 318). While general revelation does not contain sufficient knowledge to bring someone to saving faith, certainly God can use it to prepare individuals for the gospel (preparatio evangelica).

Second, some religious truth may result from the indirect influence of special revelation. Islam represents a case in point. The Qur’an contains numerous references to people, events, and beliefs recorded in Scripture, including the six days of creation, Adam as the first human being, Moses receiving the Ten Commandments, Noah’s ark, Jonah being swallowed by a great fish, the ministry of John the Baptist, and the sinless birth of Jesus (Tennent 2007, 59). The fact that these references are included in the Qur’an does not mean the Qur’an is inspired, but it does suggest that the Qur’an makes some true claims. It should be noted, however, these truths are recast in a narrative and theological framework alien to Holy Scripture (2007, 67).

A final basis for recognizing truth and goodness in non-Christian religions can be found in the Reformed doctrine of common grace. Common grace refers to the non-salvific blessings the triune God extends to the entire human race (“common” in contrast with the “special” saving grace that is extended only toward the elect). Included under the rubric of common grace are God’s providential care for creation (e.g., making the sun rise on the evil and the good, Matt 5:44–45), restraint of human sin (Gen 20:6; 1 Sam 25:26), human government (Rom 13:1–6), the development of human culture, and many other blessings (Jas 1:17). While Reformed theologians have not generally connected common grace to non-Christian religions, Bavinck suggests that “an operation of God’s Spirit and of his common grace is discernible not only in science and art, morality and law, but also in the religions” (Bavinck 2003, 319). Common grace (in the context of the imago Dei) also provides a way to account for exemplary behavior among adherents of non-Christian religions.

Our discussion of the presence of truth in non-Christian religions raises a question regarding the use of non-Christian sacred texts in cross-cultural ministry. In Theology in the Context of World Christianity, Timothy Tennent explores the role of non-Christian religious texts in Christian mission (Tennent 2007, 53–75). Tennent suggests that Paul’s preaching in Acts 17 (in which Paul cites pagan sources in the context of proclaiming the gospel) provides warrant for limited use of non-Christian sacred texts (e.g., Qur’an) in evangelism and offers helpful guidelines to this end (2007, 71–73).

Salvation in Non-Christian Religions

A third issue that must be addressed in developing a theology of religions concerns salvation. The Christian doctrine of salvation represents a central focus of contemporary debate in the theology of religions—and rightly so. Three questions must be answered. Must we preach the gospel to adherents of non-Christian religions? Is it possible for adherents of non-Christian religions to experience salvation apart from hearing the gospel and responding in faith? What role, if any, do non-Christian religions play in mediating salvation? Obviously, one’s responses to these questions have significant missiological implications. In our discussion of exclusivism, inclusivism, and pluralism, we already mapped a spectrum of possible answers.

Constructively, four points can be offered. First, because they have rebelled against God, all human beings—including adherents of non-Christian religions—stand in need of the redemption initiated by the Father, accomplished by the incarnate Son, and applied by the Holy Spirit (Romans 1–8; Ephesians 1–3). Hence, adherents of other religions must be presented with the gospel (Matt 28:18–20). Second, the preaching of the gospel represents the means, under the New Covenant, through which individuals come to saving faith in Christ (Rom 10:9–17; 1 Cor 1:21). When people hear good news concerning the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit opens their blind eyes to see “the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ” (2 Cor 4:4 ESV). This does not mean that God cannot bring the gospel message through other means. Some former Muslims report that visions and dreams played a role in them coming to faith in Christ (Miles 2010, 334–36). Nor does it mean that the Spirit of God cannot providentially use other factors, including prior religious beliefs and experiences, to play a role in conversion. Third, the fate of the unevangelized is a difficult question—both pastorally and theologically—and it represents an area in which conservative evangelicals disagree. The justice of God is one of the central issues regarding the fate of the unevangelized. In this regard, we do well to remember that, according to Romans 1:18–21, every person has some knowledge of God and is without excuse; God will judge, and his judgment will be just; the church is called to bring the gospel to every person; and those who reject Christ will experience eternal separation from God. While inclusivists go beyond Scripture in confident pronouncements (on the basis of God’s “universal salvific will”) regarding large numbers of unevangelized who will be saved, Christian theologians nevertheless have, at times, cautiously acknowledged the possibility of the Holy Spirit applying the benefits of Christ’s work apart from conscious faith in Christ. For example, the Westminster Confession of Faith affirms that elect infants and other individuals “who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word” may experience salvation (WCF 10.3). What is clear in Scripture (but undermined by some inclusivists) is the fact that the appropriate response to the reality of the unevangelized is gospel proclamation. Finally, no scriptural warrant exists for affirming that non-Christian religions mediate Christian salvation, as some inclusivists have suggested (John 14:6; Acts 4:12).

Contemporary theologians who affirm that adherents of non-Christian religions can experience salvation apart from hearing the gospel and that non-Christian religions mediate salvation frequently appeal to the doctrine of the Trinity in substantiating these claims. Three examples will illustrate this trend. In The Depth of the Riches: A Trinitarian Theology of Religious Ends, Mark Heim, a Baptist theologian, suggests that the debate over the theology of religions proceeds on “a largely undefended assumption that there is and can only be one religious end, one actual religious fulfillment” (Heim 2001, 17). This assumption must be rejected. While Christians will experience salvation (i.e., communion with the triune God), adherents of other religions may experience other positive ends that must be distinguished from and fall short of salvation. These alternative “religious ends” arise from an encounter with the complex life of the Trinity: “I contend that distinctive religious ends sought and realized in other religious traditions are grounded in apprehension of and connection with specific dimensions of the divine life of the Triune God” (2001, 9).

In his book, Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism, the late Jacques Dupuis, a Roman Catholic theologian, argues on trinitarian grounds that non-Christian religions mediate saving grace. According to Dupuis, the saving action of the triune God is not limited to the Christ event. To the contrary, the “two hands” of God—the Word and the Spirit—are universally present and active in non-Christian religions (Dupuis 1997, 316). A “distinct action” of the nonincarnate Logos continues following Christ’s resurrection (1997, 299). The Spirit is also universally active following the incarnation. As a result of the Spirit’s inspiration, “revelation” can be encountered in sacred writings like the Qur’an. Building on the work of Karl Rahner, Dupuis claims that non-Christian religions constitute “channels of salvation” through which divine grace is mediated. For example, the worship of images may constitute a means of grace for Hindus: “[T]he worship of sacred images can be the sacramental sign in and through which the devotee responds to the offer of divine grace; it can mediate secretly the grace offered by God in Jesus Christ and express the human response to God’s gratuitous gift in him” (1997, 303).

In a monograph titled Discerning the Spirit(s): A Pentecostal-Charismatic Contribution to a Christian Theology of Religions, Amos Yong, a Pentecostal theologian, suggests that trinitarian pneumatology may provide the key to moving beyond the “christological impasse,” that is, “the almost irreconcilable axioms of God’s universal salvific will and the historical particularity of Jesus of Nazareth as Savior of all persons” (Yong 2000, 94). The metaphysical basis for Yong’s proposal is the universal presence of the Holy Spirit. Yong argues that the Spirit is present and active among non-Christian religions and that Christians must learn to discern the Spirit’s presence. The “foundational pneumatology” Yong develops is predicated upon a trinitarian distinction between the “economy” of the Word and the “economy” of the Spirit. Because the Spirit acts in an economy distinct from that of the Son, one should be able to identify aspects of the Spirit’s work that are not “constrained” by the Son (2000, 136). As a result, one need not require “Christological” criteria for discerning the Spirit’s presence. Although there is good reason to believe the Spirit is present and active in other religions, confirmation of the Spirit’s presence can come only through concrete engagement. When the Spirit’s presence is discerned, one may recognize a non-Christian religion “as salvific in the Christian sense” (2000, 312). Similar themes (in a more muted form) can be found in Yong’s subsequent writings (Yong 2003 and 2005).

I critically engage these theologians in Rethinking the Trinity and Religious Pluralism: An Augustinian Assessment and argue that Heim, Dupuis, Yong, and others undermine classical Christian teaching about the Trinity in order to marshal support for their constructive accounts of religious diversity (Johnson 2011, 67–140, 186–95). Although most evangelicals will not be attracted to the proposals of Heim and Dupuis, many evangelical inclusivists resonate with Yong’s pneumatological vision (even if they disagree on a few of the details). Yong is not alone in appealing to a distinct economy of the Spirit as the basis for a Christian theology of religions (Johnson 2011, 136–40; Miles 2010, 210–76). Not only are these pneumatological proposals inattentive to the pervasive Scriptural emphasis on the Spirit’s role in glorifying the Son (John 16:7–15; Acts 1:6–9; 4:24–31; 1 Cor 12:2–3), but they also employ subtrinitarian accounts of divine agency that sever the work of the Spirit from the Son and Father (Johnson 2011, 119–25).

Do the preceding criticisms suggest that the doctrine of the Trinity has no relevance to a Christian theology of religions? By no means! A trinitarian foundation has at least three benefits. First, it keeps the person of Jesus Christ central. Not only does orthodox trinitarianism depend on a high Christology, but the incarnate Son is also at the center of the trinitarian revelation and salvation narrated in Holy Scripture (John 5:39). It is troubling that some theologians have used “trinitarian” claims to undermine biblical teaching about the person and work of Christ. Second, building on the principle that the external works of the Trinity are undivided (opera ad extra sunt indivisa), a trinitarian approach holds together the unified work of the Son and Spirit in a single economy of salvation (2011, 116–35). Finally, a trinitarian approach invigorates the evangelistic mission of the church by reminding us that the missionary character of the church (which it cannot surrender without ceasing to be the church) is rooted in the very life of the triune God. The sending of the church is rooted in the dual sendings of the Son and the Spirit. Just as the Father sends the Son into the world, so the Son sends his disciples into the world (John 17:18; 20:21). The Spirit, who is sent by the Father and the Son (John 14:16, 26; 15:26), bears witness to the Son by preparing the way for and empowering the witness of Christ’s followers (John 15:26–27; 16:14; Acts 1:8; Rom 15:14–21; 1 Cor 2:2–5). In these ways, the doctrine of the Trinity provides a crucial foundation for Christian reflection on religious diversity.

Conclusion

Western Christians increasingly proclaim the gospel in a pluralistic environment in which there are “many gods and many lords.” The theology of religions serves the evangelistic mission of the church by reflecting on the significance of the presence, practices, and teachings of non-Christian religions from the standpoint of the self-revelation of the triune God in Holy Scripture. A Christian theology of religions is concerned not merely with the fate of the unevangelized but also addresses human religiosity, the presence of truth and goodness in non-Christian religions, salvation in non-Christian religions, and issues of contextualization. For this reason, a viable theology of mission must include a theology of religions.

Chapter 26

Introduction to the Strategy and Methods of Missions

Ebbie Smith

Christians participate in world evangelism because God wills it, Christ commissions it, the Spirit directs it, and the nature of redeemed persons and groups demands it. Missions rests on the Father’s unquestioned desire, the Son’s direct command, the Spirit’s unfailing presence, and the believer’s obvious responsibility. Christians engage in missions under God’s command, in his power, and for his glory.

World evangelization certainly must be implemented, but it must be implemented in God’s way. Missionaries must, therefore, seek the will of God, not only for the philosophy and the strategy of mission but also for the methods of missions as well.

Writers often use the terms strategy and methods (tactics) interchangeably. While closely related, the terms express different concepts. Strategy means the overall plan, principles, or ways by which resources and opportunities will be utilized in the task. The term methods, on the other hand, means the comprehensive and flexible body of tactics or actions, the detailed means by which God’s people implement the mission imperative (Crawley 1985, 26; Dayton and Fraser 1990, 13). Strategy then relates to the rationale upon which the enterprise rests, while methodology relates to the instrumentalities, agencies, and means for carrying out the mission (Soper 1943, 235).

A strategy might be to effect an indigenous church among each people group in a given area by a given date. The methods to reach this strategy might include surveying to understand each people group, deciding to begin with home Bible study groups, or to faithfully follow the path of no subsidy. Having made these distinctions between strategy and methods, we must affirm that strategy and methods are securely tied together.

This chapter on the strategy and methods of missions answers three basic questions. First, How are we doing in the effort to evangelize the entire world? Second, What are our overall plans (strategy) to accomplish the task of evangelizing the entire world? Third, How (by what means, methods, and actions) can every church and each Christian be involved in this plan to evangelize and congregationalize?

The Present Effectiveness of Missionary Strategy and Methods

How are we doing in our efforts to evangelize the world? Is the harvest commensurate with the opportunities? Are our strategies and methods the most effective they can be? Are we finding—or could we find—better ways? Is something wrong with the harvest?

Assessing Strategies and Methods

In 1965 Donald A. McGavran’s article, “Wrong Strategy: The Real Crisis in Missions,” called for changing from the “strategy of the fifties” to a new pattern of evangelizing lost people and starting new churches. Assessing then-existing missionary methodologies, McGavran contended that the real crisis in missions was the strategy that waxed enthusiastically about factory evangelism, confrontation, dialogue, the whole gospel, the whole man, and many other good things, without either intending or achieving the conversion of people or planting of new churches.

McGavran’s conclusion was that correct strategy must provide for multiplying churches to meet the needs of the expanding populations. Correct strategy must, he said, tailor churches to the needs of every population group, take church growth with total seriousness, and undertake bold plans for disciple making.

In 1975 communication experts James F. Engel and H. Wilbert Norton, in What’s Gone Wrong with the Harvest?, expressed the chilling fact that most churches and parachurch organizations were in an effectiveness crisis. These religious groups were not communicating with the target populations because they were using outmoded ways of speaking that concentrated on the “message” rather than the “audience.” Engels and Norton called for new plans for genuine missionary communication that involved receptor-oriented methods (1975, 1–30).

In 1980 Edward R. Dayton and David A. Fraser advocated what they named the “Unique Solution Strategy.” They criticized the approaches that used the same plan for every place and circumstance, which they called the “Standard Solution Strategy.” They equally disdained the “Being-in-the-Way Strategy,” which basically bypasses any genuine strategic planning and simply expected the Holy Spirit to direct. These writers also turned from the “Plan So Far Strategy,” which they say makes plans only and after situations arise.

The proper strategy, the “Unique Solution Strategy,” recognizes the necessity of tailoring each approach to fit the needs of each situation, in relation to time and culture. These writers intended to guide in finding the unique solutions needed for mission work in various places under differing conditions (Dayton and Fraser 1990, 14–17).

Obviously, “something is wrong with the harvest” and mission strategy is amazingly complex. Equally obvious, the Christian movement needs to consider carefully missionary strategy and missionary methodology both in the West and in the Two-Thirds World. Something is wrong with the harvest, and the problems often stem from the ways Christians seek to gather the fruit.

The Rise of Missionary Strategy/Methodology

Understanding the history of missionary strategy aids in understanding the directions missionary methodology today should take. New Testament Christians began the missionary enterprise evangelizing and starting churches as they moved out from Jerusalem. The message spread freely, and the expansion came through the effort of many Christians, “the nameless ones,” who carried their faith as they traveled or were taken to various parts of the world (Mathews 1960, 11–12).

Ulfilas (311–381), who worked among the Goths, used Scripture translation as a primary method. He may have been the first to use this linguistic and translation approach (Mathews 1960, 19–20). Scripture translation and the production of Christian literature have proved most valuable missionary tools.

Missionary methodology discovered a new avenue, when around 562, Columba founded the missionary training school on the island of Iona, off the coast of Scotland. Less than seventy-three years later, in 645, Aidan, who had trained at Iona, founded a training school at Lindisfarne, off the coast of Northumbria (Latourette 1965, 89). Adequate leadership training remains a significant missionary method.

In 590 Pope Gregory instituted a mission from an established church to another region when he sent Augustine and others to England (Latourette 1965, 93–94). Around 675, Boniface went from the monastery in England to the tribes in France and Germany. Boniface used a language understandable to the Europeans and also used aggressive tactics such as tearing down pre-Christian shrines and defying local gods (Beaver 1970, 9). The method of an established church sending missionaries to a mission field to evangelize and plant churches continues to be an effective missionary method.

Mission methodology during the twelfth through the eighteenth centuries leaves little to be imitated. Though grossly misdirected, wrongly motivated, and poorly practiced, the Crusades (1096–1291) at least awakened the Christian world to other lands and peoples. Primarily, the Crusades show the ineffective nature of force as a missionary method. During the Crusades, true missionary spirit remained alive in missionaries such as Francis of Assisi and Raymond Lull, who demonstrated unselfish love and devotion to others (Kane 1978, 192).

In the sixteenth through the eighteenth centuries, Christianity became a worldwide religion primarily by connection with the colonial expansion of the Portuguese, Spanish, and French Empires. Mission work was ostensibly in the hands of the Roman Catholic monastic orders but had actually become a function of governments. In most cases, the colonizers established a foreign Christianity and church and allowed increasing syncretism (Beaver 1970, 10–11).

During the colonial era, however, some progressive missionaries used missionary methods that are still effective. A Spaniard, Bartolomé de las Casas, gave up his holdings on Hispañiola and became a monk. Working tirelessly and in the face of intense opposition for humane treatment of the Indians, he became “Protector General of the Indians” in 1516 (Mathews 1960, 82). Seeking and providing humanitarian treatment for peoples in other cultures remains a viable missionary method.

Francis Xavier, an outstanding Catholic (Jesuit) missionary, began his ministry in 1542 in Goa, south India, where he won thousands of converts. Xavier moved on to Malaya, the Spice Islands (now Indonesia), and eventually Japan. Xavier served in Burma, Thailand (Siam in Xavier’s day), the Indochina region, and almost reached his final goal, China. Strategically, Xavier demonstrated the importance of missionary itineration and training as he traveled over Asia spreading the word. He formed the College of St. Paul in Goa at which national workers from across Asia were trained (Mathews 1960, 88–89).

Two other Roman Catholic missionaries, Robert de Nobili (1577–1656) in India and Matteo Ricci (b. 1552) in China, employed the missionary method of accommodation to culture. De Nobili and Ricci adopted the way of life of the cultures—learning the culture, the language, and adapting the message to the cultures.

Although a large Christian community developed out of Ricci’s work, the problem of accommodation raised such a debate in Catholic circles that the pope ordered the accommodation tactics stopped. In 1742, the pope ordered all “disobedient missionaries,” that is, those who continued Ricci’s method of accommodation, to return to Rome for punishment. Although the Jesuits lost the battle (the order was suppressed by the pope in 1759), they won the day. Today missionaries of all persuasions acknowledge the wisdom of accommodation or indigenization (Beaver 1970, 12–13).

Missions to the Indians in New England demonstrated several important factors in missionary methodology. The early Puritans sought to convert the Indians and to gather them into churches. Regrettably, they also attempted to turn the Indians into the same type of persons as the English Puritans (Beaver 1970, 14–16). The negative lesson tells missionaries that an indigenous church cannot develop when the national Christians are “made over” in the image of the foreign culture of the missionary.

David Brainerd (1718–47) embodied a deep spirituality and intense love for the Indians. He demonstrated the truest spirit of missions and preached sermons on the love of God that moved many to salvation. His diary influenced some of the noblest of missionaries—William Carey, Henry Martyn, Samuel Marsden, and Sheldon Jackson (Mathews 1960, 106) and blesses readers today.

The missionaries to the Indians in New England employed two other mission methods: gathering converts into churches and establishing Christian towns. The church-planting method proved the more positive. The Christian town method, based on John Eliot’s conviction that converts should be isolated from their sinful culture in order to grow in grace, proved ineffective (Beaver 1970, 14–16). In fact, such separation often proves a great inhibitor both of Christian development and church growth.

Piety and spirituality were also part of the mission work of the Danish-Halle mission from Europe. The Reformers (Luther, Calvin, and others) had little interest in or commitment to cross-cultural missions as we know them. The Moravians picked up the missionary torch that had been largely set aside by the Reformers. With such famous missionaries as Bartholomew Ziegenbalg, who worked in Tranquebar (India), Christian Frederick Schwartz, who worked in south India, and Count Zinzendorf, the Danish-Halle and Moravian missionaries did evangelism, church planting, education, and even medical ministry.

The nineteenth century has been called the “Great Century of Protestant missions.” While this period witnessed great Christian expansion, the missionary methodologies of the century combined both positive and negative aspects. One positive factor was the rise of missionary societies, groups of concerned Christians from various denominational backgrounds who banded together to promote and implement missions.

William Carey, in 1792, helped British Baptists escape their antimission stance. Carey, Andrew Fuller, and others established the Baptist Missionary Society to promote missions in India. By 1800 the London Missionary Society, the Church Missionary Society, the Netherlands Missionary Society, and others joined efforts to evangelize the world (Latourette 1965, 230–31).

Carey contributed to missionary methods in other ways. He demonstrated a far-sighted vision by giving attention to five elements. His first element called for the widespread preaching of the gospel by every possible means. The second element involved supporting proclamation by extensive distribution of the Bible in the languages of the peoples. Carey’s third element called for the establishment of the church at the earliest possible time. Fourth, Carey championed the careful study of the background and thought of the non-Christian peoples. Carey’s fifth element involved the training of an indigenous ministry. In each of these five areas, Carey achieved notable success (Neill 1964, 263).

During the Great Century, some less positive methodologies developed. Some missionaries became involved in humanitarian and educational work to the neglect of evangelism. More serious still was the development of the mission-station approach. The mission station often boasted a church, a school, a hospital, and sometimes a printing press. Missionaries congregated into the station (compound) and drew converts away from their own people in the station. Converts became socially and economically dependent on the missionaries, who usually ruled the station and gave little opportunity for the development of local leadership (Beaver 1970, 20–21).

Two mission strategists, Henry Venn and Rufus Anderson, influenced missionary strategy away from the mission-station approach and toward the indigenous-church methodology. They developed the “three-self” formula—calling for missionary churches to be self-supporting, self-governing, and self-propagating.

In line with Venn-Anderson theories of missions, John L. Nevius developed a strategy for indigenous churches in China, around 1880. Missionaries in China rejected his ideas, but they were accepted and implemented effectively in Korea. Nevius showed the limitation of subsidized patterns and the ineffectiveness of local leaders who were paid by the missionaries (McGavran 1980, 202).

Nevius projected six principles of missionary work that have contributed significantly to missionary methodology. He emphasized that each Christian should remain in the calling in which he resided when converted so as to support himself by his own work and be a witness in his own community. Second, Nevius called for church methods and machinery to be developed only to the extent that the local church could assume responsibility for the same. Third, Nevius taught the church itself should call out full-time leaders, and the church should support them. Fourth, churches were to be built in the style of the existing culture and by the local Christians from their own resources. A fifth principle in Nevius’s method called for extensive training of leaders. Nevius’s sixth principle called for existing churches to plant new churches (McGavran 1970, 337–38).

In spite of the excellent methodology projected by Venn, Anderson, and Nevius, as well as Gustav Warneck’s efforts toward a volkskirchen, nineteenth-century missions remained basically paternalistic and in some cases projected humanitarian concerns over the evangelistic. Education was emphasized among many mission groups. Missionaries sought to develop local elites who would eventually take over leadership in national Christian movements. The plan resulted in missionary-controlled, foreign-patterned churches and dependent Christians (Beaver 1970, 23).

Comity, another negative feature of nineteenth-century mission methods, called for agreement to avoid duplication of services. Prior occupation by one mission group was respected with newer mission groups going on to unreached areas (see Beaver 1970, 25–27).

Twentieth-century missionary methods were characterized by two basic patterns. One pattern, identified with the ecumenical wing of Christianity, leaned toward a methodology of gradualism, utilizing dialogue, presence, and seed sowing. Growing out of the international missionary conferences, this pattern was increasingly dominated by liberal theology and moved away from conversion concerns. The method of dialogue—talking with, respecting, learning “truth” from, but not attempting to convert those of other religions—became a primary strategy (Warren 1965, 178). “Christian presence” envisioned little or no idea of or plan for conversion. Seed sowing became the primary method even in ripe fields (Tippett 1969, 49–53).

The ecumenical pattern also emphasized humanitarian work and adopted the motto of “Partnership in Obedience.” The motto meant that responsibility and authority was to be shared and eventually given to the younger churches, that is, the churches in what had been mission fields (Beaver 1970, 25). Both efforts are valid but not if they neglect or leave out conversion efforts.

The second pattern of missionary methodology in the twentieth century, Great Commission missions, sought to “make disciples,” gather these disciples into local indigenous churches, and train them in Christian living and service. After World War II, Roland Allen gained popularity. In his books, Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours? and The Spontaneous Expansion of the Church, Allen advocated a methodology of communicating the gospel in its simplest form and forming a church that would then be led by the Spirit in matters of polity, ministry, and worship.

Donald A. McGavran, in 1955, began what has become known as the church growth movement, which stresses bringing people to salvation (discipling), teaching them scriptural truth (perfecting), and gathering them into local, culturally appropriate churches (congregationalizing). McGavran and his followers emphasized the need of using behavioral science and adequate research methods in order to better understand and promote the growth of churches. Church growth leaders stressed conversion, church planting, indigenization, and training (McGavran and Hunter 1980).

Great Commission missions includes humanitarian efforts. Educational and training works, medical and developmental services find expression in planning for Great Commission missions. These humanitarian efforts, however, are to be part of the effort to make disciples and plant churches, not substitutes for evangelism. Missions must never lose the two main thrusts—evangelistic outreach and church planting.

The twentieth century also saw the rise of strategies for reaching the unreached peoples—those who had been neglected or overlooked by missions until the present. A new emphasis also developed on reaching the unchurched in areas where the church has long existed.

A history of missionary strategy and methodology demonstrates the variety of approaches and ways by which the task can be realized. Many methods for doing the task exist, and the last ways have not yet been designed. Contemporary missionaries should constantly study both the situations and the methodologies and be ready to adjust the strategy to the situation.

What, then, is the state of missionary methodology? Missionary strategy today is in good shape. Discussion of methods continues and the search for more effective ways continues. Methodology improves as it is constantly scrutinized and updated. Because of this ongoing search, missiologists constantly discuss, modify, and revise mission methods, and hopefully improve them.

Effective Missionary Strategy

Overview of an Effective Missionary Strategy

Effective missionary strategy follows a planning model of ten steps (see Dayton and Fraser 1990, 32–37). The steps are:

The plan begins with the definition of the mission, that is, What will the effort attempt to accomplish?
Attempt to understand the people and their culture. Only as there is understanding of the culture, including worldview and religion, can the message and approach be tailored.
Decide on the missionary force. What kind of people with what skills will be needed?
Ascertain what methods and means can be used effectively in the region. Some methods may be ruled out by local circumstances, while other means might be indicated.
With this knowledge, allow the missionary group to establish approaches that promise an opening.
Anticipate the results.
Decide about roles among the evangelizing group. Some group members may accept support roles and in such be just as much a part of the missionary effort as those on the “front line.” In some team approaches, a part of the team earns the living for the entire group so the others are free to give time directly to the missionary effort.
Once roles are decided, definite and detailed plans are to be made and projected.
Place the plans so carefully formulated in motion.
Evaluate what has been done and the ministry’s effectiveness.
Readjust, could be added. The process is continued by starting over with the planning to see how matters have changed and adjust the methods.

This overview of missionary planning must now turn to more detailed aspects of missionary strategy.

Specific Characteristics of Effective Missionary Strategy

Indonesians have a delightful proverb, “Lain daerah, lain bumbuh, lain koki, lain rasahnja” (“different area, different spices, different cook, different taste”). Many strategies exist, but effective strategies almost always share common characteristics.

Effective missionary strategy centers on kingdom growth. The plan may relate to one people group or one national entity and to the work of one evangelizing group. The primary emphasis, in each case, however, should be on winning people into the kingdom of God and to the advance of this kingdom.

Effective missionary strategy is holistic. Holistic mission strategy often emphasizes the humanitarian aspects of the gospel that must accompany direct witness. This emphasis is well taken. Humanitarian efforts, so long as they do not result in neglect of evangelism, are certainly part of the gospel.

We use the term holistic missions in a slightly different light. Holistic missions means that mission endeavor should cover the entire array of missionary objectives and ministries, making room for evangelism, discipling (perfecting), church planting, church development, leadership training, humanitarian needs, compassionate efforts, and other physical aspects of life. Any mission strategy that falls short of the total range of mission and human needs does not pass the holistic test.

Holistic missions does not, however, mean that every missionary and every mission group must do everything in responding to their particular missionary calling. If another missionary or another mission group fulfills a community’s basic need for a certain ministry, effective strategy might direct other missionaries toward unmet needs.

The Missionary Aviation Fellowship has centered on helping missionaries reach difficult destinations. The Wycliffe Bible Translators have provided Scriptures in indigenous languages as a major part of their work. These organizations, though less holistic in their approaches, have contributed significantly to missionary effectiveness.

Effective missionary strategy should be research based. Effective strategies (and methods as well) are discovered rather than conceived; they are based on valid and careful research. Every Christian group should constantly monitor what it is doing, how it is doing it, and what results are occurring. Research is a spiritual undertaking. Few procedures waste more than those that continue year after year with no effort or willingness to analyze methods, evaluate results, or seek more productive patterns. To fail or refuse to seek and act on the facts revealed by research is basically unfaithfulness to God.

Effective missionary strategy remains result oriented. Effective missionary strategy closely monitors results. What is accomplished by certain methods should be studied against the goals set for the ministry. Is the strategy (or method) producing quantitative, qualitative, and organic growth? The effectiveness test must be applied to every phase of strategy. Goal setting, including faith projections for growth, is biblical, natural, and practical. Goals are important as growth seldom comes about naturally. Growth comes when it is planned for and worked toward. Few efforts increase effectiveness more than goal setting.

This result orientation demands consideration of the responsiveness of the people to whom ministry is directed. Effective strategy requires that responsiveness rather than need should determine the allocation of missionary resources. Such a strategy does not overlook the unresponsive. It only requires that most missionary resources be employed among those who are responding. George Hunter teaches that the emphasis on receptivity constitutes the church growth movement’s greatest contribution to world evangelization (McGavran and Hunter 1980, 104).

Effective Missionary Methodology

Much of what has been said about effective strategy relates as well to methodology. Strategy remains less direct than methods, but both respond to many of the same ideas. This section looks more directly at effective missionary methodology.

Missionary Methodology and Holy Spirit Power

Effective missionary methodology relies strictly on the power of the Holy Spirit; these methodologies never leave out or overlook the ministry and place of the Holy Spirit. God is sovereign. He alone gives growth. Methods do not produce growth. The Spirit can grant growth in spite of our poor methods. Our use of the most effective type of methods does not and cannot force God to give growth (Smith 1984, 46).

The Holy Spirit, on the other hand, leads us to the methods we will use. The Holy Spirit motivates us to employ those methods to the best of our ability and energy. The Holy Spirit grants effectiveness to our methods. Methods only allow us to be better used of the Spirit in reaching the growth God desires.

It shows no faith in God and the power of his Holy Spirit to say, “We will not plan but only depend on the Holy Spirit.” The fact is that the Holy Spirit has an affinity for better methods. To refuse to seek better means for doing God’s work may speak more of sloth than of faith (Dayton and Fraser 1980, 175–76). John Stott states, “To use the Holy Spirit to rationalize our laziness is nearer to blasphemy than piety” (1975, 127). Effective missionary strategy and methodology both recognize fully the place of the Spirit’s guidance and power in the task.

Missionary Methodology and Flexibility

Effective missionary methodology must be flexible. The terms comprehensive (or inclusive) and flexible have been called the central axioms of mission methodology (Crawley 1985, 301). Donald McGavran underlines the importance of flexibility in methods in church growth as he flatly states, “No single formula achieves it” (1965, 460). C. Peter Wagner concurs, insisting that once a goal is set for church growth, there is always more than one way to accomplish the goal. Part of good mission planning is thinking through the many alternative plans and selecting the methods that have the most promise (1986, 27).

Flexibility does not mean that any method is acceptable. Methods that are congruent with biblical teachings and produce a biblically approved result are acceptable. Biblical congruency does not demand that the method be directly mentioned in Scripture but does demand that the method not compromise biblical values. Acceptable methods refuse to use unbiblical means such as force or manipulation (Smith 1984, 18–19).

Missionary Methodology and Evangelism and Church Development

Effective missionary methodology centers on evangelism and church development. Church starting remains a vital part of both evangelism and church development. Church planting is the most effective evangelistic method for increasing the harvest (Wagner 1990, 1–3). Only churches that are planted can be developed. McGavran correctly observed that right strategy devises “hard, bold plans” for planting churches and then carries out these plans. Many activities, good in themselves, do not contribute to winning the lost or establishing churches (McGavran 1965, 459).

Churches are an integral part of any effective missionary strategy. We must go beyond this one idea, however, and affirm that effective strategy calls for particular kinds of churches. The phrase “kinds of churches” is all-important. Effective methodology is not satisfied with the formation of only one particular kind of church in every locale. Rather, effective strategy and methodology insists that the kind of church or churches planted in a region be accommodated to the needs and styles of the people, or peoples, in that region.

It is entirely possible, even probable, that the most effective evangelization of a given region would require the planting of many different kinds of churches. The most effective missionary methodology has been that approach that leads to the formation of many different kinds of totally sound Christian churches in the most culturally fitting local dress.

The preceding sentence describes in part an indigenous church, which is the goal of proper missionary strategy and methodology. To achieve any degree of an indigenous nature, the local church must be free of outside control. The congregation must accept itself as the body of Christ in the service area and must act accordingly. In most cases, if not all, foreign subsidy detracts from the self-image and self-functioning of churches and results in dependency. Self-support should not, however, be the primary goal of missions. The goal should be a viable, self-reliant, self-sustaining church that through its own strength and resources can reach and minister to its people.

Mission methodology today calls not simply for an indigenous church but for a “dynamic equivalent” church. Dynamic equivalence, a term borrowed from linguistics, expresses the way of translating for meaning, force, emotion, and power, rather than simply seeking formal correspondence from one language to another. Dynamic-equivalence churches are never patterned slavishly upon the churches in the home country of the missionaries. Dynamic-equivalence churches reproduce the life of the New Testament churches in cultures today. Dynamic-equivalence churches produce the same dynamics in cultures today that the churches of Paul’s day produced in Asia and Greece (Kraft 1973, 36–57).

Missionary Methodology and Cultural Appropriateness

Effective missionary methodology insists on being culturally appropriate. Effective missionary methodology recognizes the cultural diversity of the world and adjusts methods to each of these cultural groupings. Culturally appropriate methods accommodate gospel communication, the polity of the churches, the patterns of worship, and the forms of Christian architecture to local ways. These methods make no attempt to impose foreign ideas or ways on local churches or Christians. Culturally appropriate methods and church life reduce the danger of paternalism—that foreign dominance that often develops in missionary situations.

Accommodation does not include or involve compromise of Christian or biblical teachings. The message, the essence of the biblical gospel, remains solidly intact. Only changes in methods of expressing this truth, ways of worshipping together, means of church government, and the manner of proclaiming the Lord would be approved. Proper accommodation remains on guard against any tendency to merge Christian teachings with pre-Christian, nonrevealed ideas. Any merger or mixing of Christian and non-Christian elements, syncretism, must be avoided at all costs.

Missionary Methodology and Reproducibility

Effective missionary methodology incorporates the characteristic of reproducibility. The goal of missionary activity is the incorporation of responsible, reproducing believers into responsible, reproducing churches. Should the methods used by the church leaders produce expectations that cannot be reached by the new Christians and the new congregations, the methods cannot be accepted as genuinely effective. The provision of expensive equipment and budget items that the church itself will never be able to provide for another congregation fails the test of reproducibility (Smith 1984, 38–40). Charles Brock declares that “reproducibility” should be written on the heart of every church leader, especially those engaged in starting new churches (1994, 124–32).

Only reproducible methods offer the possibility of a continuously expanding ministry. Dependence on the sponsoring group delays, and sometimes even prevents, continuing expansion. Every method must pass the test of reproducibility. Can this method and its results be reproduced by the new Christians, the new congregations, or the new Christian group? Effective methodology enables the mission to answer yes!

Contemporary Missionary Methodologies

This section answers the question, How can individual Christians and churches participate in world missions? What specific methods allow personal and church participation in missionary efforts? Missions today enjoy more opportunities and more ways to realize them than ever before. These specialized methods are quite diverse, ranging from plans to disciple special groups to other means that allow believers to accomplish specific Christian services. The following is a suggestive list rather than a complete list of specialized ministries.

Group Methodology

Some current methodologies relate primarily to groups in mission. These methods allow churches and other missionary groups to participate in the mission.

Metachurch and Cell Groups. The metachurch, using cell-group methodologies, has become a widely used method for churches. The metachurch method employs cell groups coupled with celebration of the larger number for worship (George 1992, 76–77). The cell-group method has been termed the house-church method and has been employed as a major method in many parts of the world.

Specific Means for Particular Groups. Specific means for particular groups constitutes an effective method used in contemporary missions. Philip Goble has suggested that many current efforts to evangelize Jewish people exemplify the New Testament “Judaizers” mistake in reverse. The Judaizers insisted that people had to become Jewish—accepting Jewish rituals, dietary formula, and holidays—to become Christian. Today, some insist that Jews leave their Jewish background and worship as non-Jews. In contrast, Goble suggests the method of messianic synagogues, which allow Jewish people to worship Jesus as Messiah but do so without breaking unnecessarily with their Jewish backgrounds (1974).

Phil Parshall has adopted a similar approach for reaching Muslims. Parshall’s method makes use of what he calls Isa mosques. In this effort, Muslims are brought to Christ in ways that do not unnecessarily divide them from their own people (1980). Goble and Parshall are among a growing number of missionary strategists and tacticians who seek out particular patterns to evangelize special groups of people.

Innovative Methods. Innovative church methods and worship styles, designed for Baby Boomers-Busters, Generation X, and Millennials, constitute effective methods in contemporary society. These innovative methods begin with the purpose of reaching the unchurched. Whatever changes in methods that will enhance this purpose are gladly embraced. Rick Warren terms this type of methodology the “purpose-driven church” (1995, 75–78).

The innovative churches may use different music and worship formats; they may employ newer ways of proclamation; they may meet at different times. All they do remains inside the biblical foundations and is done from the desire and intention of reaching the unchurched. The innovative churches are reaching multitudes of persons largely untouched by the traditional congregations.

Marketing Techniques. Many churches are using professional marketing techniques to enhance their abilities to reach and minister to their constituencies. Marketing techniques employ professional tools to understand the communities they serve and find better means to catch the attention of persons in these communities.

Training. Increased training efforts constitute another method of Christian service in today’s world. Leadership training in seminaries has been a primary method in training church leaders through the past fifty years. Attention now is turning to decentralized methods that employ distance-learning techniques in order to provide training on different levels to many different groups of leaders and prospective leaders. This new method offers great promise for future leadership training.

This list of newer methodologies could easily be expanded. The important truth at this point is: It is acceptable to innovate! Methods should be constantly monitored and changed when change seems necessary. The Christian movement must remain conservative as far as the message is concerned, but it can be radical in methodology. Never leaving biblical truth, the Christian movement should consistently seek new ways to communicate and spread the truth of Jesus.

Individual Methods in Missions

Christians today enjoy a multitude of avenues of service in world missions. Some of these avenues call for career or full-time commitment. Others are open to those who are led to other career fields but desire to fulfill a missionary commitment as well. Any willing Christian can be involved in Christian service in this world through any number of methods.

Career Service. Some Christians respond to God’s call to career church service. Christian ministry continues and will continue to need career, long-term, open-ended workers. In spite of the trend toward and the popularity of short-term, bivocational missionary experiences, the most effective Christian service at home and abroad remains the incarnational missionary who gives himself to a long-range commitment to a people. Career missionaries can fulfill their missionary callings through many tasks other than that of pastor.

Today almost any career field can find a place in the missionary task of most mission groups (boards or societies). God needs those whom he has gifted for cross-cultural ministries to commit themselves to long-term effort to spread the gospel in other cultural settings.

Short-term Service. Other Christians respond to God’s call for short-term service. Many Christians, just as dedicated and committed as career workers, fulfill their missionary callings by sharing the gospel through short-term opportunities. Short-term missionaries may serve in opportunities such as what the Southern Baptist Convention’s International Mission Board calls “journeymen,” college graduates who invest two years of service on a mission field. They serve as teachers, nurses, publication workers, student evangelists, in agricultural missions, and many other areas.

Other short-term mission ministries include student summer or one-semester workers, volunteers who accept assignments of a few weeks or a few years, and those who become involved in mission work while they are overseas on business or vacation travel. One of these programs, called “tentmaker,” allows Christians to serve in mission situations while residing and working overseas. Many, but not all, short-term opportunities allow the missionaries to work in English-speaking assignments.

An increasingly popular mission opportunity, partnership missions, provides church groups with the chance to serve alongside career missionaries on foreign fields. Usually a pastor and a group from a church or churches will link with a church on the mission field and provide complementary service to the missionaries and nationals on the field.

Mission Service Corps and International Service Corps, for Southern Baptists, provide an opportunity to serve for one year or longer. The types of service open to Mission Service Corps missionaries is practically unlimited. This opportunity offers one more opening in the exciting area of short-term mission involvement.

Short-term mission service is not second-rate missionary experience. These opportunities have been and will be greatly used to advance the kingdom. Christians from many walks of life and vocational backgrounds, who never consider career missions, find opportunities in short-term missions.

Opportunities for Individual Service

Christian ministry today offers increasing areas of opportunity. Widening areas of exciting opportunity exist for any who desire to participate in God’s worldwide plan. Skills and experience never go to waste. God’s work can and does use a variety of means to carry out the missionary task. Both career and short-term missionaries can use every skill in contemporary missions.

Exciting opportunities surround the method of the nonresident missionary. Some peoples cannot be served by resident missionaries because political or other considerations render direct, continuous contact impossible. The nonresident missionary program calls for missionaries to live in one country, study the target people group, work with refugees from the group, and as opportunity arises, travel into the areas were the group lives for short-term contact. Nonresident missionaries can serve peoples otherwise cut off from the gospel.

Tetsunao Yamamori suggests a bold strategy for reaching what he calls “closed countries.” Missionaries would function much like tentmakers, who witness and evangelize in areas closed to traditional missions but open to relief ministries. These missionaries would use any open door, but they would especially seek to use hunger relief in finding open avenues for the gospel (1989, 15).

Teaching English as a second language opens the door for many Christians who desire to share in missions. Certified teachers of English as a second language can enter and share the gospel in various countries that cannot be otherwise entered. Many Christians will seek definite training in order to fulfill this important missionary service—often in regions where missionaries could not otherwise serve.

Conclusion

Christians and churches today, living in a pluralistic world, face persons who have chosen to follow many different religious paths. Missionary strategy and methodology must provide an enlarging package of ways to approach and win these misdirected persons to Christ. Committed missionaries, who hold biblical convictions concerning salvation and who recognize God’s call to serve (either as career or short-term workers), can find effective strategies and means (methods) by which to participate in world evangelization.

Chapter 27

Missions in North America

J. D. Payne

North American missions. For many people, that phrase is an oxymoron. It ranks up there with word combinations such as “open secret,” “awfully pretty,” “bitter sweet,” and “original copies.” It does not seem correct to have “North American” and “missions” in the same sentence. After all, is not missions that which occurs “overseas,” in another country, or among an exotic people?

Of course, this is a leading question, especially when this book on missiology includes a chapter on North America. While in some church conversations North American missions is rarely discussed, the reality is that the need for such kingdom activity is needed more today than ever before. Not only does lostness in the United States exceed 75 percent of the population and exceed 92 percent of the Canadian population, but this continent is experiencing significant changes related to secularization, migration, and the church finding herself in a post-Christianized context (Pew Forum survey 2007; Mandryk 2010, 194). The purpose of this chapter is to address the topic of missions in the United States and Canada in light of these realities.

The United States is growing quickly, becoming more ethnically diverse, experiencing an aging population, and witnessing much economic division (Brookings Institution 2010). Canada is experiencing a mini-baby boom but also has a fast-growing senior adult population (Census 2011). In addition to these realities, matters such as urbanization, homosexuality, poverty, trafficking, pornification of society, church health/revitalization, use of technology, partnerships between churches and parachurch organizations, and leadership could be addressed in a chapter on missions in North America. These are all topics worthy of consideration and shape kingdom expansion here. However, given the brevity of this chapter and the purpose of this book on missiology, this chapter addresses some of the most fundamental theological and missiological matters that North American evangelicals must grasp for effective missionary engagement in a post-Christianized context.

Pluralism and the Plurality of Faiths

Two particular cultural issues that will continue to affect the church and missions for years to come, and worth mentioning here, are pluralism and faith diversity. From a religious perspective, pluralism advocates that all faith traditions are legitimate and good—provided none of them advocate harm to others. All roads lead to God, Nirvana, paradise, the Other, or whatever the tradition advocates as its eschatology. Relativism runs high in the North American religious context. The pluralistic ethos that saturates North America challenges the church on the exclusivity of Jesus. Either Jesus is the way to God and explicit faith must be placed in him (John 14:6; Acts 4:12), or he must be acknowledged as one expression of God’s love for the world among many paths to salvation/enlightenment.

Closely related to pluralism is the growing number of those who advocate no religious preference. Presently, 20 percent of US adults subscribe to no religious preference, including one-third of those under the age of thirty (Pew Forum 2012). This number of religiously unaffiliated places the United States in third place (with 51 million) of the countries with the largest numbers of people in this category.

Missions will quickly fade if the church chooses to embrace a soteriological perspective that fails to embrace Christ’s exclusivity. This matter of diversity and competing worldviews is another reminder of the importance for the church to know her context as she labors to make disciples of all nations in North America. Contextualization matters. Such worldview shifts and declining numbers of Protestants call for the church to understand people demographically, geographically, culturally, spiritually, historically, politically, and linguistically for clear gospel communication.

Strangers Next Door

Another important cultural shift worth mentioning at the outset of this chapter is related to the movement of the people of the world. While migration is not new, the size of the populations migrating from their countries of birth is massive. The twentieth century was called the Age of Migration because of the waves of people leaving their countries of birth (sometimes freely, sometimes by force) (Castles and Miller 2009). Presently 214 million people live outside of their countries of birth, which is equivalent to 3 percent of the world’s population. Unfortunately, for most North Americans, the foreigners living in their communities are only strangers next door (Payne 2012).

Immigrants on the Move

For many years, the United States has received by far the largest annual number of international migrants, being 20 percent of the global population migrating each year. No other country in the world even comes close to such a percentage. Canada receives more than 3 percent. By mid-year 2010, it was estimated that 43 million people had immigrated to the United States and 7 million to Canada (United Nations 2010).

Students on the Move

In addition to those migrating to North America for employment, family reunification, and so on, students are another significant group moving to this continent for education. In 2008, Canada hosted 79,500 international students (OECD 2010). The number of international students studying in the United States has been increasing over the past several years with the 2012–13 academic year reaching a record high of 820,000 students. The following table provides a list of the top places of origin for those students studying in the United States (Institute for International Education 2013). A quick glimpse at the table below reveals that many students are coming from countries with large numbers of unreached people groups.

Rank	Country	2012–13 Academic Year
1	China	235,597
2	India	96,754
3	South Korea	70,627
4	Saudi Arabia	44,566
5	Canada	27,357
6	Taiwan	21,867
7	Japan	19,568
8	Vietnam	16,098
9	Mexico	14,199
10	Turkey	11,278
14	Nepal	8,920
15	Iran	8,744
18	Indonesia	7,670
20	Thailand	7,314
21	Malaysia	6,791

Refugees on the Move

Those seeking refugee status among the countries of the world are fleeing their homelands because of threats to health and life. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, in 2010 North America had 4 percent of the global refugee population. The United States housed 264,600, with the United States resettling 71,400 and Canada 12,100 people (UNHCR 2010). By the end of 2011, 42.5 million forcibly displaced persons were living somewhere in the world. While four-fifths of the world’s refugees were hosted by developing counties, many were (and continue to be) located to North America (UNHCR 2011). The following table notes the refugee arrivals in the United States by country of nationality in 2010 (Martin 2011).

Iraq	18,016
Burma	16,693
Bhutan	12,363
Somalia	4,884
Cuba	4,818
Iran	3,543
Congo, Democratic Republic	3,174
Eritrea	2,570
Vietnam	873
Ethiopia	668
All other countries, including unknown	5,691
Total	73,293

Unreached Peoples

Evangelicals have better data on unreached people groups living on the backside of the Himalayas than they do on that same people group living across the street from them in New York, Toronto, Chicago, or Montreal. For forty years, evangelicals have discussed, identified, studied, and strategized to reach the unreached peoples of the world living in Majority World countries. People group information housed by the Joshua Project, Global Research Department (IMB), and the World Christian Database is easily accessible—provided that the information desired is not related to the people groups living in the United States and Canada.

When I wrote Strangers Next Door: Immigration, Migration, and Mission, I wanted to draw attention to the movement of unreached peoples to the West. In addition to showing the number of people by their countries of birth, I noted the estimate of the number of unreached people groups living in Canada and the United States. This approximation was based on estimates from Global Research Department. The following table shows the estimated number of unreached peoples living in these countries.

Country	Unreached People Groups
Canada	180
United States	361
Total	541

What is important with these numbers is that if they are representative of the number of unreached peoples living in the United States and Canada, then these two countries would be placed with the third and fifth largest numbers, respectively, of unreached peoples among the countries of the world. The table below shows this statistical comparison for 2012.

Rank	Country	Number of People Groups
1	India	941
2	China	368
3	United States	361
4	Brazil	187
5	Canada	180

The majority of disciple-making and church-planting activities by North American evangelicals in North America take place among reached people groups. This is most unhealthy and reveals the shallowness of our understanding of missions. Something is missionally malignant whenever North Americans are willing to make great sacrifices to travel to another country to reach an unreached people group but are unwilling to identify those peoples living in their communities and walk across the street to reach them.

Least Reached Places in the US and Canada

Wise stewardship requires asking about the most needy areas of North America when it comes to gospel proclamation. Of course, gospel need is anywhere lostness exists. However, in light of the church’s limited amount of people, time, and material resources, discernment is necessary for knowing where to begin and concentrate kingdom efforts.

One strategic question is simply to ask, “Where are the least evangelical areas?” While not every evangelical is a follower of Jesus, and his disciples are found among other Christian traditions, evangelical concentrations is an excellent benchmark for measuring lostness among a people. This marker has been used for years throughout the world. However, only recently have evangelicals started applying this standard to North America (Payne 2014).

Caution should be used when using evangelical concentrations as a benchmark. While such numbers provide a high-altitude perspective across a general population, such numbers often mask the realities of unreached people groups living in these communities. For example, Kentucky is 33 percent evangelical. However, sizeable Somali and Bosnian populations live in Louisville and Bowling Green, respectively. Alabama is the most evangelical state in the US, at 42 percent, but has Saudi Arabians, Yemenis, and Nepalis (to name but a few unreached people groups) living in places like Birmingham and Tuscaloosa. Nashville has quite a high concentration of evangelicals and churches. However, the city is also home to the largest concentration of Kurds in the country.

The following table notes the least evangelical states in the United States. It should be noted that many countries in the world have greater evangelical percentages than those found in certain areas of the United States and Canada. More will be stated on this matter below.

State	Evangelical Percentage
Utah	2%
Rhode Island	2%
Massachusetts	3%
New Hampshire	4%
Vermont	4%
New Jersey	4%
Connecticut	4%
Maine	4%
New York	5%
Delaware	7%

Though at the time of this writing, I have been unable to locate evangelical percentages in select Canadian locations, one of the best resources showing evangelical church-to-population ratios is Discipling Our Nation: Equipping the Canadian Church for Its Mission. Editor Murray Moerman has compiled extensive tables for provinces, territories, and cities in Canada. While too many to list here, the following table notes the number of evangelical churches to the population in only a few selected cities (Moerman 2005, 265–315).

Metro Area	Province	Evangelical Church-to-Population Ratio
Quebec City	Quebec	1:23,331
Saguenay	Quebec	1:21,733
Trois-Rivieres	Quebec	1:9508
Montreal	Quebec	1:8688
Sherbrooke	Quebec	1:8668
St. John’s	Newfoundland	1:6718
Ottawa-Gatineau	Ontario	1:6129
Oshawa	Ontario	1:5381
Toronto	Ontario	1:5229
Great Sudbury	Ontario	1:4764

No Geographical Boundaries

Other chapters of this book have addressed the biblical and theological foundations for missions. Therefore, I will refrain from too much redundancy. The Great Commission is not limited by geographical parameters. Even a casual reading of the book of Acts reveals the advancement of the gospel from Jerusalem, into Judea and Samaria, and throughout the Gentile regions of the world. To use texts such as Acts 1:8 as support for a dichotomization of foreign disciple making and domestic disciple making is an anachronism and proof-texting. For the church, her parish is the world, to paraphrase John Wesley.

Of course, such disciple making required crossing cultural gaps. For first-century Jewish believers to make disciples among other Jews in Jerusalem was a near-culture act. However, once word returned to the Jerusalem church that the Samaritans (a race of mixed Jewish and Gentile bloodlines) had received the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:14–15), any notion of the gospel being exclusively for the Jews started to fade. And, once the God-fearing Gentiles (Acts 10) and Gentiles living in Antioch (Acts 11:19–26) received the Word, the notion of “all nations” (Matt 28:19) was no longer a theoretical construct but a practical reality. The gospel had quickly moved from a near-cultural context to a slightly different cultural context to a radically different cultural context. Yet, no missionary crossed an ocean. No missionary traveled overseas.

Blurred Boundaries

The United States has never been a homogenous country. While we have been a country comprised of a white majority population (a fact that is predicted to change this century), cultural diversity has been present. For example, 13.5 percent of the 318 million people presently living in the United States are non-US born. Canada has an even greater amount of ethnic diversity. While the country has a much smaller population (35 million), 20 percent of the population was not born in Canada. Cities such as Toronto and Vancouver boast of half of their populations being non-Canadian citizens.

While the migration of the peoples of the world is as old as the exodus from the garden, globalization and rapid transportation has contributed to the borders of many countries becoming porous to the foreigner. Ethnic diversity is now commonplace as people migrate. These movements have allowed for the church to experience near and distant cultural disciple making and church planting in her immediate context. For example, Somalis are no longer in Somalia. They are in Columbus, Ohio; Seattle, Washington; Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Louisville, Kentucky.

Both the United States and Canada are countries of immigrants. Even the Native Americans and First Nations Peoples migrated from Asia. While evangelicals have a long history of clear lines of demarcation between the foreign and domestic, abroad and home, international and North American, the truth is that such has never existed among the people living here. Clearly, greater movements of people have occurred since the twentieth century, but following the arrival of the Europeans, many of the peoples of the world mixed together within the borders of this continent.

Churches and mission agencies that are bound to thrive in the twenty-first century are those who recognize the biblical evidence never separated disciple making as “over there” from “over here,” and that twenty-first century realities involve the blurring of cultural lines between home and abroad. The reached are here and there; the unreached are too.

Missions to the Diasporas

In preparation for the 2010 Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization held in Cape Town, Sadiri Joy Tira, senior associate for Diasporas, developed the booklet Scattered to Gather: Embracing the Global Trend of Diaspora. This helpful resource delineates three practical ways to think about missions and migration. The first, and the one that has been addressed in detail already, is missions to the diasporas. This includes disciple making among the unreached people living outside of their countries of birth.

Missions through the Diasporas

A second means of understanding missions and migration is that of seeing those living in diaspora as taking the gospel back to their family and friends wherever they may be found in the world. North American church leaders who take seriously the Great Commission will recognize the importance of equipping the saints to do the work of the ministry (Eph 4:11–12). This includes preparing and releasing minority groups to spread the gospel across their social networks.

Missions beyond the Diasporas

The third means of understanding missions and migration is related to minority groups becoming cross-cultural disciple makers. Churches in North America must recognize one important means of reaching the peoples on this continent involves seeing diasporic groups taking the gospel to those unlike themselves. Many North American evangelicals have defined church planting in terms of a near-culture act. The white demographic is expected to plant churches among white people. African Americans in the United States are supposed to reach people like themselves. Koreans are to reach Koreans. Hispanics are to reach other Hispanic peoples.

Missions beyond the diasporas is also critical when it comes to global disciple making beyond North America. North American churches that fail to see the incredible opportunity to equip and partner with Asians and Hispanic peoples, in particular, are missing out on a wonderful opportunity to engage the Islamic Bloc across the globe. Anecdotal evidence notes that the Spirit is using many Asians and Hispanics to communicate the gospel effectively, without some of the cultural barriers experienced among white populations. For example, peoples of Hispanic descent do not have the negative history with many Muslims that European and Americans do as a result of the Crusades and recent military campaigns and global capitalism. Hispanics have similar cultural connections with many Arabic peoples, including some language commonalities. Their physical appearances have similarities as well.

The US and Canada among the Nations

The United States is the third largest country in the world in terms of population behind China and India. While Canada has a much smaller population, geographically it is the second largest country in the world behind Russia. Most of the population of the country resides within two hundred miles of the US-Canadian border. It is estimated that the United States is 26 percent evangelical (Pew Forum survey 2007) with Canada at 7.7 percent (Mandryk 2010, 194).

While the greatest needs for the gospel and church planting are found outside of North America, a little perspective is necessary. North American evangelicals have a history of speaking as if they are the only ones in the world to carry out the Great Commission, and that their context is already reached with the gospel. Granted, North America has a large Christian population, but the continent is best understood as a post-Christianized environment. Many Majority World countries have evangelical concentrations that are much larger than Canada, and even the United States. The following table notes a few of these countries (Mandryk 2010, 914).

Country	Evangelical Percentage
Kenya	49%
Uganda	37%
Central African Republic	32%
El Salvador	32%
Zimbabwe	31%
Nigeria	31%
Nicaragua	30%
Burundi	27%

Post-Christian Field

From the time the Protestant missionary movement began in 1792 to the time following Lesslie Newbigin’s return to England from serving as a missionary in India for forty years (1936–74), Western civilization had experienced cultural shifts that resulted in pluralism and a privatization of faith matters from scientific objectivity. The shadow of the steeple had diminished across the West, leaving behind a church with little influence and value according to society. Modernity was giving way to postmodernity with its understanding of a truth being constructed by societies and being relativistic and not universal. While Newbigin was not the first to draw attention to the post-Christian West, he called the church to rethink the notion of mission in a post-Christian context. His solution was that the church needed to think of the West as being in need of missionary (i.e., apostolic) activity and not as a reached context (Newbigin 1986).

Shift: Simple to Complex

Over time in the West, and North America in particular, the church matured and grew. Such is desired whenever the gospel spreads across a people or population segment. This transformation brought about several ecclesiological shifts that, given a few centuries, now need to be reshaped in light of missionary activity in North America.

Whenever the gospel enters into an area, it often does so with a great deal of simplicity. The communication methods and models to imitate are often those that approach the unbelievers, and eventually new believers, with the basics in mind. Things are often simple in nature with little complexity so that the gospel may spread rapidly and with honor (2 Thess 3:1). Such biblical simplicity helps foster the rapid dissemination of the gospel and the multiplication of disciples, leaders, and churches.

However, as the gospel spreads and churches develop and mature, infrastructures, systems, and organizations become more and more complex. Such development is not necessarily a bad thing; in fact, it may be necessary to sustain health and mission. Challenges come whenever such complexity hinders the rapid spread of the gospel, multiplication of churches and leaders, and overall sanctification. For example, years of colonialism and the use of a mission-station paradigm taught the church the dangers of complexity. What began as missionary activity with few elements beyond biblical simplicity developed into a highly structured paradigm for ministry and mission. Such was the case in Majority World contexts, and such has been the case in North America.

Shift: Apostolic to Pastoral

With a maturing church comes the need for developing leaders. Again, this is good. What began with missionaries planting churches from out of the harvest fields has now resulted in the need for more and more pastoral training. Elders are needed to oversee the churches and equip them for doing the work of the ministry (Eph 4:11–12). What started as people asking the Philippian jailer’s question, “What must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30), has shifted to them asking, “How do I now faithfully follow Jesus?”

Shift: Apostolic Missiology to Pastoral Missiology

Over time, missions in such a society becomes filtered through a pastoral lens instead of a missionary (i.e., apostolic) lens. What began as apostolic labors crossing cultural gaps resulted in established churches now doing evangelism among people culturally like themselves. Again, this is a good and expected result. However, the problem arises whenever such disciple-making methods—and the missiology to support those methods—are more conducive to reaching a people of a similar culture as the churches doing the work of evangelists. Such disciple-making methods not only involve reaching the community with the gospel but also assimilating them into the membership of churches with well-defined cultures of long-term kingdom citizens already in place.

Shift: Missionary Methods to Pastoral Methods

If the church in a context shifts her thinking from a missionary (i.e., apostolic) mind-set to a pastoral mind-set, then evangelism, church planting, and leadership development will also reflect these changes as well. A pastoral approach to missionary activity in a post-Christianized context is not necessarily a failure to think and function missionally but rather to apply a pastoral approach to missionary labors.

A pastoral missiology—and the methods derived from it—are geared more toward maintenance and the conservation of structures and organizations. This is not necessarily a bad thing, for such is the nature of pastoral ministry and the care for the flock. And while pastors should be apostolic and missionaries should be pastoral, in North America, the expectation is for missionaries to identify themselves as pastors and function accordingly with pastoral methods. Yet, when missionaries function primarily as pastors (and pastors primarily as missionaries), frustration and problems often arise. There are different callings and giftings in the Body for a reason (1 Corinthians 12). Missionaries and pastors are not the same people (Eph 4:11–12).

As Goes Theology . . .

Theology shapes missiology, and missiology shapes field practices (see diagram below). What is believed about the Bible influences what people do. For example, how one answers the question, “What is a church?” will affect everything a church-planting team does. Ecclesiology will determine the team’s strategy, methods used, resources needed, who can serve as elders, and so on. If the Church understands herself from the perspective of a well-established, mature body—with all of the structures and organizations that have developed over the centuries—then she will labor to plant that understanding in the post-Christianized context.

There is a dynamic relationship between the theological foundations of the North American church and her missiology and methods. If the church in North America begins with a complex ecclesiology and a well-developed pastoral ministry, then the disciple-making and church-planting methods used will also be complex and difficult to reproduce by new believers.

Send Out the Scaffolds

While done with good intentions, a pastoral missiology is not geared toward the mission field, or even a post-Christianized one. Such a missiology desires to maintain and control rather than empower and release others to be and function as local churches in their contexts. Such an approach to missions results in planting churches with long-term kingdom citizens rather than with recent converts from the harvest. A pastoral missiology understands missionaries to be like a scaffold but desires that scaffold to remain attached to the building and pastor the people indefinitely.

What is needed in a North American, post-Christianized context is to recognize missionary teams as scaffolds that are only temporary. They exist for a season until the construction is complete then are removed to repeat their function at another construction site. They do evangelism that results in disciples made. They gather those new believers to covenant together as the local expression of the body of Christ. They work with the new churches to raise up elders with the people. They equip the new elders. And, they continue the disciple-making efforts elsewhere to result in new churches and pastors (see Acts 13–14).

Both/And

As long as a context has a large number of believers (with few cultural differences from the unbelievers), then a pastoral model may be sufficient for reaching that context. However, the post-Christian context of North America demands both pastoral methods and missionary (i.e., apostolic) methods. While we have many structures and models in place applying a pastoral missiology to the United States and Canada, a missionary paradigm is greatly lacking.

The post-Christian context has created a pressure point on the church. She presently finds herself attempting to do mission in a nonmissionary way. However, such does not seem to be the case, for the terms missionary and missional have been used for decades. However, the pastoral missiology has in some ways redefined such terms and attempted to apply such terms through the context of pastoral methods. The challenge to the North American church is:

to maintain pastoral responsibilities among a mature church with long-term kingdom citizens;
to equip and send apostolic bands to do evangelism that results in new churches;
to raise up pastors from those churches to lead those churches in the multiplication of disciples, churches, and other leaders.

Both Wings of the Airplane

Conversations abound among evangelicals regarding the health of long-established churches on this continent. It is wrongly assumed that once a local church becomes healthy, then she will be prepared to make disciples of all the people groups (both majority and minority groups). Therefore, as common discussion goes, we must first focus on helping all of these churches become healthy before moving out on mission. However, it is in the faithfulness to the Lord’s command of making disciples that sanctification occurs among the Body.

For many churches, talk of survival often consumes much of their energies. Yet, what is often defined as needed for survival are concerns related to paying off debt, keeping the electricity on, and providing the pastor a financial package. While such things are not necessarily wrong, it must be acknowledged that they are not necessary for a church to survive and thrive. Such concerns and conversations that rise to the level of hindering the church from being about the work of the ministry are sinful and require repentance. And, for evangelicals finding themselves consumed with such matters, it is necessary to recognize both the theological and missiological shifts that must occur. Jesus never promised the continuation of our culturally developed structures and organizations. He never promised continual perpetuation of our institutions. He did promise that he would never leave us or forsake us (Heb 13:5), that his Spirit would fill and seal us (Eph 1:13; 5:18), and that he would build his church (Matt 16:18).

Missions in North America demand both a pastoral approach to established churches and an apostolic approach to sending missionary teams to the unreached people groups and the lost in unreached places who live here. The call to make disciples of all nations in North America requires both a colaboring of pastors and missionaries.

Future Shifts

In order for the North American church to better engage unreached peoples living on this continent, whether they be long-term citizens or recent arrivals, several shifts are necessary. Some of these are the reversal of the aforementioned shifts that developed over time with the maturation of the church in North America. The church needs to embrace an apostolic missiology that results in missionary methods on the field, without discarding the church as it is expressed through the predominate pastoral missiology. These transitions need to occur while the church continues to exist and minister as a mature and well-developed body. Such shifts will help poise the church for healthy church multiplication movements. Granted, such transitions will not be easy, and it is likely that most churches will not make these shifts. The challenge and pain of transition will be too great. Churches that are most likely to move forward are those who embrace a radically biblical approach to sending missionary teams to function in apostolic ways when it comes to making disciples, planting churches, and appointing pastors with those churches.

Conclusion

The future of effective missions in North America will be a challenge for the church. This is partially due to the reality that our understanding of the Great Commission task is shaped by what the Lord has used to sanctify us. In a context where a well-developed and mature church has existed for centuries, it is difficult to think of that environment as being in need of apostolic labor. However, biblical definitions of missions and present post-Christianized cultural challenges reveal the importance of the church both continuing her pastoral ministries and developing and sending church-planting teams to do evangelism that results in new churches.

Chapter 28

Strategies for Starting Churches

Daniel R. Sanchez

Christians frequently ask, “Why do we need to start new churches?” They sometimes base this question on their feelings that there are better ways to win the lost. Others question the need for new churches, contending that we already have enough. Still others question the need for new churches out of fear that starting new churches will weaken existing churches! Some say only strong churches should start new ones.

These and other misconceptions, together with a pervasive lack of vision, deter Christians from committing themselves to the imperative, demanding, and exciting task of starting churches. In 1965 Donald M. McGavran declared that the real crisis in missions was “wrong strategy,” which he defined as doing many good things but leaving undone the task of winning men and women to Christ and forming these believers into local congregations. McGavran stated that the only method that would meet the expanding needs of the world mission would be to constantly multiply churches.

Reasons for Starting New Churches

Both biblical and practical considerations indicate reasons Christians should be involved in church starting. This chapter addresses these reasons for starting new churches and analyzes principles that can guide church-starting efforts.

Biblical Reasons for Starting New Churches

The New Testament indicates that church planting was the primary method the apostles utilized to fulfill the Great Commission. Jesus Christ sent his followers to “make disciples” (Matt 28:19). The imperative (command) of the Great Commission, matheteusate, means “make disciples.” The participles “going,” “teaching,” and “baptizing” express the manner in which the task is to be carried out. How did the disciples “make disciples”? They did so by establishing churches.

When the disciples heard the Great Commission, they undoubtedly thought of the way in which Jesus had discipled them. They remembered that he had shared with them the message of the kingdom, invited them to follow him, instructed them, prayed with them, fellowshipped with them, and sent them out to evangelize. When the disciples subsequently dedicated themselves to the task of fulfilling the commission of Jesus, they thought not only about communicating the message but also about gathering the people so they would form a fellowship and continue to grow spiritually.

We see evidence of this process in Acts 2:40–47. This passage indicates that the message of salvation was proclaimed (v. 40), that the people who received the word were baptized and added to the church (v. 41), and that the new believers persevered in the apostles’ doctrine and the breaking of bread and in prayer (v. 42). This passage shows that the new believers had tangible evidence of the presence of God among them (v. 43), ministered to the needs of others (vv. 44–45), worshipped and fellowshipped in the temple and in the homes (v. 46), found favor with all the people, and experienced the Lord’s adding daily to the church those who were being saved (v. 47).

In this passage we see the basic activities of a church: (1) proclamation, (2) incorporation, (3) instruction, (4) worship, (5) prayer, (6) communion, (7) ministry, (8) fellowship, and (9) propagation. Clearly, when the apostles dedicated themselves to the task of fulfilling the Great Commission, they preached the message and congregated the believers to be discipled. In other words, they planted churches. Lyle Schaller affirms this truth: “For many Christians the central argument in support of planting new churches is to be found in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18–20)” (1991, 27). After reviewing the wide variety of activities in which Christians have been involved (e.g., benevolence, education, translation), Schaller further concludes:

But number one on this list of responses to the Great Commission has always been the creation of new worshiping communities called congregations, or parishes, or missions or churches. Throughout the centuries this has been the most common attempt to obey the directive of Jesus to make disciples from among those who have been living outside the faith. For some this is the only legitimate answer to the question of Why? (1991, 27)

Practical Reasons for Starting New Churches

Several practical reasons both justify and demand the practice of starting new churches.

The first reason relates to the worldwide demographic explosion. Even areas that have had good church-to-population ratios in the past now find themselves losing ground because of the rapid population growth.

Established churches generally tend to plateau by the time they are around ten years old. Part of the reason for this stems from the fact that as churches mature, they tend to concentrate on maintenance activities and lose the evangelistic fervor they had in their initial stages. Some churches fail to develop new sectors of society from which they can draw new members.

New congregations are more flexible and can adapt quicker to the needs of their communities. Many established churches are quite satisfied with their worship, education, evangelism, and leadership styles. This satisfaction leads the churches to become less willing to change in order to reach new people (or peoples).

It is impossible for any one church to reach and retain all the people groups in its city. Often different groups hold different preferences with regard to the music, worship, and leadership styles. Schaller affirms, “There is not a congregation that possesses the ability and the financial resources to attract, reach, serve, and respond to the needs of all the residents of a community” (1991, 50). Obviously, there exists a need for different churches to meet the different tastes and styles of the people. This is not to say that a church should reject people who do not have the same tastes, but it does mean that people have the tendency to attend the type of worship service in which they feel comfortable.

It is easier to win people if we start a congregation in their community or close to it. Many communities (sometimes entire cities) do not have churches. It is highly unlikely that unchurched people will travel long distances to visit a church. The closer churches are to the people, the easier it will be to reach them with the gospel and disciple them.

New churches generally win and baptize more unchurched people than older and more established churches. Studies completed by several denominations indicate that a great portion of their conversions and baptisms are because of the efforts of the newer churches (Malphurs 1992, 42). Often these rapidly growing new churches serve among ethnic or other minority groups.

Starting new churches can inspire established churches toward church planting. Many churches that have started new congregations have experienced revival. After seeing their daughter congregations grow, established churches have gained a new enthusiasm and have enlarged their vision of fulfilling the Great Commission.

Members in new churches participate more fully in the activities of the church if they do not live far from the church. In other words, the discipleship of the members is affected by the distance they live from the church. Usually, people who live far from the church attend only one service during the week, either Sunday morning or Sunday night. In most instances, these members do not participate in the activities that help them grow in discipleship (e.g., prayer meetings, fellowship meetings, and church ministries).

These powerful reasons should convince Christians of the imperative to start new churches. An important question arises as to how this task of starting new churches should be accomplished.

Principles for Planting Churches

The New Testament provides the five key principles regarding church planting. In Acts 11 to 15, for example, the way by which one church was instrumental in establishing other churches is described in detail. These chapters also provide guidelines concerning the ways those who were sent out started new churches. In these chapters, the New Testament gives both the understanding of the principles and the guidelines to apply them. Clear understanding of the principles of church planting that arise, both from biblical teachings and practical experience, are imperative in the process of planting strong congregations.

1. Churches Need to Be Involved in Starting New Congregations

These passages show that the New Testament churches set aside and supported church planters. Christians who fled the persecution in Jerusalem established the church at Antioch (Acts 8:4; 11:19). Upon arrival at Antioch, they began to reach people of their own cultural group (Acts 11:19). Within a short time, however, this church expanded its vision to reach people of other cultures in its community. Verse 20 says they also spoke to Greeks with the gospel.

The vision of this church was enlarged even more when, guided by the Holy Spirit, they set aside a missionary team (Barnabas and Saul) to plant churches in other regions. Barnabas and Saul had worked together in the church at Antioch for a year. It was a sacrifice for the Antioch church to give up this team that was contributing to the growth of the congregation. Undoubtedly, this church had also benefitted from the financial contribution of these two workers. In order for new churches to be started, established churches must be willing to share their human and financial resources.

2. Select Target Audiences Wisely

The second principle is that those who plant churches should select carefully the place and the peoples where they will concentrate their efforts. The first task of Paul and Barnabas was to choose where they were going. Missiologist Roland Allen asserts that the Holy Spirit guided Paul to concentrate his efforts on strategic centers (e.g., Ephesus, Corinth), using them as a base for spreading the gospel (1962, 10–17).

Further, there is evidence in the book of Acts that this team of church planters was aware of the presence of different people groups and of the existence of different levels of receptivity. Several times in Acts, the cultural groups are mentioned, and their receptivity to the gospel is described.

The missionaries habitually began in the Jewish synagogues among the Jewish people. In the synagogues, however, Paul and Barnabas found various groups of people. Some who showed the greatest receptivity to the gospel were “God-fearers,” Gentiles who were attracted to the Jewish religion but had not officially joined it. Also the missionaries found the “proselytes,” Gentiles who had been integrated into the Jewish religion. Those who were least receptive were the traditional Jews, although a good number of them converted as well. An awareness of this difference in response enabled this church-planting team to make wise decisions regarding the strategic places and groups where it would concentrate its efforts.

3. The Church Must Communicate the Message with Relevance

The third principle calls for those who are planting churches to communicate the message of salvation in a way that is relevant to the target group. In the book of Acts we note that the church planters utilized a great variety of methods in order to communicate the gospel. They used private communication (Acts 8) and group communication (Acts 13; 17; 19). These efforts included several means of communication: preaching (Acts 2), teaching (Acts 10), and witnessing (Acts 26). The effort also included such forms of communication as monologue (Acts 2) and dialogue (Acts 17). Attention was also given to styles of communication, such as proclamation and exhortation (Acts 13) and apologetic and polemic (Acts 17:19). Paul and his coworkers utilized the means of communicating that best facilitated the communication of the gospel to the different cultural and religious groups (1 Cor 9:19–22).

4. Believers Should Be Gathered into Congregations

Because Jesus Christ’s disciples understood their task as “making disciples,” rather than only “getting decisions,” they dedicated themselves to the task of congregating and discipling the new believers. Paul and his coworkers did this in the cities where there was receptivity to the gospel. For example, in AD 47 no Christian churches were in Asia Minor, but by AD 57 Paul and his coworkers had started congregations in each of the provinces of that region. They not only preached the message; they congregated the believers.

The task of congregating believers into Christian fellowships was often difficult for Paul and his coworkers. In the face of persecution, they felt that gathering the believers was so important that they met in homes, in rented places, in schools—wherever they could find a place. Church starting did not depend on church buildings.

5. The New Congregations Need to Develop Continually

The fifth principle is that those who plant churches should have a plan to develop or mature the new congregations. Paul and his coworkers did not only congregate the believers, but they helped the believers grow in their spiritual lives:

And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch, confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God. (Acts 14:21–22 KJV)

Besides helping the believers to mature in their faith, Paul and his colleagues developed leaders and guided them to carry out their tasks in the churches. “So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed” (Acts 14:23 NKJV).

Having examined the establishment of churches in the book of Acts, five general principles are obvious. These principles can be utilized in any cultural setting in any part of the world, but their application will be varied. It is important, therefore, to know how to apply these principles to the sociocultural context in which one lives and works.

Applying the New Testament Principles

One of today’s greatest challenges is applying biblical principles to a sociocultural context—a process sometimes called “contextualization.” In this section we will discuss the application of church-starting principles to specific situations in our communities.

Application of Principle 1: Involving the Church in Starting New Congregations

As the church in Antioch, today’s churches need to be willing to make sacrifices and invest personnel and financial resources so new congregations can be started. Generally speaking, there are two ways in which new churches are started: (1) pioneering and (2) colonizing. In the pioneering approach, the church planter starts from scratch, generally at a distance from the churches providing support. Because of this distance, the church planter cannot count on church members to provide a core for the new congregation or to assist with outreach activities. This reality means that the church planter will need to find local resources to get the church started. In some instances, church planters, usually missionaries, train local leaders to start new congregations.

In the colonizing approach, local congregations can have a greater role in starting new churches. The colonizing approach calls for the sponsoring church to send a group of people, sometimes called the core group, to actually become the initial members of the new congregation. If this method is to become a reality, churches need to catch a vision and understand their role.

The local church can become involved in starting new churches by catching the vision for church planting. A church can catch this vision through Bible study and prayer. Studying the New Testament (especially the book of Acts) can bring a church to the conviction that it is the will of God that new churches be started. When the church at Antioch persevered in the study of the Word and in prayer, it caught a vision of the will of God regarding its missionary role. The Holy Spirit said to them: “Separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them” (Acts 13:2 NKJV).

In addition to Bible study and prayer, a church can catch a vision for church planting through visiting the targeted communities. All activities that help the members of the churches to understand the needs of a community aid the members in developing a vision. One church that has established hundreds of units (home Bible studies, ministry centers, and missions) has the practice of taking church members to visit the different communities during the Sunday school hour. These church members visit communities where churches are desperately needed (e.g., poor neighborhoods, sociocultural groups, apartment communities). When they see many children playing in the streets, adults sitting in front of their houses just passing the time of day, neighbors fighting, intoxicated people, and youths using drugs, they return with a new vision of what their church should be doing to reach these people with the gospel.

The local church can become involved in church starting by understanding the role of the sponsoring church. Helping a church to understand the need for and the role of sponsoring churches can motivate these fellowships to start new congregations. If we follow the analogy of the sponsoring church as a mother, we can speak first of prenatal care. This involves the spiritual, emotional, sociological, philosophical, and strategic preparation of the mother church.

The sponsoring church must have spiritual preparation for church planting. The church must come to the conviction that the Great Commission can best be fulfilled by winning souls and establishing churches and that God wills exactly this to happen. This conviction should become so strong that the church accepts the establishment of new congregations as one of its highest priorities. The pastor can help the church to prepare spiritually through the preaching of sermons, prayer, and training.

The church can come to an understanding of the role of the sponsoring church through emotional preparation. The church needs to be willing to accept the responsibility of giving birth to and guiding this new congregation. The mother church will have to be willing to sacrifice finances and personnel so the new congregation will have what is necessary for it to grow. In some cases the church will have to postpone the acquisition of some things that are desirable, but not absolutely necessary, in order to help the new congregation. Such sacrifice demands emotional as well as spiritual preparation.

The church can come to an understanding of the role of the sponsoring church through sociological preparation. The more the mother church knows about the demographic makeup of the target community, the deeper will be the determination to plant churches there. The more the sponsoring church understands the characteristics of the target community, the better it will utilize its resources. This knowledge will help determine the type of congregation needed, the type of programs that are better suited to the needs of the community, and the evangelistic methods that will be most effective in winning the people to Christ.

The sponsoring church can better understand its role as it answers the following questions: What is our goal for the new congregation? Is it that it remain a daughter mission forever or that it become a church in due time? A study of indigenous church philosophy will help at this point. This philosophy teaches that indigenous churches have: (1) self-image, (2) self-function, (3) self-government, (4) self-support, (5) self-propagation, and (6) self-giving (Tippett 1969, 154–58).

Self-image means that the new church arrives to a stage of maturity in which it sees itself as the church of Jesus Christ in its community. Self-function means that the church carries out, with indigenous leadership, all the activities of a church (e.g., worship, instruction, ordinances). Self-government means that the new church makes its own decisions and is able to face the consequences of these. Self-support means that the church shoulders its own financial responsibilities. Self-propagation means that the church takes the Great Commission seriously and is devoted to the task of fulfilling it by winning souls and reproducing itself. Self-giving means that the church utilizes its own financial resources to serve the people in its community.

Although these characteristics of the indigenous churches may seem to be simple, there is a great variety of ways in which these apply to the different sociocultural contexts. In order to develop contextualized churches, it is necessary to give attention to implementation of these characteristics.

Self-government does not only mean that the church makes its own decisions, but also that the church utilizes its own style of reaching decisions. The different cultural and socioeconomic groups have different decision-making styles. There should be flexibility so the congregation utilizes its own way of making decisions provided these are in agreement with the Scriptures.

Self-support means that the church supports itself, but this is also done in different ways. The model of a full-time pastor and a full-time staff serving a congregation that owns its own building is not applicable in all settings. Many churches do not have the financial base for this. In many places where the churches are growing rapidly, a significant number of pastors are secularly bivocationally employed in order to serve their congregations.

Self-propagation does not mean that the churches establish other churches, but that they establish the type of churches that reflect the surrounding culture and not a foreign culture. The sponsoring church should clarify its philosophy of church starting as it prepares to give birth to a daughter congregation.

The church can understand the role of the sponsoring church through methodological preparation. Another question that should occupy the minds of the leaders in the mother church is, What model should we follow in establishing this new congregation? There are several models that are being utilized in the establishment of new churches: (1) The mother church establishes a daughter congregation; (2) several sister churches work together to start a new church; (3) a multicongregational church; and (4) satellite congregations.

The first of these models, Mother Church/Daughter Congregation, is one of the most frequently used methods. This method has an advantage in that the sponsoring church assumes responsibility for the new congregation. This model also fits better with the ecclesiology of some denominations. The sponsoring church can watch after the doctrinal soundness of the daughter church. A possible disadvantage of this model is that if the mother church does not pay sufficient attention to the new congregation, it could suffer from lack of support. Another possible disadvantage is that the mother church can exercise too much control, thus not giving the daughter congregation an opportunity to develop into an autonomous, indigenous church. These disadvantages, nevertheless, can be overcome if the mother church fulfills its role with love and wisdom.

A second model involves multiple sponsorship. This model allows several churches to sponsor a new congregation. The model is helpful where there are few established churches with sufficient finances to sponsor a congregation on their own. An advantage of this model is that the new congregation can have sufficient human and financial resources. A possible disadvantage of this model is that each of the sponsoring churches may wait on the others to care for the needs of the new congregation. A way to overcome this disadvantage is to designate one church as the primary sponsor. The other churches can help this church care for the new congregation.

The third model results in a multicongregational church. Multicongregational models are especially suited for multicultural cities. In many countries churches share their buildings with other congregations that have their worship services at other places in the building, at different times, and perhaps in other languages. One of the advantages of this model is that the church can reach a community even if the community has several cultural groups. Another advantage of this model is that in cities in which the cost of the buildings is excessively high, several congregations pool their resources as they use different areas of the building at the same time. For example, there are congregations that have their Sunday school, while the other congregations are using the sanctuary for the worship service.

A fourth model is the Mother Church/Satellite Congregation. In the satellite-congregation model, a mother church can have several daughter congregations in different communities. Often the church staff from the mother church is involved directly in the ministry at the satellite congregation. This model has several advantages. One is that the daughter congregations can benefit from the support and the image of the mother church. Another advantage is that this church can have ministries among the different cultural and socioeconomic groups in the city.

A possible disadvantage of this model is that some of these congregations may have the potential of developing into churches but may not have the opportunity to do so. A way to overcome this disadvantage is for the mother church to have a flexible methodology that encourages the congregations that have the potential to become established churches as soon as possible. Other groups, due to their limitations, may remain as ministries of the church for a long time.

The church can become involved in church planting through establishing a missions committee. Becoming involved in the establishment of new congregations demands the church to capture a vision, understand its role as a sponsoring church, and also establish a missions committee. A missions committee can help the church identify the communities that need churches. This committee can create an environment in the church that is favorable for the establishment of new churches. It can coordinate the efforts of the church so there is no duplication of efforts. This committee can set goals with regard to the establishment of new churches. It can be the channel of communication between the daughter congregation and the sponsoring church.

Meeting regularly with the pastor of the daughter congregation, the missions committee can be aware of its needs and look for resources within the sponsoring church. This committee can help the daughter congregation resolve its problems, especially when it does not have a pastor. This committee can help the sponsoring church continue supporting the daughter congregation if the church is without a pastor.

Application of Principle 2: Wisely Selecting the Target Audience

Choosing an appropriate site for a new congregation is not an easy task. Because there are many needs and limited resources, the church must be wise in the stewardship of its resources. Nevertheless, several things can help the church make the right decision: (1) a demographic analysis, (2) a religious analysis, (3) an interview of key leaders in the community, and (4) a survey of the people in the community.

A demographic analysis can greatly aid the church in selecting the target audience by providing an idea of the potential for new congregations that exists in prospective communities. A complete analysis could include factors like number of inhabitants, socioeconomic groups, types of housing, educational level, types of employment, and types of family structures.

The analysis of the number of inhabitants could be compared with the figures of previous decades in order to have an idea if the population has grown or declined. This analysis in many cases includes age groups and cultural groups. This information can help the church know the potential of that community. In general, churches grow when they are in communities that are growing. Churches also grow when they reach age groups or cultural groups (e.g., immigrants) that no other church group is reaching.

An analysis of types of housing, along with analysis of socioeconomic levels, can help a church determine the type of ministry and leadership needed in that community. Different socioeconomic groups have different tastes regarding leadership and worship styles. The more that is known about these groups, the greater the likelihood that right strategy will be designed for reaching them with the gospel.

An analysis of the types of employment and of family structures can also help to determine the needs of that community. For example, if there are many single heads of households, this indicates certain types of ministries that can be used as outreach ministries.

A religious affiliation analysis can aid the church in selecting the target audience for the new congregation by determining if this is the most strategic community in which to start a church. There is a sense in which every community needs to start more churches. However, because churches do not have the resources to start churches in all the communities, it is necessary to find the most strategic communities. It is helpful, therefore, to address the following questions: (1) How many churches are there in this community? (2) How many of these churches preach the gospel? (3) How many of the community are being reached by these churches? (4) Are these churches reaching all the socioeconomic and sociocultural groups?

Generally, the census taken by governmental agencies does not gather information about the religious affiliation of the people. This information can be obtained in the following manner: (1) making a list of the churches of that community; (2) interviewing the leaders of these churches and asking them how many active members they have, and how many of these are from the community that surrounds the church; and (3) visiting these churches to find something about the groups that are not being reached, the worship styles, and the ministries.

This information from the religious affiliation analysis can help a church determine the potential for starting a new church in that community. This information can also help the church to determine what strategy it will need in order to reach the people in that community.

A people survey of the community can aid the church in selecting the target audience for the new congregation by providing information about the community but even more by bringing the sponsoring church members into direct contact with the people in the target community. Church members are usually somewhat reluctant to participate in a community survey. This is partly because in many cases the people who have taken these surveys in the past have not had a very pleasant experience. In certain communities it may be difficult to gather information from the residents. In these cases other methods to gather information should be used. These questions should be asked: (1) What are some of the needs in this community? (2) Why do many of the people in this community not attend a church? (3) What type of activities in the church do you think would help you and your family to deal with the problems of life? (4) If we were to start Bible studies to help the families in this community, would you be interested in attending?

The purpose of these questions is to know the needs of the community, determine what types of ministries would help the community, and discover the people who would be interested in attending a Bible study. These questions may need to be changed in accordance with the lifestyles and socioeconomic levels of each community.

Application of Principle 3: Communicating the Message in a Relevant Manner

The eternal and unchanging gospel can be presented in different ways to lend relevance to this message in the minds and hearts of people who are to receive the Word. Many people in different communities have spiritual needs but, like the Samaritan woman (see John 4), they need someone to help them understand their need and find a solution. Sometimes, because of their religious traditions, people are suspicious of evangelical Christians, and this suspicion keeps them from attending an evangelical church. The strategy of church planters in such circumstances should be to cultivate friendships and gradually sow the gospel seed. This strategy can include activities for children, activities for adults, telephone surveys, and direct-mail campaigns.

The church can present the gospel in a relevant manner by establishing activities for children. Activities for children can be instrumental in reaching children as well as their parents with the gospel and starting congregations among them. Among such activities are vacation Bible school, backyard Bible clubs, sports activities, tutoring, musical concerts in public parks, arts festivals, and handcraft displays. All of these activities need to be planned in such a way that the parents can be invited for special presentations (e.g., musical concerts presented by the children). This will give the church planters an opportunity to get to know the parents and start ministries among them.

The church can present the gospel in a relevant manner by establishing activities for adults that cultivate their friendship and involve them in bonding activities. These activities include such things as film festivals (focusing on specific areas of need, like the family), home Bible studies, support groups, seminars relating to needs in the community (e.g., financial planning, parenting, marriage enrichment, drug abuse), and a committee that welcomes newcomers to the community.

The church can present the gospel in a relevant way through the use of a telephone survey. In some cities the telephone is being utilized effectively to establish contact with people who need the gospel. Using the telephone, the church can invite people to special activities such as a film series on the family, an Easter or Christmas drama, a conference on money management, a musical program related to a religious observance or a national holiday, or the “going public” phase of a new congregation.

Four factors are important in this type of telephone effort. First, many calls need to be made. Second, what is said on the telephone needs to be brief and courteous. In the third place, people need to be reminded of the meeting date and time. Finally, the meetings to which the people are invited need to be well planned. If many callers are enlisted, literally thousands of people can be contacted in the course of a month.

The church can present the gospel in a relevant way through direct-mail campaigns. Some groups have utilized direct mail, inviting people to participate in special activities like those that have been mentioned in the telephone survey. These efforts have had more success when the following factors have been considered.

First, the activities that are being offered should be based on the needs discovered in the community survey. For example, if the survey reveals great concern for families in the community, people will be interested in films and conferences that address this topic.

Second, what was said about the telephone survey applies to this method also. It will take a large number of letters to find those who are interested.

Third, an invitation will have to be written in an attractive form, utilizing the language the people understand.

Fourth, much preparation is needed so the activities will minister to the visitors.

Application of Principle 4: Congregating the Believers

One of the most important tasks in the establishment of new churches is forming a nucleus around which the congregation will be organized. Several steps can be followed to accomplish this. These include the Bible study fellowship, the mission fellowship, and the mission chapel.

The new congregation can be organized around a Bible study fellowship. People can be invited to study the Bible, meet new friends, pray for one another, and help one another. The meetings can begin with a period of fellowship. Then there can be a time of Bible study. This can be followed by a season of prayer in which people share their prayer concerns. This method of Bible study has the purpose not only of increasing the knowledge of the people but also of providing the opportunity for them to form the type of fellowship in which they can come to know the Lord and grow spiritually.

The new congregation can be organized around a mission fellowship. In many cases, after having participated in Bible studies, people are ready to form a nucleus around which the new congregation will be formed. This nucleus is important for several reasons:

First, it provides an opportunity to baptize and disciple those who have made a decision for Christ.

Second, this encourages fellowship within the group. At first people do not know one another. As time passes, however, they begin to develop a spirit of fellowship and common identity. This is quite important because it provides the base for the new congregation.

Third, this period allows time for the discovery and training of leaders for the new congregation. It is easier for the people to participate in activities and accept positions of responsibility when the group is still small and the activities are informal.

Fourth, during this period the people learn about financial responsibility gradually without having all the weight on their shoulders.

In addition to Bible study, the worship experience contributes toward the spiritual development of the new believers. As they gather to worship the Lord through hymns, communion, prayer, and preaching, the group begins to acquire the spiritual maturity that characterizes a church. These activities also contribute to the numerical growth of the group.

The new congregation can be organized around a mission chapel. Different terms are utilized to describe the stage in which a mission fellowship gets to be a congregation while still not being an autonomous church. For the purpose of this discussion we will use the term mission chapel.

When the mission fellowship has established an organization for ongoing Bible study (e.g., Sunday school, home cells), has regular worship services, has unity of purpose, has demonstrated financial responsibility, and has doctrinal maturity, it has developed the qualities that enable it to begin to function as a church-type organization. When the group arrives at this stage, it is important that it reach certain agreements with the sponsoring church. The missions committee and the pastor of the sponsoring church should meet with the leaders of the mission chapel to work out these agreements.

These should include such matters as: (1) the reception of new members in the chapel, (2) the handling of finances, (3) business meetings, (4) reporting, (5) the procedure to choose a pastor, (6) the celebration of the ordinances, and (7) the financial support provided by the sponsoring church. The clarification of these matters, along with the doctrinal, administrative, and financial maturity of the members of the chapel, will contribute toward their becoming an autonomous church.

Application of Principle 5: Establishing the Church

The goal of church planting is to establish a congregation that will become an autonomous New Testament church in its community. It is important, however, that this new congregation not be expected to fit the mold of a church that has a full-time pastor, a full-time staff, its own building, and many of the traditional programs.

This could well be a church with a bivocational pastor and a volunteer staff meeting in rented facilities. The definition of an autonomous church is one that relies on its own financial resources for its activities and ministries. There are great advantages to having sufficient financial resources, a full-time pastor, and an adequate church building. These by themselves, however, do not determine that a church is autonomous.

It is important that the members of the chapel understand what it means to be a church. They need to have a biblical understanding of the nature and function of a New Testament church. They need to have the conviction that they are a fellowship of unity and purpose (see Acts 2:40–47). They will need to have a clear concept of their mission to their community, their city, their country, and the world (see Acts 1:8). They will need to have the spiritual, financial, and human resources to carry out their ministry. They should also have a clear concept of how they will govern themselves and how they will relate to other churches and their denominational organizations.

When the mother church and the chapel have arrived at the conviction that it is time to constitute the chapel into a church, a constitution will need to be written. In order to accomplish this, a constitution committee should be named. Other constitutions can be studied. In general, constitutions include such things as (1) the preamble, which explains the purpose of the church; (2) the name of the church that will be the official name to be utilized in the legal documents; (3) articles of faith, indicating the doctrinal position of the church; (4) the church covenant, which spells out the conduct that is expected of the members; (5) church government, which states the manner in which the church makes decisions; (6) denominational affiliation, stating the convention or national group with which the church will cooperate; and (7) the process that will be used to amend the constitution. Having a constitution is quite important because it will help the church to operate decently and in order.

Conclusion

In this chapter we have discussed the factors that contribute to the establishment of congregations that will become constituted churches. The implementation of these principles may vary from one situation to another. Some may use traditional approaches, while others may employ innovative methods. Whatever the methodology, church-starting efforts need to be guided by the Holy Spirit, and they should be inspired by the conviction that this has been the most effective way to carry out the Great Commission since New Testament days.

Chapter 29

Women in Missions

Gloria Furman

The biblical rationale for women’s service in missions is indisputable. Jesus calls women to worship him in Spirit and in truth, and he calls women to serve him in spreading his truth to the nations as goers and senders.

The History of Women in Missions

A Biblical Norm and a Modern Dispute

A critical look at the history of women in missions reveals “biographer’s bias.” Some of the lives and contributions of Christian women in history are neglected and underreported or embellished and sugarcoated. Other historians bemoan the absence of women in the halls of history. Some even decry an intentional, global marginalization of the efforts of women in missions. The discerning reader will note that women are neither historically absent nor universally inconsequential to the Great Commission. Rather, Christian women, who are chosen by God to be Jesus’ disciples, do serve as his ambassadors to a lost and dying world.

We celebrate the privilege of women to be chosen by God for this task, yet we acknowledge the reality that God is glorified in his choosing of sinful people to do his will. Reality tells us this: women have both strengths and weaknesses, and they have participated in both helpful and unhelpful efforts in the history of missions. When we consider the history of women in missions, we look first to God’s word.

Women in the Apostle Paul’s Mission

Women have been involved in pioneer mission work since the beginnings of the early church. As the apostles went about preaching the gospel, women were among those who converted to Christ and then served in cross-cultural ministry. We can read in the New Testament anecdotes about the examples of many such women. In the book of Acts, Luke records the story of Priscilla and her husband Aquila, who were recognized by Paul as effective disciple-makers. Priscilla’s hospitality was strategic to Paul’s mission as she opened her home to the church. Priscilla and Aquila even went with Paul to Ephesus, which was a cross-cultural mission trip. In Paul’s missionary journeys he saw many women converted to Christ and mentioned them often in his letters to the various churches. He regarded women as colaborers in the gospel; several women receive special mention in his letters. At the end of the epistle to the Romans, Paul sent personal greetings to twenty-eight people by name, one-third of whom were women.

Two Modern Examples: Ann Judson and Harriet Newell

Ann Hasseltine Judson (1789–1826), wife of Adoniram Judson, was one of the first two American women commissioned for overseas service. Of particular import in her conversion was the conviction that “education for women should not merely make them ornamental to catch a husband, but useful in service for others” (Severance 2011, 246). Ann saw how her sinful selfishness separated her from God. Her life after conversion was indeed marked by perseverance in studies and useful service to others, as she served faithfully alongside her husband in Burma.

Ann Judson also influenced her friend Harriet Atwood (1793–1812), who reflected on Ann’s commitment to missions: “What can I do, that the light of the Gospel may shine upon them? They are perishing for lack of knowledge, while I enjoy the glorious privileges of a Christian land!” (Knowles 1846, 43). Harriet’s heart was struck to the core with the tremendous honor it would be to give her life in the advance of the gospel. She accepted a marriage proposal from Samuel Newell, and the newlyweds joined the Judsons and sailed to India. En route to their destination of Burma, Harriet fell ill, lost their first child in a premature birth, and died. The harsh dangers facing missionaries in their travels claimed Harriet’s life, and her husband Samuel wrote in a letter to his mother-in-law that Harriet never regretted her decision to become a missionary. Harriet found comfort on her deathbed that she was obedient to what the Lord had put on her heart even though God, whose ways are beyond our ways, took her home before she began her work abroad.

Women of Whom the World Is Not Worthy

Women have long devoted their lives to the spreading of the gospel to the outermost reaches of the world. They are even among the many martyrs of the church from the time of the apostles until now. Time would fail us if we were to speak of the testimonies of women like Lucia, Blandina, Perpetua, Betty Stam, Betty Olsen, and others. Women of whom the world is not worthy have shed their blood for the sake of the cause of Christ. To this day, women are yet counted among those who lose their lives for the witness they bear, and their souls cry out from under the altar of God with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” (Rev 6:10 ESV). The faith of these women emboldens many, especially those who undergo regular persecution for the sake of Christ in their workplace, home, family, and community.

The Role of Women in Missions

Evaluating Opportunities to Serve in Light of God’s Word

It is clear from Scripture that women are called alongside men to serve in the Great Commission. In many circles, however, the various facets of women’s service in missions are debated. In what capacity of missions may women serve? Are there roles for which women are better suited? Alongside the obvious gender-role questions is the testimony of church history. Women have been making significant contributions to missions for more than two thousand years. Does this record of history have anything to say in paving the way forward for women in missions? Solomon quipped, “There is nothing new under the sun,” but it seems that we are seeing more new opportunities for women to serve in missions than ever before.

The same apostle Paul who benefitted from and commended the service of women also restricted the office of elder to men only. It follows that, according to Scripture, it would be inappropriate for a woman to be an elder on the mission field. Indeed, God calls women to missions, but they are not called to “eldering.” While the singular office of elder is restricted from women, there are many other roles that women ought to be encouraged to fill as they seek to serve in the Great Commission. These opportunities for service expand and multiply through creativity and the Spirit’s leading as women are called to evangelism and discipleship in the mission field.

Many influential and persuasive people make the case for women to be pastors and elders on the mission field because there are few or no qualified men to elder the local church, or men are unwilling to go to this or that field. However, these pragmatic reasons would not find their support in Scripture. In light of this restriction that “eldering” is a work and role for men only, it behooves Christian men who are convinced of this to aspire to the role of elder in a cross-cultural context. As the number of women missionaries far outnumbers men, churches would do well to intentionally equip and send elder-qualified men into the field where the harvest is so plentiful and the workers are so few.

Awkwardness, Tension, Grace, and Patience

Even as we hold Scripture in high esteem as our authority, we acknowledge the ambiguity of many situations women find themselves in on the mission field. Many missionary women have questions regarding the nature of their work, and some even experience an afflicted conscience because of things they are instructed to do in their work. Women face a certain awkwardness as they consider the needs in front of them, the wishes of their sending churches, their organization’s strategies, their host culture, their personal preferences, and God’s authoritative word.

Grace and patience are required on all sides, from the women serving to the local churches who commission them. Is there tension to appreciate in some of these matters concerning biblical roles, the examples in church history, and our current contexts? Yes, of course. Opinions on these matters differ across the globe, and even within regional denominations. It is always the duty of faithful Christians to evaluate options and subject their ideas and opinions to the authority of God’s word. Discernment and wisdom from the Lord is necessary, as Christian women must remain faithful to God’s word rather than to the practices or preferences of any group or leader.

Single Women and Their Influence in Missions

In the past and currently in many places around the world, some single women seeking to serve in foreign missions have been restricted to accompanying families or joining an all-female team on the field. Mission agencies, denominations, and individual local churches have developed such policies for various reasons, including cultural sensitivities, beliefs about gender roles, and safety. Tucker cites the rise of feminism as an influencing factor for single women in the modern era who enter into foreign missions, as well as the lack of full-time ministry opportunities in their home country (Tucker 2004, 232). The number of missionaries from the Western world began to statistically tip in favor of single women as men were called off to fight in wars. Translation work, education, and medical missions in particular benefitted from the work of single women especially during this time.

We owe a debt of gratitude to the countless, unnamed single women who have served the Lord faithfully in missions, incidentally (and perhaps deliberately) paving the way for more and more single women to enter the mission field. Many single women have endured great suffering for the sake of bringing the gospel to the lost. We do not take their contributions lightly. In this modern era it is safe to say that the influence of a few famous pioneers has gone out far and wide to serve the church in mobilizing single women. We think of examples like Lottie Moon, who evangelized Chinese villages, and Amy Carmichael, who rescued victims of child sex trafficking. Field directors and team leaders do well to recognize the great capacity for influence and work that single women missionaries have and equip them for ministry accordingly.

Challenges Facing Women in Missions

Challenges for Single Women

In many ways, the women who become missionaries will face the same problems and challenges that they did back home. Admittedly, these same problems and challenges could take on a different intensity in a different culture and without the face-to-face support of the local church, family, and friends. New problems may also arise, yet new support and help may also come to the missionary’s aid. Issues that were never imagined may be a daily struggle, and help may arrive from the most surprising of places. In all of these instances, God’s grace is always sufficient, and he seeks to make his glory known as he strengthens us despite our weaknesses.

Several struggles that single missionary women encounter in some cultures are related to the sheer anomaly of being a single woman. In many places around the world, it is the responsibility of the woman’s family and community to ensure that she finds a mate. A single woman may find herself being asked personal questions by strangers and friends alike who wish to know why she is not married. She may also receive offers for marriage or at the very least be offered assistance in finding a husband.

If the single woman is a Westerner and she assumes freedoms that she is accustomed to having in her home culture, she may discover that she has stepped far outside of cultural norms in her host culture, as restrictions on single women are more common outside of the West. How the single woman relates to men is another area where discretion is advised, ideally from experienced missionaries in that field. Clearly, there is potential for awkwardness for the missionary as she crosses cultures. However, these scenarios do not negate the comfort the single missionary receives from the Lord, who tenderly leads her, nor the wisdom available to her as she seeks the Lord.

In cross-cultural settings it is easy to become confused by identity and expectations. Home cultures and host cultures have varying ideas of who the single woman is and how she fits into society and the church. In certain societies a single woman may be an anomaly or a revered ideal. Regardless of her cultural context, the single woman (just as the married woman) must understand her identity of being “in Jesus Christ” as the governing reality in her life. She rises and falls before her own master, Christ, and it is to him that she looks to understand herself and her circumstances.

Challenges for Married Women

The examples of Ann Judson and Harriet Newell confirm what Scripture dictates: women indeed share in the call to missions. The notion that a missionary wife merely cares for “the real missionary” as she keeps their home is simply false. Even Ann’s life dramatically illustrates this, as she (with baby in arms) followed her husband as he was transferred from jail to jail, pleading with officials for his release. Ann was Adoniram’s helpmate, doing him good all the days of her life. Ann passed away two months after her husband was finally released from prison in Burma. A wife serving alongside her husband, even in a so-called mere support role, is as sent by God and equipped by his Spirit for mission as her husband. Women who serve in this capacity are unsung heroes of church history, facilitating ministry and furthering the Great Commission for two millennia. How would the face of Christian missions change if this perspective were widely embraced?

A long-standing stereotype of married women missionaries is that many of them are reluctant ministers of the gospel. Ostensibly (or even actually) holding to the view that their husband is the one who has been sent into missions, these women may feel useless for the Great Commission or embittered against the entities that commissioned their husband. Sometimes this reluctant missionary perspective leads to anxiety and depression regarding their lot. A famous example of this is Dorothy Carey, wife of William Carey, who suffered significant maladies both mentally and physically, and resisted her husband’s zeal for missions to India.

One of the ways in which mission agencies and local churches have sought to alleviate the tension and strain that a call to missions can have on a family is to take into equal consideration the wife’s perspective. Another meaningful investment senders have made into the lives of married women is to insist upon their biblical training and language acquisition as they help equip them for missionary service. Advancements in valuing the contributions of missionary wives have their effects on fruitfulness, as family ties are strengthened. Missionary wives are to be esteemed as coheirs of the kingdom and valued as fellow ministers of the gospel.

Everyday Women in Missions

Ordinary Women Serving an Extraordinary God

By the extraordinary grace of God, ordinary Christian women faithfully pursue their calling in foreign missions in everyday ways. There are Filipina maids who register with recruiting companies to become what is equivalent to an indentured servant, all for the chance to witness of Christ in the everyday activities as they scrub toilets and cook food for least-reached families. Brazilian nannies move abroad so they might sing lullabies of God’s faithfulness and love to the children of those who are perishing without hope of the gospel. With great intentionality and dedication, IT technicians from Korea apply to work in jobs overseas in countries that have little to no access to the gospel. Kenyan midwives travel to remote villages in Africa to catch babies and teach God’s Word as they minister to mothers. Ladies from the United Kingdom undergo a rigorous application process and training program to become flight attendants in hopes that they might share the good news with passengers traveling the world. American educators forsake the comforts of home to become teachers in foreign lands, providing others with a useful education as they look for opportunities to share the Word of life. The faces of everyday women in cross-cultural missions shine in a tapestry of diversity and beauty.

These ordinary women would not claim to have “arrived” as ministers of the gospel, but always depend on the ever-present help that is available to every believer. Sending churches, mission organizations, and denominations all over the world commission these everyday women to serve in foreign missions. Only the Lord knows how many of these servant-hearted, humble women have labored in his cause “behind the scenes.” And only the Lord knows how many more women he will call to serve in this way.

Women Are Called to Unique Service Opportunities

It is widely recognized among sending agencies and field teams that women are especially suited to reach certain least-reached people who abide by strict social rules. For example, in many societies social interaction between nonrelated men and women is not merely frowned upon but is forbidden. How will these least-reached women believe in Jesus of whom they have never heard? The Lord has equipped his daughters with his Holy Spirit to share the good news of his Son. These ambassadors of Christ may enter zenanas in villages, visit ladies’ sitting rooms, and take tea together with women who have never heard the name of Jesus. They may find themselves trekking into villages and offering medical care to least-reached women and children in the name of Jesus.

Marginalized women and children stand to benefit significantly from the efforts of women in missions. Female missionaries may be the only persons invited to effect change in communities that have destructive practices like foot binding, female circumcision, child marriage, female infanticide, and domestic violence against women. A societal norm like the strict segregation of men and women is not a hindrance to the spread of the gospel but rather an opportunity that is unique to women, that they might serve in God’s mission of reaching every tribe, tongue, and people.

The Future of Women in Missions

God, by his grace, has produced fruit throughout two millennia of church history through the efforts of women, and we trust he will continue to do so. Jesus is worthy to receive the reward of his suffering, and he will most assuredly complete what he has set out to do—build his church. If the Lord Jesus tarries, Christian women have the blessed opportunity to continue to persevere in the Great Commission by the grace of God. There are yet more people groups to be reached, healthy churches to be planted, and tribes that have no Scripture in their language.

God has equipped women to serve by the strength that he supplies. Resources for accomplishing this mission always come from the hand of God by his grace. The Lord has given Christian women all over the world his Holy Spirit, who has in turn given varieties of gifts to be used for God’s glory. Compelled by the love of Christ, women will continue to serve boldly in the cause of world missions to the praise of God’s glory, mobilizing missionaries, evangelizing their neighbors, translating Scripture, extending hospitality, reaching out to the marginalized, teaching the Bible, and doing a host of other good works. Christian women are called and equipped to bring relief to those who suffer, especially those who will experience eternal suffering if they do not repent and worship the Lamb who was slain for them.

Chapter 30

Ecclesiology and Missions

Benjamin Merkle

Nearly all modern evangelical missiologists agree that planting churches is central to fulfilling the Great Commission. That is, the missionary task is not merely about making converts but rather about making disciples. Disciples are not made in isolation but in community with other believers. Jesus himself stated that he would build his “church, and the forces of Hades will not overpower it” (Matt 16:18).20 If the church is central to God’s mission in the world, then it is imperative that churches are planted with biblical leadership. The goal of this chapter, then, is to discuss how biblical leadership fits into God’s plan for his church because the church is God’s tool for winning the nations to Christ. Thus, I will address the following questions: (1) What is the church? (2) What is biblical leadership? (3) How does biblical leadership relate to missions?

What Is the Church?

The word church in modern English Bibles is a translation of the Greek term ekklēsia. This term does not describe a place, a building, or a denomination but rather an assembly of people. As a matter of fact, ekklēsia can refer to a secular gathering of people (Acts 19:32, 39, 41) or to the Old Testament people of God (Acts 7:38; Heb 2:12). The main idea associated with this term is that of a people who are gathered together. For this reason, some early Bible translators rendered ekklēsia as “congregation” instead of “church” so as to avoid misunderstanding. It is well known that the term ekklēsia can be used to represent two realities: (1) a local congregation (e.g., Acts 13:2; 14:24–27; 20:17) and (2) the universal church (Matt 16:18; 1 Cor 15:9; Eph 1:22; 3:10, 21; 5:23–32; Col 1:18, 24). Most of the uses of ekklēsia are references to the local church. For example, Paul used the term ekklēsia sixty-two times in the New Testament, and at least fifty of those uses refer to the local congregations. Indeed, most of Paul’s letters were written to local churches of a city or region (Rom 16:5; 1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:2; Col 4:15–16; 1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1; Phlm 1:2).

Everything the church does should be done with the purpose of glorifying God and exalting Christ (1 Cor 10:31). At the same time, however, Scripture emphasizes the need for believers to be edified because when believers are edified or built up, then God receives glory (1 Corinthians 12). The Bible mentions at least five ways that believers glorify God and edify one another. This is done through:

Worship: this involves the reading and preaching of God’s word (1 Cor 1:23–24; 1 Tim 4:13; 2 Tim 4:2), praying (1 Tim 2:8), singing (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16–17), taking a collection (1 Cor 16:2; 2 Cor 9:6–12), and celebrating the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:17–34).
Fellowship: this includes bearing one another’s burdens (Gal 6:2; also see Acts 2:42; Heb 10:24–25).
Discipleship: this includes equipping all believers (Eph 4:11–12) and training new leaders (2 Tim 2:2).
Service: this includes using one’s spiritual gifts (1 Tim 4:14).
Evangelism and missions: this involves making disciples from people of every nation or people group (Matt 28:19–20; Rev 5:9–10).

Because the church is the people of God and not an organization, this reality greatly affects what the missionary is seeking to establish. Importing external elements (such as buildings, foreign books, and foreign ornaments of worship) gives the impression that Christianity is an institution instead of a relationship. We should not seek to establish a building or import elements into the worship service that are not essential and could not be easily maintained or reproduced.

In addition, Paul indicated several times that various congregations typically met in homes for their worship services (Rom 16:5; 1 Cor 16:19; Col 4:15; Phlm 1:2; see Schnabel 2004, 1301–06, 1584–85). Although Paul emphasized the unity of the body of Christ, we also have evidence that each congregation was independently led. That is, the New Testament seems to favor a self-governing model of the church. In the early church, many important decisions—such as selecting leaders (Acts 1:23; 6:2–3), sending missionaries (Acts 13:3; 14:27), determining theological positions (Acts 15:22), deciding church discipline (Matt 18:17), and performing excommunication (1 Cor 5:2)—were the responsibilities of the local congregation.

The members of Christ’s universal church are those who are truly regenerate (i.e., born again). Membership, therefore, should be limited to those who profess faith in Christ, have been baptized, and live a life that is consistent with their profession (see Hammett 2005, 81–131; 2008, 21–43). Of course, the church will sometimes mistakenly allow some to become members who are self-deceived or, worse, are really wolves in sheep’s clothing (which is why provisions for church discipline are given). But the church leaders have a responsibility to protect the purity of the bride of Christ. The leaders of the church should do what they can to protect the church, allowing only those who are truly regenerate to become members of the church. The imagery of the church as the new covenant people of God assumes that the members belong to God through their faith in his Son, Jesus Christ.

What Is Biblical Leadership?

Before we can discuss the validity and necessity of biblical leadership in the context of church planting, we must first define what we mean by biblical leadership. In order to accomplish this, we will consider (1) the terminology of leadership, (2) the number of leadership, and (3) the authority of leadership.

The Terminology of Leadership

Church leaders are given various titles in the New Testament. For example, leaders are called (1) elders, (2) overseers, (3) pastors or shepherds, and (4) deacons. Who are these leaders, and what is the relationship between these terms?

Elders, Overseers, and Pastors

The terms elder (presbuteros) and overseer (episkopos) are two different titles that refer to the same office (Merkle 2003; 2008, 54–58, 76–83). A number of factors support this position. First, the terms elder and overseer are used interchangeably. Three texts clearly demonstrate this usage:

Acts 20:17, 28—Paul “sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church” and exhorted them, “Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among whom the Holy Spirit has appointed you to as overseers, to shepherd the church of God.” (All emphases in Bible quotations in this chapter are added.)
Titus 1:5, 7—Paul wrote to Titus, “The reason I left you in Crete was to set right what was left undone and, as I directed you, to appoint elders in every town.” He continued by giving the needed qualifications: “For an overseer . . . must be . . . .”
1 Pet 5:1–2—Peter wrote, “I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder . . . shepherd the flock of God that is among you, serving as overseers.” (translation mine)

Second, elders are never given separate qualifications. If elder and overseer are two separate offices, then it would seem reasonable to expect Paul to have given the necessary qualifications for each office. In both 1 Timothy 3:1–7 and Titus 1:7–9 Paul gave the qualifications for anyone who aspires “to be an overseer” (1 Tim 3:1). But in both 1 Timothy (5:17–25) and Titus (1:5) elders are also mentioned. If the offices are distinct, then what are the qualifications for someone to become an elder? This omission is especially telling because in 1 Timothy 5:22–25, Paul warned Timothy not to appoint someone to the office of elder too hastily because that position is to be filled only by qualified individuals (cf. 1 Tim 4:14; 2 Tim 1:6). If elder is a distinct office from overseer, we would expect the qualifications to be clearly stated for such an important position.

Third, elders and overseers have the same functions: ruling/leading and teaching. For example, 1 Timothy 3:4–5 states that an overseer must “manage” his own house before he is fit to “take care of” the church (cf. Rom 12:8; 1 Thess 5:12). Likewise, 1 Timothy 5:17 speaks of elders who “rule well” (ESV), indicating that all elders are involved in ruling or leading the church. In Acts 20:28, Paul charged the Ephesian elders to serve as “overseers” and “shepherd” the church of God. Thus, both elders and overseers are given the task of ruling/leading the church. In a similar manner, both are also given the duty of teaching the congregation. In 1 Timothy 3:2, every overseer must be “an able teacher” in order to be qualified, and in Titus 1:9 an overseer must “be able both to encourage with sound teaching and to refute those who contradict it.” Likewise, elders who rule well should be considered worthy of double honor, “especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching” (1 Tim 5:17). Because elders and overseers are given the same tasks of ruling/leading and teaching, they should be viewed as representing the same office.

Fourth, the elders and overseers are never listed as separate offices. This usage suggests that the three-tiered ecclesiastical system that later developed in many churches is foreign to the New Testament. Not until the second century—in the epistles of Ignatius—do we see a distinction between the overseer (i.e., the monarchical bishop) and the elders (i.e., presbytery).

Although the title “pastor” is commonly used in our modern church context, it is used only one time in the New Testament as a reference for a church leader (usually the word translated as “pastor” appears as a verb and is translated “shepherd”). In Ephesians 4:11, we are told that Jesus “gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers.” The term pastor is coupled with the term teacher, which suggests that all pastors were also teachers (Wallace 1996, 284).21

What then is the relationship between the office of pastor and that of the elder/overseer? Does the term pastor represent a separate and distinct office to that of the “elder” or “overseer”? This term represents the same office for a least two reasons. First, elders/overseers are given the same tasks as pastors: shepherding (Acts 20:17, 28; Eph 4:11; 1 Pet 5:1–3) and teaching (1 Tim 3:2; 5:17; Titus 1:9). Second, as we mentioned earlier, the term pastor is only found once in the New Testament as a designation of a church leader. If the office of pastor is separate from the elder/overseer, what are the qualifications needed for those who hold this office? Paul gave us qualifications for the elder/overseer but never for the pastor. Perhaps the reason for this omission is because in giving the qualifications for the elder/overseer, he was giving the qualifications for those who can also be called “pastor.”

Deacons

The office of deacon is a separate and distinct office to that of the elder/overseer/pastor. The word deacon is a translation of the Greek term diakonos, which normally means “servant.” Only context can determine if the term is being used generally to mean “servant” or more technically as a designation of a church officer. The Greek term is used twenty-nine times in the New Testament, but only three or four of those occurrences refer to an office-holder (Rom 16:1[?]; Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:8, 12). The origin of the deacon is not known for certain, but many scholars believe that the seven chosen in Acts 6:1–6 provide the prototype of the New Testament deacon (Grudem 1994, 919).

The New Testament does not offer much information concerning the role of deacons. The requirements given in 1 Timothy 3:8–12 focus on the deacon’s character and family life. The most noticeable distinction between elders and deacons is that a deacon does not need to be “an able teacher” (1 Tim 3:2). Deacons are called to “hold” to the faith with a clear conscience, but they are not called to “teach” that faith (1 Tim 3:9), which suggests that the deacons do not have an official teaching role in the church. This distinction does not mean that deacons cannot teach in any capacity, but simply that they are not called to teach or preach as a matter of responsibility related to their office as deacon. It should also be noted that deacons, as their very name indicates, do not rule or lead the congregation but have a service-oriented ministry. Although the Bible does not clearly indicate the function of deacons, based on the pattern established in Acts 6 with the apostles and the seven, it seems best to view the deacons as servants who do whatever is necessary to allow the elders to accomplish their God-given calling of shepherding and teaching the church. As the apostles delegated administrative responsibilities to the seven, so the elders are to delegate responsibilities to the deacons so that the elders can focus their efforts on the ministry of the Word and prayer (Acts 6:4). As a result, each local church is free to define the tasks of deacons based on its particular needs.

The Number of Leaders

The concept of shared leadership is a common theme in the Bible. In the Old Testament, leadership was shared by the elders of Israel. In the New Testament, Jesus chose twelve apostles to lead the church. In addition, the early church appointed seven men to assist the apostles by caring for the church’s widows (Acts 6:1–6). This pattern of plurality was continued with the establishment of the Christian eldership.

Acts 11:30—The church in Antioch sent Barnabas and Paul to the “elders” in Jerusalem with money to aid in the famine relief.
Acts 14:23—Paul and Barnabas planted churches in the cities of Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe and “appointed elders in every church.”
Acts 15:4, 22, 23—The “elders” are referenced along with the apostles in the context of the Jerusalem council.
Acts 20:17—At the end of his third missionary journey, Paul summoned “the elders of the church” of Ephesus to meet with him.
Philippians 1:1—When Paul wrote to the church at Philippi, he specifically greeted the “overseers and deacons.”
1 Timothy 5:17—Paul wrote to Timothy, “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching” (ESV).
Titus 1:5—Paul directed Titus “to appoint elders in every town.”
James 5:14—James, the Lord’s brother, raised the question, “Is anyone among you sick?” His answer was, “He should call for the elders of the church, and they should pray over him after anointing him with olive oil in the name of the Lord.”
1 Peter 5:1—The apostle Peter exhorted the “elders” among the believers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.

Also, other terms describe the plurality of leaders in the church. In his first letter to the church at Thessalonica, Paul exhorted the believers “to give recognition to those who labor among you and lead you in the Lord and admonish you” (1 Thess 5:12). Although a specific title is not used, it is clear that those to whom Paul was referring were the spiritual leaders of the congregation, performing elderlike functions. The author of Hebrews also indicates that the church to which he writes was led by a plurality of shepherds. In Hebrews 13:7, the author states, “Remember your leaders who have spoken God’s word to you. As you carefully observe the outcome of their lives, imitate their faith.” He then urges the congregation by writing, “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account.” In the closing of his letter, he adds, “Greet all your leaders and all the saints” (Heb 13:24). In each case, the author refers to a plurality of leaders (also see 1 Cor 16:15–16).

The New Testament evidence indicates that it was the norm for every church to be led by a plurality of leaders. No example is in the New Testament of one elder or pastor leading a congregation as the sole or primary leader. A plurality of elders were at the churches in Jerusalem (Acts 11:30), Antioch of Pisidia, Lystra, Iconium, and Derbe (Acts 14:23), Ephesus (Acts 20:17; 1 Tim 5:17), Philippi (Phil 1:1), the cities of Crete (Titus 1:5), the churches in the dispersion to which James wrote (Jas 1:1; 5:14), the Roman provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (1 Pet 1:1; 5:1), and the church(es) to which Hebrews was written (Heb 13:7, 17, 24).

The Authority of Leaders

Paul did not pastor the churches he planted but gave that responsibility to the local leaders. As soon as possible, usually after about six months to a year, Paul appointed leaders in the newly planted churches. These new leaders were given responsibility for the spiritual oversight of the congregation (see 1 Cor 16:15–16; 1 Thess 5:12; 1 Tim 5:17; Heb 13:17). Thus, although the congregations as a whole made important decisions (see Matt 18:17; Acts 1:23; 6:2–3; 13:3; 14:27; 15:22; 1 Cor 5:2), the daily leadership and authority of the church was given to the leaders.

The very functions or duties of the elders communicate that their office carries with it a certain amount of authority. As teachers, they are charged with the task of authoritatively proclaiming God’s word (1 Tim 3:2; 5:17; Titus 1:9). As shepherds, the elders are given the task of leading God’s people (Acts 20:28; Eph 4:11; 1 Pet 5:2). As representatives, they speak and act on behalf of the entire congregation (Acts 11:30; 20:17).

The authority of the elders comes from God and not the congregation. Although the congregation affirms their calling and authority, it is an authority with a divine origin. Paul told the Ephesian elders that the Holy Spirit made them overseers (Acts 20:28). They were called and given authority by God and not by man. In the letter to the Ephesians, Paul stated that Christ has given gifts to the church, including pastor-teachers (Eph 4:11). Therefore, the authority of an elder does not come from the congregation but from Christ himself.

It must be pointed out, however, that the elders’ authority is not absolute. Jesus Christ and his word have ultimate authority in the church. Everything should be done under his authority because he is “the head of the body, the church” (Col 1:18). The elders derive their authority from the word of God; and when they stray from that word, they abandon their God-given authority (Acts 17:11; Gal 1:8). The authority that the elders possess is not so much found in their office but in the duties they perform (and the Christlike character they display). That is, the elders are not to be obeyed simply because they are elders. Rather, they are to be obeyed because they have the responsibility of shepherding and teaching the congregation (1 Thess 5:13). But if their shepherding and teaching stray from Scripture, their authority as shepherds and teachers is no longer binding on the congregation.

The authority of elders is balanced by the authority of the congregation as a whole. Thus, key decisions in the church should not be given only to the elders but should be brought before the entire congregation. The New Testament seems to favor a self-governing congregational model of the church. In the early church, many important decisions—such as selecting leaders (Acts 1:23; 6:2–3), sending missionaries (Acts 13:3; 14:27), determining theological positions (Acts 15:22), deciding church discipline (Matt 18:17), and performing excommunication (1 Cor 5:2)—were the responsibilities of the local congregation. Additional support is found in the fact that Paul’s letters to churches were addressed to entire congregations and not only to office-holders of the church. Finally, the priesthood of all believers and the teaching of Jesus also lend evidence in favor of congregationalism. Because the church is a body (and not merely a head or feet), all church members are important and should be allowed to participate in major decisions.

How Does Biblical Leadership Relate to Missions?

Biblical leadership is relevant to missions in several ways, specifically to church planting. In the rest of this chapter, I will highlight five of the most crucial ways.

1. Every church should have multiple leaders. The New Testament presents a consistent, though perhaps not completely uniform, pattern of church leadership. Sometimes these leaders were called “elders,” “overseers,” or “pastors” (all three of these terms refer to the same office and were used interchangeably in the New Testament). The overwhelming evidence in the New Testament is that a group of elders, and not merely a single pastor, led every congregation. The key element here is not precisely what the leaders were called but that there was always a plurality.

On his first missionary journey, Paul planted multiple churches in Asia Minor as he went through the various cities. As he doubled-back on his return trip, we read that he “appointed elders in every church” (Acts 14:23). Thus, as soon as leadership was established in these churches, it was established on the principle that each church should be governed by more than one leader. Based on this pattern, it is beneficial for church planters not to find one, strong, visionary leader and give that person all of the leadership responsibility. Instead, from the very beginning if possible, pass the leadership to a number of qualified disciples who can lead together.

2. Every church should have accountable leaders. If having a plurality of leaders who share equal authority is God’s design, there will be many benefits of following the biblical pattern. Although having a plurality of elders does not guarantee the church leadership will not encounter problems or conflict, it does at least provide several safeguards against some problems and difficulties that a single-pastor church often faces—especially in the area of biblical accountability.

Biblical accountability is needed for at least two reasons. First, it helps protect a pastor from error. Pastors often possess a lot of authority in their churches—too much authority with too little accountability. Such authority can cause one to believe that he is more important than others and thus become proud. Others may act in ways that are insensitive or unscriptural but be blinded to their faults. Second, biblical accountability is needed to help foster maturity and godliness among the elders (Heb 3:12–13). As the elders serve and lead together, they will often be challenged by the godly examples they see in one another so that they hold their confession “firmly until the end” (Heb 3:14). They will “be concerned about one another in order to promote love and good works” (Heb 10:24). The more mature elders can help train the younger ones in how to be effective shepherds.

3. Every church should have paid and unpaid leaders. The idea that only full-time, paid pastors can lead the church is not found in the Scriptures. In fact, such a view can lead to an unhealthy church. Having both paid (staff) and unpaid (nonstaff) elders allows for a church to have more leaders than a comparable church with only paid elders/pastors. According to the Bible, there is no requirement that a leader must be paid to be an elder or pastor. And yet, it is the responsibility of the church to pay an elder for his work if he needs to be financially supported because of the amount of time spent leading the church. Paul argued that both he (1 Cor 9:8–10) and elders (1 Tim 5:18) had the right to be paid for their work (cf. Matt 10:10; Luke 10:7). Elders who spend their days shepherding and teaching the church ought to be not only respected for their duties but should also be financially compensated (also see Gal 6:6).

This does not mean, however, that all (or any) of the elders must be paid for their work or that only those who work full-time for the church can rightfully be called “elders” or “pastors.” Paul, as an apostle and missionary, certainly had the right to be supported by the churches he established and in which he labored. And yet, for the sake of the gospel, he chose not to claim his rights. Like Paul, many elders are self-supported in the sense that they draw a salary from a source outside the church. They spend much of their free time in helping to shepherd the congregation but are not paid for their labors. Some churches have difficulty financially supporting one or more elders. By having elders who do not receive monetary compensation for their work, the church is able to include more elders without the extra burden of supporting them financially. This situation allows the elders to shepherd the congregation more effectively and allows for more rapid church planting to occur.

4. Every church should have qualified leaders. Leadership should only be given to those who are biblically qualified. When reading the qualifications for an elder/overseer (see 1 Tim 3:1–7; Titus 1:5–9; 1 Pet 5:1–4) or deacon (1 Tim 3:8–13), one is immediately struck by the relative simplicity of the qualifications. In fact, the qualifications needed for an elder or deacon are the basic characteristics that are expected of all Christians. No mention is made of being full-time or paid. There is no formal training required. The focus of the qualifications is on who a person is more than what a person does. The only qualification given that directly relates to an elder’s duties in the church is that he must be “an able teacher” (1 Tim 3:2; cf. Titus 1:9). It should also be noted that leaders were chosen from within the congregation itself.

One qualification that is sometimes debated concerns the meaning and intent of the requirement for an overseer not to be “a new convert” (1 Tim 3:6). Paul gave the reason for this qualification: “or he might become conceited and fall into the condemnation of the Devil” (1 Tim 3:6). The difficulty is that Paul did not specify what constitutes a “new convert.” Was he referring to six months, one year, or ten years? Perhaps the answer to this question depends on the congregation or historical circumstances involved. For example, the church at Ephesus was a somewhat well-established church when Paul wrote 1 Timothy. By that time, the church was in existence for about fifteen years and already had established leaders. In this circumstance, Paul could write that elders should not be recent converts because in that church there would have been others who were more mature in their faith and could handle the respect and responsibilities given to such office-holders.

Paul’s letter to Titus, however, does not contain the restriction concerning new converts. Did Paul simply forget to add this qualification, or was it purposefully ignored? It is plausible to think that Paul ignored the restriction concerning new converts because the situation in Crete was different than that in Ephesus. The church in Crete was much younger, making nearly all the potential candidates for eldership “new converts.” In this case, if new believers were not appointed as elders, there would be no elders. Consequently, this qualification is not absolute but depends somewhat on the situational context of the congregation involved (Merkle 2014, 73).

5. Every church should have reproducing leaders. According to Paul, leaders are given to the church “for the training of the saints in the work of ministry” (Eph 4:12). The role of the elder as teacher is important not only for the health of the church in the present but also for the growth of the church in the future. As a result, it is not enough for the elders to simply be teachers; they must also be purposefully equipping the next generation of elders to minister alongside of them or to plant new churches.

Again, Paul’s words to Timothy are instructive. He told Timothy, “And what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, commit to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim 2:2). As Paul’s faithful coworker, Timothy was entrusted with the task of passing on the pure gospel as preached by Paul. He had been equipped by Paul and was now to become an equipper. Thus, he was to entrust what he had learned to “faithful men,” which is probably another way of describing the elders of the church. But this task of equipping does not stop with the elders. They are also to become equippers “who will be able to teach others also.” It is the task of the elders to identify others who will be faithful to carry on the gospel message.

Conclusion

Biblical ecclesiology is crucial for church planting because the church is central to God’s plan for expanding his kingdom (Matt 16:18). Therefore, planting churches should be done in such a way that is faithful to the methods revealed in Scripture. In this chapter I have argued that the local church should consist of regenerate believers who gather together for the purpose of glorifying God and edifying one another. In addition, each church (indeed every believer) is given the commission of making disciples of the nations. But in order for the church to fulfill this task it is crucial that it is led by biblical leadership. Based on the New Testament evidence, I have argued that every church should have (1) multiple leaders who share the difficult task of shepherding the sheep; (2) accountable leaders who are able to speak truth into one another’s lives; (3) paid and unpaid leaders who count it a joy to do the hard work of preaching and teaching; (4) qualified leaders who meet the necessary requirements revealed in Scripture; and (5) reproducing leaders who are able to train others who will then be able to train others. As stated earlier, having a biblical model of church leadership will not guarantee a particular outcome. Nevertheless, by following the wisdom of God instead of the wisdom of man, it puts the church in a place where it can be greatly used by God.

Chapter 31

Human Needs Ministries

Jeffrey Palmer

Shortly before his death, Ralph Winter wrote, “Evangelicals have a rich heritage of faith and works that can again inspire and instruct us as we seek to bring a complete gospel to every tribe and tongue” (Winter 2007, 6). This statement was a part of an effort to address the growing trend in missions today of relief and development approaches or what some have termed as human needs strategies. Winter recognized the logarithmic growth in relief and development oriented evangelical organizations and the increasing resources mobilized to these methods. Whether one embraces or fears the growing trend, the fact exists that it is a growing one.

This chapter looks at the current trends in relief and development ministries utilized in missions today. Moreover, it attempts to give a structural framework for understanding these strategies from a historical, biblical, missiological, and practical vantage point.

History of Relief and Development Missions

“Material and social concern has been part of Christianity from the beginning” (Crawley 1985, 281). The Bible is full of compassion ministries. The same has been true in the outreach of Christian missions across the world. William Carey, a pioneer of the modern mission movement, led a lifelong crusade against social evils of his day in India. Moreover, he addressed education issues as well as helped start the first botanical garden in Calcutta.

The main thrust of Christian missions has always been spiritual in looking toward salvation of individuals and the planting of churches. “There was no serious polarization of spiritual and social concerns in missions until the 20th century” (Crawley 1985, 281). Crawley attributes this polarization to modern biblical criticism approaches, religious relativism, and a theory of social progress that eventually gave birth to ideas such as the social gospel and liberation theology.

The social gospel thrust eventually became a byword for the World Council of Churches, which in 1968 adopted the theme of “humanization as the goal of mission” (Crawley 1985, 283). Included in this was the growing rift between the evangelical approach to missions that stressed the spiritual mission of the church and the conciliar approach which stressed the social, economic, and political responsibility. This unfortunately gave rise to polarization, with evangelism at one pole and social ministry at the other.

A Southern Baptist Perspective

According to Winston Crawley, “From the beginning, Southern Baptist foreign missions ministries have been holistic; that is, they have addressed the whole person in an actual life situation, not just the soul” (Crawley 1985, 284). The appointing early on of medical missionaries and building of hospitals around the world evidenced this. However, it was not until the mid-1970s that the Foreign Mission Board (FMB) of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) began to formally address relief and development strategies in terms of statements and concepts. After a 1974 special study, one of the five strategy principles the FMB adopted was “responding to human needs.” Baker James Cauthen described the complementary relationship between witness and ministry by commenting how appropriate it was for the missionary to go to the field with, “a Bible in one hand and a loaf of bread in the other” (Crawley 1985, 285).

In January 1976 the FMB’s Board of Trustees adopted a statement that said, “Evangelism and church development will be maintained as the imperatively central thrust. Compassionate ministries are no less insistent as expressions of obedience and examples of Christian compassion in action.” The official philosophy statement adopted in 1978 stated,

The task of missions supremely and imperatively is to make disciples, to baptize them and to teach them to observe all that Christ commanded. It includes all the world—every creature—every generation. The task of missions is also to minister compassionately to those who are hungry, thirsty, strangers, lack clothing, sick, imprisoned and so forth. (Crawley 1985, 286)

The 1970s were the time that the FMB began formalizing its approach to human needs ministries. Giving for disaster relief and ministries by constituents increased steadily during this time period. This was partly because of greater awareness through media coverage of world calamities such as hurricanes and earthquakes in Central America and droughts in Africa. In late 1974 the FMB developed a formal disaster response plan and encouraged each field grouping to have a disaster response coordinator. Then in the mid to late 1970s, the FMB formed a Human Needs Department, complete with an associate who later became a full vice president, John Cheyne.

John Cheyne helped move the FMB from a disaster mentality of addressing human needs to a more proactive, holistic approach. Southern Baptists also instituted an official World Hunger Day in 1978, which continues today as the primary source of funding for holistic SBC work around the world. Currently, the International Mission Board (IMB, formerly FMB) has within one of its nine qualifying statements to its vision the intention of addressing human needs within the context of the church. The IMB Human Needs Ministry Department was renamed the World Hunger and Relief Ministries (WHRM) department. Then, in 2006 a new Southern Baptist relief and development organization called Baptist Global Response (BGR) was formed. The HN/WHRM office of the IMB was phased out, and the IMB partnered with BGR in order to provide a more effective, efficient, and explicit Southern Baptist unified global relief and development effort. Today, Southern Baptists have several platforms, ministries, and organizations addressing a wide variety of human needs both in relief and development. On the average, about four hundred relief and development projects per year are implemented in the amount of $10 to 12 million annually.

Biblical Basis

God’s love and care for the poor and needy is a central theme in the Bible. His message is one of hope to those who are needy, afflicted, and oppressed.

For the needy shall not always be forgotten,

and the hope of the poor shall not perish forever. (Ps 9:18)22

Time after time, God comes to the aid of those who suffer injustice.

For he delivers the needy when he calls,

the poor and him who has no helper.

He has pity on the weak and needy,

and saves the lives of the needy.

From oppression and violence he redeems their life,

and precious is their blood in his sight. (Ps 72:12–14)

To the nation of Israel, God declared, “But there will be no poor among you; for the Lord will bless you in the land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance to possess.” If there were poor among them, God furthermore commanded, “You shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be” (Deut 15:4, 7–8).

Isaiah announced that the coming Messiah would be anointed with the Spirit of the Lord, “to bring good news to the poor; he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound” (Isa 61:1). Jesus took up that mantle when at the beginning of his ministry he proclaimed, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor. . . . Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing” (Luke 4:18–19, 21).

Furthermore, Jesus proclaimed the kingdom of God as a kingdom of restored relationships. He taught his disciples to pray, “Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt 6:10). When asked about the greatest of all the commandments, Jesus used the occasion to link love of neighbor with love of God (Mark 12:28–31).

Jesus demonstrated the power and compassion of God in actions as well. He touched the eyes of the man born blind (John 9:1ff). He reached out and touched lepers (Mark 1:40ff). Wherever he went, he not only proclaimed the kingdom of God but demonstrated it as well. “He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him” (Acts 10:38). Matthew described Jesus as going “throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people” (Matt 4:23).

Additionally, Jesus illustrated social concern in many of his stories and parables—for example, the good Samaritan (Luke 10:29–37), the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19–31), and the judgment of the nations (Matthew 25:31–46) where he separated the sheep and goats based upon how each treated the hungry, thirsty, stranger, naked, sick, and imprisoned. The book of Acts records healings and distribution of material help “as any had need” (Acts 2:45). Paul urged doing good to all (Gal 6:10), and James gave pointed admonition along that same line (Jas 1:22; 2:15–16; 4:17), especially to widows and orphans.

Relief and Development Approaches and the Strategic Link to Global Missions

In 1990 Christian mission strategist Luis Bush began to talk about a vast area of the world, stretching from North Africa across the Asia continent through China. As a defined area, it was reported to have both the highest levels of socioeconomic challenges and the least access to the church, Christianity, and Christian resources. Because this area was between ten and forty degrees latitude north of the equator, it became known as the 10/40 window (Bush 1990).

The 10/40 window has become the strategic focus of many mission agencies. More than 75 percent of the world’s lost live in the window. Still, too few people and agencies target this area of the world. It is typically seen as highly resistant to the gospel with cultural, physical, and government barriers.

The 10/40 window is a window of major populations. Within this window, there are sixty-plus countries. About 4.5 billion of the 7 billion people on earth live in this area of the world, and they comprise 90 percent of the unreached people groups of the world.

The 10/40 window is a window of major world religions. Living in the window are about 1.2 billion Muslims, 1 billion Hindus, and 600 million Buddhists. More than 1 billion people in the 10/40 window live under the influence of communism/socialism. It has been described as a belt of spiritual darkness with most of the countries/places being “creative access” countries within which different strategies must be employed in order to gain access.

The 10/40 window is also a window of poverty, critical human needs, and suffering. Close to 80 percent of the poorest of the poor in the world live there. Whereas over the past fifty years the wealthy “Christian” world has gotten wealthier, the lost have grown poorer. Not only is the 10/40 window poor, but it also has some of the highest rates of infant mortality in the world. Furthermore, the 10/40 window is an area of armed conflict as well, with many of these countries experiencing ongoing wars. Additionally, the 10/40 window is a place where the development potential of women is extremely low. Furthermore, more than two-thirds of the world’s refugees are Muslims, and more than 90 percent of those are in the 10/40 window (Myers 1996, 23).

Practical Aspects of Relief and Development Strategies

In recent years the IMB has shifted its focus to unreached and unengaged people groups. This is in line with the IMB’s vision statement of “a vast multitude from every nation, tribe, people, and language . . . standing before the throne” (Rev 7:9 HCSB). A people group is the largest group through which the gospel can flow without encountering a significant barrier of understanding or acceptance. Unreached groups (UPGs) are those that are less than 2 percent evangelical. Unengaged Unreached People Groups (UUPGs) are those that have no coordinated evangelical Christian missionary presence among them (Holste 2012). When UPGs and UUPGs are mapped worldwide, they are found in various places. However, a concentrated band runs from North Africa to East and Southeast Asia. This band corresponds with high levels of human suffering, measured by what is called the human development index (HDI). When mapped together, it shows that 45 percent of unreached and unengaged groups live in areas that have serious to extreme human need issues (Global Research 2013). This suggests that more than a cursory focus on relief and development strategies could be a key component to a global missions strategy. In short, the majority of the unreached and underreached are living in areas of high human needs.

Typology of Human Needs: Acute versus Chronic, Relief versus Development

Human needs, for the sake of this book, are the basic needs of people for food, water, security, shelter, welfare, and so on. They come in the form of physical, emotional, spiritual, and intellectual needs. Relief and development ministries are programs and projects that address the basic needs (felt and real) of a people or population segment and help that group move toward a solution to the problems associated with meeting those needs. Relief and development ministries in a kingdom focus always keep in mind that the deepest and most basic human need is for a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Generally, relief and development work is broken down into two broad categories. These categories are based upon the type of need addressed and, though not fixed, serve as the foundational ethos how one approaches a particular potential problem or need. A complete relief and development organization and/or worker will look at both these categories and act accordingly as needed in the context of a particular situation.

1. Acute Human Needs Problems. These needs arise from disaster events such as wars, famine, earthquakes, floods, and so forth, and are highly unpredictable as to when or where they will happen. They are generally short-term and life-threatening situations. Immediate response (within the first forty-eight to seventy-two hours) is critical to saving lives and the effectiveness of the program. They can and do open windows for ministry, usually of a shorter duration than chronic needs. They are generally dealt with through emergency relief/disaster response. Acute crises usually refer to a brief period of time in which food and/or other needed resources may need to be distributed or appropriate aid given. Programs addressing these issues are generally described as “relief” ministries. The events can be massive in scale, such as the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami that killed more than 225,000 people in eleven countries. They can also be small, isolated events tied to a single community such as flash floods, landslides, fire, and so on.

2. Chronic Human Needs Problems. These problems include human suffering due to hunger, poverty, poor health, and so forth, and are generally long-term and often massive in proportion. Because the problems causing chronic suffering are deeply rooted in human societies and cultures, they usually require long-term, transformational, and education-based solutions. They generally seek to transform the things within a community that are the causative agents of the problems being addressed. The projects and programs addressing these types of needs are seen as proactive and transformational in nature (Cheyne 1996, 27).

Responses to both these types of needs are generally directed toward enabling people to move to self-realization and self-sustaining activities providing an adequate and acceptable quality of life.

Common Approaches to Relief and Development Work

When we look at the various types of relief and development work, some common approaches emerge. This not only applies to mission work but across the board for all relief and development efforts. Following is a general categorization of the most common approaches used today in development ministries. Each of these can be examined from a macro scale (governments, intragovernment agencies, etc.) or a micro scale (nongovernment organizations or NGOs, development organizations, communities, etc.).

Relief Approaches

Disaster relief programs mainly address acute needs and are more commonly referred to as “disaster response.” They meet people at their lowest points and highest needs. They are compassion ministries that can open doors in closed areas and also lead to longer-term development programs. The main focus is timely intervention that seeks to meet the immediate needs of victims in a disaster event with assistance in food, water, shelter, health services, and so on.

A disaster is a serious disruption of the functioning of society causing widespread losses, which exceed the ability of the community to cope using only its own resources. The phases of a disaster response effort include the initial response, recovery, and rehabilitation.

Current media attention has raised the awareness of disasters globally. Events such as the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, 2005 Hurricane Katrina, and the 2011 Japan earthquake and tsunami have generated a growing volunteer effort and spawned new disaster response programs. Thus, disaster response has become a more institutionalized and professional discipline, requiring certification/licensing for those wishing to participate. However, many opportunities are available for Christian groups today to form their own or be involved in existing disaster relief ministries. For instance, about 83,000 Southern Baptist trained disaster relief volunteers are in churches in the United States today. Even though the large-scale disasters receive worldwide media attention, localized disasters occur every day. Both local and national organizations can and do respond to these (Melancon, personal communication).

Development Approaches

Development approaches address the chronic needs of people and communities. The responses to these generally are long-term, as opposed to relief approaches to short-term problems. Long-term responses seek to identify and alleviate the root problems of underdevelopment—poverty, hunger, and chronic illnesses. These problems are much more complex and ingrained. Some common development approaches are:

A. Training Center/Institutional Approaches. Training Centers have been a standard approach for development organizations around the world, both government and nongovernment. These can come in the form of research stations, farmer training centers, or experiment stations. In many cases they have been creative and effective in meeting needs of people directly and indirectly. In the worse-case scenarios, they have become large institutions that have turned inward. Generally, these type of development programs are only successful when teamed with a good extension program focused on community-based development.

B. Technology Transfer/Extension Type Programs. Many development organizations have taken a technology development approach, combined with an extension philosophy, to take developed technology to communities. The idea is that “good” or “new” technology can help pull people out of poverty. Moreover, a push for “appropriate” technology has also been a focus in the development world over the past forty years. New technologies such as appropriate farm machinery, better water filters, improved pumps, and so forth have been instrumental in helping development, but they still have to be combined with some sort of community involvement strategy to make a long-term impact.

C. Community-Based Health Programs. These are a growing number of programs not necessarily run by health care professionals but rather by organizations and individuals focused on primary health issues such as nutrition and sanitation. They are generally education-based programs, attacking the causative agents of disease and poor health mainly via preventative measures. An example of this type of program is Community Health and Education (CHE) promoted by Lifewind International (LI), which currently has projects in more than seventy countries. Another good example of this approach is an adaptation of CHE known as Community Transformation Training (CTT).

D. University/Education by Extension Programs. Some development organizations/programs have tied into university programs such as those for poverty alleviation. Helping to educate future leaders and development workers becomes a long-term strategy for overall development. These programs can be expanded to include “extension” education to remote communities. A model for this comes from the education world whereby universities are set up not only as centers of higher education but also have aggressive extension programs attached to them. An example is the land-grant universities of the US.

E. Community Development and Community Organizing Programs. These programs are numerous and conducted by government backing and NGOs alike. They are separate from the others in that they are generally multifocused and concerned with integrated development instead of only one sector such as health or agriculture. They focus on the “process” of development, working with communities and individuals to come up with practical and doable solutions to their problems.

F. Business/Micro-Enterprise Type Models. This is a growing category of human needs ministries/development programs. The idea is to create capital access for the poorest of the poor, thereby giving them a chance for development. These programs have pros and cons, but they are growing in terms of contribution to community improvement all around the world and should not be overlooked. This is best represented by the Grameen Bank experience from Bangladesh. Grameen Bank has been a successful model of establishing micro-loans, especially to women and women’s groups.

G. Development of Cooperatives/Focus Groups/Self-Help Groups. Similar to community development programs, these programs aim at forming village/community groups that are focused on some project, plan, or enterprise. These are seen in the formation of consumer, producer, and multipurpose type cooperatives as well as business cooperatives.

H. Gender and/or Age-Focused Programs. These types of programs focus on the “overlooked” groups in the community such as women and children. These are best expressed in women’s and youth organizations such as the Rural Improvement Clubs of the Philippines (women’s groups) and the 4-H clubs (youth organizations) around the world. They take on the form of livelihood projects, health care clubs, micro-loan organizations, physical fitness groups, and so on.

I. Eco-Tourism. This is a growing area of rural life improvement. It capitalizes on the rural wilderness areas of developing countries and strives to stimulate local economy while preserving and enhancing the natural environment and local cultures.

J. Literacy Programs. With a world that has an estimated 1 billion illiterates, these programs have been strategic in gaining access and meeting needs in some of the poorest people groups. Literacy rates are one of the best indicators for overall health (especially for women and children) and are directly proportional to income and quality of life.

K. A Combination of Any or All of the Above.

Things that Relief and Development Ministries Can Help “Do”

Relief and development strategies and what they can do to help us in mission have been articulated as the ABCs (Fielding 2008, 61). While Charles Fielding has applied his acrostic mainly to health care strategies, it can be broadened to relief and development as a whole.

A—Access to unreached and needy groups.

B—Behind closed doors with access to relationships that allow the gospel to flow.

C—Care for the needy (and church planting)

D—Disciple making

E—Empowering of the (local) church

In addition to Fielding’s ABCs, other benefits of relief and development strategies include:

Softening of the target. In cultures and areas that are hostile to the gospel or Christians in general, relief and development approaches have shown at times to soften the hard soil because of the compassion shown.

Providing a viable platform for outsiders to enter. Not only do we gain a welcomed entry but also a tangible reason for being there.

Gaining of a long-term presence. In many cases due to the entry point of human needs, we not only gain entry and a viable platform but a means of having a long-term presence as well because of the cumulative effects of softening and ministry-based relationships.

Correct preconceived ideas about Christians. In most cases, there are preconceived negative ideas about who Christians are and what we do. Relief and development ministries oftentimes provide a demonstrable way to correct some of these negative perceptions.

Things that Relief and Development Ministries Cannot Do

The one clear thing that relief and development ministries cannot do for us on their own is to evangelize, disciple, and start churches. While relief and development projects and programs allow things such as access, viable platform, and a tangible expression of God’s love, it is acknowledged that “faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” (Rom 10:17). Our demonstration of God’s love does validate our proclamation of the truth. Conversely, our proclamation clarifies that demonstration. However, our human needs ministries must proactively engage in verbal sharing of the good news and discipling of believers, or they are not truly holistic.

Potential Negative Impacts of Relief and Development Ministries

There are a number of potential negatives in utilizing these strategies, such as:

Creation of dependency in the target group. Overuse or improper use of outside resources can cause more problems than they solve. It can lead to various forms of paternalism: resource, spiritual, knowledge, labor, and managerial (Corbett and Fikkert 2009, 115). Our goal is not to have people dependent on us but rather on God. The best relief and development projects are when we express our mutual dependence on God and lead others to see our dependence in a way that enhances theirs.

Shift of focus from the “main thing” (proclamation of the gospel) to the project/program at hand. Projects for relief and development require time, skills, and the efforts of those running them. In mission circles the fear exists that these efforts will take a person away from the “main thing.”

Ethical issues such as making “rice” Christians. A “rice” Christian is a term used to describe a person who becomes a Christian not for faith’s sake but for socioeconomic or political perceived benefits (real or unreal). “Hand out” programs can lead to this. Good development principles and discernment can help avoid it.

Can cause a high profile in a nonsecure area (e.g., NGOs are notoriously suspected as “fronts”). In many governments of the world, concern is growing regarding the proliferation of NGOs. In some cases they are basically seen as fund-raising machines exploiting the very people they claim to help. In other cases they are seen as fronts for religious or imperialistic motives. There is a growing wariness globally of NGOs and private “volunteer” organizations.

Time consuming. The main concern is that our relief and development programs can take all of our time and not allow us to follow up kingdom opportunities.

Need of people with specialized skills. Relief and development programs do require people with specialized talents and skills. Oftentimes, such individuals are difficult to find in a typical church leadership/mission organization.

Conclusion

Good works apart from the proclamation of the gospel are no more than humanitarian efforts. Proclaiming the gospel without love or compassion for the object of that proclamation is equally deficient biblically.

We have not been called to an “either/or” gospel but rather a “both/and,” whereby we make Christ known to a lost and dying world by our words and our deeds. The gospel must be proclaimed, heard, and believed for any person to be truly regenerated. However, the addressing of physical needs in the form of relief and development ministries has proven to be biblically, theologically, and missiologically sound.

Relief and development ministries should never be taken as a substitute for the evangelism and church-planting mandate. Rather, they should be viewed as a key component and vehicle to achieve those mandates. In a world where it is harder and harder to access the lost, our primary strategy might be a ministry focus on the least of these.

Chapter 32

Leadership Development in Missions Settings

Robert Ferris

Any consideration of leadership development in mission settings must begin by reviewing leadership development in the mother church from the New Testament era to the current day. Contemporary approaches to equipping for ministry leadership in the Majority World have been shaped more by that history than by a theology of equipping for ministry, by a biblically informed philosophy of education, or by the realities of church and culture in mission settings.

Leadership Development

In New Testament Times

Jesus’ approach to leadership development is described in the four Gospels: Jesus called prayerfully selected individuals “that they might be with him” (Mark 3:14). From the outset he named them “apostles”—messengers, sent ones—indicating his intention that their focus should be missional. He modeled ministry (Mark 4–5), then sent them out “two by two” (Mark 6:7–13) and debriefed their experience with them upon their return (Mark 6:30–32; Luke 10:17–24). They observed him daily in the mundane times—eating, sleeping, washing, walking down the road—as well as when teaching throngs, interacting with religious authorities, responding to people’s hurts, and confronting demons. All this, he told them, he did through faith (Matt 21:21), prayer (Mark 9:28–29), and the Spirit (Matt 12:28). Lest they assume his ministry benefited from access to resources they lacked, he assured them that the works he did they would do—and greater (John 14:12)!

For eleven of the twelve—and for many more—Jesus’ training was eminently successful. The New Testament chronicles the rapid spread of the infant church across the Roman Empire but says little about leadership development. Paul required high moral standards of church leaders but stated only that they must be “able to teach” and said nothing of their preparation (1 Tim 3:1–13; Titus 1:5–9). It is reasonable to assume the apostles’ approach to leadership development was that of their Lord.

The most arresting aspect of Jesus’ approach to leadership development is that he did not found a school. Schools had been common in Greece since the fourth century BC and were brought to Palestine during the Hellenistic period. In the first century, nearly every synagogue had a synagogue school. Almost certainly Jesus attended synagogue school as a boy. Yet, when confronted with the challenge of preparing leaders to perpetuate his legacy and spread the gospel “to Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the ends of the earth,” he did not found a school. He could have, but he did not. We dare not dismiss that fact too quickly.

In the Postapostolic Church

Nevertheless, it was not long before the church turned to schooling as a means of developing leaders. The first, according to tradition, was the catechetical school of Alexandria, founded by Pantaenus (c. AD 180), who was trained in Stoic philosophy prior to his conversion (Atiya 1991, CE469a–473a). Although initially designed to prepare catechumens for baptism, in the face of philosophical challenges to the young faith and the rapid growth of the church, the school evolved to equip catechists for teaching ministries and church leadership. In Alexandria, Pantaenus was followed by Clement and then Origen. It is noteworthy that the founders and leaders of this and other catechetical schools brought to their role a background in Hellenic education and philosophy.

It was the rare student, however, who traveled to study under one of these masters. Glen Thompson’s research on church leadership development in the second century indicates that most church leaders were appointed from within their own congregation. He summarizes his findings by stating, “I have been able to find no mention of any organized or lengthy instruction or theological training for the clergy at any level” (Thompson 1997, 107). The situation in the third century was much the same. The first indications of systematic training appear in the fourth century, but then in the form of apprenticeship, still within the local congregation (Thompson 1997, 110).

Beyond this local apprenticeship model, the principal source of leadership development in the early medieval period appears to have been monastic. In the community of the monastery, vows, disciplines, and religious services were expected to nurture the inner life of the monk toward conformity to the nature of Christ. Leadership development—since many monks became parish priests—included literacy and training in the services of the church but was largely a process of socialization. Some bishops established schools in their cathedrals for the same purpose, and in 1079 Gregory VII mandated that all bishops do so. Cathedral schools expanded to include the classics and, in the late Middle Ages, gave birth to scholasticism. The majority of clergy, however, were not well prepared. Enrico Pepe observes, “Not the least among the causes [of the Protestant Reformation] was the poor education of the clergy and their lax moral standards” (1991, 15).

Fewer than five years after Luther nailed his theses to the church door in Wittenberg, Ignatius of Loyola reflected deeply on his own spiritual development and wrote Spiritual Exercises, which prescribe a course of meditation on Scripture and reflection on one’s internal life that brings one to a deeper identification with Christ. (For a contemporary evangelical adaptation of the Ignatian Exercises, see http://lcileaders.org/spiritual-formation-exercises.)

In 1540 Ignatius and seven friends founded the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits), vowing to “place themselves at the disposal of the Holy Father to travel wherever he should wish to send them for whatever duties” (O’Neal 1847). In 1543 the Council of Trent ordained that all cathedrals should provide colleges to train men for the priesthood (Trent, session 23, chap. 18). That provided direction to the Jesuits’ vow and led to the first major, postapostolic expansion of Christian leadership development into mission settings. In fifteen years, prior to his death in 1556, Ignatius saw “the Society of Jesus grow from eight to a thousand members” (O’Neal 1847) and establish Jesuit schools throughout Europe, India, Latin America, and the Philippines.

In the Protestant Church

Martin Luther was a scholar and pastor, but he did not found a school. It was Calvin’s Geneva Academy (founded in 1558) that set the pattern for leadership development among Protestant churches in the Reformation and post-Reformation eras. The Geneva Academy offered two curricula, one (schola privata) for the moral and scientific education of youth and the other (schola publica) a seminary to train ministers (McKim 2004, 19). Unlike priestly formation in the Catholic Church, the focus of ministry leadership development in Calvin’s schola publica was biblical and theological. This was an important and needed shift, although not entirely for the better because theological education was an academic pursuit.

A further step in the academic captivity of ministry education came in 1808 when Schleiermacher’s case for inclusion of the faculty of theology in the new University of Berlin won the day. Schleiermacher argued that theology is a legitimate science because, like medicine and law, it provides the theoretical basis for an essential human occupation, that is, the preparation of leaders for the religious life of the nation (Farley 1983, 88). Thus, the focus of theological education shifted from the formation of spiritual ministers to the development of scholarly theoreticians. Rather than developing pastors equipped as agents of spiritual transformation, the task of theological education was recast as developing theological experts.

Pursuit of academic credibility in a context of European naturalism led to humanistic theologies that, by the end of the nineteenth century, the “Fundamentalist” movement countered. Many fundamentalist Christians in North America rejected seminary education but not the schooling model; Bible schools were founded to prepare pastors and evangelists. In the 1960s, as evangelicals moved beyond Fundamentalism, evangelical seminaries owned again the values of the academy.

The first theological school of the modern missionary era was Serampore College, founded in 1818 by William Carey. Between 1920 and 1960, however, evangelical missionaries, principally from North America, founded hundreds of Bible schools in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The need for trained leaders for national churches was evident—indeed, pressing!—and the educational modality familiar to missionaries was the theological school. This is the reality the global church has inherited today.

Problems Inherent in a Schooling Approach to Developing Church Leaders

The roots of schooling lie deep in the soil of ancient Greece and are shaped by a Hellenistic understanding of knowledge. The Greeks believed that truth comprehended naturally is applied in life; the pursuit of knowledge is the means to a just society (O’Brian 1967, 23). The Hebrews, under God’s tutelage, understood that cognitive apprehension of truth may not eventuate in moral living. Thus for the Hebrew, truth is not “known” (yada) until it is incorporated into life in the form of obedience. The Hellenistic origins of schooling are reflected in an overwhelming occupation with cognitive achievements. Assessment is an index of underlying values; in theological schools, typically the only foci of assessment are cognitive. Yet, evangelical faculties are so accustomed to and invested in schooling as an approach to education that they rarely recognize the disconnect between the inherent values of their educational model and their own understanding of a biblical view of knowledge. This disconnect, however, exacts a high cost on the school’s capacity to achieve its stated goals. Truth lectured, discussed, or researched may not be learned, even when it can be represented on an examination, because any “application” is speculative, at best. Pursuit of cognitive achievement rather than holistic effectiveness in ministry is an inherent limitation of the schooling model when applied to leadership development for the Christian community.

Schooling’s singular focus on cognitive development discounts the significance of relationship, a second weakness when employed to develop church leaders. In the school, relationships are hierarchically defined and delimited; contact between teacher and learner often is confined to structured time blocks, which can be carefully managed. Students typically have little contact with teachers outside the classroom. If the exigencies of life intrude on instruction, this is cause for apology, at least, and potentially for dismissal. A teacher’s life may be in crisis, but his problems should not distract students from their intellectual tasks. Again, the Hellenistic roots of the schooling model are exposed. Humanity’s distinctive quality is the mind; development of the mind is the hope of society and the singular task of the school. Christians who take the Bible seriously know this is not true. Jesus’ approach to developing disciples was intensely relational. His commission to the church was to make disciples, not to train scholars. Knowledge is important—God has given us the Scriptures because there is much we need to know—but wisdom and spiritual maturity are nurtured in sustained and open relationship.

A third weakness of the schooling model is its inherent elitism. The culture of the school is a meritocracy in which rank is associated with academic achievement; faculty members are assigned privilege based on degrees earned, research pursued, and works published. Students are “graded” and ranked on the basis of academic achievement. The summum bonum of the student is credentialing, the award of a sought degree. All this stands in stark contrast to Jesus’ teaching on and modeling of leadership as servanthood. Many faculty members in evangelical schools, in both the West and the Majority World, are humble servants of Christ who genuinely are committed to model and teach these values. Nevertheless, the structure of the school overwhelms their best intentions. Students are shaped by the implicit curriculum of elitism rather than by the biblical values discussed in class.

Finally, schools are economically unsustainable apart from a continuing influx of external funding. In the West, Bible colleges and seminaries depend on the largesse of wealthy donors, on gifts from alumni and friends, and on earnings from endowed investments. When the schooling model is exported to Majority World economies, local sources of external support frequently are nonexistent and dependency on the founding church or mission is inevitable. The practical dangers and tragic effects of economic dependency are well documented (Easterly 2006). When mission support is diminished, leaders of theological schools often resort to their own fund-raising tours in Europe or (especially) North America. Whether supported by a Western agency or by Western donors, the effect on the school’s relationship to its constituent church is problematic. Without capacity to sustain its inherited program of leadership development, the church has little influence on the seminary, and the seminary has little accountability to the national church.

Hellenistic assumptions embedded in the Western worldview and the wealth of Western economies tend to mask the inappropriateness of schooling as a means of developing leaders for the Christian church, but the failure of schools to meet leadership development needs of the church in mission settings is increasingly evident. Nikolay Nedelchev, then president of Bulgarian Evangelical Theological Institute and subsequently president of the European Evangelical Alliance, summarized a 2003 leadership conference of East European pastors and seminary leaders in Budapest, Hungary. Nedelchev said, “We imported the best theological education models from the West and they are not doing the job of training our pastors.” Although Nedelchev states graphically the experience of these East Europeans, the problem is not regional; the failure of schooling as an approach to developing church leaders is global.

Alternatives to Schooling

Given the problematic nature of schooling as an approach to developing church leaders, it is not surprising that various alternatives have been attempted, with varying success.

Theological Education by Extension

The ministry training experiment that is best known and most widely employed is Theological Education by Extension (TEE), which emerged in the 1960s in Guatemala as the result of a succession of adaptations intended to address the evident failure of a school to equip leaders for the indigenous church (Covell 1971). As this experiment became known, a new educational orthodoxy quickly formed that was globally disseminated through a series of conferences and workshops (Winter 1969, 259–377). The Western church never embraced TEE, but it was welcomed in the Majority World, where the inadequacy of schooling as a means of developing church leaders was more obvious. Nevertheless, TEE has been burdened from its inception by “a birth defect.”

This defect can be seen, in hindsight, as stemming from the confluence of two factors. First, when confronted with the failure of their seminary to develop leaders for the Guatemalan church, the engineering background of TEE’s pioneers disposed them to seek mechanistic solutions. Second, as they searched for leadership development alternatives, behaviorist psychology, expressed as “programmed instruction,” had captured the attention of many Western educators.

TEE pioneers introduced many positive adaptations. Relocating the seminary from a city to the rural context of its constituent churches was quite positive. Redefining the role of educator as designer of learning resources, rather than lecturer, was immensely positive. Diminishing the role of teacher as facilitator of learning, however, was tragic. Uncritical advocacy of a behaviorist understanding of human learning was profoundly detrimental since it is profoundly unbiblical. Contrary to TEE orthodoxy, the text is not and cannot be “the teacher,” and it is not true that almost anyone, using a programmed text, is qualified to facilitate learning.

Despite these flaws, TEE continues to contribute significantly to understanding of the Bible among grassroots Christians in many nations. One cannot help but be impressed by the contribution of TEE to leadership development for the global church (Mandryk 2010).

Even more encouraging are efforts to reinvent TEE in ways that address earlier mistakes. The lead in this effort is owned by the Increase Network (see http://www.increasenetwork.org). Careful attention has been directed to the qualifications and role of the “tutor” as the director and facilitator of learning in the TEE class. Although expectations are not those of faculty members in a theological college, the TEE tutor needs to bring to the TEE class broad familiarity with the Bible, more knowledge of the subject field than commonly is represented in the class, and ministry experience related to the topic studied. Furthermore, the tutor’s role as life and ministry model for TEE students also is recognized. This requires careful screening and training of those appointed as TEE tutors. Because few tutor candidates have experienced interactive and dialogical instruction, modeling and mentoring in adult methods of teaching are central in the tutor-training program.

The TEE text continues to feature large in the new approach to TEE but with significant differences from “programmed instructional materials” of the past. The text retains the form of a workbook, rather than a traditional textbook, but behaviorist assumptions are disowned, replaced by a more sophisticated understanding of human growth and learning. Short-step instructional materials are employed, when appropriate, but new emphasis is given to alternative perspectives and to reflection on texts, personal experience, and insight. It also is assumed that the TEE tutor, in the course of discussion, will supplement text materials in ways that address the life and ministry context of learners.

Finally, the new approach to TEE recognizes that Christian nurture and leadership development are functions of the church, that TEE must be viewed as a ministry of the church rather than as a program independent of local congregations. High priority is given to winning ownership of the TEE program by congregational leaders and to recruiting them as local leaders and tutor-facilitators of TEE classes. Often this is a challenge because many pastors are products of theological colleges and have imbibed the values of academic instruction. It is undeniable, however, that the best results, for both learners and local congregations, are realized when the church owns TEE.

Positive benefits of these adaptations of the TEE model have been reported in several Asian nations. The principal contribution of TEE is in discipleship and in equipping local leaders. Even in these contexts and with these adaptations, however, TEE struggles to establish economic sustainability apart from missionary support and funding for text and resource development.

Nonformal Ministry Education in the Persecuted Church

A different alternative to schooling as an approach to church leadership development is found in the persecuted church. Each persecuted church develops its own means of equipping leaders in response to its religious and political environment. During the Soviet era in Russia, the Union of Evangelical Christians–Baptist (UECB) faced a hostile government that closed its seminaries, harassed and imprisoned its clergy, and restricted church activities to religious services.

In this context, UECB congregations adopted an apprenticeship approach to developing church leaders. Meeting weekly prior to the Sunday service, a group of “Brothers” led each congregation. The Brothers prayerfully observed members of the congregation to identify those with spiritual fervor and gifts. These were invited to become evangelists. Through one-on-one mentoring, new evangelists were trained to share their faith both within the congregation and in the community. When a man had proven himself as an effective evangelist, he was invited to become a deacon. Whereas the primary ministry of evangelists was outside the congregation, that of deacons was within. Deacons visited the sick, cared for widows and orphans, led children’s programs, and taught the Bible in the homes of believers. A deacon who proved himself faithful and who evidenced leadership gifts might be recognized as an elder. Elders were responsible for guiding the ministry of the congregation. One elder was recognized as “pastor,” although he functioned as “first among equals” and the role of pastor could rotate among elders.

Sunday services were at least two hours long. In addition to singing, Scripture reading, and prayers, the service included three sermons. In the Brothers’ meeting prior to the morning and service, the pastor announced the preachers for that morning. Typically, one evangelist, one deacon, and one elder were designated to preach in the service immediately following the Brothers’ meeting. Therefore, all Brothers came to the Brothers’ meeting prepared to preach. An evangelist preached for five to ten minutes, a deacon preached for fifteen to twenty minutes, and an elder preached for forty to fifty minutes. Following the service, the pastor or one of the elders debriefed the evangelist and deacon on their sermons preached that morning. Thus, in addition to ministry apprenticeship in the congregation and in the community, church leaders in training were given many opportunities to develop their ministry skills.

This apprenticeship model effectively provided locally trained church leaders for UECB churches throughout the Soviet era. Inasmuch as all Brothers were lay leaders, the amount of time given to substantive Bible study was limited. As a result, biblical and theological understanding reflected in the teaching and preaching ministries of the church sometimes suffered. Nevertheless, rapid reestablishment of Bible schools following the end of the Soviet era was a mixed blessing. While Bible school graduates were more familiar with biblical and theological concepts, they often lacked the spiritual maturity and experience-borne wisdom of those who were apprenticed.

The “seminaries of the fields” of the Word of Life church network in central China afford a second illustration of nonformal leadership development in a persecuted church. Despite its extremely hostile environment, the Word of Life church network grew rapidly in the 1980s. From a human perspective, this growth is attributable to the effective outreach and training program of the church. Because training meetings necessarily were clandestine, times and locations were changed frequently. For more extended instruction, teachers and learners were sequestered because coming and going too easily attracted attention.

Yalin Xin (2009) describes the Word of Life church network training program in some detail. Believers invite family and friends to a three-to-five-day evangelistic meeting during which an evangelist preaches and responds to questions concerning the meaning of life. Those identified as seekers then are invited to a “Life Meeting” that lasts seven days and addresses foundational Christian truths (Xin 2008, 170). Those who come to faith in the course of a Life Meeting proceed to a “Truth Meeting.” There, for another seven to fifteen days they receive teaching on the Seven Principles of the Word of Life church network, including salvation, the crucified life, fellowship with other house churches, and mission outreach. Thus, the evangelistic meetings, the Life Meetings, and the Truth Meetings constitute the Word of Life church network’s approach to evangelism and basic Christian education for all believers.

Those recognized as called to church leadership are enrolled in forty days of preparatory training prior to entry into the Word of Life church network’s version of theological education. During this time, trainees receive systematic instruction in the first two principles, i.e., “Salvation through the Cross” and “The Way of the Cross.” Those who have completed the preparatory course are mentored as they participate in evangelistic meetings, Life Meetings, and Truth Meetings.

After about six months, the trainee is enrolled in the first phase of Word of Life’s theological education program, a three-to-four-month, in-depth study of the Seven Principles. Upon completion of this phase, Xin reports, “trainees are sent out to lead evangelistic meetings, ‘Life Meetings,’ ‘Truth Meetings’ and short-term training classes” for about a year (Xin 2008, 170). At the conclusion of the year, trainees enter the final phase of their training, a six-month study that includes each book of the Bible.

Both the Russian UECB churches and the Chinese Word of Life church network have evolved effective means of developing leaders that are unique to their cultural and political environments. Both, interestingly, apprentice their developing ministry leaders. The Word of Life church network supplements mentoring in ministry with intense periods of instruction.

Priestly Formation in the Catholic Church

Despite highly publicized and distressingly widespread moral lapses among Roman Catholic priests, the Roman Catholic Church has given careful thought to the process of preparing men for diocesan and religious ministries. In 2005 the United States Council of Catholic Bishops published the fifth edition of Program of Priestly Formation. It is noteworthy that the Catholic Church refers to “priestly formation” rather than to education for the priesthood. The distinction marks more than terminology. “Formation, as the Church understands it, is not equivalent to a secular sense of schooling or, even less, job training. Formation is first and foremost cooperation with the grace of God” (USCCB 2005, §68).

The Program for Priestly Formation identifies four aspects of preparation for ministry in the Catholic Church: human formation, spiritual formation, intellectual formation, and pastoral formation. These are not temporally sequential, but they are interdependent (USCCB 2005, §72). The central and integrating aspect of priestly formation is spiritual.

The basic principle of spiritual formation is . . . to live in intimate and unceasing union with God the Father through his Son, Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit. This is the foundational call to discipleship and conversion of heart. Those who aspire to be sent on mission, as the apostles were, must first acquire the listening and learning heart of disciples. Jesus invited these apostles to come to him before he sent them out to others. (USCCB 2005, §107)

Spiritual formation is pursued in community under the guidance of a “spiritual director” with whom a relationship of openness and trust is essential. Careful and disciplined attention to the Scriptures and reflection on one’s inner life are stressed, as well as regular participation in religious services, spiritual retreats, simplicity of life, and solitude. The Ignatian Exercises, structured as a thirty-day retreat, often are included as an aspect of spiritual formation.

Intellectual formation and pastoral formation are pursued in ways similar to those in Protestant seminaries although (in theory, at least) anchored in the spiritual formation of the priest. However this process of priestly formation is implemented—and implementation certainly differs from diocese to diocese and from seminary to seminary—holistic attention to preparation for ministry is commendable. Evangelical programs for developing church leaders could benefit much by reflecting on the US Council of Catholic Bishops’ emphasis on focused attention to spiritual nurture as the core of priestly formation.

Leadership Development in Mission Settings Today

Challenges

Cross-cultural missionaries and mission leaders face enormous challenges in equipping gifted men and women for ministry in the twenty-first century. Despite problems identified in a schooling approach to church leadership development, to abandon existing Bible colleges and seminaries is neither wise nor realistic. Too many of the church’s resources, both human and material, are invested in theological schools to entertain that suggestion. The fundamental challenge is to steward those resources into more fruitful patterns of leadership development. An alternative model of education is needed, one attuned to church leadership, attentive to spiritual formation, grounded in relationship and community, and oriented toward mission.

A second challenge stems from the realities in current Bible college and seminary faculties. Faculty members were trained and recruited to be school-ers; most faculty members cannot imagine an alternative to lecture-driven schooling because that is the only model they have experienced. Furthermore, the schooling context in which they serve does not embrace values or reward behaviors needed to address current shortcomings. Any suggestion of an alternative to schooling raises anxiety and resistance, and naturally so. Clearly, the faculties of Bible colleges and seminaries in the Majority World represent a wonderful resource that must be preserved and invested but that also needs to be reformed. Any proposal to alter current approaches to church leadership development must include a plan for retraining seminary faculty members to function in the new environment.

A third challenge is represented by Western accrediting structures (Fuliga 2011, 284). Every accreditation system reflects a set of values—declared or undeclared—that is promoted and rewarded by the accrediting agency. Unfortunately, values that undergird accrediting programs for evangelical schools in the Majority World have been more oriented to Western universities and scholarly guilds than to constituent churches. Accrediting agencies can be engines for change, providing incentives for Majority World Bible colleges and seminaries to create more contextually appropriate models for developing church leaders. Too frequently in the past they have opted instead to mimic accrediting practices in the West in a quest for international credibility and recognition. Until regional accrediting agencies can free themselves from their Western bondage, Majority World ministry development programs may opt to forgo accreditation to pursue more appropriate models of training.

A fourth challenge is a massive continuing investment in theological schools that flows from the West to the Majority World, thus bolstering a model freighted with problems. Funds come from individual donors, churches, missions, Christian foundations, and agencies. These investments come in the form of monthly gifts, direct grants, faculty scholarships, and support for theological students. The effect is addictive, creating a negative incentive for theological schools to adapt to local realities of church and economy. Sadly, this well-meaning generosity can impede contextual adaptation of the church and expansion of the kingdom. Furthermore, this transfer of wealth often comes with requirements for accreditation, so the two problems are mutually reinforcing.

Ways Forward

Given these challenges, one may be tempted to conclude that change is impossible. It is not. The way forward demands courage and an abundance of grace, but steps toward an alternative approach to church leadership development in mission settings are recognizable. Options that readers and their agencies or institutions may want to consider include:

1. Conduct an outcomes study of current leadership development programs to determine their effectiveness and adequacy in equipping leaders for the church. At the same time, accrediting agencies may be encouraged to adopt criteria that require “impact based assessment,” assessment that engages external stakeholders and examines the long-term contribution of graduates to the church.

2. Initiate discussion of the schooling approach to church leadership development. Consider issues raised in this chapter. Is there reason to expect substantive alignment of church leadership needs and programs while schooling is the dominant model of leadership development? If not, how can we best encourage and support the church in mission settings to develop models appropriate to their context?

3. Provide professional training for current Bible college and seminary faculties on values and methods of transformational education. Workshops can enable teachers to teach for life and ministry application, not only for recall, and to embrace their role as models and mentors to students in ministry.

4. Examine the goals and procedures of current leadership development programs to assure that they reflect biblical priorities, and that they emphasize character, spiritual, and missional (versus only academic) qualifications for ministry. Are curricula oriented to the needs of ministry in the constituent church or to Western seminaries and universities?

5. Consider the contribution of formal (degree) and nonformal (nondegree) programs of training for church leaders. Are degree programs needed and helpful? Should church leadership development programs groom an elite and provide access to advanced secular studies? The answers seem obvious, but commitment to formal education values and assumptions are deeply held. Much prayerful conversation is needed to chart an appropriate course forward.

6. Explore the pros and cons of transitioning from vocational to bivocational expectations for instruction and ministry. In many contexts, leadership development programs will be sustainable only when faculty members are bivocational and students are trained for bivocational ministry.

7. Imagine how schooling resources may be more effectively deployed for developing church leaders. Reform need not spell the end of the theological school, although its function may be radically reshaped. As the constituent church recognizes the critical role of biblical scholarship in speaking into its religious, cultural, economic, and political contexts, the campus may be reconfigured as a research center. A program for mentoring a few, highly-trained apologists and ethicists may emerge alongside the larger, church-based program of equipping church leaders. If this seems wise, consider the steps needed to effect this transition. Together with a move toward bivocational ministry, this may allow the church to sell excess properties and release excess personnel into congregational and missional ministry, thus enhancing the potential for local sustainability.

A massive effort will be required to win faculties of theological schools to the need for change. These men and women have given their lives, often sacrificially, to acquiring qualification as teachers and to transferring knowledge to their students. We must walk with them through the transitions ahead.

Only discussion and recognition of the problematic effect of current approaches to leadership development in mission settings can lead to changes that are needed. Some of those problems have been discussed in this chapter. It is the responsibility of church leaders in the Majority World to assess the effectiveness of current models and, guided by the Spirit, to create alternative models suited to their ecclesial, cultural, and economic realities. The persecuted church may point the way. Western missionaries, missions, and agencies should encourage and support the global church in this process.

Chapter 33

Urban Missions

Wilbur Stone

The ongoing urbanization of our world and the rapid growth of cities all over our world present the Christian community with the tremendous challenge of effectively communicating the Christian message to these unreached masses of urban dwellers. Since 1996, more than 50 percent of the people in the world have lived in cities. By 2025 the proportion will reach 66 percent (World Resources 1999, 1). In 1900 only ten to twenty cities in the world had a population of one million. By 2000 more than five hundred cities had a population of more than one million, representing more than one-third of the world’s population. Approximately twenty-eight of these were megacities—with a population of more than eight million persons—and these cities alone constituted more than 10 percent of the world’s population. Twenty-two of these cities were in the so-called developing world, the majority being located in Asia (Clark 1996, 22, 46–47; Conn and Ortiz 2001, 64–79). More than three decades ago, one visionary church leader noted that discipling these urban population centers would be the most urgent task confronting the church (McGavran 1970, 295). Reaching these cities for Christ is “the key challenge for mission in the twenty-first century” (Johnstone 1998, 241–48).

The Bible and the City

Perhaps we need to be reminded that the Bible has much to say in regard to urban ministry. The Bible begins in a garden, but it ends in a city (Greenway 1992, 14). Cities have been viewed as being important and strategic throughout the Bible (Bakke 1984, 26). In the New Testament, apostolic Christianity is essentially an urban movement with great emphasis being placed upon the early church’s efforts to impact the cities of their world (Bakke 1987, 75–85; Greenway and Monsma 1989, 13, 15). Though clearly overstated, some have suggested that the Bible might even be viewed as a handbook for urban ministry (Linthicum 1991, 21). The Bible mentions “city” more than 1,200 times, and references at least 119 different cities (Bakke 1987, 62).

As one reflects upon the Scriptures, two questions demand our attention. What is the attitude of God toward the city? Manuel Ortiz poignantly notes, “We must realize that the Lord of history was and is present in the city” (Ortiz 1992, 87). What can we learn from the Bible about how to effectively communicate the gospel to urban peoples? It is essential to understand what the Bible has to say in regard to effective urban ministry, while avoiding the dangers related to hermeneutical carelessness (Greenway 1992, 14). Only then can we utilize insights from other disciplines, such as missiology, anthropology, sociology, urbanology, and so on, to formulate a theology that is adequate for developing appropriate and effective strategies and methods for reaching our cities for Christ. Although the number is arbitrary as one could easily discuss numerous other factors, issues, or insights involved in urban mission, the following appeared often enough in the literature to merit individual treatment in this brief study of urban mission/ministry.

Key Factors in Effective Urban Mission/Ministry

An Adequate Theology for Urban Ministry

A survey of the literature related to urban ministry reveals that the most often cited factor and the single greatest need is the formation of an adequate biblical and theological foundation for urban ministry (Bakke 1987, 62; 1997, 14–30; Cerillo 1991, 102ff.; Conn 1987, 10, 28; Copeland and Tonna 1984, 24–25; Greenway and Monsma 1989, 1–12, 78–79, 251; Haney 1994, 74; Hastey 1984, 159; Linthicum 1991, 63, 116–17; Perkins 1993, 41–45; Starkes 1984, 114; Thiessen 1994, 92–95; Van Engen and Tiersma 1994, 241–85). Christian ministry and mission are a projection of theological beliefs, and their vigor and form reflect the theological base on which they rest. There is always the danger that the urgency of the task will cause those involved in urban mission to neglect the necessary biblical foundations. Sound urban strategies and mission operations require solid biblical and theological foundations (Greenway and Monsma 1989, 1–2). Roger Greenway and Timothy Monsma argue that Christians living and working in the city can understand things that remain largely hidden to persons lacking a biblical framework, the root of the problem being a moral malignancy in the heart of the city (1989, 7).

Ortiz argues that “the failure of the church in the city has not been a failure of technique, but of theology . . . the lack of theology is not because we are too busy, it is because we do not understand how theology works in an urban context” (Ortiz 1984, 12–19). Too often, however, the church, parachurch, and mission agencies fail to develop theologies that adequately address the multitude of cultures and the social dynamics of the city (Greenway and Monsma 1989, 78–79). Thinking of theology as a never-ending process, as a verb rather than a noun, is helpful and should inform our efforts at developing an effective theology and effective strategies for urban ministry (Linthicum 1991, 23; Van Engen and Tiersma 1994, 279). The changing realities of urban life necessitate an ongoing effort to develop adequate theologies as well as methodologies to reach our cities for Christ. “Theology of mission is a multi- and interdisciplinary enterprise” that must include at least three factors: (1) concern for relating the biblical text to mission; (2) concern for the church’s mission; and (3) concern for the urban context (Van Engen and Tiersma 1994, 248).

Such an endeavor requires that the church take into consideration the multiplicity of urban factors, preparing one to minister to the holistic needs of the people of the city (Hiebert and Meneses 1995, 346; Van Engen and Tiersma 1994, 244). Such a theology must enable one to accurately perceive the city, inform one’s actions, guide one’s networking efforts, and energize one’s hopes for transforming the city (Van Engen and Tiersma 1994, 248). This necessitates that the church make a commitment to view the city systematically, holistically, and critically (Van Engen and Tiersma 1994, 254).

The primary systems of a city, the social, economic, political, and religious institutions, constantly interact and cooperate with one another (Linthicum 1991, 62). All other social institutions including education, health care, arts, social services, and so forth, are interlocking subsystems of these primary systems (Linthicum 1991, 47; Van Engen and Tiersma 1994, 278). These systems have the potential of working together for the good of all the people of the city, but they also have the potential for evil, including the exploitation of the vulnerable, the poor, and the powerless. An adequate theology for urban ministry must enable one to understand and exegete the city as an interlocking and interrelated set of systems and structures (Conn 1987, 140–42; Lingenfelter 1992, 183–94; Linthicum 1991, 28, 47, 78), and prepare one to deal with these systems and even demonic factors (Linthicum 1991, 123–27).

Intercessory Prayer

The second most often cited factor necessary for effective urban ministry was the need for urban ministry and mission to be undergirded by prayer—fervent, intercessory prayer, even spiritual warfare prayer (Bakke 1987, 196; Conn 1993, 328; Greenway and Monsma 1989, 8, 80, 83; Grigg 1990, 155; Hesselgrave 1988, 59; Linthicum 1991, 75, 149–55, 196; Neighbour 1991, 22; Parks 1984, 11; Perkins 1993, 169). “Prayer is both absolutely necessary and strategic” (Linthicum 1991, 155). While this is true of rural and urban ministry alike, the complexities of urban life magnify the need for well-informed, focused, even systematic intercessory prayer to address and confront the numerous realities involved in urban life and ministry. Robert Linthicum argues that Christians must pray for the shalom (peace and prosperity) of the city, for the economic health of the city, for the safety of the whole city, for the government of the city and the complete reformation of the political process, and for the people of the city, for their happiness and joy (Jer 29:7) (1991, 149–53). Greenway and Monsma also argue that the church “must pray for the city’s welfare, attack its abuses, and promote its true good . . . the city’s deepest struggle is religious” (1989, 8). They add that “there has never been a church that accomplished significant things for God that was not strong in prayer and spiritual devotion” (1989, 41). To achieve the greatest effect, intercessory prayer needs to be a citywide, cross-denominational or interchurch cooperative effort that is continuously informed by ongoing research and the realities of an ever-changing context (Dennison 1999, 233–51; Otis 1999, 58–75; Waymire and Townsend 2000, 3.13, 4.1, 5.7).

Exegeting the Urban Context

Properly understanding the city, being able to exegete the urban context (Bakke 1984, 21; Conn and Ortiz 2001, 255–307), understanding the city as an interlocking and interrelated set of systems and structures (Conn 1987, 140–42; 1993, 328; Kauffman 1994, 30; Lingenfelter 1992, 183–94; Linthicum 1991, 28, 47, 78), understanding the history of forces and counterforces that have shaped the city and its several component areas (Kehrein 1999, 55), and understanding the dynamics of urbanization and pluralism (Bakke 1984, 20; Barrett 1986, 17; Greenway and Monsma 1989, 108) and the processes of secularization (Conn 1987, 107–9) are essential factors in effective urban mission. “Every city has a unique ethos” (Bakke 1984, 21). “Cities are complicated, but not incomprehensible” (Greenway and Monsma 1989, 112). Secularization as a process touches every aspect of urban life (Conn 1987, 116). “One cannot be effective in urban ministry without dealing with the systems and structures of the city” (Linthicum 1991, 278).

Perhaps equally important is the attitude of church and mission leaders toward the city. Is the city of God or of Satan? Is the city something to be feared or confronted or something to be celebrated (Linthicum 1991, 29)? How one answers such questions has a lot to say about how one goes about ministry or mission within the city. Harvie Conn argues for the need for the church to demythologize the city (1987, 9). Conn notes that God can reorient urban power structures, and that evil and powerlessness are not strictly urban problems (1987, 167, 171). Greenway and Monsma argue that “the world’s cities are evidences of God’s preserving and preventative grace . . . the cities we know today are not to be identified with either the kingdom of Satan or the kingdom of God. Cities are the result of God’s common grace” (1989, 5). Yet, they see sin and evil at work in the city, both at the level of the individual and in the social structures that people have devised (1989, 9). They further argue that Christians can and should take a positive stance toward the city, affirming and accepting their share of responsibility for the city (Jer 29:7) (1989, 8). Christians must learn to love the city and its people, must get to know the city, must learn to appreciate the body of Christ that exists in the city, must build genuine credibility, must hurt for the city, and must possess a deep and genuine passion for evangelism (Greenway and Monsma 1989, 248–49). The church is responsible for equipping its members to impact “all the systems and all the areas that constitute urban life” (Greenway and Monsma 1989, 8).

In-Depth and Ongoing Research

Although research is a necessary aspect of both rural and urban ministry, the importance of ongoing and in-depth research for urban ministry cannot be overstated. The need for and value of research into both urban mission and of a given urban context is of crucial importance to the tasks related to urban mission (Conn and Ortiz 2001, 255–307; Greenway and Monsma 1989, 132–39; Lingenfelter 1992, 183–94; Waymire and Townsend 2000, 3.1–6.14). Researching an urban context is complicated by the very complexity of the city. While some fairly homogeneous cities exist, most reflect a variety of socioeconomic levels and a multiethnic, multireligious, multilinguistic population. These factors are further complicated by other factors, including gender, age and generational issues, occupational groups, associational groups, and so on. Researching a city can be compared to cutting a pie into hundreds of pieces, each piece representing a unique group requiring different strategies and methodologies to impact that population segment for Christ. But, “research can remove much of the mystery and frustration so often associated with urban ministry” (Greenway and Monsma 1989, 69). The need to identify, understand, and develop approaches to effectively overcome barriers and meet needs is an essential aspect involved in this task of evangelizing the unreached in the cities of our world (Greenway and Monsma 1989, 73, 83).

In addition to understanding the foregoing realities in the city, it is also essential to fully understand the spiritual realities at work within a given urban context (Otis 1999, 77–98). In addition, one must also determine the status of Christianity within a given context and utilize this information as a means to developing relationships, networks, and partnerships for confronting the spiritual realities, for addressing felt and real needs, and for communicating the Christian message effectively.

Research must be understood as a multifaceted task, employing a variety of techniques including participant observation, library and Internet research, the use of personal informants, mapping, cultural and language studies, and other devices including surveys, questionnaires, statistical analysis, interviews, historical analysis, and more. Most ethnographers employ a method known as triangulation—the use of a variety of methods to collect and compare different perspectives on a given population segment, situation, and so forth. (Bennett, Felder, and Hawthorne 1995, 41–82; Spradley 1979, 3–16; 1980, 3–35; Waymire and Townsend 2000, 3.1–6.14).

Dependency upon the Person and Work of the Holy Spirit

Recognition of and dependence upon the person and work of the Holy Spirit is another crucial factor involved in effective urban ministry/missions (Dawson 1989, 169–79; Greenway and Monsma 1989, 25, 29; Grigg 1990, 195; 1992, 145–53; McClung 1990, 35–61; Thiessen 1994, 86–89). Mary Thiessen notes the role of the Spirit in mediating the presence of Jesus, empowering his followers for ministry, and creating Christian community (1994, 86–88). The realities of present-day urban life present the church with issues, needs, and problems that are too great for the church to handle or solve with its own means and demand spiritual resources that God alone can make available to the church through his ever-present Holy Spirit in our midst.

Build Relationships, Utilize Existing Social Networks, Minister to Families

Successful and effective urban missions also recognize the importance of building relationships with people through which ministry can occur and through which the gospel can be presented to families, homogeneous units, and so on, rather than focusing upon individuals (Aghamkar 1994, 152–54; Greenway and Monsma 1989, 20, 29; Ortiz 1992, 90). Greenway and Monsma argue that the family continues to play a vitally important role in the lives of urban dwellers. Their very identity is still connected with the family (1989, 18). Conn notes that the concept of the city as a place where family ties are broken needs debunking (1987, 41).

Even though cities seem to encourage alternative types of relationships, urban dwellers nonetheless usually have meaningful relationships (Conn 1987, 42–43). Voluntary units, social networks, or other homogeneous groups are formed to meet a variety of human needs (Conn 1987, 43). “Social networks are not destroyed by the city; new ones are created, not always connected strictly with family or kin” (Conn 1987, 55; Gmelch and Zenner 1996, 189; Hiebert and Meneses 1995, 276–83). Conn points out that cities are not single, homogeneous units but rather conglomerates of thousands of different groups, many of which require specially designed missionary strategies if the church is to effectively evangelize them and plant and develop reproducing churches in each of these unique contexts (1987, 194). Churches need to provide urban people with numerous alternative associational groups through a variety of approaches utilizing small groups (cell groups, care groups, special interest groups, Sunday school classes, etc.) that focus on relationships and utilize these natural social networks of people as pathways to evangelism and discipleship (Conn and Ortiz 2001, 242–51).

Multiplying Churches

The importance of planting churches or working with and through the local church is also an important factor in the long-term effectiveness of urban mission (Gollings 1994, 127; Greenway and Monsma 1989, 21, 54, 140–53; Maluga 1999, 171–86). Evangelism is most effectively accomplished by persons living within the city itself (Bakke 1984, 20; Grigg 1990, 18; Perkins 1995, 21–22). Emphasizing the importance of “community,” the church as a community of faith, fellowship, love, hope, and so forth, is an important related factor (Greenway and Monsma 1989, 21–22). Linthicum addresses the significance of the “presence” of the church—“God’s living presence in the city” (1991, 156–57). He argues that the primary witness and work of the church in the city is its presence—presence always speaks louder than words or actions (1991, 257, 273). He further views “community” as the evidence of authentic Christianity (1991, 259).

Training and Empowering Indigenous Leaders

Training and empowering local and indigenous church leaders, including giving special emphasis to the role of the laity, is also essential to effectively accomplishing the many tasks involved in urban ministry/mission (Greenway and Monsma 1989, 25, 39–40; Linthicum 1991, 193, 203; Perkins 1995, 186–90). Greenway and Monsma argue that “the key to developing strong and effective churches is local leadership” (1989, 40). “The primary purpose of the urban church is to be the training ground . . . preparing each Christian to undertake his or her ministry in the city” (Linthicum 1991, 190). Thomas Courtney includes an excellent discussion of other models, such as the apprentice model, being used to train church leadership in Asia and Latin America (1984, 42–43). Such approaches may prove far more appropriate in many parts of the world, especially for the training of laity.

Ministry to the Urban Poor

The poor are increasingly being attracted or drawn to the urban centers of our world through what are sometimes described as “push” and “pull” factors (Conn and Ortiz 2001, 68, 210, 238, 288, 386; Girardet 1992, 70). More than 25 percent of the world’s poor live in cities, that percentage being as high as 90 percent in some regions of our world (PICCED 1999, 2). Effective urban strategies must address these increasing masses of peoples caught in urban poverty. While some churches or parachurch groups are trying to minister to the urban poor (sometimes seen as ministries of charity), few churches or other groups are seriously involved in ministering with the urban poor (Perkins 1993, 23–24).

The goal of urban ministry must not be limited to helping poor people meet their daily needs, but rather to see them transformed by the power of God and empowered to function effectively in the broader society (Hiebert and Meneses 1995, 354). Churches desiring to minister effectively among the urban poor should network with and learn from churches or parachurch organizations that already have effective ministries, and consider forming partnerships to support their efforts financially as well as in other meaningful ways such as vision-sharing, leadership, the sharing of technology and expertise, and more (Bakke 1987, 110–26; Conn 1987, 139; 1993, 329; Conn and Ortiz 2001, 325–30; Greenway and Monsma 1989, 81; Hiebert and Meneses 1995, 335; Linthicum 1991, 197, 200; Perkins 1993, 36–37; 1995, 75–159). Greenway and Monsma note that “the urban poor constitute the largest unclaimed frontier Christian missions has ever encountered” (1989, 45).

Understanding the nature of urban poverty (the numerous interlocking causes and consequences of poverty) is a crucial aspect of ministering effectively to the poor in most urban contexts (Bush 1992, 32; Christian 1994, 195–219; Conn and Ortiz 2001, 325–30; Grigg 1990, 29–41, 96–104; 1992, 83–94; Linthicum 1991, 160; McClung 1990, 148; Perkins 1995, 47–59). The tremendous growth of poverty is one of the major problems facing the world’s largest cities (Greenway and Monsma 1989, 51). If the church and mission agencies are to be able to develop holistic ministries that adequately address persons caught in poverty, they need to understand the numerous interlocking causes of poverty (Greenway and Monsma 1989, 51–54). These include: (1) the lack of employment opportunities; (2) the scarcity of decent and affordable housing; (3) abandoned children who tend to perpetuate crime, despair, and suffering; (4) the gravitation of the elderly to the cities, most of whom lack adequate support systems; (5) the breakdown of family structures; (6) corruption at all levels of government and society; (7) inadequate public services; (8) churches abnegating their responsibilities; and (9) the secularization of many churches, resulting in these churches becoming more concerned for self than for reaching out to others (Greenway and Monsma 1989, 45). Other related factors include: feelings of powerlessness, insignificance, frustration, and despair; fearfulness of the future; low health expectations; poor provision for education; a higher rate of crime; and political turmoil (Punton and Marchant 1984, 28). Courtney argues that “the greatest need of the urban poor is to be rescued from feelings of isolation, inferiority, and self-contempt” (1984, 36). Jude Tiersma notes the importance of incarnational ministry and presence in empowering the poor to respond to and overcome their environments (Van Engen and Tiersma 1994, 9).

Ministry to Migrants (Foreign and Domestic) and Internationals

“The urbanization of the planet and the globalization of cities are reminders that push-pull is more than a sociological reality; it is also a theological announcement” (Conn and Ortiz 2001, 288). The major cities of our world are becoming microcosms of the world. In what might be understood as the “Reverse Great Commission,” God is bringing the peoples of our world to the very doors of our churches (Conn and Ortiz 2001, 288). Urban churches now have the opportunity and responsibility to minister cross-culturally within their own contexts. There is a real need for urban churches to discover these hidden peoples in their midst and to develop specific strategies and ministries to reach out to them in the language of these peoples and in cultural forms that attract them and meet their communal needs (Conn and Ortiz 2001, 311–25).

Persons involved in urban ministry must address the multicultural realities of our rapidly changing world, reflecting the effects of industrialization, urbanization, and globalization such as migration, urban poverty, and pluralism (Bakke 1987, 73–80, 137–40; Greenway 1992, 76–83; Grigg 1990, 96–104; Hiebert and Meneses 1995, 221–22, 267–68, 283–84; Perkins 1993, 119–35; 1995, 47–59). With the growing internationalization of cities throughout the world because of international business, international students, and foreign migrants as well as the migration of peoples from rural to urban contexts within given areas (in-country migrants), ministry to ethnics and migrants is now a significant factor in urban mission that must be understood and pursued with vigor (Aghamkar 1994, 146; Conn 1991, 4; Greenway and Monsma 1989, 61, 73, 80; Hiebert and Meneses 1995, 267–68, 283–84, 333–37, 351–58). Greenway and Monsma argue that urban migrants are among the most receptive persons to Christian ministry in the world (1989, 46). However, Conn offers a helpful corrective in noting that social class can often be more important than ethnicity in defining a “people” (1991, 4). Therefore, such ministries must be tailor made to deal with the unique needs, problems, social status, and so on, of the particular people group being focused upon by a given church.

Networking and Partnerships

The importance of networking with other groups working in a given urban area, and throughout the world, is a factor that is consistently stressed by those promoting urban mission (Aghamkar 1994, 155; Allen 1999, 222–23; Bush 1992, 32; Conn 1987, 139; 1993, 329; Greenway and Monsma 1989, 81; Linthicum 1991, 197, 200; Mutunga 1994, 191; Thiessen 1994, 96). “Networking is the first task any urban pastor needs to do in his or her community. For on the strength of his or her networks will stand or fall the ministry” (Linthicum 1991, 197).

Identifying and Ministering to Felt Needs

Identifying and ministering to felt needs is another crucial factor involved in successful urban mission (Gordon 1999, 79–80; Perkins 1995, 17–21). “The church must seek to fully understand the people’s needs so that it can do ministry concretely and relevantly, and with full local involvement” (Mutunga 1994, 190). It is also important to look beyond the immediate or present needs to future or anticipated needs (Conn 1987, 113; Ortiz 1992, 89–90). “If the church is going to minister effectively in its community, it must be addressing the issues the people perceive as the issues; no other issues really exist” (Linthicum 1991, 201). However, Tiersma offers an important corrective: “If we allow the desperate need of the city to be our starting point, it will not take long before we are completely overwhelmed” (Van Engen and Tiersma 1994, 14).

Visionary Leadership

The importance of vision and visionary leadership cannot be overstated to pursuing effectively the complex tasks involved in urban mission (Barrett 1986, 22; Haney 1994, 73; Hesselgrave 1988, 65; Jobe 1999, 203–14). Linthicum notes that the maintenance of a vision for the city is one of the primary factors that provide the power necessary for sustaining a city ministry (1991, 236, 279). Vision is seen as the link between dream and action (Hesselgrave 1988, 65). David Barrett argues that “the critical attribute of success of future cities will be leadership, especially the ability to envision their future, and to formulate strategies for their design and development” (1986, 20). If this is true of the cities, how much more must it be true of the churches that will work to communicate the gospel message within those same cities!

Adequate Planning and Strategizing

The necessity of adequate planning and the development of adequate strategies are other essential factors involved in urban ministry/mission (Barrett 1986, 30–32; Engel 1991, 9–10; Lausanne Occasional Papers No. 9:4, 1980). James Engel offers a helpful observation in noting that strategic planning basically has three foundational pillars, all of which must be undergirded by an openness to the Holy Spirit: (1) intuition, (2) experience, and (3) research (1991, 6). Barrett posits numerous elements needed in developing an overall strategy, including the need for concrete plans for discipling unreached people, deliberate outreach evangelistic projects, the need for missionaries to be assigned full-time to such projects, the need for full partnership with the local churches, and the need for interdenominational cooperation (1986, 31–32). In discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the Pentecostal churches, Agustus Cerillo notes a major weakness as the “lack of a planning tradition” (1991, 106–7). C. Peter Wagner cautions that “flexibility is the watchword for urban church strategy development” (1989, 192). Greenway and Monsma’s argument that “good strategy is based on sound mission theology” provides a helpful corrective (1989, 251). Urban strategies must change as the cities change and the needs of urban populations change. It will require a multiplicity of strategies and methodologies to reach the cities of our world (Allen 1999, 223–26; Jobe 1999, 2203–14).

Conclusion

In actuality, the cities of our world will remain largely unreached until and unless the numerous components making up the collective body of Christ begin to work together. However, the power of the Holy Spirit can transform these cities if churches, denominations, interchurch organizations, parachurch organizations, missions organizations, and other Christ-centered organizations and individuals really discover one another and begin to dialogue, pray, plan, strategize, and work together in a complementary way. This requires vision sharing and mission casting among key Christian leaders and organizations; the formation of city leadership teams representing the multiethnic, multilingual, multidenominational, multigenerational, and multigender makeup of each specific urban society; and the mobilization of the entire worldwide Christian community (Dennison 1999, 205–30; Waymire and Townsend 2000, 1.1–1.16).

The lack of cooperation within the body of Christ is inconsistent with Christ’s prayer for unity (John 17:20–23), and thus prevents and hinders the task of communicating the Christian message effectively to the unreached in our world and in our cities. The blame rests with the Christian community itself rather than the world or Satan and his allies. We have everything we need to reach the cities of our world (often these resources needed to reach a city are within the city itself), but the Christian community must have the will to work together in order for these resources to be utilized effectively in reaching our cities for Christ (Dennison 1999, 226)!

Chapter 34

Business as Mission

Michael Lam

As more and more countries restrict the granting of residence visas to missionaries, many missionaries have adopted business as mission (BAM) as their mission strategy. These countries take this restrictive approach because they fear the resurgence of imperialism as in the past (Rundle and Steffen 2003, 16) and they want to prevent the missionaries from converting their people to Christ. All countries desire economic development, and they naturally welcome foreign investment. These reasons increase the usefulness of BAM in the world.

History of Development of Business as Mission

While the term BAM is new, its roots can be traced to the Nestorians in the seventh century. The Nestorian Christians spread the gospel along the Silk Road in Asia, using business as their strategy. The Nestorian monks were more like businessmen than missionaries. The Puritans were the pioneers in the integration of business and mission in the seventeenth century. The Moravian missionaries used business to share the gospel in the eighteenth century with the people in the Caribbean, Greenland, North America, South America, South Africa, and so on. The Moravians were all “tentmaker” missionaries, and they used business and professional services income to support themselves (Danker 1971, 23, 27–29).

Neal Johnson and Steve Rundle say that the term business as mission was first used “in 1999 by a small group of people meeting at the Oxford Center for Mission Studies” in England (Steffen and Barnett 2006, 24). After that, in 2005, the Lausanne Movement published Occasional Paper No. 59: “Business as Mission.” The paper was the report from a forum in 2004 in Pattaya, Thailand, whose theme was “A New Vision, a New Heart and a Renewed Call.” The report contained a discussion of terms, biblical foundations, case studies, and practical suggestions in the area of BAM.

What Is Business as Mission?

Some terms can be easily confused with the term BAM. BAM is clearly distinguished from “business for mission,” which aims at providing money for the ministry. It is different from marketplace (or work-) ministries that are primarily focused on sharing the gospel in the workplace. It is also different from but related to tentmaking. Tentmakers are Christian professionals, serving as missionaries, who support themselves financially by working as employees or as owners in business.

BAM is a mission strategy developed to advance the gospel and glorify God. It uses business to address the spiritual needs of people. Besides, it can be extended to meet the social, economic, and environmental needs of people. It is also an access strategy for missionaries to gain residency in a country. The business in BAM must be real, profitable, and sustainable. It cannot be a cover-up or facade.

Reasons for Adopting Business as Mission

In addition to the advantage of enabling the missionaries to get residency visas, BAM provides opportunities for evangelism. It helps the missionaries to reach people who might not be easily accessible by other mission strategies. These include the customers, suppliers, employees, bank, government, and so forth. Missionaries can develop relationships with these people easily and naturally, and this facilitates the task of evangelism. Furthermore, some propose that BAM can transform society. While not everyone agrees with this, one thing is certainly true: when people become Christians, their society will be transformed because of the work of the Holy Spirit in individual believers. Some Christian businesspersons have established factories in developing countries with the dual purpose of blessing the people financially and spiritually.

Paradox of Business and Mission

When BAM started to become popular in the missions world, Christians were divided on the feasibility of using business to achieve God’s mission. Some observers see a gap between business and mission because each has its own distinctive culture. Business deals with temporal or worldly matters, while mission deals with spiritual matters. Many people assume that Satan dominates the world, and they believe this is true of the business world.

In the Bible, it seems there are verses that justify the complete separation of business and ministry. Jesus warned that no one can serve two masters (Matt 6:24). Paul cautioned Christians that the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil (1 Tim 6:10). As the purpose of doing business is to make money, people often deem business to be evil (Baer 2006, 91). Besides, as the market is imperfect and highly competitive, businessmen are often tempted to conduct business in an unethical way. They might do business “unfairly and unjustly.” As a result, it is difficult for Christians to believe that a businessman could be a good witness for God.

Problems of Implementing Business as Mission

BAM is facing several problems in its development and acceptance by the Christian community:

The problem of “spiritual-vocational hierarchy” (Stevens 1999, 109) discourages many missionaries from acting as businessmen. The spiritual-vocational hierarchy puts missionaries at the top and businessmen at the bottom (see diagram 1). That is, some see missionaries as superspiritual, and they see businesspersons as unspiritual.
Diagram 1

Spiritual-Vocational Hierarchy
Some missionaries think business is evil, and they prefer not to do it.
Most missionaries have been trained as pastors, preachers, and evangelists. They may not have the required business skills and experience to run a business.
BAM workers may confuse their roles as missionaries and businessmen.
BAM missionaries encounter the problem of allocating time to both business and ministry.
There are not many successful BAM examples and models to follow.
Missionaries face the problem of raising funds to start their business.
Some mission agencies do not know how to select the correct BAM missionaries and supervise them.

Solutions to the Problems of Implementing Business as Mission

The solutions to the problems listed above are discussed one by one later in the chapter. Understanding the biblical basis of BAM can help to solve the first two problems. In order to solve the third problem, BAM missionaries should receive BAM training. If BAM workers know how to integrate the business with the mission and select the appropriate business model, they will not confuse their roles as missionaries and businessmen. Furthermore, they will know how to allocate their time to business and ministry. As a result, the fourth and fifth problems can be solved. The sixth problem will be addressed by sharing of BAM examples and models later in the chapter. The seventh problem on funding will be discussed in the “Fund Raising of Business Capital” section of the chapter. For the last problem, the solution is found in the “Personal Requirements of BAM Workers” section. Mission agencies have to understand these requirements before selecting BAM missionaries. For the supervision of BAM workers, they can rely on the help of the steering committee whose functions are explained later.

Biblical Basis of Business as Mission

Advocates of BAM often emphasize the advantages of BAM without writing much on its biblical basis. As a result, many missionaries still treat it as an access strategy, especially for the restricted-access countries. They prefer not to risk themselves by adopting BAM unless no other alternative exists. If they understand the biblical basis of BAM, their attitude might change. In addition, if they know God has a purpose for business, they will more readily implement BAM. If they understand that God uses BAM to achieve his mission, they will follow his will to adopt it. As a result, people should not overemphasize the spiritual-vocational hierarchy but submit to God’s plan to use business to achieve his mission. To establish the biblical basis of BAM, the following truths are essential:

1. Business is good, and God does not reject it. Business activity itself has no inherent evil element. Baer asserts that business is not evil, and it is a good thing from God (Baer 2006, 26). Theologian Wayne Grudem writes that the distortion of something good must not lead us to think it is evil (Grudem 2003, 74). Business is not the problem; rather the problem is the “greedy” people who run the business. God has ordained people to take care of his creation (Gen 2:15). Good stewards of business can increase productivity and lower the cost of goods. This in turn enables poor people to buy goods at lower cost.

2. Business was created good by God. It is true that all things are created good by God (Gen 1:31), including the goods sold during business transactions. Business can preserve and nurture the resources of the earth. Business activity can improve the economy and provide employment. Michael Novak says it serves the common good of society (Novak 1996, 139). As a result, business can enhance society’s quality of life. God is the Creator, and he gave his children the ability to produce wealth (Deut 8:18). Jesus did not forbid that, and he encouraged people to create more wealth (Luke 19:12–26).

3. Business is a calling from God. Biblical examples demonstrate that God used business people to achieve his mission (Baer 2006, 33). Abraham was a businessman. Jesus worked in a carpentry business. Paul labored in a tent-making business (Acts 20:33–35). Lydia was a dealer in purple cloth (Acts 16:14), and Matthew was in the tax collection business, and so on. The spiritual-vocational hierarchy is not applicable because God wants every Christian, including businessmen, to be his witness to the world (Acts 1:8). A Christian businessman is not necessarily less spiritual than other Christians. Both missionaries and businessmen can accomplish the Great Commission (Stevens 1999, 89).

4. Business witnesses to God’s redemption. When sin entered the world, people started to be greedy, immoral, and unethical. They followed their own ways instead of God’s will. They became ego centered and thought only of their own interests. When salvation comes, the Holy Spirit transforms believers. When Zacchaeus met Jesus, he repented and paid back four times the amount he had gained by defrauding the taxpayers (Luke 19:8). In the same way, when businessmen become Christians, they admit that God is the real master of their business. They run the business ethically and biblically. In this way, their business witnesses to God’s redemption. The wonderful power of God’s transformation changes the way in which the businessmen conduct their business activities. In addition, business has a redemptive potential in creating employment (Steffen and Barnett, 2006, 20) and improving the quality of life of people in society. It has a special contribution to make in improving the economy of the less-developed countries and brings hope to the poor people living there.

5. Business glorifies God. Those who think business is evil have an assumption that businessmen are greedy and immoral. They are convinced that business could not glorify God. Grudem disagrees with this and lists several specific aspects of business activity that provide opportunities for Christian businessmen to glorify God (Yamamori and Eldred, 2003, 149 and Grudem, 2003, 19–74). First, they can glorify the sovereignty and love of God by exercising responsible stewardship and morally correct use of personal possessions to help others. Second, by producing goods and services useful to others, they can glorify the wisdom and creativity of God. Third, Christian employers can glorify the fairness and love of God by treating their employees well. Fourth, Christian businessmen can glorify the fairness and truthfulness of God through honest and moral buying and selling activities. Fifth, they can glorify the wisdom and grace of God by using resources efficiently to earn a profit and help others. Sixth, they can glorify the wisdom and mercy of God by prudent investment and generous donation of money to others. Seventh, even if an inequality of possessions or money or abilities exists, Christian businessmen can glorify the sovereignty and faithfulness of God by showing their content and trust in him to get reward. Eighth, they can glorify the fairness and justice of God by contributing their full potential in competition with others. Finally, they can glorify the trustworthiness and wisdom of God in multiplying the usefulness of money through cautious borrowing and lending. Believers can conduct their business biblically and ethically to glorify God. Grudem says they must glorify him by having attitudes of heart in which he delights (Grudem, 2003, 75) and acting in a way that people appreciate and commend.

Training Required for Business-as-Mission Missionaries

Proper training can equip workers with the necessary skills to deal with the tough situations in the field. Neil Johnson says that BAM will be unsuccessful without proper and adequate training (Johnson 2009, 190). Currently, there is substantial training for traditional missionaries. However, there is not much comprehensive training for BAM workers. BAM will not be successful without adequate training. A BAM training program should cover the following topics: (1) introduction to BAM, (2) biblical foundations for BAM, (3) personal preparation for BAM, (4) cross-cultural communication, (5) innovation and entrepreneurship, (6) business ethics, (7) BAM models, (8) BAM proposal writing, (9) sales and marketing, (10) finance and funding of BAM, and (11) spiritual warfare in BAM. The delivery of BAM training can be in the form of a combination of formal classroom training and informal training processes. Informal training includes role-play, discussion, case studies, and simulation games. To increase the effectiveness of the training, an internship should be added. This will help the BAM workers to learn how to run their businesses in the field.

How Business Can Achieve Mission

BAM workers are advised to integrate the business with their mission. First, this saves the time of the workers. Second, this makes the best use of business as a platform for mission. BAM workers should witness for God by personal behavior during the business activities. The following illustrates how business can help in witnessing for Christ:

There is always a temptation for the employers to exploit their employees by lowering their wages. Missionaries, as employers, should treat their employees with justice and fairness. They have to demonstrate to them that God loves all people, and they should receive fair treatment.

As the owners of the business, missionaries should demonstrate to their customers and suppliers the righteousness of God by running the business in an ethical and godly way. Missionaries, as businessmen, should understand that their businesses are in the hands of God, and their priority is to glorify God. Their customers and suppliers will be curious about their way of doing business. This will create opportunities for the missionaries to witness for the Lord.

The product or the name of the business can be a medium of the gospel. The goods produced by Christian businessmen should not contain impure elements, and they should be made with honest quantity and quality of ingredients. They should not cause harm to people or pollute the world. Instead, they should improve the quality of living for people. The name of the business or product can be something from the Bible or suggest biblical meaning, such as agape, Immanuel, joy, and peace.

Missionaries should do business in a biblical way. This may be against the local culture, but missionaries should live as the salt and the light of the world. This helps to change the viewpoint of the local people in favor of Christians.

Examples of Business as Mission

There are some examples to illustrate BAM though some people doubt its feasibility in achieving the mission. The first example is found in a trafficking and prostitution case. Near an infamous sex district in India are thousands of women standing in line waiting to sell their bodies to men. They are trafficked from Bangladesh, Nepal, and rural India. Their hungry children motivate them to sell their bodies. The solution to this problem is not only the gospel but also a real business that could create employment for them. A couple from New Zealand saw this and opened a factory there. They taught these women skills to sew quality bags for export. Today, more than 160 women have joined the business, and they produce around one thousand bags each day. They enjoy freedom through the business and bring freedom to their families. The second example is about a cheesecake shop owner in Turkey. When she began her business, her neighbors were suspicious of who she was and why she came. She never imagined that she would become a successful businesswoman in Turkey. She witnessed to her neighbors, customers, and staffs by her kindness and integrity (Adams and Raithatha 2012, 53–55). The third example is a leather factory in Kenya, which aims to glorify God through evangelism and church planting. The factory workers produce leather products four days per week for their income. Apart from that, they spend time in sharing the gospel and discipling new believers.

Common Business Models for Business as Mission

Selection of an appropriate business model is important to the success of BAM. A wrong selection will waste the time of the missionaries and result in the failure of the mission. There are certain criteria for the selection of a business model: (1) it must meet the biblical requirements; (2) it must meet the local legal requirements; (3) it must accommodate the local economic factors; (4) it must consider the local culture; (5) it must not be too technical; (6) it must not be too sophisticated or demand long operation hours; (7) it must not require heavy capital investment; (8) it must be able to reach many people; (9) it must suit the worker’s personal interest; and (10) it must have a unique feature.

The commonly adopted business models for BAM include the following: (1) professional service business; (2) business incubator; (3) microcredit program; (4) manufacturing; (5) private school; (6) consulting and training; (7) import and export; (8) hospitality service; (9) franchising; (10) café, restaurant, or retail shop; (11) agriculture and livestock; and (12) health-related service and product sales.

Fund Raising of Business Capital

Money is vital for the start up and sustenance of the business. Therefore, BAM workers have to learn how to raise capital for their business. The capital required depends on the money necessary for the business and the legal capital requirement of the host country. BAM should raise at least one year’s operating funds (Johnson 2009, 391), but some mission agencies may require capital for more years. A suggested portfolio of the fund is: investors (60 percent), loans (20 percent), individual donors (10 percent), and church support (10 percent). The exact percentage can be changed, but the capital should preferably not be 100 percent from donations. Most of the capital should come from business investment or loans.

A business proposal is required for fund raising. The proposal should include the following sections:

Summary of the company, including its name, organizational structure, management team, and so forth
Vision, mission, and values of the company
Description of the business and its operation
Analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the business
Critical success factors of the business
Analysis of the political, environmental, social, and technological aspects of the business context
Proposed marketing and sales strategy
Mission plan related to the business
Capital funding requirement
Business target, budget, and schedule, including sales forecast, cash flow budget, and so on

Personal Requirements of Business as Mission Workers

A BAM worker is a missionary as well as a business person. The requirements for this, which are more than those for a traditional missionary, are described below:

It demands a call to be a BAM worker. In other words, the workers must perceive themselves to be called by God to use business as their mission strategy.

The workers must prepare to make more effort than ordinary missionaries, as they have to take care of both the business and the mission.

The workers must have the knowledge and skill to integrate the business with the mission.

Steering Committee for Business as Mission Workers

BAM workers need the help of a steering committee. The committee is composed of representatives of the mission agency, sending church(es), and related business professionals. The functions of the committee are to: (1) review business progress and reports, (2) review the possibility of expansion or contraction or termination of business, and (3) provide advice on queries on business perspectives.

Steps for Implementation of Business as Mission

BAM is a mission strategy that involves a road map or program of ministry. Those who consider adopting it should look at the following steps. These steps are only suggestions, and the sequence can be changed depending on the actual situation.

Self-evaluation: Those who want to adopt BAM as their mission strategy have to understand its requirements and evaluate whether they fit them. They may consider equipping themselves more by receiving related training before they accept this challenge.

Confirmation: After praying and sharing with others, the potential BAM missionary has to get a clear confirmation from God before applying to a mission agency and a sending church.

Sending community: A missionary needs the support of a mission agency and a sending church to implement BAM, and they may need to convince them of their reasons for adopting BAM.

Business model: An appropriate business model is crucial to the success of BAM in achieving the mission. BAM missionaries should do research, a site visit, and consultation about their plan before the final decision is made.

Business plan: A well-drafted business plan helps others to understand, review, and support the vision and mission of the missionary. This is a significant step that should not be overlooked.

Fund raising: BAM missionaries need to raise capital for their business from various sources, including donors, investors, and lenders.

Committee: A steering committee is helpful in steering the operation of the business and advising on the progress of the business in case of difficulties or changes.

Training: If the missionaries lack adequate knowledge or experience in running the business, they should consider receiving appropriate training and do an internship before going to the field.

Local consideration: Missionaries need to understand local legal requirements and the local culture before starting the business. It is advisable that they establish some local relationships and find local partners or assistants to help in their business (Johnson 2009, 457).

Conclusion

BAM is becoming popular among missionaries because more and more countries are closing their doors to traditional missionaries. These same nations welcome foreign investors. Barriers still hinder BAM’s progress, and problems await solutions. However, when more successful cases are reported, more mission agencies, churches, and missionaries will adopt BAM. Another benefit of BAM is the involvement of lay Christians in the Great Commission, especially the businesspeople. As a result, it is expected that the task force of missionaries will be enlarged with the participation of these people and the Great Commission can be fulfilled sooner.

Chapter 35

Strategies for Ethnic Ministries

Jose A. Hernandez

To define the North American experience is to identify the peoples who have made up the population of North America. They are Native Americans, Hispanics, Swedes, Germans, Italians, Poles, Cubans, Chinese, Nigerians, Mexicans, Argentines, and Irish. Every imaginable “people group” can be counted among North Americans. Each of these people groups has brought to this land many things—from language to food, from music to art, from dress to architecture, from furniture to holidays. Such has been the creation of the North American tapestry. This mixture has resulted in a “stew pot,” not necessarily a “melting pot,” with its many flavors and sometimes-indistinguishable ingredients.

Others have likened the look and texture of North America to a mosaic of tile pieces. Whatever the analogy, the point is that the North American culture is made up of many ingredients; and by its very nature, it is constantly receiving new ones. North America is dynamic, mutable, integrated, and changing.

Though the North American culture represents a composite of many peoples, many North Americans retain much of what is considered “ethnic” in terms of language, culture, traditions, behavior, and heritage. Precisely because peoples choose to retain their identity, one cannot consider that being North American means giving up all of one’s own ethnic culture.

One other perspective on this matter is that all North Americans are not the same. What does this mean to the efforts of evangelizing, discipling, and congregationalizing persons living in the United States? Nothing, if you believe that a single evangelizing, discipling, and congregationalizing methodology is sufficient to reach all persons. The reality of the racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity found in North America dictates that various approaches be used. A variety of approaches promises more success in reaching the diverse peoples of North America.

Theological/Biblical Basis for Reaching Ethnic America

Ministry among ethnic persons in the United States is based on a common theological basis. It is the same for any group in any land that stands in need of a saving and discipling relationship with Jesus Christ. The rationale for targeting ethnic ministry in the United States must consider God’s plan to reach all the nations, all the peoples. This rationale is biblically expressed: “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations [ethne], baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19–20 NKJV).

Ethnic missions is biblically based on the following factors. First, the dignity of humanity rests in being created in God’s image. A full knowledge and attainment of humanity depends upon a true knowledge of God. The gospel does not value one culture to be superior to any other culture. Each culture is judged upon its own values of truth and righteousness. God judges all cultures on his moral absolutes, which are revealed in Scripture.

Second, sin resides in all cultures because of the effect of the fall. Rebellion against God caused the fall; disobedience brought separation from God. Humans, in their arrogance, created gods in human image and sought to reach “God” by their own means. The tower of Babel constitutes an example of such efforts. As a consequence of this effort, God addressed himself to what was a cultural expression—language. Sin taints every culture and all of its aspects.

Third, the gospel brings redemption to those within any culture. In this redemptive process, God became man. The spiritual workings of incarnation and resurrection bring about a transformation of culture as represented in the community of believers under the lordship of Christ.

Fourth, the presence of God is found in all cultures. God makes himself known to all cultures; sin is sin in all cultures; God’s divine laws pronounce their judgment on all cultures. God does, however, speak to all cultures about his judgment and salvation. Those cultures that misinterpret God’s nature express themselves in many ways that fall short of knowing God. Believing that the Holy Spirit goes before, preparing persons to understand and believe in the salvation found in the gospel, is reason to go to all cultures, including ethnic cultures in North America.

Gaining an Understanding of Ethnic America

Truth related to ethnicity indicates that no culture is static. Constant change is occurring, and this change calls for constant study of the processes of assimilation. In addition, an understanding of the cultural information will help in determining the target of evangelism, ministry, and church-planting activities. An understanding of ethnic America that recognizes the facets of culture and the implications for ethnic ministry extends the possibilities of reaching ethnic North America.

Considering Definitions and Terms

Evangelical missionary work among ethnics has been called “ethnic,” “language,” “cultural,” “heritage group,” or “ethnocultural” missions. These descriptive modifiers have been used as identifiers in ethnic mission activity. Grouping the peoples in North America according to an ethnic heritage, in one sense, represents an exercise in self-identification. If we functioned strictly according to a standard definition of ethnicity, our standardization would include elements related to behaviors of groups in relation to the dominant culture such as language, customs, worldviews, religions, and nationality. Sociologically speaking, all peoples would fit within some ethnic group or combination of ethnic heritages.

For Christian missions among ethnics, language has been the major reason for characterizing and targeting people’s ethnic identity. Language remains an important element in identifying a person of ethnic heritage and serves as a means for communicating the gospel to him. All ethnics are not monolingual or even bilingual. Language usage among ethnics in North America is often multilingual. In some ethnic groups, the dominant or only language of use is English.

Ethnic missions must consider the matter of language in order to use the language closest to the heart of the people group. This use of the “heart language” helps ethnics better know and experience Christ.

Understanding the Processes of Assimilation

The “melting pot” theory teaches that every person from every group simply melts and becomes North American. While this does occur, the melting is not always complete or, in some cases, little integration actually happens. The process that affects ethnic America is assimilation. Exposure to the dominant North American culture and other ethnic cultures provides the medium by which the ethnic person is assimilated. It should be noted, however, that the absorption movement moves both ways. Being North American involves changing as the ethnics absorb elements from the dominant culture. On the other hand, it involves providing elements from the cultures of origin to the dominant culture, as seen in the popularity of Mexican food in Texas and Indonesian food in the Netherlands.

Movement along the assimilation corridor has been described as stages or levels. Persons move along in the process and are fitted into whatever characteristics are generalized for that stage or level. This effort to compartmentalize ethnics on stages or levels, while a tidy way to segment the ethnic population along the assimilation model, is not an altogether accurate means to describe ethnic persons experiencing assimilation.

From an ethnic perspective, the difficulty with this model of assimilation is (1) the ethnic’s uncomfortableness at being put into a compartment and (2) the assumption that movement along the process means rejection of the distinctives related to the ethnic culture. Furthermore, with the incidence of children born into families of multiple ethnic heritages and their blended resultant cultures, a higher degree of diversity exists within each ethnic group. Segmenting ethnic persons into compartments, or defined groups, creates a problem for the processes of assimilation, which is dynamic. Further, assimilation as demonstrated in the above groupings has a directional lean toward total assimilation. Assimilation thinking usually does not allow individuals to reach back.

A better way to describe the movement related to assimilation is to visualize a continuum on which a person can slide. One pole of this continuum, though not absolute, represents a culture not typical to the United States, while the other pole represents a typical North American way of life. The key to this model is that a person could express back-and-forth movement as the context calls for appropriate behaviors or cultural expressions. Reaching back, in fact, does occur, recognizing that in reaching back one cannot go back without carrying a newly acquired cultural value. What exists is a cultural continuum in which persons slide along with limited ability to slide back. This model appreciates one’s choice of identity with an indigenous culture while accepting the absorption of new cultural elements.

The lesson to be learned is that within an ethnic group there is found a great diversity of peoples. This diversity can involve the languages that are preferred and certain cultural behaviors that are acted out. It has been used to assign a level of cultural adaptation or accommodation. The term second generation has been applied to persons born in the United States to parents born outside of North America. Another term, 1.5, has been used for persons who were born outside of North America but immigrated to the United States as children, thus giving them an early orientation to the “North American” culture. Ethnic American has been used to denote persons born outside of the United States, while the term American ethnic has been used for people born within.

The more affinity to the “American” culture, the more the possibility that the person will identify himself as American ethnic. This procedure allows self-identity to prevail over other limiting factors. This designation would also be broad enough to relate to persons of multiple heritages.

Gathering the Demographics of the North American Mosaic

An ethnic photograph of the United States would show many Asians along the west coast, most Hispanics along the southwest border with Mexico, gatherings of eastern Europeans in the industrial parts of the north central and northeastern states, and the Native Americans in the central and southwestern states. Once again, this is not fully accurate. An accurate picture would show Asians, Hispanics, American Indians, and others spread all over the nation.

Whereas the ethnic data for national and regional levels may be interesting, the most helpful information is found within the areas in which the ministry will occur. The first step in gathering the demographics calls for learning where to find the information.

Sources of Demographic Information. Generally the best place to start the search is the US census material. Though the most extensive information is gathered every ten years, the process continues in updates and selective studies. In addition to the census information, one can find valuable information on: (1) city/county planning commissions; (2) school boards/districts; (3) public utilities/telephone companies; (4) university sociology departments; (5) lending institutions; (6) marketing reports; (7) newspapers; (8) chamber of commerce statistics; (9) magazine marketing and research departments; (10) secular media; (11) Internet, accessing libraries, universities, and so on, for databases; (12) ethnic associations and media. Once you understand the process, you will find many other sources for information.

Using Demographic Information. Demographic sources contain tremendous amounts of information related to ethnics. Some areas helpful to ministry among ethnics include: (1) current population figures by ethnicity, (2) population growth projections, (3) sociocultural composition and location of sociocultural groups, (4) traffic patterns, (5) housing patterns, (6) immigration patterns, (7) internal migration patterns, and (8) community profile/needs assessment. Other general information areas can give fuller understanding of the target ethnic communities.

Specifics of Demographic Information. Having determined the area and kinds of information that will be needed, researchers will gather information from more specific areas. These areas include: (1) age distribution; (2) language, usage, and proficiencies; (3) birth rates; (4) country of birth; (5) concentration in tracts; (6) socioeconomic levels and distribution; (7) education; (8) employment; (9) income; (10) urban/rural realities; (11) religious heritage; and (12) family size. After a thorough gathering of the demographic information, a more accurate picture of the ethnicity within the targeted group or groups will be clear. Knowing the demographic facts about the target group will greatly influence the approaches of the ministries that will be provided.

Recognizing the Cultures of Ethnic America

Demographic data help in grasping the numeral aspects related to ethnicity. Much about the culture of the ethnic peoples, however, is more difficult to find. All societies possess culture. As a learned phenomenon, culture contains the values, behaviors, worldviews, philosophies, religions, art, music, family roles, leadership styles, and socially acceptable ways of a given people. Students must guard against setting up comparative charts of what compares to North American culture and what does not. It is critical that researchers respect the uniqueness of these varied cultures. The inherent danger, ethnocentrism, forms judgments and values one culture over others. The truth is that cultures are different—not better or worse, just different.

Studying the varying ethnic cultures from ethnographies or other source information helps determine what values and behaviors are important to them. Having this knowledge will provide links, bridges, and paths of relationships upon which the effective communication of the gospel can be achieved. Understanding the diversity among ethnic groups helps guard against forming generalizations that would lead to erroneous approaches.

Understanding the cultures of the distinctive ethnic groups is imperative. Accuracy in describing the elements of each culture is even more important. If one is to be effective in penetrating an ethnic group, cultural understanding is an imperative step in effective missionary endeavor among ethnics in the United States.

Missiological Issues in the Churching of Ethnic America

Planting and developing ethnic churches in the United States has a long history. The most effective missiological principles of planting and developing churches have not always been employed. In ethnic ministry efforts that have been experienced and that are currently in place, certain missiological issues demand consideration.

Homogenous Unit Principle

The debate surrounding the homogenous unit principle seems to be on target in relation to ethnic ministry. In fact, this sociomethodological principle actually fits well when targeting ethnic populations. Ethnics, however, sometimes feel uneasiness associated with the principle. They feel it may limit their freedom to move beyond their own homogeneous groups. Ethnics appreciate the recognition of their uniqueness and still search for further appreciation of the complexity among the ethnic group. They do express the desire not only to be recognized but also to be allowed to move beyond their own homogenous classification and choose to join others.

Multiculturalism

On the one hand, multiculturalism is different from the previous thinking of the “melting pot.” Current thinking no longer sees North American culture as a “melting pot” where everyone loses his cultural distinctives in order to be amalgamated into this Euro-American concept of being “North American.” This thinking defines North American society as a “stew pot” in which each ingredient maintains its distinctive shape, color, and taste, while at the same time contributing its distinctive flavor to the whole. The resultant culture, therefore, becomes a blend of all the diverse cultures. The latter concept includes the fact that the integrated culture will be constantly changing as new cultures are added to the blend.

How can the concept of multiculturalism be applied to the church scene? Simply having persons from different ethnic, racial, or national groups does not necessarily make a multicultural church. This mixture of ethnic, racial, and national peoples might make up a multiracial church. The degree to which a church might be multicultural depends on the presence of certain clues or signs. These signs are not absolute but relative.

The signs might include leadership that represents the various ethnic/racial groups. Another visible sign would be the worship style. Does the worship style represent the methods and means of each of the groups within the congregation? The evidence of multiculturalism would be when the music, the preaching style, and the worship format might not be recognized as being easily connected to only one cultural expression.

The search for signs could go further by examining the leadership style and the church governance, both of which are culturally influenced. In a multicultural church, there would be appreciation and accommodation to the different styles of the cultures represented in the church’s membership.

As an evangelism and church-planting issue, and consequently a missiological issue, multiculturalism would affect various methodologies. Where the attainment of multiculturalism is possible, the ministry to ethnics should welcome and rejoice in it. The fullest attainment of multiculturalism, however, is often difficult in any one local congregation. Multiculturalism should, therefore, be fully implemented on a denominational level. A denomination should strive to provide congregations in which the needs, desires, and differences of each ethnic group is matched. These differing congregations would then be encouraged to have fraternal and loving relations with others.

Indigenous Issue

The missiological principle of indigenous church structures also finds application in ethnic missions. The goal for ethnic missions is to have pastoral leadership stemming from the ethnic group itself. The goal for indigenous pastoral leadership, while certainly attainable, will not be fully realized until areas such as ministry training become more effective. Theological training programs that can provide leaders from the ethnic groups remains one of the areas that needs to be developed if the principle of indigenous leadership is to become a reality.

Judging the indigeneity of mission work among ethnics requires an internal cultural perspective—emic rather than etic. The perspective must become that of the target group. Rather than determining what is indigenous from external sources, the standards as to what is indigenous are of necessity set by those from within the context.

Contextualization

The practice of contextualizing the mission activity among ethnics holds a validity at least equal to the indigenous principle. The principle of contextualization holds greatest meaning for the external agent because it provides for a means to work with the indigenous concerns. External agents in ethnic ministry should therefore work with indigenous leaders to the end that the people will achieve maximum contextualization in their own cultural expressions of Christianity. One test for contextualization is the inclusion of ethnic leadership in decisions that impact the ethnic community.

Sponsorship/Partnership

The concept of church sponsorship of a mission congregation evolved in the early history of ethnic church ministry. The usual pattern called upon the sponsoring church to provide resources in terms of finances, facilities, leadership, training, and guidance. In most cases for new congregations being established for ethnic peoples, the method of using a sponsoring church was the norm.

The most common approach has been for the Euro-American (Anglo) church to serve as the sponsor church for the ethnic mission congregations. While this approach has resulted in thousands of ethnic congregations, the pattern has not always been free from paternalism. Paternalism in missionary work invariably results in a limitation of indigenous leadership and development. Paternalism remains a serious issue.

The sponsorship/partnership process also involves a leadership issue. A key issue is leadership utilization. This issue ranges from: (1) the selection of a church planter to (2) the utilization of leadership from the parent church to (3) leadership recognition and equipping from the new church.

The selection of a church planter (team) for ethnic churches must meet all the qualities of a church-planter profile. If the new church involves a cross-cultural reality, use a person from outside the target group but one who possesses the necessary cross-cultural abilities. This ability assumes that the person has the qualities to transcend cultures. This matching is possible when the community/people group is accurately profiled. Long-term indigenous leadership is the most appropriate.

Paternalism constitutes a significant danger in the process of ethnic church planting, especially when using the sponsoring church method. Paternalism can take many forms, from intentional to unintentional. Of course, no well-meaning parent church will seek to raise up a daughter/sister church in its own image. This situation might, however, come about unintentionally. Ideally, a church should be born without the excessive influence of an external agent that would push the church toward being culturally inappropriate. The sponsoring group should acknowledge the danger of paternalism and exert every effort to avoid it.

A second factor in the sponsorship/partnership process relates to supervision and mentoring issues, especially the supervision of the church planter. When the supervision process involves a cross-cultural dynamic, both the church planter and the supervisor must be aware of the cross-cultural realities.

Language and generational communication constitute major challenges in many situations. Other factors, however, often affect the mentoring relationship. Values, for example, enter into relationships in significant ways. One’s perspective and meanings attached to words, language, values, behaviors—all these come into play when people are involved in a supervision and mentoring relationship. Such issues as time, authority, and religious heritage must be taken into account and understood as people work through stages of understanding each other.

A third factor in the sponsorship/partnership process relates to the issue of location. Considerations for place include where the new church will meet from the stages of early development to the eventual public opening to growth. In some circumstances, the new ethnic church plant might use the parent-church facilities when space is available or use these facilities at alternate times. This possibility becomes more viable when the target group is from a racial, language, or ethnic group different from the parent church.

When the target group is of the same racial or ethnic group as the sponsoring church but has a different socioeconomic standing, the sharing of facilities becomes a harder concept to employ. Even in this case, sharing of facilities can become viable when the parent church accepts the difference as an opportunity to reach another segment that otherwise would not fit the mold of the parent church.

Other options for location and space include renting space in another building, providing for temporary use of facilities, or initial construction of a building. Other possibilities include either meeting temporarily or intentionally in homes, which can be in detached housing or multihousing dwellings or in some public building in the area to be served by the ethnic church.

Financial issues loom as an important factor when a congregation hesitates to sponsor new ethnic churches out of concern for the financial demands. The financial issues also include problems of different feelings about, and approaches to, money in the sponsoring church and the ethnic group. The provision and use of money becomes more complex when financial matters are viewed through the lenses of cross-cultural concerns.

Attitudes toward providing financial underwriting of a new church plant effort can range from a sense of responsibility to provide all the financial needs for the ministry to the other extreme of believing that the effort should be entirely self-supporting. For most new church plants, something in between these extremes may actually be more viable.

The sponsorship/partnership process often confronts the communication issue. The expressions of the gospel have been as varied as the cultures encountered. The dynamics that occur during the cross-cultural experience of sharing the gospel and church planting involve three elements: (1) the gospel contained in a biblical culture; (2) the communicator or church planter, who belongs to another culture; and (3) the receiver of the gospel, who responds from within his own cultural context. The cross-cultural communication that occurs in the sharing of this gospel, and the resultant church-planting activity, is a key issue for churches parenting churches.

In the process of ethnic church planting, the parties sometimes experience communication breakdown. The solution to such problems is to be sensitive to the cultural context and the styles of communication in each culture in order to build opportunities for the growth of trust between all parties.

The sponsorship/partnership process must also address the form-and-style issue in the new church. Debates about worship, church models, polity forms, and styles of church property will probably continue. A cultural and contextual issue often arises when the new church seeks to develop a church structured along a different style from the parent church or the related denominational entity.

With the generational, ethnic, and affinity groups among which new churches will be planted, the look, the sounds, and the practices of these churches could be different from their parent. The parent church must determine how they will handle these expressions of church.

The terminology issue also may arise in the sponsorship/partnership process. What will the partners call the interrelationship between the parent church and the daughter church? Will it be the sponsoring church and the mission congregation? Or will it be the partnership church and the sister church? In other circumstances, terminology may speak significantly about attitude, perspective, or expectations. The parties need to select terms that are appropriate to their own and each other’s context.

Strategies for Ethnic Ministries

Efforts for reaching ethnic peoples in the United States will involve the development and use of various strategies. As ethnic ministry intensifies and grows, strategies for church development, strategies for connecting the ethnic work to the denomination, and strategies for leadership development become imperative.

Ethnic Church-planting Strategy Guide

Planting an ethnic church involves many steps. The first step involves two processes that must accompany every church plant: prayer and planning. The principle and practice of prayer should occur in all phases of the church plant, allowing the Spirit of God to guide the workers. The second step, planning, is an activity that needs to occur before every church plant and with periodic review during the church planting. The following suggestions will guide the partnership church to participate with the church planter in planting an ethnic church.

Prepare the Sponsoring Church. In preparing the partner, or sponsoring church, the church-planting planners should work through the church’s missions development council. This group can guide and support the entire process of birthing the new church. As a cultural distance may be between the sponsoring church and the new congregation, a need will arise for training the leaders for the various tasks that will be involved (surveying, visiting, witnessing, leading Bible studies, etc.).

In preparing the partner or sponsoring church, the church-planting leadership will help determine resources needed (finances, materials for training partnership leaders and for new church leaders). Established churches often demonstrate great generosity in meeting the needs of the new congregation.

An important activity in preparing the sponsoring church calls for providing for a missions climate in the partnership church. Teaching the biblical truth about missions is a beginning point. This important activity of creating a mission climate often becomes the duty of the church missions committee.

Select the Area for a New Church. A vital next step in preparing for the new congregation relates to selecting the area to be served. This selection must be implemented in a wise and informed way. The mission council of the group starting the new church should survey the areas to determine the need for a new church. Does a particular area need a new ethnic church?

The planning group should note communities with different socioeconomic/lifestyle groups within the targeted ethnic group. The surveys should also consider communities with geographical pockets of unchurched people and with diverse ethnic/cultural groups. Communities with new developments, apartments, and single-family housing need to be considered and their needs assessed by survey.

Recruit the Church-planting Team. Nothing is more determinative of success in church planting than putting together the church-planting team. The planning group should determine the profile of the type of church planter needed. Team members should match the target group by ethnic identity and other socioeconomic characteristics.

With this foundation, the planning group should select the church planter for the new church plant. Spiritual potential as well as training should be important matters in the selection process.

Cultivate the Mission Field. Events such as backyard Bible clubs, vacation Bible school, music, recreation, and others are only some of the many things that a church could do to make contact with a community. In addition, doing ministry activities that meet the needs in the community can be a great way to demonstrate Christian action and make personal contact with persons. All of these activities are opportunities to interact with people and enter into meaningful witnessing situations. Response to the cultivative activity is also a measure of determining the feasibility of establishing a church in that community.

Secure a Meeting Place. Determine where the new congregation will meet for Bible study groups, worship, and training. This meeting place may assume many different forms. The important matter is an appropriate place for the kind of church envisioned. If using cell groups, Bible studies may be held in several locations. These different cells might be brought together for corporate study and worship. If so, then a place needs to be determined for this use.

Advertise and Promote the New Congregation. Once a core group has gathered (this could be the church planter and family), promote and advertise the new congregation. Begin to develop the group before opening to the general public for a public worship service. In efforts to make known the new congregation, the planning group and the pastor should make information about the new church interesting enough that people will want to learn more about the new church.

Start the Church: the Launch. The new congregation is not fully a church yet but a church envisioned. The leaders (some from the partnership church and some from the harvest) will have been equipped to lead Bible study for various age groups, plan and guide worship, arrange a place of meeting, and send out information on the new ministry. The actual launch of the new church begins with the first public Bible study or worship service.

Evaluate the First Start Effort. Evaluating the first start effort involves asking questions: Who attended? Were these the persons expected, and do the attendees give promise of stability in the congregation? Often, a new start finds one half or more of the first attenders do not return for a second service. After the evaluation, the pastor and planning group will make any changes that seem to give promise of improving the start.

Continue Outreach and Visitation Activities. After the beginning, the real work commences. The period after the formal beginning is the time to actually grow the church. Outreach and visitation activities should increase rather than decrease. The leadership of the congregation should actively seek new people while carefully ministering to those already present.

Conserve the Results. The new congregation and pastor will be certain to disciple the new believers—equipping and empowering them to minister in the community. The church should seek out the resources for Bible study, discipleship, and ministry development in the language and cultural methods appropriate to the people who will be reached by this new church.

Constitute the Church. An important step in church planting is the constitution of the new congregation. The church, even after the constitution ceremony, may or may not be in permanent facilities. The church should follow the usual directions of the denomination or association for the constitution process.

Birth Another Church. Reproducibility should be written into the nature of every new church. The new congregation should practice a church-reproduction concept of church planting. Both the sponsoring church and the new church need to continue in the multiplication of new churches.

Ethnic Church Development (Growth) Strategy

A major concern in planting any church, particularly in ethnic churches, is avoiding an extended dependency on the partnership church or the denomination. The desire for every church plant to be self-supporting, self-governing, and self-propagating is a valid goal. Achieving this goal is an important aspect of an ethnic ministry strategy. The key to achieving this goal is the leadership training and the resource materials that support the work. Supporting the goal for self-support will require stewardship materials and training in the languages of the ethnic groups. The leaders will encourage giving through the denomination that will enhance the development of the new congregation.

The self-governing goal is enhanced through the support of these materials and training in the language of the ethnic churches. The same can be said for the goal of self-propagation. Further, the methods of training and the formats of the materials should match the ethnic group rather than the preference of the denomination.

Ethnic Leadership Development Strategy

The efforts for planting and development of ethnic churches demand the discovery and training of adequate leaders. The effort to provide these churches and ministries must also carefully provide the needed training. The further development of work among ethnic churches also needs the utilization of people to serve in a variety of ministries.

Another matter related to leadership is the role of persons from different ethnic/racial/heritage serving among ethnic groups. With good cross-cultural skills, any person can be relevant in a given cultural context. Persons working in a cross-cultural context can be of great help in ethnic groups that have a great need of leaders who are not presently found among them.

Ethnic Connectedness Strategy

Ethnic ministers and churches need to relate to the denomination and to their affinity groups such as ethnic networks (fellowships) at local, state, and national levels. The language barriers and the timing elements of meetings often weaken inclusion in the denominational meetings and programming activities. The denomination needs to provide for the language needs through translation services and by scheduling meetings at times when ethnic ministers can participate.

As ethnic ministries continue to grow, ethnic networks will emerge. The emergence is because of needs that can be met only by contact with their own people where the language, cultural, and time barriers are less formidable. The denomination’s best response to the emergence of these networks is to embrace them and include ethnic leadership in significant positions in the denominational decision-making processes.

Ethnic Globalization Strategy

Reaching the world is the goal of evangelicals. A strategy for achieving this goal has included sending missionaries to serve in cross-cultural situations. This effort can be strengthened by sending out ethnic persons who have the language abilities and distinctive cultural characteristics needed. As ethnic churches continue to grow, they send their own as missionaries to countries of origin or to countries in which people of similar cultures are found. Many ethnic churches see themselves as global missionary-sending churches and are realizing this opportunity through their own means around the world.

Conclusion

Reaching the North American mosaic is a tremendous task; at the same time, the effort poses a great opportunity for all evangelicals. If it is true that people are most open to Jesus Christ when they are in the process of change, then the opportune time is now. As persons immigrate to this country, or as they experience change within their cultural orientation, they are more open to evangelization. With the guidance and support of the Holy Spirit, Pentecost can once again be experienced in the offering of praise to God in all the languages of these United States.

Chapter 36

Spiritual Formation and Missions

Thomas Elliff

“Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle and singled out for God’s good news.” (Rom 1:1 HCSB)

What are the key spiritual elements that form the life of an effective missionary? Are they simply matters of doctrine? You could make the case that, because doctrine is to the body of Christ what the skeleton is to the human body, spiritual formation is merely a matter of correct doctrine. Yet, as strongly as I believe (and teach) the importance of sound doctrine, obviously something more is required of a genuinely effective missionary.

You might subscribe to the popular belief that a missionary’s spiritual formation is primarily a matter of discipline. Who can argue that time spent in God’s Word, the faithful exercise of prayer, and ardent witnessing are key elements of the missionary’s daily life? But there must be more! Mere focus on spiritual disciplines alone, without the inner working of the Holy Spirit, can produce good Pharisees; but it cannot produce effective missionaries.

So perhaps it is only a matter of devotion. After all, it is clearly a life of surrender to the fullness of God’s Spirit that produces spiritual fruit. We cannot deny the fact that we are commanded to be “being filled with the Spirit.” Yet there is abundant evidence that a sole focus on the experiential side of our faith has both its limits and its dangers. We’ve all heard of those who are “a mile wide but an inch deep.”

This, then, brings us to ask whether other significant factors are in God’s equation for genuine effectiveness. And notice that I will use the terms effectiveness, or genuine effectiveness, as opposed to success, or mere success. You might wonder why!

In the third year of seminary, while struggling to balance the threefold demands of education, ministry, and a growing family, I was encouraged by a well-meaning friend to purchase an audio course on “Success.” Though initially quite taken with the subject, I soon noticed that my trust in God was being eroded and gradually replaced by a trust in “me”! Ultimately, rescued through the providence of God and the stern instruction of missionary veteran Bertha Smith, I began to see that the Lord’s greater concern is for genuine effectiveness.

A wide difference exists between mere success and genuine effectiveness. While the former is most sought after, the latter is most needed. Success pops up on the screen fairly quickly and quite often with a certain degree of numerical impressiveness. But while those who want merely to succeed may focus on numbers, those who will have an enduring effectiveness are remembering names and associating them with specific need. One tends to settle for appearance, while the other searches for reality.

Perhaps the following illustration will help clarify the difference between what I am calling “mere success” and “genuine effectiveness.” One could take in hand a single stick of dynamite, light the fuse, and toss it some distance away. In moments—with an ear-splitting percussive detonation of heat, light, smoke, and ash—the stick of dynamite will be successfully expended. Within the hour, however, apart from some residue on the ground, we might walk across that site and never know the event had taken place.

Suppose, however, that instead of merely tossing the dynamite into the air, a wise engineer first finds a huge cliff of granite in which a seam or crack is clearly visible. After drilling a hole in the rock seam and strategically placing the stick of dynamite in it, the engineer then detonates the explosive. Returning to the cliff after the dynamite has been detonated, we would discover that it had been forever changed. The face of the cliff is now radically altered, and tons of debris lie heaped at the base of the cliff.

God’s desire for the missionary is for more than momentary success with little enduring impact. By choosing to strategically place a missionary in a new arena of witness, God is signaling his desire to see the lives there forever changed and a spiritual landscape that is permanently altered.

Genuine and enduring effectiveness characterized the apostle Paul’s ministry. God used Paul to permanently alter the spiritual landscape of his world, and ours, though he often was found in the meanest of circumstances, rarely received acclaim, and sometimes was spoken of with disdain. Indeed, the shadow of Paul’s life and ministry falls across the church today. This prompts two questions: (1) What were the essential elements that formed Paul’s life of genuine effectiveness? and (2) How do these elements appear in the lives of missionaries today?

The answer to the questions above can be found in three often-repeated themes of Paul’s life. These themes surface in the opening words of his letter to the believers in Rome: “Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle and singled out for God’s good news” (Rom 1:1 HCSB). Note carefully the convictional crucible in which all of Paul’s life and ministry was formed. In terms of his own ministry, there were three convictions that dominated Paul’s thinking and guided his actions. Here is the message Paul sought to convey.

Captured!

The better part of the day had been spent just getting to the village high on a mountaintop in Tanzania. That morning, the missionary had announced to me with no little excitement that this would be a “first,” and, to his knowledge, no one had ever shared the gospel in this village before. After arriving toward nightfall, we had secured the chief’s permission to show a movie and then address his villagers. But all was met with seeming failure. It was a night for partying in the village. Those who were not already drunk were inattentive and distracted. Attempts to share the gospel were met with constant interruptions and, in some cases, open scorn. At the end of the evening there was literally no response, no hearts were opened to Christ.

Now, we were driving the long road home in the dark silence, interrupted only by the labored groans of the vehicle in which we were riding. I looked over at my missionary friend, seeing only his silhouette as he wrestled with the wheel. I felt sorry for him. After all, what would keep someone like him on the field if not some regular evidences of success?

“I know what you’re thinking,” he said, breaking the silence. “You are wondering what it is that keeps us here, what spurs us on to faithfulness.”

“I guess that’s what I was thinking,” I replied, not wanting to bruise his feelings.

“Well,” he continued, “long ago I had to settle that issue. I’ll have to admit that no one likes to see positive response more than I do. Our first term out here, we saw some really good fruit, but we also had a lot of experiences like this one tonight. After one particularly disappointing season, I really had to think it through. You know, we are here as God’s servants. It is his harvest field, and we just go where he tells us, and do what he says. He does not have to explain it all to us. Who knows? He may want to use this experience tonight in the Judgment. My job is to be a faithful servant of the Lord.”

Here was a missionary who understood what it meant to be captured by Christ. So did Paul! “Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus.” Paul knew that his conversion and calling were the sovereign work of a Holy God. He was who he was “by the grace of God” (1 Cor 15:10). Therefore, Paul saw himself as a slave of Christ, choosing often to employ the term doulos, sometimes rendered “servant” but more properly translated “slave,” or “bondslave.”

Paul’s use of doulos speaks clearly of his absolute confidence in the Lord. In Jewish tradition, a bondslave was one who had become so confident in his master that he had chosen to surrender all rights to him. A bondslave had given himself to the master even though his terms of indenture had been fulfilled. Set apart by a mark, or stigmata, in the ear, he was now a living testimony to his master’s goodness (see Gal 6:17), living in absolute dependence on and surrender to his lord.

Those captured by Christ are not exempt from experiences and circumstances that leave them marked out as His own. In some ways, like Jacob’s shrunken sinew, these marks testify to the absolute surrender necessary for the servant of God to continue on, certifying the authenticity of one’s faith. (Reading 2 Cor 11:16–33 is a good exercise when tempted to complain about the inconveniences of life on the mission field.) In her poem No Scar? famed missionary Amy Carmichael reminds us of this sobering truth:

Hast thou no scar?

No hidden scar on foot, or side, or hand?

I hear thee sung as mighty in the land;

I hear them hail thy bright, ascendant star.

Hast thou no scar?

Hast thou no wound?

Yet I was wounded by the archers, spent,

Leaned Me against a tree to die, and rent

By ravening beasts that compassed Me, I swooned.

Hast thou no wound?

No wound? No scar?

Yet, as the Master shall the servant be,

And piercèd are the feet that follow Me.

But thine are whole; can he have followed far

Who hast no wound or scar?

The missionary candidate who considers that he is in some fashion “doing God a favor” by expressing a willingness to go to the field is set to fail. That kind of commitment would have kept neither William Cary nor Adoniram Judson on the field, nor will it keep us there and make us effective. Like Paul, effective missionaries consider that they have been captured by the grace of God, and they are faithful slaves of the Master whom they have come to love and trust implicitly.

Called!

Paul boldly affirmed that he was “called as an apostle.” What we see in Paul’s case, as in the case of every effective missionary, is that his call was inescapable, intuitive, and immutable. When speaking of his call, Paul left no room for equivocation.

The call of God into ministry, especially for mission service, should be accompanied by an inescapable sense of certainty. Paul was keenly aware that his calling had been God’s plan for him all along. He was set apart from his mother’s womb and called by God’s grace. Though a persecutor of the church, God had tracked Paul down and revealed Christ in him so that he might be a preacher to the Gentiles (see Gal 1:13–16). Effective missionaries operate from the sense that their call to missions is no less genuine than Paul’s.

Over the years, it has been my privilege to read literally hundreds of biographies of men and women of faith, many having served as missionaries. Often, as I begin reading, I ask this simple question: What is this person’s secret? I want to know why these people were so effective in the ministries assigned to them. I have discovered that most of these noted individuals possessed a similar “secret.” They firmly believed that the plans of God are revealed to the man or woman of God by the Spirit of God through the Word of God. Is not that the truth of 2 Timothy 3:16–17? For them, the revealed will of God was inescapable! They were held in its grip.

Additionally, it appears that, for Paul, the call of God was intuitive. It was something more than a decision arrived at by rational means, through the encouragement of friends, or because “it seemed the right thing to do at the moment.” An effective missionary is the recipient of a call that has been dropped like a plumb line down into his heart. When all reason and encouragement fail, he still knows he has been called through the witness of God’s Spirit to his own.

Picture a child at play with others in the front lawn of his home. At dinnertime, his mother might stand at the door, calling his name and urging him to come in and prepare for the meal. That child knows that it is his mother, he knows her voice, and he knows what she is asking of him. The child also knows that, as far as his mother is concerned, obedience is either immediate, or it is considered disobedience. So it is down to a clear question: Will he obey? And so it is with the effective missionary. He knows that God has spoken. There is no question as to the call. So, in obedience to the call of God, the answer was yes. Though circumstances may cloud the memory and muffle the voice, the intuitive call remains—and guides the way forward.

Effective missionaries also understand the immutable nature of God’s call. In other words, anything else would be just that, something else. C. H. Spurgeon is noted for saying that if God called a man to be a preacher of the gospel, he should not stoop to be a king. Once God has revealed his call to missions, he and he alone should be the One who determines if there should be a subsequent and different direction. Until then, anything else should be seen as a step down and away from God’s plan.

Harper Shannon illustrated the truth above in his book Trumpets in the Morning. The book’s title came from the story of a young, rising pastor who soon found himself in a noted pulpit and with great influence. One morning, however, he stood in the pulpit to offer his resignation from the ministry. A shocked congregation was left to wonder what was behind it all. But only a few weeks later, the truth came to the surface when he took a high-paying position with an international corporation. With his people skills and affable spirit, the former pastor soon rose to a high executive level in the company.

Several years later, the pastor-turned-executive was hosting a new employee, showing him around the various offices. The new employee was a deeply devoted Christian who, concerned for his boss’s spiritual welfare, began witnessing to him. His boss laughed, assured him he was a Christian, and told him he’d even once been pastor of the largest church in town.

The young man was taken aback but pursued with his questions. “Do you ever miss it?” he asked. “I mean, do you ever miss doing what God called you to do?”

After a silence that seemed to last an eternity, this is the reply he received. “Let me answer your question in this way,” his boss responded. “In days gone by, kings would take their armies out to the field of battle. On the morning of the battle, the troops would awaken to the sound of trumpets.” With a deep sigh and pensive look, the former pastor continued. “I’ll have to admit that ever since I turned aside from what God called me to do, I’ve never again heard the sound of trumpets in the morning” (Shannon 1969).

Paul’s greeting to the church in Rome (as well as others) reminds us that a deep sense of calling is an essential for effective mission service.

Content!

Genuine effectiveness requires a certain level of contentment within the parameters God draws around our lives. When Paul noted that he was “singled out for God’s good news,” he deliberately employed a root word that, with its prefix, indicated that the Lord had pulled him aside, “apart from the horizon,” and given him a specific assignment. Paul was content to live within the circumference God had inscribed around his life. In that contentment he found great effectiveness.

Making peace with the parameters God has inscribed around your life does not indicate apathy or indifference. Within those parameters of God’s will are breadths much farther than you are likely to traverse, depths greater than you are likely to plumb, and heights greater than you might ever scale. This is the vast expanse of God’s will for you.

Sometimes the parameters God inscribes around our lives are physical, geographical, vocational, or linguistic. Most likely those parameters will take into account our abilities (and inabilities), aptitudes, family backgrounds, and desires. Regardless, it is imperative for the missionary who would be effective to settle down within the circumference of God’s will and apply himself diligently to the task.

In my home state there are more cows than people. Some years ago, a dairy corporation advertised that its milk came from contented cows. Maybe so! But if you will closely examine most dairy herds, you will inevitably discover at least a cow or two that are ignoring acres of lush pasture. Instead, they have their heads thrust through the barbed wire, eating grass out of a ditch on the opposite side of the fence. There is something intriguing about what has not been assigned to us but to another instead.

Paul’s assignment was to be an apostle for the spreading of God’s good news. In his instance, the assignment was not as geographically focused as it is for others. But Paul was aware that his calling had a certain demographic. Though a “Jew’s Jew,” he was called to take the gospel to the Gentiles. And Paul rested in that calling.

Although there are certainly exceptions to the rule, most genuinely effective missionaries have, at one time or the other, made a deliberate choice to stay within what they sense as the circumference of God’s will for their lives, and plant themselves deeply in that context. Sometimes this decision has flown in the face of all that seems reasonable, practical, or vocationally advantageous. Their perseverance inevitably ends up paying huge dividends.

Russell Conwell, a Baptist minister, publically delivered his address “Acres of Diamonds” many times before his death in 1925. Conwell’s story illustrates the truth of Paul’s discovery regarding making peace within the parameters of your life. Conwell told of a young farmer, eager to make his millions, who sold his farm, traveled the earth, and was never heard of again. But the man who bought the farm saw it as the fulfillment of his life’s ambition and, plowing deeply, uncovered a large field of diamonds only a few feet beneath the soil (Conwell, “Acres of Diamonds”).

In my former role, leading a sizable missions organization, I discovered that those who are or will become effective missionaries can often be detected within an hour or so of our arrival at the airport. As I listen to their conversation on the way to a hotel or meeting, it becomes abundantly clear that some are eager to welcome me to “their city” with all of its opportunities, while others spend time lamenting the hardships associated with living in a strange culture. Some are digging deeply and discovering acres of diamonds. Others are merely scratching the soil and looking wistfully at someone else’s assignment.

Paul would be hours away from death before he was content that he had fought the good fight, finished his course, and kept the faith (2 Tim 4:7–8). Until that moment he diligently scoured the grounds of what he understood to be God’s will for his life, looking to see that no stone was unturned. Paul did not repeatedly go back and assess whether he was within the will of God, for he had made peace within the parameters God had assigned to him. He was content within the circumference of his life.

Paul’s Life . . . and Ours

What can be learned from Paul about the spiritual formation of a genuinely effective missionary? Most certainly it is not that effective missionaries should abandon a rigorous approach to their doctrinal studies. In most instances, missionaries are establishing the doctrinal DNA for an entire people group, or groups. The handling of doctrinal issues will determine whether there is death or life in the message they bring.

Nor should missionaries look with disdain on the imperatives of a disciplined life. Christ commissioned his followers to make disciples. There is no such thing as sustained spiritual health when the disciplines of prayer, the consistent and systematic study of God’s Word, or the faithful sharing of the gospel is neglected. We are each called to be disciples as well as to make disciples.

God takes special delight in those whose hearts are out and out for him. There is no substitute for total surrender to the lordship of Christ. Nor will the effort of man ever accomplish that which is only possible through the power of the Holy Spirit. An old hymn reminds us that there should be “nothing between (our) soul and the Savior.” Devotion to the Lord must never be ignored or minimized. Religion must never become a substitute for a vital relationship with Christ.

But Paul has shown us that three convictions deeply embed the heart of every missionary who is genuinely effective. Without reservation, such missionaries declare with conviction, “I have been captured by the grace of God. I am called and acutely conscious of that fact, therefore I will be content within the circumference of God’s will for my life, diligently laboring in the field he has assigned me.”

The old missionary was ten years my elder, but his death still shook me. Oh, I had plenty of advance notice that he was going to die. Since he was a mentor of mine, we had been close over a long stretch of years, developing the kind of casual relationship that enabled us to just “take up where we’d left off” even when separated by seemingly long periods of time.

From the earliest days of our relationship, I had been overawed by his prodigious capacity for work. And over the years my regard for his effectiveness never changed. Literally hundreds of thousands of people have been impacted by his writing and teaching. Though he never seemed hurried, he did appear to be perpetually in motion when it came to following the Lord whom he loved with all his heart. Possessing a voracious appetite for the newest ways to increase the impact of the gospel, he was still rooted in the “old truths,” memorizing vast portions of the Scripture.

So now we were standing at his graveside. Earlier, I had preached his funeral service but only after he shared a vibrant video testimony with those who had gathered from around the world to celebrate his life. Now, his earthly shell was being lowered into the earth. As I walked from the cemetery that day, it was with a greater resolve. The old missionary’s life was still teaching me and continues to do so even now. I pray to be like him: captured, called, and content.

Chapter 37

Christianity in China

Lisa Hoff

In 1958, only nine years after the Chinese Communist Party established the People’s Republic of China, Mao Ze Dong’s wife, Jiang Qing, told foreign visitors that “Christianity in China has been confined to the history section of the museum. It is dead and buried” (Yun and Hattaway 2002, 7). Even in the 1970s, a delegation from the United States visiting China reported, “There is not a single Christian left in China” (Yun and Hattaway 2002, 7). Having been cut off from foreign contact for decades, many outsiders assumed the Chinese church had not survived the persecution that engulfed the country during years of internal conflict. Yet, those years of suffering and imprisonment gave many believers in China a clear understanding of the value of their faith and the importance of sacrifice for the sake of the gospel. God was at work refining and growing his church, preparing his bride for unprecedented growth that would have eternal impact on both China and the world.

In the past forty years, tens of millions of Chinese have given their lives to Christ. Some estimate as many as 10,000 people a day are coming to faith in China. Although Christians remain a small minority of China’s 1.3 billion people, they are exerting a growing influence in virtually every sector of society. Many have traditionally considered Christianity the religion of the poor; yet in recent years God has been moving in the hearts of people from diverse socioeconomic classes, educational levels, and ethnic people groups, changing the fabric of today’s Chinese society.

The Arrival of the Gospel

The Chinese were first exposed to the gospel through extensive trade routes that connected China to Central Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. These corridors of commerce, often known as the Silk Road, facilitated the transmission of ideas and cultural interaction, in addition to bolstering trade efforts. Many early merchants from Persia were Nestorian Christians and most likely had contact with the Chinese Empire as early as the fifth century AD.

In 1625 a Nestorian Stele was found in Xian, altering the presumed timeline of Christianity’s arrival in China. Prior to this discovery many believed the gospel was first introduced during the thirteenth or fourteenth century. This stele was written in 781 and detailed 150 years of Christianity’s growth and the establishment of the church during the Tang Dynasty.

In 635 a Persian Nestorian named Alopen conducted the first recorded missionary journey to China. The Tang Emperor at that time sought to instill religious tolerance in the empire in hopes of insuring greater political stability. Alopen was well received and subsequently given approval in 638 to propagate Christianity after an edict of universal toleration was issued. That year the first Christian church was built in China in the capital Changan (Xian), the largest city in the world at that time (Moffett 2009a, 293). The emperor personally paid for the construction of the church out of his own treasury, as he had paid for the construction of Buddhist and Daoist temples. He allowed his portrait to be hung in the church as a show of his favor. A period of religious tolerance continued throughout the life of the emperor and his son, with additional churches being built in modern-day Xian, Luoyang, Chengdu, Mt. Emei, and others (Moffett 2009a, 293).

In 698 persecution against the church ensued, led by Buddhists hostile to Christianity. This was followed by a period of relative stability from AD 712–81 when the faith gained favor with many of the emperor’s Uighur allies. One of the most influential Chinese Christian leaders of the eighth century was a bishop and missionary scholar named Adam (Jing Jing) who composed the inscription on the Stele tablet (Moffett 2009a, 299). He was a prolific translator of early Christian documents.

The welfare of the imperial court and the church were interconnected; so, when civil conflict erupted in 907, it brought down both institutions. Aside from obvious political issues, many have suggested that Christianity also collapsed because of missiological, theological, and religious reasons as well (Moffett 2009a, 303). Some claim that the original orthodoxy found in the early Nestorian church had been watered down, or the church became so nominal that it simply faded into the surrounding culture.

In the 1890s nine early Christian manuscripts were discovered in Dunhuang, China, that changed scholars’ understanding of the Nestorian church. They had been hidden for almost one thousand years and are detailed accounts of the Chinese church in the seventh century. These are known as “the Bishop Alopen documents” and have led many to believe that, at least in the early years, the theology of the Nestorians was quite orthodox (Moffett 2009b, 305). Samuel Moffett notes that “a consensus has emerged that from the limited evidence available, Tang Dynasty Christianity was neither heretically Nestorian nor fatally syncretistic” (Moffett 2009b, 312).

For many centuries after the collapse of the Tang Dynasty, the church remained in obscurity. It was only during the Mongolian rule, known as the Yuan Dynasty (1260–1368), that Christianity once again emerged as a religion of influence. Chingis Khan built the largest empire the world has ever known by uniting various tribes throughout the Mongolian Steppes. His grandson, Kublai Khan, was known for maintaining liberal public policy, bringing religious freedom to the empire in a type of “pragmatic pluralism” (Charbonnier 2002, 70). Christian churches were established in various parts of the country, and the first Christian missionaries from the Latin West reached China (Charbonnier 2002, 19).

The Mongols ruled a vast empire and were known for choosing local administrators among the peoples they conquered. Particularly in China, they chose foreigners or those who were not ethnically Chinese to administer policy. This was to avoid being too dependent on the “Chinese Bureaucracy” (Charbonnier 2002, 76). Many of the peoples they conquered were at least partially Christianized, including the Keraits, Önguts, and Uighurs. Although it is obvious that Syrian Christians had been at work among these tribes, there is no recorded history of when that began.

Many Mongol leaders and a number of the Khan’s wives were Christians, including Sorqaqtani, who was a Kerait princess. She became the mother of Kublai Khan and exerted considerable influence on his public policy and worldview. Mongol Christians today recount the stories of these individuals as proof that Christianity was one of the early faith traditions among their people and not only a foreign religion.

In addition to the Keraits, other Turkic peoples also had large Christian communities. Although the Uighurs are primarily Sunni Muslims today, at that time many were followers of Christianity. The Uighurs in the twelfth century provided Mongol rulers with many scribes, doctors, and civil servants. When Chingis Khan decided the Mongol people needed to become literate, he commissioned a Uighur captive, Tatatunga, to adapt the Syriac-based Uighur script to become the Mongolian language, which is still used in Inner Mongolia today (Charbonnier 2002, 72). Also, a heavily Christianized tribe known as the Öngut was in present-day Ordos, Inner Mongolia. Members of this Turco-Mongolian group often bore the names of Christian apostles or patriarchs.

Insights into the thirteenth-century Nestorian church have primarily come through accounts from foreigners like Marco Polo. He joined his father and uncle on their second trip to China and wrote extensively on Christians he encountered when serving in the court of Kublai Khan. When the Polo brothers met the Khan on their first visit, he warmly welcomed them, asking many questions about their country and expressing interest in Christianity (Moffett 2009a, 445). He asked them to return to Europe with a letter to the pope and bring back one hundred missionaries to his court. Specifically he desired:

Wise men of learning in the Christian religion and doctrine . . . who should know also the seven arts and be fitted to teach his people and who should know well how to argue and to show plainly to him and to the dilators and to the other classes of people . . . that all their religion was erroneous . . . and who should know well how to show clearly by reason that the Christian faith and religion is better than theirs and more true than all the other religions; and if they proved this, that he [Kublai] and all his potentates would become men of the church. (Moffett 2009a, 446)

Although it is unclear what motivated this request, the pope’s response was dismal. Dominican friars were asked to accompany the Polos back to the Khan’s court; however, they eventually turned back because of wars in Central Asia. It is difficult to know how history may have been different if the missionaries had responded to the call from the Mongolian court. Some have said this was one of Christianity’s greatest missed opportunities.

No other Khan after Kublai was able to maintain the same level of authority over the realm. As the power of the Mongols declined, so also did the faith of many of their prominent Christian leaders (Moffett 2009a, 473). Just as the church had essentially disappeared from view with the fall of the Tang Dynasty, so, too, did it begin to lose influence with the demise of the Yuan. This led to what many historians call the second disappearance of Christianity in China.

According to Samuel Moffett, the early church in China experienced volatile shifts and near extinction for fundamental reasons related to geographical isolation, chronic numerical weakness, persecution, the encounter with formidable Asian religions, ethnic introversion, dependence on the State, and the church’s internal divisions. Different challenges were more prominent at different points in time, but all played a contributing factor in limiting the growth and stability of the church. One of the most hotly debated issues is the role that theology may have played in the failure of these first two attempts at solidly establishing the church on Chinese soil (Moffett 2009a, 503).

Roman Catholic Missions

The sixteenth century saw the establishment of a long and lasting Catholic presence in China with the Jesuit Matteo Ricci spearheading this missionary advance and initiating the third historical breakthrough of Christianity. He began his work in Guangdong province and then received permission from the Chinese authorities to move to Beijing in 1601. Matteo Ricci’s outreach was directed toward the educated and upper classes in society. Because missionaries could only remain with the blessing of those in power, Ricci sought to make himself valuable to the emperor. His desire was to win the attention of the Chinese by demonstrating knowledge in areas where they had interest, such as mathematics and astronomy. He was also considered a master linguist being able to write hundreds of Chinese characters and memorize entire sections of Chinese classics. Ricci’s True Meaning of the Lord of the Heaven is considered the first Catholic attempt to use a Chinese worldview to introduce Christianity to Chinese intellectuals (Moffett 2009b, 114).

Matteo Ricci recognized the importance of contextualizing the gospel for his audience and understanding the values of those he was trying to reach. He adopted the clothing of the Confucian scholar and built Catholic churches in Chinese architectural style to emphasize that Western culture did not bind his faith (Moffett 2009b, 109). Although he did not hide his faith, he also did not publically emphasize the missionary purpose behind his work, which created tensions with some of the other Jesuits (Aikman 2003, 32). Yet, because of the emperor’s support, many thousands of Chinese began converting to Catholicism. In 1584 there were only three converts, but by 1603 there were an estimated five hundred, and by 1610 there were around twenty-five hundred (Moffett 2009b, 114). Five years after Ricci’s death, it is estimated that there were five thousand Chinese Catholics (Aikman 2003, 32).

Xu Guangshi, Yang Ting Yuan, and Li Zhizao have often been called the three pillars of the early Chinese church (Moffett 2009b, 110). They were from upper-class backgrounds, were intellectuals, and were influential in building Chinese Catholicism. The conversion of these men and their work brought countless people to faith and established many Catholic communities in China.

When the Ming Dynasty fell in 1644, the church did not collapse as it did before. Two of Ricci’s successors, Adam Schall von Bell and Ferdinand Verbiest were both given imperial appointments in astronomy, and the church continued to grow (Aikman 2003, 32). The golden years of the Catholic Church were 1650–64 when the number of Catholics increased to 254,980 (Moffett 2009b, 119).

In 1724 Emperor Yong Zheng issued an edict known as the “Edict of Expulsion and Confiscation.” This was the result of the emperor’s frustration over squabbles between various Catholic groups and the decline of competent Jesuits serving the imperial bureaucracy (Aikman 2003, 34). No longer did the emperor give official patronage to the church, and persecution of Catholics ensued.

Protestant Missions

The nineteenth century is often referred to as the “Great Century” of Protestant missions in China. The Second and Third Great Awakenings, dramatic growth of the Student Volunteer Movement for Foreign Missions, and China’s increased exposure to the outside world all fueled missionary efforts (Bays, “Foreign Missionary Movement”). It was an age of transition between China’s imperial past and a yearning for a modern future.

Because of an imperial edict forbidding the proselytization or conversion of the Chinese, most early missionaries were confined to living and working in the cities of Guangzhou and Macau. In 1807 the first Protestant missionary to China, Robert Morrison, arrived in Guangzhou. He served with the London Missionary Society and was well known for adopting local dress and the Chinese queue as a means of connecting with the local people. His translation efforts produced a Chinese-English dictionary, a manuscript of Chinese grammar, and the first complete Chinese Bible in 1819. It took seven years for Morrison to see his first convert, but his work was instrumental in setting a foundation for early missionary efforts (Moffett 2009b, 289).

Protestants have long believed that translation and distribution of the Bible is essential to evangelism, church planting, and the indigenization of the gospel. In 1815 Robert Morrison’s colleague, William Milne, hired Liang Fa to work as a printer. Liang Fa became a Christian, producing influential writings in the establishment of the early Chinese church. His work “Benevolent Words to Advise the World” has been called “the most complete statement of Protestant doctrine by a Chinese in the first half of the nineteenth century” (Moffett 2009b, 291). Robert Morrison ordained Liang Fa in 1824 as an evangelist to his own people, and he served as the first known itinerant preacher to work outside of Guangzhou.

This period also saw dramatic growth in the number of missionaries and mission societies represented in the country. Around fifty Protestant missionaries were assigned to the work in China between 1807 and 1839. Only one hundred or so people came to Christ over these thirty-two years, most of them individuals who worked in the various missions (Bays 2011, 46). In 1842 only seven Protestant missionary societies existed, but in the next eighteen years twenty more agencies opened work in China (Bays 2011, 48). By 1900 the number of local Protestant Christians had grown to approximately 100,000, and by 1905 there were an estimated 3,500 missionaries (Bays 2011, 66–67).

After China’s defeat by the British in the First Opium War (1839–42), the Treaty of Nanking opened five port cities to trade and missionary activity. This agreement is known as the first of the unequal treaties, and it required the assignment of Hong Kong to the British and the expansion of foreign powers in China. Although this gave Christian workers more ministry access in the mainland, many Chinese even today connect the work of early missionaries with the economic and political humiliation of the Opium Wars.

Hudson Taylor was another influential missionary of this era, establishing the China Inland Mission (CIM) in 1865. From the outset, CIM missionaries adopted Chinese attire, focused on reaching some of the most unreached areas of China’s interior, and engaged in many other unprecedented practices such as appointing large numbers of women to the mission (Moffett 2009b, 467). In 1880 they were the first to send single women into the interior without a male escort (Moffett 2009b, 467), which proved scandalous within the larger mission community.

John Nevius, an American Presbyterian who advocated self-support and local leadership in the Chinese church, had a profound influence on Taylor’s mission strategy, which focused on raising up and empowering local believers. Chinese colleagues, like Pastor Xi Shongmo, were quickly incorporated into CIM. Pastor Xi was the first Protestant pastor of Shanxi, a Chinese scholar, and reformed drug addict who built forty drug rehabilitation centers. In 1880 CIM had one hundred Chinese colleagues and ninety-six foreign missionaries (Moffett 2009b, 467).

The 1860s saw a shift in mission strategy as a growing number of Protestant groups focused on building educational and medical institutions. They also advocated for societal reforms such as bringing an end to foot binding, providing education opportunities for girls, and abolishing the opium trade (Bays 2011, 69). Women sent out through denominational mission boards or women’s missionary sending organizations often staffed schools and hospitals. Mission boards were initially hesitant to send women, particularly single women, overseas, but increasingly administrators realized that women had to be the main primary means of reaching Chinese women with the gospel. By 1907 more than 57,000 students were in more than 2,500 Protestant schools, and three hundred medical missionaries had been assigned to China, a third of them women (Bays 2011, 69).

The Southern Baptist Convention was established in 1845, and China was its first designated field of service through the newly created Foreign Mission Board (FMB). Early missionaries focused their work in southern China and included individuals such as R. H. Graves, a noted physician known for his evangelistic approach to reaching the lost through medical missions (“Biography of Rosewell Graves”). M. T. Yates, J. L. Shuck, and T. W. Tobey started the Shanghai Mission of the FMB in 1847. The Northern China Mission began in Shandong in 1860 and was staffed by such noted missionaries as J. L. Holmes, J. B. Hartwell, and T. P. Crawford (“Early Southern Baptist China Missions”). Throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries Southern Baptist missionary efforts continued to grow in China. Since 1882 women have outnumbered men serving as missionaries under FMB (now International Mission Board) appointment, a trend that remains unbroken today (“Celebrating the Legacy of Southern Baptist Women in International Missions”).

One of the most influential Southern Baptist missionaries was Charlotte (Lottie) Moon, who was appointed to China in 1873. She was one of the first women to earn an M.A. from a Southern institution and was fluent in multiple languages (Moore). During her first years in China, she taught at a girls’ school; but later she declared her intention to become a village evangelist. For almost forty years she served as an evangelist and church planter, often singlehandedly laboring in remote villages. “By the time she left China, her disciples in Pingdu, were baptizing five hundred converts a year, and one of her students, a leading Chinese evangelist, is said to have baptized 10,000 people” (Moffett 2009b, 479). To many, she is best known as a prolific writer and tireless advocate for Southern Baptist missions. In 1887 she sent a letter to the Southern Baptist Foreign Missions Journal, proposing a Christmas missions offering that has since become “a vehicle for funneling more than $3.6 billion to missions, sending and supporting thousands of Southern Baptist missionaries throughout the world” (“Celebrating the Legacy of Southern Baptist Women in International Missions”).

In the nineteenth century, anti-foreign and anti-Christian sentiment grew throughout China and culminated in the Boxer Rebellion of 1900. Foreign and Chinese Christians were targeted in this attack, with as many as 30,000 Chinese believers losing their lives while defending their faith and protecting foreign colleagues. The highest loss of life occurred in China’s interior where 230 Western missionaries were killed, 79 of them from the CIM (Aikman 2003, 42). After foreign armies liberated Beijing from the rebels, Hudson Taylor was asked if he desired them to pay compensation for the loss of life and property. He famously replied, “Should I have a thousand pounds, China can claim them all; should I have a thousand lives, I would not spare one not to give to China” (Aikman 2003, 42).

Missions in the Twentieth Century

China’s dynastic rule collapsed in 1911 in the Xinhai Revolution. A Christian physician named Sun Yat Sen was instrumental in its overthrow and the establishment of the Nationalist, or Kuomintang (KMT), party. He rose to power as the first president and founding father of the new republic. Sun’s desire was to build an internationally recognized political democracy; however, his government was short lived, disrupted by local warlords, demonstrations, and civil war in the 1920s and 30s (Aikman 2003, 48).

The number of Western missionaries in China grew to a record 8,325 in 1926 in spite of the social instability (Aikman 2003, 43). Workers stayed through increasing hardships, including the 1937 Japanese invasion of China, in which many were captured, killed, or placed in internment camps. Southern Baptist missionary Bertha Smith was held from 1941 to 1942 and later started the FMB work in Taiwan. Eric Liddell, depicted in the movie Chariots of Fire, died in a Japanese internment camp in Weifang, only months before the end of World War II.

Years of civil war ended when the Chinese Communist Party defeated the Nationalists, establishing the Peoples Republic of China on October 1, 1949. As an atheistic state, many feared this would be the third disappearance of Chinese Christianity. At that time there were roughly three million Roman Catholics and three-quarters of a million Protestants, more than 10 percent being members of 392 Baptist churches (Lee 2012). By 1950 more than 10,000 Protestant and Catholic missionaries had been expelled, including 220 Southern Baptist missionaries, many leaving to begin new work among the Chinese Diaspora in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, and other parts of Asia (Lee 2012). The expulsion of foreign missionaries led to a deeper indigenization of the church and exponential growth of Chinese leadership in the church.

Three of the most influential evangelists and foundational leaders of the twentieth century were John Sung, Wang Mingdao, and Watchman Nee. John Sung was known as a powerful preacher, calling many to “be born again” and inspiring “young people to devote themselves to the work of the Kingdom” (Xin 2009, 26). Watchman Nee was a prolific writer of theology and ministry and founder of the Little Flock House Church. Wang Mingdao was known for his teachings on Christian living and the practical aspects of the Christian life. Both Wang and Nee were imprisoned for decades for their faith yet continued to exert immense influence over the Christian movement in China.

The government established the Three Self Patriotic Movement (TSPM) in 1954 to promote full independence of the church from foreign influence and maintain control over its operations. The three principles of self-governance, self-support, and self-propagation are the foundations of the church. Ironically, two American missionaries, Henry Venn and Rufus Anderson, first promoted these concepts in the nineteenth century, and many missionaries formally adopted them in practice. Many Christian leaders protested government controls of the church and elected to meet illegally outside of TSPM meeting points. During the Cultural Revolution (1966–76), the TSPM itself was disbanded, and the growing house church movement solidified because of nationwide persecution.

After Deng Xiao Ping came to power in 1978, he implemented an “open door” policy to increase economic growth and ease many existing societal restrictions. This ushered in a new era for the TSPM church, reopening places of worship and reestablishing contact with Christians outside of the country. The reopening of China’s doors to the outside world had important consequences for the church. The unity that was once experienced by house churches during times of persecution dissolved, and separate house church networks emerged. One leader recalled that:

Throughout the 1970s there had been just one house church movement in China. There were no networks or organizations, just groups of passionate believers who came together to worship and study God’s Word. The leaders all knew each other. God had brought them together during times of hardship. They learned to have fellowship and trust one another while shackled together in prison. After being released they worked together for the advancement of the gospel. In those early days we were truly unified. . . . [W]hen China’s borders started to open up in the 1980s, many foreign Christians wanted to know how they could help the church in China. The first thing they did was smuggle Bibles to us from Hong Kong. . . . However, after a few years these same mission organizations started putting other books at the tops of the bags of Bibles. These were books about one particular denomination’s theology, or teaching that focused on certain aspects of God’s Word. This, I believe was the start of disunity among many of China’s house churches. . . . Within a year or two, the house churches in China split into ten or twelve fragments. This was how so many different house church networks came into existence. (Yun and Hattaway 2002, 232–34)

Christianity’s exceptional growth in recent years is because of an extraordinary movement of the Holy Spirit and a foundation of sacrificial service by generations of Chinese and foreign believers. Globalization, growth of the Internet, and the tremendous spiritual hunger of the Chinese people have also contributed to these developments. Most of the growth is outside of the TSPM, and so the precise number of believers is difficult to estimate. Some assert there are 80–130 million Christians today, an increase of one hundred fold since 1949 (Green 2011).

Three of China’s largest house church networks started in Henan and Zhejiang province, including Fancheng, Tanghe (China Gospel Fellowship), and the Born-Again Movement (Word of Life) (Aikman 2003, 73). Many refer to the city of Wenzhou, in the Zhejiang province, as the “Jerusalem of China.” Her people are known for their entrepreneurial success and their predilection for starting businesses throughout China and the world. Wherever Wenzhou Christians seize economic opportunities, they are also intentional about starting churches.

Some estimate as many as one to six million (Aikman 2003, 182) Christians and more than two thousand churches are in Wenzhou (Cao 2011, 2). Although there has been great persecution and attempts to wipe out the church in the city, many believe the entrepreneurship of her people and their commercial success has been a contributing factor for government officials granting them leniency in practicing their faith. Many of the unofficial house churches there are able to function openly, unlike other areas of the country.

As early as the 1990s, a growing variety of people in society began coming to Christ: scientists, business executives, educators, and even government officials. “From the grassroots of the peasantry to high within China’s establishment, the country was being seeded with believing Christians” (Aikman 2003, 8). Although some of these individuals were open about their faith, many others maintained greater secrecy because of their professional positions in an atheistic state.

Much of Christianity’s growth among the educated in society has occurred since 1989. This was a pivotal time of change following the Tiananmen Square protests and the increasing number of students going abroad for higher education. Some reports showed as many as 10 percent of students on Chinese college campuses at that time were Christian (Aikman 2003, 253). By 2001 a study of four hundred college students in Beijing revealed 3.6 percent of students interviewed were believers and 60 percent were interested in Christianity (Aikman 2003, 253). Many returning students from abroad and overseas Chinese have influenced this growing interest in Christianity on all levels of society.

When one Chinese Christian leader was recently asked about the church in China, he said he foresaw the “numbers of churches and meeting points [continuing to] grow; especially in the cities [because] urbanites are lonely.” He also saw the church as having potential to meet many of the people’s emotional and spiritual needs by addressing issues related to selfishness, finances, education, and even psychological problems. He also perceived the need for an increase in the number and types of Christian coworkers, “not just preachers, [but] also social workers and counselors” (fall 2013 interview with house church leaders).

The Future

Many Chinese Christians see the persecution they have endured over the past half century as a training ground for taking the gospel to some of the most resistant places on earth. In what is often referred to as the Back to Jerusalem Campaign, Chinese leaders express a calling from God “to preach the gospel and establish fellowships of believers in all the countries, cities, towns, and ethnic groups between China and Jerusalem” (Hattaway, Yun, Yongze and Wang 2003, x). Jing Dianying and the Jesus Family in Shandong Province first conceived this vision in the 1920s. It was called the “Northwest Spiritual Movement” and focused on reaching all of China and the nations beyond the Western Borders (Aikman 2003, 196). In the 1940s Chinese students at the Northwest Bible Institute and Mark Ma, the school’s vice principal, began the “Back to Jerusalem Band,” which is the best-known forerunner of the modern movement (Aikman 2003, 196). Fervor for this campaign was rekindled in the hearts of many house church leaders in the mid-1990s, when they began discussing the potential of mobilizing 100,000 Christian missionaries, 10 percent of the estimated number of Christian workers in China, as part of this movement (Hattaway, Yun, Yongze and Wang 2003, x). Representatives from the Fancheng and Tanghe house church networks said that by 2000 they had already sent out about sixty missionaries to Burma, and the Born Again Church had sent out a handful of missionaries to Pakistan by 2002 (Aikman 2003, 196). One local church leader said that “as small house churches grow, some will be sent out to both local and overseas missions, and/or neighborhood ministries. God must call and send His people and the Chinese church needs to start giving out rather than just being receivers” (fall 2013 interview with house church leaders).

Today a number of underground training centers operate throughout the country, preparing this growing missionary force. Chinese Christians often have a great advantage over Western missionaries in Central Asia, North Africa, and the Middle East because they do not carry the same political, historical, and cultural baggage. As one Chinese believer said, “Chinese people are more suitable than Americans to go to the Muslim World. Muslims prefer Chinese to Americans. . . . Besides we have a lot of experience of persecution” (Aikman 2003, 202). For economic reasons and because of China’s growing dependence on petroleum, the government has invested large sums of money in the economy and infrastructure of some of the least evangelized countries in the developing world. Many Chinese companies are contracted to work in these nations and have requested China’s house church leaders to send pastors and evangelists to help their Christian communities reach out to Chinese workers and Muslims among whom they live (Aikman 2003, 203). Other house churches are developing an expanded vision for reaching the world because of their increased understanding of the many ways they can be involved in missions. According to one church leader, “The 2008 Sichuan earthquake mobilized the Chinese church to respond and God began to use [them] to change the nation.” Many “Christian business owners are [also] using their business roles to enter other countries and sometimes partner with missionaries to make a difference.” Furthermore, he believed that “missions should start from a base of prayer, so early next year [they] have called twenty days of prayer for missions, and have begun to build a place where missionaries can return for rest. [Their] missionaries will work in . . . social work, NGOs, arts, education, and business with kingdom perspective” (fall 2013 interview with house church leaders). God is raising up a spiritually mature and well-equipped church in China to actively engage in furthering his kingdom across the globe. It is a church that has been seasoned by adversity, steeped in prayer, and grown through obedience. Having received the gospel and being fully assured of its power, they are eager to become part of a growing tapestry of believers working together to further God’s kingdom to the ends of the earth.

Chapter 38

The Missionary Family

Philip Pinckard

Those passionate about the gospel take action to get the gospel to the unreached. The Great Commission of Christ compels his followers to go. They recognize that “missions exist because worship does not” (Piper 2010, 15). Committed believers make sacrifices and plant their lives among unreached people groups so lost persons hear, become disciples, and worship the Lord. These cross-cultural proclaimers of the gospel represent the missionary family.

We Are Family

Missionary families normally include three major groupings: singles who have never married, married couples who do not have children, and married couples with children. More limited avenues of service exist for those who are divorced. Most sending agencies would thoroughly examine the details of a divorce and, in some cases, have selected categories of service where a divorced person may serve.

Singles have to address the issue of their degree of comfort with life as a single person. The importance of recognizing the Lord’s call to an assignment is crucial, but singles must face the issue of contentment. Some singles called to cross-cultural ministry remain open to marriage but feel their call to missions takes priority over getting married at that point in time. Bill Wallace answered God’s call to medical missions, dated before his appointment, and then served as a single missionary doctor in East Asia. Single female missionaries sat by him at mission dinners. Dr. Wallace dated on stateside assignment, called furlough at that time, but never married. He returned to serve in East Asia. He was falsely accused of serving as a spy and, after experiencing harsh treatment, died in prison (Fletcher 1963, 12, 23, 65–71, 146–50). Wallace had an openness to marriage, but God used his life in a powerful way as a single man. His legacy inspired many who became missionaries.

Some individuals feel called to cross-cultural ministry and date persons who plan to become missionaries, focusing on marrying someone headed to the mission field. On the other hand, a number of couples date, marry, and work in the business world or a different type of ministry before they know they are to serve cross-culturally on a long-term basis.

Missionary couples travel varied paths that bring them to mission service, but most confirm they both know the Lord wants them individually and as a couple to do cross-cultural ministry. The International Mission Board (IMB) of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) expects each spouse “to articulate a definite call to mission service” (going.imb.org). They cannot simply go with their spouse who feels called to overseas ministry if they do not have a similar leading by the Lord. Some sending groups take a different approach. I went to the same language school as a missionary from another denomination where only the husband was an appointed missionary and the wife was there to support her husband’s call and ministry.

Getting There

All followers of Christ should share and live out the gospel. Yet certain individuals and couples are called to do so long-term in a cross-cultural setting. This means they focus on ministry to persons from a socioeconomic group, geographic location, or ethnic identity different from their own. They respond to a personal call to missions that includes “a burning desire to see every people group in the world prostrate in worship before the throne of God” (Sills 2008, 196). They are certain of their personal calling by God to cross-cultural missions on a long-term basis and become a missionary family.

The path to mission service for families requires obedience to the will of God. J. Herbert Kane uses the apostle Paul as an example of one certain of God’s call and God’s purpose for his life. “Moreover he insisted that he was an apostle by the will (1 Cor. 1:1) and calling (Ro. 1:1) of God. He did not choose this high calling (1 Cor. 9:16–18), nor was it conferred on him by others (Ga. 1:1)” (Kane 1986, 40). Families should know they are following God’s will, committing their lives to take the gospel to the ends of the earth.

Missionary families have a variety of options in how they get to the mission field. Many families seek appointment by a sending organization. This process begins with a time of exploration, followed by thorough examination of the missionary candidates, including the sharing of their life stories, personal interviews, and numerous references completed about all individual applicants. The IMB follows such a process before they commission persons and families who are members of SBC churches (going.imb.org). Some churches send missionaries directly and provide their financial support without going through a separate organization like the IMB. Another approach places a church’s missionaries under an umbrella organization.

Any way of serving requires faith by missionary families. Those who go through a sending agency must trust churches and individuals will continue to give faithfully to support the ministry of cross-cultural missions. Missionaries raising their own funds believe that churches and individuals will provide promised support. One missionary serving in the same location as my family had to make an emergency trip back to the States to raise more funding. A supporting church decided to fund another ministry instead of that missionary’s family. The Lord provides financial support in a variety of ways for those called to overseas ministry through churches and mission agencies.

Good-bye and Hello

Those families moving to another location to engage in missions know that good-byes to their family, home church, and friends are not easy. Some have already moved from their family of origin for college, careers, or seminary training. However, they still spend time with extended family at least once or twice a year. Now the good-byes to parents, siblings, other relatives, and friends mean they will have longer times of not seeing one another and, more often than not, live on different continents, divided by multiple time zones.

These periods of separation exist and should not be minimized by those who suggest video calls, e-mails, and texts are almost like being there. Those who sailed the ocean years ago for mission service sometimes never saw extended family members again. William Carey left England in 1793 to become a missionary to India. He never returned to England and died in India in 1834 (Akin 2012, 1). Although today, missionaries fly to their place of service and plan to return for stateside assignment, they should prepare family, friends, and themselves for longer periods of time apart. This includes absence from celebrations such as graduations, weddings, births, and regular family gatherings. The separation magnifies when they are unable to return for an unexpected health crisis, hospitalization, or a funeral of a relative or friend.

Each family must decide the best ways to keep in touch with relatives. During the time my family served overseas, phone calls, letters, and packages were all ways to stay connected with family in the States. Looking forward to special events helps the separation. While technology cannot compensate for being physically present with family and friends, ever-changing ways to communicate make it easier for a missionary family to interact with others back in the States.

Church families help missionary families going to a field of service in a multitude of ways. Prayer support takes priority when church members commit to pray for them daily and enlist others to pray specifically for a missionary family. One practical way to help is to assist with packing and preparing for missionary orientation. A Bible study group could adopt a missionary family and assist them in sending out prayer cards and newsletters, maintaining e-mail and mailing lists, and even taking care of children for couples busy with transition. The encouragement can continue once the family transitions to the mission field by keeping in touch for birthdays of each family member, anniversaries, and holidays and by sending surprise care packages.

The “Good-byes” are replaced by “Hellos” to people of a new culture where the missionary family arrives to serve. Some receive welcomes to the field of service by fellow missionaries and nationals, but others are not greeted because of a variety of reasons, including unexpected delays in travel, serving in a location where a group gathered could mean security risks, or beginning a new ministry where no other personnel are. Regardless of the circumstances of arrival, the missionary family now begins the process of adapting to a place of service, which includes culture shock.

Life on the Mission Field

At entry point, missionary families often find everything about their new culture fascinating and novel, a stage labeled the honeymoon stage. However, the day comes when the “new and excited to be here” phase wears off, and it is replaced by the “what in the world am I doing here?” phase. This is called culture shock and includes the reality that the sights, sounds, and smells of new surroundings on the mission field are different. It is “primarily a sense of disorientation, together with the uneasiness and anxiety that such disorientation produces” (Hale and Daniels 2012, 109). Each person in the family working through this stage requires many resources, including prayer, development of new friendships with nationals and other workers, and growing comfortable in the new setting.

It is crucial that anyone in a missionary family not revert to rejecting the new people and culture, or there’s a danger of becoming stuck in this adjustment phase. They think, These people don’t do anything the right way, which often means they don’t do things the way people did in the States. The sad reality is that some cross-cultural workers never move beyond this stage, making it almost impossible to serve effectively (Smith 1998, 267). They serve for many years in a different culture but resent the culture and, in some cases, even the people to whom they are supposed to reach out with the love of Christ.

Fortunately, many missionary families have a good transition, making new friends with nationals and persons serving with the same or other missionary organizations. They plant their roots deep in the culture and pour out the love of Christ to their people group. They have successfully maneuvered the obstacle course of cultural adjustment.

Maintaining a Close Relationship with the Lord

The missionary family must cultivate and maintain a close relationship with the Lord as a vital part of their lives. Psalm 42:1–2 speaks of a longing and thirst for the Lord when it says “As a deer longs for streams of water, so I long for You, God. I thirst for God, the living God. When can I come and appear before God?” (HCSB). Missionaries, whether single or a couple, must cultivate their relationship with the Lord on a daily basis by setting aside time for personal study of the Bible and for prayer. Family devotional times encourage each family member to focus on the Lord. Henry Blackaby challenged missionaries where my family served to read the Bible and keep a journal of what God was teaching them. Following this counsel has provided a meaningful way to apply Scripture to daily life and continues to enrich my own life.

Jerry Rankin, president emeritus of the IMB, notes that one’s walk with the Lord prepares one for spiritual warfare because victory comes through “His power and presence in our lives” (Rankin 2009, 231). Hunger and thirst for the Lord empowers and sustains all who rely on his grace and strength, particularly those families serving among people living in spiritual darkness. Missionary families need to prepare for spiritual warfare as individuals and as a family. Living across the street from one of the largest temples in our city gave me a daily reminder of people blinded by the Devil and lost without Christ. Spiritual warfare remained a constant, but Christ transformed lives through his power and grace.

Who Am I?

Self-identity is an important issue for each individual missionary and family member. The apostle Paul speaks often of a believer’s identity “in Christ” (Rom 8:1; 1 Cor 1:30; 2 Cor 5:18). Another form of identity comes through the different hats a missionary wears. A single missionary relates to his parents, siblings, extended family, as well as mission agency, fellow missionaries, and nationals. A missionary male can have various roles such as a husband, father, child to living parents, employee of his sending organization, leader who supervises the work of others, as well as a person working under the supervision of someone else on the field. Each of these roles carries with it a distinct identity. Likewise, a married missionary woman has distinct roles, including identity as a wife, mother, relating to family in the states, as well as responsibilities on mission teams and in national churches. A missionary’s self-identity must be grounded in the Lord, not in their identity as a missionary. One critical test to the missionary’s self-identity involves learning the language of their people group.

How Do You Say?

Most cross-cultural missionary families will study one or more languages of the people group among whom they live. The length of time spent in language study and type of training varies greatly. My wife and I attended a language school designed specifically for missionaries with national, trained instructors and a rigorous curriculum. A different form of language learning involves a tutor and studying specific topics each session, as in how to buy fruit in the marketplace. Missionaries should prepare for language testing and demonstrate acceptable achievement before moving to the next language learning level as required by their language learning programs and mission agencies.

Language learning impacts families greatly. A couple could attend language classes at separate times when small children are in the home. Sometimes the husband has more time for language learning than the wife. One spouse may learn a new language more quickly than the other spouse, but a couple can adjust to that reality. Missionaries learn the language of their people group to share the gospel and function well in everyday life.

Is That in My Job Description?

Families planning to serve in cross-cultural ministry need to pray the Lord will guide them to the correct ministry assignment. Those serving with the IMB go through various stages of screening, including finding a job match. If a husband and wife are assigned to an Unreached and Unengaged People Group, they become the first members of a church-planting team. Others are appointed to work on an existing team, and some will work in support ministries. Regardless of one’s job description, each missionary family should engage in sharing the gospel with the unreached around them.

Missionary families are impacted by changes in ministry focus and even paradigm shifts by sending organizations. For example, the IMB began a new emphasis called New Directions in 1997 (New Directions 1997). Major changes resulted in forming people group teams, an increased emphasis on church planting movements, and decreasing emphasis on specific assignments such as missionaries teaching in national schools. One certainty for missionary families remains: changes in their sending organizations affect their lives. Flexibility helps the missionary family survive major shifts occurring in mission agencies.

Some individuals or couples carry out the same job description in the same location for their entire ministry as a missionary. However, most will have more than one job assignment and live in two or more locations. Sometimes, missionaries request a change in their place of service, such as a family who lived in the “bush” (a rural area with limited electricity and running water) a number of years before moving to an urban center where their focus people group was also located. The unexpected results in missionaries needing to relocate. Upheavals in the government of a nation where they serve, regional events, and natural disasters impact where families live. This does not mean that a missionary family always needs to have a packed suitcase ready, but cross-cultural ministry involves unpredicted changes.

Single and Serving

The adventures and challenges faced on the mission field vary greatly. Single persons have more flexibility in their schedule that opens ministry opportunities. Single women account for 20 to 30 percent of missionaries (Hale and Daniels 2012, 435). My wife served as a single missionary in East Asia, participating in a fellowship group of young adults and a new church plant. She became friends with those who worked in a hairstyling shop, including teaching English and sharing the gospel with them after hours, when the shop closed to customers. However, singles could feel like they are unapproachable because the people group among whom they live does not know how to relate to a young unmarried person from another culture. Another issue for single women is that certain cultures or people groups limit the work of single women to other women, especially women difficult to access because of cultural norms.

Some view singles as able to engage in difficult and time-consuming tasks. However, singles should pace themselves. One single missionary kept a hurried schedule for a number of years but began to have sleeping problems. She even refused a doctor’s advice to get rest and not work one day each week. Her health broke, and she had to leave the field (Hale and Daniels 2012, 388). Singles need times of rest to maintain a balanced schedule.

Single missionaries should realize fellow missionaries sometimes play matchmaker for them. The happily married should realize singles can remain happily single. A mission organization could have guidelines related to dating by singles, particularly for short-term assignments. For instance, the Journeyman program of the IMB addresses dating issues, noting becoming engaged before appointment distracts from missionary work on the field (going.imb.org). Single missionaries must demonstrate wisdom in friendships with nationals of the opposite sex, especially those who view marriage as a means to come to the States as citizens.

Single missionaries provide a valuable contribution in taking the gospel to the unreached. They can also encourage other single missionaries, bless married missionary couples, become an aunt or uncle to missionary children, and have access to homes of their people group.

Table for Two

A missionary couple without children realize their life situation has positive possibilities. They take assignments more difficult for a couple with children to fill. The husband could have itinerant ministry, traveling for long periods of time, and a job that may not fit a couple with small children. The wife develops ministries for which she would not have the same opportunity when caring for children.

One sensitive issue for a younger missionary couple is learning they are not able to have children. Such a couple considers prayerfully the decision of whether or not to adopt children. Obviously, a couple should follow guidelines related to adoption from their sending organization. Regulations in the country where a couple serves could make adoption easier or more difficult. Because it will not represent the best option for every childless couple, others should respect a couple who decide they should not pursue adoption.

Three or More: Children in the Missionary Family

Missionary couples who go to the field with one or more children or have children there discover their family dynamic opens doors of ministry. There is often a natural curiosity about children, who are readily accepted by nationals where a family serves. When we served as missionaries, nationals noticed my daughter’s blonde hair. Our children played with national children living in an apartment on the same floor as ours. We hosted fellowship meetings in our home for other young couples with children involved in our local church. Whether in the marketplace, on an elevator or bus, or at a park, our children helped us make connections with nationals. The downside is that children become weary of standing out as different from the children of the nationals.

Children should learn the ministry of their family includes them. One missionary told his children that they were missionary kids, not missionaries’ kids. In other words, they are a vital part of the sharing the gospel by their family. One example is a MK (missionary kid) sharing the gospel with friends in a local national school. The missionary children can tell the good news about Jesus effectively to their friends. This opens doors for their missionary parents to develop relationships to witness to the parents of their children’s national friends.

Help! I’m a Parent

A missionary father can find great joy in nurturing and encouraging his children to love and follow the Lord in life. Each father must determine how to fulfill his role to share the gospel and disciple new believers, including their children and nationals, and maintain a healthy family life. Missionaries should work hard but have built-in family times. When typhoons threatened the city where my family served as missionaries, we stocked up on food and water, stayed at home in a high-rise apartment, and turned storm times into family times. A family night and a standing date night represented weekly events on our calendar.

Having children on the field provides ministry opportunities for the missionary mother. Some mission organizations such as the IMB recognize the important role of a missionary mother raising children and build that into field expectations as part of their ministry assignment (going.imb.org). For example, a missionary mother chooses to home-school her children. This means she has to organize her time for this responsibility. Mothers with children build relationships with national mothers and develop specific ministries focusing on mothers.

Time Out

Parents have to determine the best way to discipline their children on the mission field. They live in a culture where expectations for children’s behavior differ greatly from how their parents were raised. This could mean children up to a certain age are not really disciplined and then are expected to act properly. Fellow missionaries often use different approaches to discipline children and have different views on what is age-appropriate discipline. Parents need to explain that the rules for behavior in their home are not always the same as other missionary or national families.

MKs (often called TCKs—third culture kids) deal with self-identity issues. Parents should encourage their children to have a healthy self-image, but as children age and mature in an overseas environment, identity issues surface. Parents need sensitivity to signs of stress, which may include “unexplained changes in behavior, loss of appetite, changes of sleep patterns, nightmares, unusual fatigue or weepiness, and unexplained abdominal pain or heartaches” (Foyle 2001, 185). When adjustment issues require outside help, families sometimes need a professional counselor. Mission organizations should help missionary children and their parents as they experience stressful times.

Where Will We Live? Preparing for Stateside Assignments

Missionaries need to prepare their families for stateside assignments, which vary in length from a few weeks to a year. A number of churches and institutions provide housing for missionary families to use while in the States. Some ministries offer used vehicles for these families to use during their home assignment. Churches and their Bible study groups who have adopted missionary families can help them in this major time of transition.

Churches have a great opportunity to invite these stateside missionaries to speak in worship services, Bible study groups, mission conferences, and mission organizations. Those inviting missionaries should make provisions to arrange travel and cover related expenses for these speaking engagements and special missions events.

Is That on the Test?

The education of children on the mission field remains an important concern for their parents. A variety of choices exists for families regarding educating their children. Among these are home-schooling, local national schools, local international schools, and boarding schools. Each option has advantages and disadvantages.

Resources available for home-schooling on the mission field have multiplied in recent years. Self-paced educational materials are one option. Online resources serve as a supplement to teaching in the home. If other home-schooling families are in the same location, parents could coordinate teaching different subjects, enrichment materials, or field trips.

Another option exists in MKs attending local national schools. To do so, missionary children need fluency in the local language. Missionary parents realize national school systems may put greater emphasis on rote learning and memorization. It is imperative the parents of MKs explore their child’s learning style to determine if local national schools meet their needs.

An international school represents a third option where instruction occurs in English. Such schools normally are located in large urban centers that have a community of English speakers and businesspersons from around the world. However, cost factors impact accessibility to such schools. Another type of international school serves only missionary children. Where we served as missionaries, several mission organizations sponsored a school and provided faculty, and one mission group provided space to house the school. It differed from a boarding school because it served only local MKs and had no dorms.

A fourth option sends MKs to a boarding school that exists to educate them. Sometimes the school administrators and teachers are missionaries themselves. Another type of boarding school was founded for MKs but changed to a student body that includes national children whose parents want them to study in English, attending a school with a good academic record.

Families deal with separation that comes from their children living in another country while receiving their middle- or high-school education. A mission organization could make funds available for such children to travel home a limited number of times during the school year and for parents to visit the school. However, families still face long periods of separation from their children. Each missionary family must prayerfully decide how to educate their children.

Off to College

Missionary families need to prepare their children for college. Certainly, encouraging their children to follow the Lord faithfully occupies quite an important part of the preparation process. This begins when the children are small, and, as they mature physically, parents pray, encourage, and guide them to follow Christ and mature spiritually in preparation for life away from their parents.

Some families use stateside assignment or vacation time to help their children select a college. Mission sending agencies may provide funds to help with college costs for missionary children. Another source of help comes from colleges and universities offering specific scholarships or tuition discounts for missionary families. A number of Baptist institutions have such programs.

The transition of children to college is a time when some missionary families use stateside assignment or vacation to help their son or daughter move and settle for the freshman year of college. Even if missionary children attended high school in another city or country, starting college is a major event for which missionary families should prepare themselves.

Parents may have relatives or close friends who can encourage their college-age children, inviting them to visit during college breaks or holidays. Church families with a connection to a missionary family should encourage the young adult missionary children during this time. Churches located where there are colleges and universities could provide host families that would invite these MKs far from their families to attend dinners and special events.

Table for Two Again

Raising children on the mission field often results in a rewarding experience for parents. However, the time comes for the youngest child to transition with graduation from high school. This means a couple eventually becomes a twosome on the mission field. This stage of life opens more opportunities for ministry for a wife outside of the home. It allows a couple to take assignments involving coordination of ministry over a larger area and, consequently, more travel away from home.

Life Transitions

The lives of missionary families include many transitions from praying about cross-cultural ministry to retirement. The time of preparation often takes several years, including completing education requirements for mission service, orientation, and moving to the field of service. Adjustments occur with a new job assignment and moving to another location, as well as dealing with family and health issues. Change represents a constant theme in the lives of missionaries.

Missionary families return to the States for a variety of reasons besides retirement. Family problems that cannot be resolved in an overseas setting are one circumstance (Foyle 2001, 235). Health problems sometimes require a missionary family not only to leave their field of service but to resign from missionary service. In such cases, they are reminded in Psalm 91 “if we make him our refuge and dwelling the damage will never defeat our inner being . . . he will give us courage, wisdom, fortitude and increased personal and spiritual development as we walk through it with him” (Foyle 2001, 236–37). The Lord sustains missionary families who must leave their overseas place of service because of such circumstances.

Some missionary families return to the States because of major shifts in ministry focus or strategies by their missionary agency. Sometimes moral failure results in missionaries being terminated and sent home immediately. Another issue impacting missionary families involves care for aging parents. When siblings in the States are able to meet the needs of elderly parents, it does not represent a life-changing issue. However, missionaries sometimes have to leave where they serve overseas to return to the States to care for elderly parents.

It is hoped that their home churches will welcome missionary families in a supportive way, regardless of why those who have served overseas return. Transition back to the States may prove difficult for a missionary family, and encouragement by fellow believers ministers greatly to those who are no longer labeled as “missionaries.”

Conclusion

The fulfillment of Revelation 7:9 speaks of “a vast multitude from every nation, tribe, people, and language, which no one could number, standing before the throne and before the Lamb” (HCSB). This means missionary families must go to the unreached with the gospel so they become part of that multitude. These witnesses serve at great sacrifice and are willing to die for the sake of the gospel. Pray churches continue to send out committed cross-cultural ministers of the gospel—the missionary family—supporting them through prayer, encouragement, and finances, and welcoming them gladly when they return home.

Web Sources

“Go: 2 to 3 Years. Q & A.” International Mission Board. International Mission Board, 2013. Accessed March 21, 2015 at http://www.imb.org/go/serving.aspx#.VQ3d_jp501g.

“Go: 3 Years or More. Frequently Asked Questions.” International Mission Board. International Mission Board, 2013. Accessed March 21, 2015 at http://www.imb.org/go/serving.aspx#.VQ3d_jp501g.

Chapter 39

Spiritual Warfare and Missions 23

Charles Lawless

Consider the following scenarios from the mission field. First, a missionary distributes gospel tracts in a border town between two countries (Wagner 2012, 72). The main street through the town divides the nations. Those in the first nation, where the church has been growing rapidly, gladly receive the tracts. Those in the second nation, where the church has experienced little growth, refuse the tracts. When they cross the street into the first nation, though, they receive the tracts willingly. Those who accept the missionary’s understanding that those who cross the street are leaving a pervasive “cover of darkness” may see this story as evidence of “territorial spirits” (Otis 1999, 257).

Second, a team of North American believers travels to a creative-access country, where the gospel has taken little hold. Passionate and committed, they prayerfully do “spiritual mapping” by studying the region’s history in order to discover spirits of darkness that dominate the region. Having identified and prayed against these spirits, these believers declare the strongholds broken and the region now ready for the preaching of the gospel.

Third, a missionary serving in an Asian country experiences an evil presence while attempting to rest. The perceived “spirit” is so strong that the missionary cannot move or speak aloud. Gripped with fear, the missionary prays a silent prayer for Jesus to “rebuke it”—and the presence departs.

Fourth, a cross-cultural worker has sought for years to lead nonbelievers to follow Christ. No nationals have yet followed her lead though. Their bondage to darkness seems impenetrable, and the worker is ready to give up and return to her home. There, she believes, “the battle won’t be so intense.”

Each of these scenarios reflects awareness of the role of spiritual powers in world evangelization. While viewing the Christian life as a battle is not new (e.g., Eph 6:11–12), this topic caught fire at a popular level in North America with the publication of Frank Peretti’s fictional work, This Present Darkness, in 1985. Some authors also suggest this interest escalated in the late twentieth century with a desire among missiologists to complete the Great Commission (Pocock, Van Rheenen, McConnell 2005, 184–85). This focus led to a “growing concern that many missionaries lacked spiritual power and that one of the principal limiting factors in finishing world evangelization was the opposition of Satan, the archenemy of God” (Pocock, Van Rheenen, McConnell 2005, 185). Characterized as “spiritual warfare,” this battle that Christians face against the Devil and demonic spirits is a real one (Eph 6:10–17).

The primary goal of this chapter is to analyze the relationship between spiritual warfare and world evangelization. In the context of this discussion, readers will find a critique of contemporary spiritual warfare methods. Finally, this chapter will offer guidelines for preparing church members and missionaries to face the reality of spiritual warfare.

The Reality of the Battle

In 1974, the Lausanne Conference on World Evangelization clearly articulated this spiritual struggle in an article entitled “Spiritual Conflict”:

We believe that we are engaged in constant spiritual warfare with the principalities and powers of evil who are seeking to overthrow the Church and to frustrate its task of world evangelization. We know our need to equip ourselves with God’s armor and to fight this battle with the spiritual weapons of truth and prayer. (Lausanne Covenant)

This position regarding the reality of the battle, although stated in various forms, has been reaffirmed at the International Prayer Assembly for World Evangelization (1984), the Intercession Working Group of the Lausanne Committee (1993), the North American Congress for Itinerant Evangelists (1994), and the Lausanne Consultation on Spiritual Conflict (2000) (Lawless 1997, 14–18; Moreau et al. 2002, vii-xxvii, 309–12).

The battle is indeed an intense one, especially for the church that seeks to be obedient to the Great Commission. As David Platt has noted, “Any Christian and any church that desires to proclaim the gospel among the unreached people groups of the world can expect to be met with the full force of hell in the process” (Rankin and Stetzer 2010, vii-viii). Why these words are so accurate is the focus of the next section of this chapter.

Satan as the Opponent of Unbelievers

In his thorough study of Satan and demons, Sidney H. T. Page indicates that two Pauline passages describe Satan’s activities toward unbelievers: 2 Corinthians 4:4 and Ephesians 2:2 (Page 1995, 184–86). The former verse, according to warfare advocates, describes Satan’s primary strategy against unbelievers: “the god of this age” has blinded their minds. Also called the “the evil one” (Matt 13:19),24 the “ruler of this world” (John 12:31), the “ruler who exercises authority over the lower heavens” (Eph 2:2), the “tempter” (1 Thess 3:5), and the “accuser” (Rev 12:10), Satan does whatever he can to keep in darkness those who walk in disobedience (Eph 2:2).

The unbeliever is by no means without guilt—“for the blindness spoken of is a consequence of unbelief” (Page 1995, 184)—but the darkness is deepened by the enemy’s efforts to maintain control. Satan himself is already defeated, but he still “has the strength to besiege human minds and to incite them to embrace and exalt evil rather than God” (Garland 1999, 211). Nonbelievers are, in fact, in the domain of darkness (Col 1:13), under the power of Satan (Acts 26:18), and captured in the Devil’s trap (2 Tim 2:26).

Satan’s strategies for keeping unbelievers blinded are several. The enemy offers the falsehoods to which unbelievers cling; that is, he “assists people who ‘love darkness’ to stay in the darkness by supplying them with lies to believe” (Kirkwood 1994, 110). Lies such as “I’m good enough to get to heaven,” “I can always wait until tomorrow to follow God,” “There are multiple ways to God,” and “I’m so bad God will never forgive me” echo in a lost world. The father of lies (John 8:44) thus leads nonbelievers to build their foundation for eternity on sinking sand.

Further, Satan makes sin attractive and alluring, convincing the unbeliever that following God will mean a loss of pleasure. To be obedient to God would be to miss what the world offers. Often using the temporary attractions of the world to distract a nonbeliever, the enemy snatches away the Word of God before it takes root in an unbeliever’s heart (Matt 13:3–9, 18–23).

More specifically, Satan blinds unbelievers to the gospel by promoting distorted views of the gospel itself. Clinton Arnold recognizes that Paul originally used the term strongholds (a term commonly misused in spiritual warfare circles) to denote Satan’s raising of “dangerous and wrong ideas about Jesus and his gospel” (2011, loc. 1011). False teachers disguised as “apostles of Christ” (2 Cor 11:13) had proclaimed “another Jesus whom we have not preached” in Corinth (11:4 NASB). In response, Paul called the Corinthians to battle with spiritual weapons against the strongholds of false ideas (10:4). He “wanted them to commit themselves afresh to the true gospel . . . the gospel of the Christ who suffered” (Arnold 1992, 130–31).

A general principle may, therefore, be derived from the text: Satan seeks to promote false teachings to direct attention away from Christ and to weaken or divert the message of the gospel. Ultimately, strongholds of false teachings (whether from inside or outside of the church) are designed to keep unbelievers in bondage. The words of J. Dwight Pentecost clearly emphasize this point: “Satan, of course, would rather not have to do this work of taking away the seed that has been sown. He would rather so control the one who is doing the preaching that something other than the good seed of the Word of God is proclaimed” (Pentecost 1997, 114, emphasis mine).

That we must be aware of this strategy as we minister in an increasingly pluralistic landscape is undeniable. The Great Commission (Matt 28:18–20) commands us to reach out to all the people groups of the world. Against this backdrop of our calling, Satan seeks to undermine the biblical truth that exclusive, personal faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to God (see Nash 1994, 11). Missions and evangelism then become largely unnecessary if we believe and teach that a plurality of routes leads to God. While the church buys the lies of pluralism and inclusivism, Satan “disguises himself as an angel of light” (2 Cor 11:14 NASB) and lulls unbelievers deeper into darkness.

Nonbelievers, including the billions in the world who are following false world faiths, are already under the Devil’s sway. In fact, Arnold argues that the idols of the nations are “in reality, rebellious angels, or demons, masquerading as ‘gods’” (Arnold 2011, loc. 3138). Bound in darkness, nonbelievers are incapable of responding apart from the hearing of the gospel and the intervention of God (Rom 10:9–15). When we choose to share the Good News with them, then we have intentionally stepped into the Devil’s territory.

Satan as the Opponent of Believers

Obeying the Great Commission through evangelism and missions is, in fact, intentional offensive warfare against the enemy to take the gospel to his captives. The task of proclaiming the gospel to the lost “is, therefore, a deliverance ministry” (Pocock, Van Rheenen, McConnell 2005, 189). It is no wonder, then, that the biblical warnings about spiritual warfare are directed foremost to believers. The enemy does not want followers of Christ to be light to a dark world.

Scripture strongly affirms that Satan continues to attack persons who become believers. For example, Jesus warned Peter that Satan demanded permission to “sift you like wheat” (Luke 22:31 NASB). Peter himself later warned believers, “Be serious! Be alert! Your adversary the Devil is prowling around like a roaring lion, looking for anyone he can devour” (1 Pet 5:8). The apostle Paul, who himself experienced “a thorn in the flesh . . . a messenger of Satan” (2 Cor 12:7), likewise admonished believers to “Put on the full armor of God so that you can stand against the tactics of the Devil” (Eph 6:11). James, too, called believers to resist the Devil, presupposing that the enemy would attack (Jas 4:7). If Satan does not attack believers, such recurrent warnings would seem irrelevant and unnecessary.

Though the enemy’s schemes against believers are many, some are obvious.

Satan entices believers with temptation, seeking to lure them into patterns of their former walk (Eph 4:17–32). To put it simply, he recognizes that believers who live like the Devil offer little threat to the Devil.

After influencing believers to sin, Satan then heaps accusations on them; the tempter quickly becomes the accuser (Rev 12:10). His strategy—to “beat up on sinners” who fail to comprehend the meaning of grace (Moreau 1997, 85)—often leads to a cycle of defeat and discouragement. As a result, ineffective, defeated believers carry little influence with nonbelievers who are held in the kingdom of darkness (Col 1:13).

Moreover, Satan endeavors to cultivate strife among believers, thereby weakening the church’s united witness (see John 17:20–21). The challenge of world evangelization is so immense that God-centered, Bible-believing Christians must work together to accomplish our task. The enemy, however, will do all he can to sow seeds of discord among believers. In the ancient but still relevant words of the Puritan William Gurnall, “We by our mutual strifes give the devil a staff to beat us with; he cannot well work without fire, and therefore blows up these coals of contention” (Gurnall 1995, 1:128). Divided believers offer little hope to an already fractured world.

Hence, it is not surprising that conflict in a missionary team is often a cause for frustration and struggle (Moreau 2004, 205–6). The stresses of missionary life, including culture shock, occasional illness, and loneliness, create strain on even the healthiest team relationships. An enemy who has sought to divide relationships since Adam turned on Eve in the garden of Eden (Gen 3:12) still delights when soldiers in God’s work shoot each other in the back.

In addition, the enemy seeks to discourage believers. Sometimes discouragement comes from weariness in doing well with few results (Gal 6:9), such as a lack of visible responses when sharing the gospel. At other times, the enemy attacks with physical affliction in hopes of turning a believer against God (Job 2:1–10). Occasionally the attack comes in the form of loneliness: the believer is convinced he alone stands for God (1 Kgs 19:9–18).

More pointedly, Satan attacks the church with persecution, determined to lead faithful believers to distrust a God who seemingly does not protect them from harm. The enemy is that prowling lion believers must resist, “knowing that the same sufferings are being experienced by your fellow believers throughout the world” (1 Pet 5:9). In the final book of the Bible, he is the dragon (Rev 12:17) who “directs his venom against God’s people on earth” (Page 2013, 235) by promoting believers’ imprisonment (Rev 2:10) and death (Rev 2:13). He wins, at least temporarily, when believers conceal the gospel by hiding to protect their lives.

Overcoming the Enemy: Strategic-Level Spiritual Warfare?

Scott Moreau (et al. 2002, 260) describes “strategic-level spiritual warfare” (SLSW) as “praying against territorial spirits, seeking to ‘map’ their strategies over given locations by discerning their names and what they use to keep people in bondage, and then binding them so that evangelism may go unhindered.” One aspect of this process, known as “spiritual mapping,” is “the researching of a city to discover any inroads Satan has made which prevent the spread of the gospel and evangelization of a city for Christ” (Jacobs 1993, 77). When the spirits are bound, nonbelievers are then assumed to be released to “process truth at a heart level” (Otis 1999, 247).

Strengths of SLSW

The weaknesses of this approach—to be discussed later in this chapter—are numerous. Thorough analysis, however, also requires recognizing positive aspects of SLSW. First, SLSW proponents assume the reality of demons and spiritual warfare. Just as the Bible “does not attempt to prove the existence of demons any more than it attempts to prove the existence of God” (Anderson 1990, 102), little attention is given in spiritual warfare literature to prove the existence of demons. Instead, proponents of SLSW simply take seriously biblical teachings about invisible forces behind the visible. This understanding is a needed corrective for many Westerners who tend to ignore—if not subconsciously deny—the reality of demonic forces.

Second, SLSW proponents believe that God still expects his followers to be obedient to the Great Commission (Matt 28:18–20). Indeed, they often emphasize evangelism as the goal of SLSW:

“If our vision of God aching for the lost is blurred by a commando operation against the gates of hell, we miss the point” (White 1990, 133).
“As accurate as spiritual mapping might be, it is my opinion that without an explicit focus on evangelization, it has little meaning” (Lorenzo 1993, 172).
“If we bind every demon in town, but nobody gets saved eternally, we have done nothing” (Sherma, “Spiritual Mapping Philosophy”).

Third, proponents believe in the efficacy and necessity of intercessory prayer. For most SLSW adherents, intercession is more than a method of prayer; it is a way of life, a calling to engage in the battle on behalf of others (Eastman 1989, 30–31). SLSW, then, is a tool for intercessors who want to pray with knowledge and direction. One hopes that the result would be what Tommy Lea has previously described: “Such a heightened sense of prayer cannot help but spur vigorous evangelism” (Lea 1998, 639).

Fourth, SLSW leaders recognize the importance of supporting evangelism and missions work with research. While the research primarily—and, in my estimation, wrongly—focuses on discerning demonic strongholds, three primary questions asked are helpful ones for a missionary: What is wrong with my city? Where did the problem come from? What can be done to make things better? (Otis 1993, 25). More specifically, the research examines six areas of interest in a given region: the status of Christianity, prevailing social bondages, worldviews and allegiances, spiritual opposition, evolution of current circumstances, and potential for spiritual breakthroughs (Otis 1993, 26–27). Some aspects of this research, when focused properly and evaluated appropriately, can prove invaluable to a missionary attempting to reach a particular people group or region.

Finally, advocates of SLSW emphasize unity in the church as we work toward fulfilling our calling. Understanding that division weakens the army of God, they “seek co-operation rather than competition” (Moreau 2002, 266). United against a common enemy, believers are thus challenged to join forces in the spiritual battle.

Weaknesses of SLSW

Despite the above-mentioned strengths, several weaknesses of this approach are equally apparent. Seven are noted below.

1. A Lack of Biblical Support. First and foremost, the biblical evidence offered to support major concepts of this approach is weak at best. Daniel 10:13–20, the text most often cited to describe territorial spirits, does indicate the presence of evil spirits with some sense of territorial connection; however, we are given no mandate or guidelines for naming or confronting such spirits. Indeed, Arnold (2011, loc. 1139) notes that Daniel himself learned about the battle between spiritual forces only after the particular battle was completed. The evidence of Daniel 10 (and later, Eph 6:12, where some assume a hierarchy led by spirits assigned to territories) simply does not offer sufficient support for the elaborate system of assigned spirits some warfare proponents have developed.

In a similar fashion, the proposed biblical support for spiritual mapping reviewed here (Otis 1993, 15; Lorenzo 1993, 178) is dubious. For example, Moses sent men to spy out the land of Canaan and “see what the land is like” (Num 13:18). Joshua enlisted men to survey Canaan prior to settling the inheritances of the tribes (Josh 18:1–10). God instructed Ezekiel to depict the city of Jerusalem on a clay tablet, and he then revealed to the prophet his plans for the city (Ezek 4:1–5:17). Paul “mapped” the city of Athens when he viewed the altars to false gods throughout the city (Acts 17:16–21).

It seems from the above verses that the Hebrews did at times survey the land and that God at times revealed his plans to spiritual leaders. As well, the value of knowing a city in order to contextualize the gospel is apparent in the Acts 17 passage. None of the texts, however, suggests identifying spirits, and no general mandate to survey cities is given. New Testament professor Robert Guelich (1991, 63) has thus rightly determined that interest in identifying, mapping, and confronting territorial spirits reflects more the theology of Frank Peretti’s fiction than it does the teachings of the Bible.

Moreover, the use of Matthew 12:29; 16:18–19; and 18:18 to promote “binding and loosing” in SLSW misses the points of these texts. Only the Matthew 12 passage has a direct relationship to spiritual conflict, and that passage gives no clear authority to speak to and take control over demons. Instead, the text indicates that One who is stronger than the strong man was now on the scene—not that believers are to bind the enemy with formulaic recitations.

2. A Questioning of the Power of the Gospel. At the core of SLSW is a belief that identifying and breaking powers will place all nonbelievers in a given region on an equal playing ground; that is, removing a territorial spirit makes it possible now for nonbelievers in a given region to believe. This process of “clearing the air” before the gospel can be effective at least implies that the word of the cross as “the power of God” (1 Cor 1:18, NASB) needs prior help in some situations. Such an implication demeans the power of the word.

3. A Danger of Fascination with the Demonic. SLSW proponents have warned against a fascination with evil, perhaps stated best by Wagner: “Uncovering the wiles of the devil can become so fascinating that we can begin to focus attention on the enemy rather than on God. This must be avoided at all costs. If we do it, we play into the enemy’s hands” (Wagner 1993, 21). These warnings notwithstanding, SLSW appears to carry inherent risks toward an unhealthy focus on the demonic.

Involvement in discerning and praying against strongholds in a particular area automatically turns one’s attention to the demonic. At times, intercession seemingly includes more rebuking Satan than speaking to God. The present battle often receives more ink than the victory already achieved in Christ. Hence, Gerry Breshears’ critique deserves a hearing:

The whole concept of strategic-level spiritual warfare misses the point of the kingdom work of Christ. Both Satan and demons must be seen in the light of the coming of Christ and his work on the cross. Christ has bound the demons at the cross. We do not bind demons but plunder the dominion of darkness, using the power of the proclaimed gospel (Breshears 1994, 16).

4. A Danger of Minimizing Human Depravity. Warfare advocates affirm humanity’s need for salvation. Nevertheless, the emphasis on Satan’s blinding of unbelievers risks neglecting the truth that human beings are fallen by nature and by choice (Eph 2:2–3). If demonic forces are accepted as the cause of all wrong, human responsibility and the sins of the flesh (Eph 2:3) are neglected or ignored. Strategies for breaking the powers may, then, wrongly take precedence over evangelizing lost people in need of a Savior. To counter this faulty tendency, the doctrinal truth of the sinfulness of humanity must be clearly asserted.

5. A Leaning toward Animism. Gailyn Van Rheenen defines “animism” as “the belief that personal spiritual beings and impersonal spiritual forces have power over human affairs and that humans, consequently, must discover what beings and forces are impacting them in order to determine future action and, infrequently, to manipulate their power” (1991, 20). Such tendencies, including discerning spirits attached to objects, are evident in some writings of the SLSW movement (e.g., Wagner 1993, 62–63; Warner 1991, 92–95).

Though less so more recently, early writings in the spiritual warfare movement emphasized gaining a demon’s name in order to break its power. Of particular relevance to this discussion is the practice of “discerning” spirits over an area. For example, believers identified a spirit of pride hovering over Cordoba, Argentina (Dawson 2001, loc. 84–88). Spirits of depression hindered the work of missionaries in another foreign country (Sherman 2012, loc. 1446). In Manchester, England, spirits of apathy and lethargy ruled the territory (Wagner 2009, loc. 2191–96). Over Los Angeles reigned spirits of religion, witchcraft, violence, and greed (Wagner 2009, loc. 1820). The strategies utilized to discern this information not only border on animistic practices, but such “knowledge” gained also seems neither totally surprising nor revelatory.

6. A Danger of Neglecting One’s Jerusalem. To their credit, many SLSW proponents are most interested in reaching the nations. They understand the biblical call to make disciples of all people groups, and they are willing to travel for that purpose. It would seem entirely possible, however, that a SLSW proponent might become so involved in chasing spirits and mapping cities that he neglects to share the gospel with his own neighbor. In that case—when the excitement of conducting SLSW in Judea, Samaria, and the ends of the earth blurs one’s responsibilities in Jerusalem—the local focus of the Great Commission is in danger of eclipse.

7. A Risk of Ignoring Context. This critique echoes the previous one. Juliet Thomas, who serves with Operation Mobilization, India, makes this astute observation about “prayer journeys” that are often a component of SLSW:

Much labour, time and money goes into organizing these prayer journeys to distant cities. I accept that praying on site can help us understand the people and the situation better, but such intercessors often shut themselves up while on site, giving themselves to prayer without any effort to understand the people or their problems. Do they believe that praying on site while closeted in a hotel gives more power in prayer?

Others go out and stand in front of temples and mosques during their prayer walks to pull down the strongholds of the gods worshipped there. This again causes much offense. In Calcutta, as in other places, local Christians were angry because such events cause hostility towards Christians who are trying hard to reach others in compassion with the love of Jesus. (Thomas 2002, 149).

While never compromising the message of the gospel, the missionary must strive to understand the context in which he works. The best-prepared missionary is simply more culturally sensitive than the above examples portray.

A Question

If, then, SLSW is so wrought with weaknesses, why is this approach attractive to any missionary? Imagine again another scenario. A missionary who has served faithfully for more than a decade begins a new day, though he does so with little enthusiasm. Day after day and year after year, he and his family have toiled in hard soil, with few results to show for their labors. Today, his loneliness is overwhelming, and his frustrations are mounting. He is ready to give up—except that he has recently read about spiritual mapping and territorial spirits, and now his interest is again piqued.

“Perhaps,” he considers, “that’s the missing element. Others have prayed against spirits, and I hear that their ministries suddenly become fruitful—and how I long for my ministry to make a difference!” Armed with new enthusiasm, he devours all he can read about these exciting approaches. His honest desire to reach the lost may well overshadow his willingness to critique new strategies.

Moreover, few missionaries have been trained extensively to approach spiritual warfare from a biblical perspective. Though this evidence is anecdotal rather than empirical, I have never met a missionary who believed his training was adequate to face the real battles of spiritual conflict. Consequently, missionaries are often ill equipped to evaluate new methodologies connected to spiritual warfare. No church or educational institution can fully prepare a missionary for the spiritual battle, but surely we can better address a topic that resounds throughout Scripture.

A Proposal

Given these concerns, I propose the following suggestions for helping to prepare missionaries for spiritual warfare—whether they be candidates for career service or lay persons preparing for a short-term trip. Hence, this proposal may apply in either a seminary or local church setting.

Teach the Word

One would wish that commitment to teaching the Word of God is a given for the evangelical church and college or seminary, but such is not always the case. This basic guideline serves as a reminder that the Word of God is a “divinely powerful, spiritually effective weapon” (MacArthur 1992, 141).

The Word is alive and powerful (Heb 4:12), converting the soul (Ps 19:7), and protecting us from sin (Ps 119:11). It is an essential weapon to which Jesus himself turned when he faced temptation (Matt 4:1–11). Three times, the Devil tempted Jesus in the wilderness, and three times the Son of God responded by quoting God’s Word (Matt 4:1–11). That Word remains today a vital weapon in our battle against the enemy (Eph 6:17).

Furthermore, it is the systematic teaching of the Word that prepares the missionary to counter false belief systems encountered on the field. The best missionary is a practitioner driven by a theology that longs to see the true God glorified—much like the apostle Paul (Schreiner 2001, 37–72). The most effective churches and educational institutions intentionally teach believers to read, understand, interpret, and apply the Word in any missiological setting. Doctrinal teaching is simply not optional.

Teach the Truths of Spiritual Warfare while Focusing on God

This simple statement is as much a foundational warning as it is a guideline. More than seventy years ago C. S. Lewis (1961, 3) warned readers, “There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them.” The more likely danger in teaching about spiritual warfare is to fall into the latter error rather than the former.

Missionaries must march into battle with their focus on God—not on the enemy. God is the warrior who led his people across the Red Sea (Exod 15:3). David fought the Philistine giant not with a sword and a javelin but in the name of the Lord whose battle it was (1 Sam 17:45–47). Jehaziel likewise assured Jehoshaphat of God’s presence in the midst of battle with these words: “Do not be afraid or discouraged because of this vast number, for the battle is not yours, but God’s” (2 Chron 20:15).

God is our shield (Gen 15:1; Ps 28:7), and it is he who chose to wear the breastplate of righteousness and the helmet of salvation (Isa 59:17). We face a real enemy in spiritual battles, but we are clothed in the armor of a God who is “greater than the one who is in the world” (1 John 4:4). Hence, the missionaries most equipped for spiritual warfare are those who have learned foremost to keep their eyes on him (2 Chron 20:12).

Teach Holiness by Teaching the Armor of God

In 2000, practitioners, theologians, and mission executives from around the world gathered in Nairobi, Kenya, for the “Consultation on Deliver Us from Evil.” This consultation, convened by the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization and the Association of Evangelicals in Africa, produced the following statement that emphasizes holiness (Moreau 2002, xxiii).

Holiness is central to the Christian response to evil:

In the exercise of spiritual authority, those who do not give adequate attention to character and holiness truncate the whole biblical picture of spiritual growth and sanctification.
To practice spiritual conflict without adequate attention to personal holiness is to invite disaster.
The pursuit of holiness applies not only to the individual, but to the family, the local church and the larger community of faith.
While holiness includes personal piety, it applies to social relations as well.

Local churches and theological institutions preparing Christians for missionary service would do well to hear and heed this statement.

Regrettably, local churches often have few stated standards for church membership, poorly developed discipleship strategies, and little accountability among believers. From some of these same churches go volunteer and career missionaries who have themselves never been adequately discipled. Practical holiness has been more a goal than a daily reality. These same missionaries—at times serving with little direct support and at long distances from home and accountability—often fall easy prey to spiritual attacks.

Moreover, it has been my experience that most Christian colleges and seminaries poorly teach the spiritual disciplines that characterize holiness. To be fair, the home and the church should be the first loci of such teachings; nevertheless, one goal of theological education ought to be to solidly reinforce those teachings. Indeed, the essence of putting on the armor (Eph 6:10–17) is living daily in truth, righteousness, faith, and hope, while always being ready to proclaim the gospel of peace found in the Word. When churches and theological institutions only assume believers daily wear the armor, we risk sending ill-equipped missionaries into the spiritual war.

Teach and Model Healthy Relationships

The enemy’s presence in the garden of Eden quickly led to the husband’s placing the blame for his sin on the very wife God had graciously given to him (Gen 3:9–12). Some time thereafter, brother killed brother as sin disrupted relationship after relationship (Gen 4:1–8). That pattern has not changed—the enemy still aims his arrows at relationships.

Marriages on the mission field face the same issues as those in North American culture, though the issues are often intensified by distance from extended families. Educational choices for children are likely limited on the mission field. Culture shock, as well as reverse culture shock upon reentry to the native country, is often difficult for families. Having committed themselves to world evangelization, missionary families thus place themselves in the enemy’s crosshairs. In many cases, too few trained biblical counselors are then available in their immediate settings to minister to these families under attack.

Perhaps the most effective way to prepare homes for spiritual attack is to teach and model healthy, God-centered relationships before the missionary family enters the field. The local church must accept this responsibility with passion and intentionality; and they must continue to love, pray for, and communicate with their church family members while they are serving on the field.

Teach Dependence Even in Brokenness

The apostle Paul, a missionary extraordinaire, faced the buffeting of a “messenger of Satan” (2 Cor 12:7–10) in his own life. The nature of this “thorn in the flesh” is debatable, but the intensity of its nature is not; three times Paul asked God to remove this thorn. God, however, left Paul in the battle, thus teaching him that “when we accept our own weakness, we then also learn that we must rely totally upon God. . . . It [weakness] does not denote God’s disfavor, but rather the reverse” (Garland 1999, 525–26).

I am convinced one of the enemy’s primary goals is to lead missionaries to mess up (that is, fall into sin), get puffed up (become arrogant), clam up (choose not to share the gospel), or give up (quit in the face of discouragement). The first three attacks can be countered by training in spiritual disciplines and holiness and the last by teaching that God is sovereign over every spiritual battle we face. The enemy has no access to us apart from God’s permission (see Job 1–2; Luke 22:31–32); because that is so, God must always have a greater purpose when he allows us to be under assault.

Our answer, then, is not to shake our fist at the Devil in arrogance. Rather, it is to submit to God’s plan and trust his leadership through the battle. Here, the words of Gurnall (1994, March 22) again speak to the struggling missionary: “Not only is Satan’s power derived and limited, it is also subservient to the overruling power of God. Whatever mischief he devises is appointed by God for the ultimate service and benefit of the saints.” How important it is for missionaries to understand this truth before the enemy strikes!

Teach a Theology of Suffering

Little within me desires to include this section of this chapter, but the Scriptures demand such a direction. Jesus warned his followers of the reality of persecution (Matt 5:10; John 15:19–21). The gospel is still as countercultural as it was in the days of the early church: “The love of Jesus does not sell well on Madison Avenue and Times Square in New York or Whitehall and Piccadilly Circus in London any more that it did on the Via Dolorosa in first-century Jerusalem or in the central Forum of Ancient Rome” (Borchert 2002, 153).

We should not expect we somehow will escape the trials the early church faced. Paul’s words to Timothy must be words to us as well: “In fact, all those who want to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. Evil people and impostors will become worse, deceiving and being deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and firmly believed” (2 Tim 3:12b–14). Our challenge is to teach believers that obedience to God is the only option, even when following him is dangerous (Rankin and Stetzer 2010, 128). God may choose to glorify himself among the nations through our death.

Tackle the Difficult Topic of Worldview and Power

Several years ago, my research team at the Billy Graham School at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary surveyed missionaries about their experiences with spiritual warfare. Reflect on these situations they described for us:

A young lady is vomiting, believed by the local leaders to be inhabited by a demon.

An indigenous prayer leader perceives that the ground moves when praying for a team prepared to distribute tracts in an area dominated by spiritism.

A local witch places a curse on the missionary’s family.

A new believer asks missionaries to destroy the idols of her former belief system because she is afraid to do so herself.

Another new believer takes his ill child both to the missionary for prayer and to the shaman for healing.

In each case, the missionaries indicated that theological training did not prepare them for such an event. Again, while it is clear that no training can equip a missionary for every potential happening, churches and theological institutions must prepare future missionaries to recognize worldview issues and to filter such events through a biblical lens. That commitment means we must be willing to hear the stories, learn from the missionaries, and together seek the Scriptures for understanding and clarity. To ignore such topics is to leave the missionary with only the grid of experience for evaluation—and experience alone can lead astray.

In addition, others with a less sound hermeneutic are often more open to discussing these issues than are conservative evangelicals. If we leave the teaching of these difficult subjects to others, we ultimately fail in our responsibility to equip our missionaries with a solid (and always relevant) biblical foundation.

Teach Believers a Biblical Perspective of Exorcism

Some warfare proponents contend that demons can possess believers. Those taking this position must, in my judgment, twist biblical texts to try to prove that (1) a possessed nonbeliever is really a believer (e.g., Luke 13:10–17) or (2) that a genuine believer is really possessed (e.g., Matt 16:21–23). Both of these approaches are biblically indefensible. What the Scriptures do teach is that believers are indwelt by and sealed by the Spirit of God (2 Cor 1:22; Eph 1:14), and the One in us is more powerful than the one who rules the world (1 John 4:4). We can trust that the enemy can never overtake the Spirit in us.

Equally problematic are the teachings that there are particular symptoms of possession and specific steps in exorcisms—again, conclusions not readily evident in Scripture. Demonic manifestations included, among others, physical symptoms (e.g., Matt 9:32–33; 12:22), self-inflicted wounds (Mark 5:5), falling (Mark 9:18), and supernatural strength (Mark 5:3–4). Such diverse descriptions, however, are just that: descriptions rather than prescriptions.

Jesus’ approach to exorcism was also varied. Often he spoke to the demon (e.g., Luke 8:29) but not always (Luke 13:10–17). In fact, he was not even always physically present with the demon-possessed person (Matt 15:22–28). Only once is there evidence he asked the name of a demon (Mark 5:9), and that was not to gain authority over an evil spirit who already knew Christ had power over him (Mark 5:7–10). “Rebuking” language is common (e.g., Luke 4:35; 9:42) but not universal. Nowhere is there a clear, reproducible exorcism ritual.

How do we respond, then, to the issue of exorcism? On the animistic mission field or in secularist North American culture, we may face the unusual experience of demonic manifestations as the enemy fights to hold on to one of his own. Here is what the Bible shows us: as followers of Christ, we are to put on the full armor of God (Eph 6:11), proclaim the gospel to the nations (Luke 24:46–47), and disciple believers (Matt 28:19–20). If, in the course of this work, a demon manifests, we are to be so closely walking with God that he will show us then what our response should be. Taking on the enemy is not about a formula or technique; it is about daily obedience that produces on-the-spot godly wisdom. It’s about lifestyle—not about “demon hunting” or power displays.

Teach Believers to Pray for Missionaries

Paul concludes the book of Ephesians with a request for believers to pray for one another and for his evangelistic endeavors (Eph 6:18–20). Though Paul likely did not intend prayer to be a piece of the armor of God, the sense of urgency noted in verses 18–20 ties his request to the battle indicated in 6:11–12. The believers were to “stay alert in this,” praying with all prayer at all times with all perseverance and petition for all the saints (v. 18). Indeed, both Ephesians and Colossians—letters written to a culture dominated by the powers—include a request from Paul for continued urgent prayer support.

Pray for an Open Door to Share the Gospel (Col 4:2–3). In his letter to the Colossians, Paul requested the believers to pray that “God may open a door to us for the message, to speak the mystery of the Messiah” (Col 4:3). Because he was in prison at the time (Col 4:18), it is possible Paul desired a release from prison in order to preach the gospel. More likely, as Peter O’Brien indicates, Paul “did not regard imprisonment as a serious interruption of his missionary work” (1982, 238). Given his desire and skills to “turn any situation into an opportunity for witness,” it seems plausible that Paul was simply requesting God to provide an opportunity for sharing the gospel within his present circumstances (Melick 1991, 322).

Regardless of one’s interpretation of the “open door,” it is clear Paul recognized God as the source of any opportunity for witness. Equally clear is Paul’s understanding that prayer is a primary means by which God opens those doors.

Pray for the Witness (Col 4:3–4; Eph 6:19–20). Not only did Paul request prayer for an open door, but he also sought prayer for himself as the messenger. Specifically, he asked for prayer that he might proclaim the gospel clearly and boldly (Col 4:4; Eph 6:19–20). The open door would not be enough if there were no messenger willing to proclaim the Word, and Paul understood he had no ability to speak that Word apart from God’s power. His request for boldness also implies his recognition that evangelism and missions would not be easy tasks. He knew obedience meant spiritual conflict, yet he was to be on the offensive.

Conclusion

The battle of spiritual warfare is real, but it is already won. Jesus has disarmed the powers (Col 2:15). Filled by the Spirit of God (Acts 1:8) and trusting in his Word, we fight from a position of victory. Brian Borgman and Rob Ventura (2013, loc. 1775) summarize this position well:

God has supplied us with His full armor. We are not lacking anything necessary for battle. We are strong in our victor, Jesus Christ, who has overthrown principalities and powers. He has deposed of the god of this age. In Him, “we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us” (Rom. 8:37). We are more than conquerors. With that truth in mind, we must take the gospel into the darkness. A dying world awaits.

Chapter 40

Missions in the Local Church

J. D. Greear and Michael McDaniel

During the Reformation, Martin Luther and the early Protestants adopted the terminology of esse and bene esse to distinguish between practices that were essential to the nature of the church and those that were merely beneficial. Esse (being) indicated practices that constituted the very essence of the church, for example, the preaching of the gospel. Bene esse (well-being) indicated practices deemed beneficial to the church but not essential, for example, church discipline (Avis 1981, 35).

For most of church history, theologians relegated missions to the bene esse of the church. However, in the past fifty years that view has dramatically shifted, and missiologists now recognize missions as belonging to the church’s esse—its very nature. Missions is not merely a program of the church. The church exists for missions. The missionary nature of the church is rooted in the missionary activity of God. God sends the Son, and the Son sends the church: “As the Father has sent me, so I send you” (John 20:21 NRSV). It follows then that everything the church is and does should be rooted in missions. Without missions, Lesslie Newbigin writes, “the Church simply falls to the ground. We must say bluntly that when the Church ceases to be a mission, then she ceases to have any right to the titles by which she is adorned in the New Testament” (Newbigin 1954, 163). God did not create missions for the church. He created the church for missions.

This shift has profound implications not only for how a church thinks about missions but how a church does missions. It means that “missions” is not fundamentally a program a church builds but a culture it creates. Missions is not something you simply put on a “to do” list. We tend to think of missions this way, as a list of activities that the church does—supporting missionaries, sending people on short-term mission trips, and so on. Nothing is wrong with these things, but more important is whether missions becomes ingrained in the culture of the church—because when the culture of a church becomes missional, “missions” is the natural fruit.

The goal of this chapter is to help a local church develop a culture of missions. The culture of a church is the product of two forces: (1) what a church believes, or its theological vision; and (2) what a church does, or its programs. When these two things are aligned, they operate in perfect harmony—like the parts of a finely tuned machine—but when they aren’t aligned, or one is absent, then a church fails to accomplish its full purpose. The main reason our churches are not more engaged in missions is not because they lack programs but because they lack a theological vision of missions; therefore, this chapter will begin by outlining four missional convictions the gospel creates in a church. These principles reflect the vision of a church that sees missions not only as something it does but its purpose. We will then turn our attention to the programs that support and advance that vision in the world.

Theological Vision

Every church has a doctrinal foundation that serves as the foundation to everything it does. A theological vision, however, is more than doctrine; it is a vision for how doctrine works itself out in the life of the church (Keller 2012, 17–18). In this case, it is a vision of a church that exists for missions. We are going to unpack such a vision in four principles. Embracing these convictions will help a church move from merely doing missions to being missional.

1. Everyone Is Called

It is common Christian parlance to speak of missions as something we must feel called to do. What we are usually trying to communicate is that God has given us a special missional assignment in his kingdom. The problem is that Christians do not need to be called to live on mission.

Certainly, instances are in Scripture where God calls people to a specific mission. God called Abraham to go to the Promised Land (Gen 12:1). He called Paul to take the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15). But just as many examples exist where a specific calling is not evident. Timothy joined Paul on his missionary journeys simply because “Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him” (Acts 16:3 NRSV). Priscilla and Aquila worked alongside Paul, leveraging their tent-making business to travel with him to Ephesus, where they remained and did ministry even after he left (Acts 18:2–26). This is not to mention the dozens, perhaps hundreds, of disciples who were scattered by persecution in Jerusalem and planted churches throughout Judea and Samaria (Acts 9:31).

One of the greatest hindrances to missions is treating the Great Commission like a calling for some instead of a mandate for all. Christians do not need to be specially called to go overseas, no more than they need to be called to live missionally where they are—it is inherent to being a disciple. Becoming a disciple of Jesus means you evaluate your passions and talents in terms of how they can best be used to spread God’s kingdom. The call has already been issued: “make disciples of all nations” (Matt 28:19 ESV). Each person must evaluate how he is best suited to fulfill that call.

When a church begins to operate with that assumption, it fundamentally changes mobilization. Suddenly every member is a potential missionary. Our goal is not to send some but send all, whether to our city or to the other side of the world. We begin to cast that vision into every ministry of the church. We tell our graduating college students, “You need to get a job somewhere. Why not do it overseas?” We challenge our people, “Whatever you are good at, do it well for the glory of God, and do it somewhere strategic for the mission of God.” The question becomes not whether God calls them but where.

2. Every Pastor Is a Missions Pastor

Many larger churches hire a “missions pastor” whose job it is to run the missions programs of the church. There is nothing wrong with this, but a church that exists for missions recognizes that every pastor is a missions pastor. Ephesians 4:12 says that it is the job of pastors “to equip the saints for the work of ministry” (ESV). What is the work of ministry if it does not include making disciples of all nations? Pastors equip people for a purpose, and that purpose includes taking the gospel to their neighbors, their nation, and the world.

It is common in conversations about mobilizing the church for missions to talk about “missions education.” What we usually mean is a program that teaches people about missions to engage them in missions. But a missional church does not confine missions to a single program; rather missions permeates every ministry and every program. So for example, in our church we teach our children about God’s desire for the nations and keep missionaries and mission stories constantly before them. We map out for parents a “family ministry plan” that identifies key milestones in a child’s life to engage them in missions: things such as serving together as a family in our city or going on their first short-term mission trip together. We give high school students opportunities to serve for a month in the summer with one of our mission teams, and we encourage all college students to give one summer serving on a mission project and their first two years postgraduation serving on a church-planting team.

These are only examples—every church will apply this principle differently. The point is that missions is not an addition to discipleship; it is an essential part of discipleship.

3. The Church Is Not an Audience but an Army

In John 14:12, Jesus made an astounding statement to his disciples: “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father” (ESV). Now that seems like an absurd thing to say. How many of you have done “greater works” than Jesus? Have you raised someone from the dead? Fed five thousand people? Cast out a demon?

“Greater” cannot mean “greater” in quality; it must mean greater in quantity. What Jesus alluded to was when he ascended to heaven; the Spirit of God, who was the source of even Jesus’ power on earth, would not be limited to one person (Jesus), or even a group (the disciples), but would dwell within every believer. Every believer would now minister in the full power of the Spirit, and the result would produce a greater net effect than if even Jesus himself had stayed on earth.

The job of a minister is to unleash that very same power. Unfortunately, we often hold it back by hoarding ministry to ourselves. The church is not an audience gathered around one anointed man of God; it is an army of anointed men and women. Ephesians 4:12–13 means that to become a pastor is to leave the ministry. Thirty-nine of the forty miracles in the book of Acts occur not in the church but the marketplace. Luke goes out of his way to show us that the greatest progress of the gospel occurs not through the apostles but through regular people. In Acts 8:1, when persecution strikes the church at Jerusalem, all are scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria “except the apostles.” Only one chapter later, we read of “the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria” (Acts 9:31 ESV). Where did those churches come from? The apostles didn’t plant them. Ordinary disciples who shared the gospel planted them as they went out from Jerusalem.

Our people have missional opportunities that no pastor has access to—in their workplaces, their schools, and their social circles. Businesspeople in our churches can get into places we could hardly dream to send a typical missionary. The 10/40 window is a door through which they can easily walk. Our people do not need us to create missional opportunities. They simply need us to equip and release them to do what the Holy Spirit has already given them opportunity to do.

4. The Motivation for Mission Comes from the Gospel

One of the chief reasons people are not on mission is that passion for missions does not burn within them. Dale Carnegie, the famous salesman, said, “Most men have the ability to speak eloquently, they just lack the motivation. Knock any man down on the street, and he will give you a surprisingly eloquent response.” Our problem is not that we lack the capacity for missions; it is that we lack the conviction. We have not been knocked down hard enough. The apostle Paul was in anguish every day over his brothers. He wished himself cut off from God if it would mean saving them (Rom 9:3).

Where does that conviction come from? It does not come from missions statistics or even great missionary stories. It comes from the gospel. If you want to become more generous, you do not need someone to tell you, “Be generous.” That may guilt you into giving for a while, but it will never make you a cheerful giver (2 Cor 9:7). No, you need someone to remind you of the generosity of Christ. Because when you remember how generous Jesus has been toward you, you want to show the same generosity to others.

The same is true for missions. When you look into the gospel, and it reminds you of all that God has done to save you, it gives you urgency to reach your neighbors. When our people begin to burn with that fire, they will figure out how to be missional because it is impossible to really understand the gospel and not be moved to missions. Therefore, the most important thing we can do to cultivate a culture of missions in the church is to preach the gospel. When we preach the gospel of God’s great grace for sinners, and the Holy Spirit sparks a fire within their hearts, our people will figure out the rest.

Programs

To this point, we have focused on creating a vision for missions. However, a vision will only accomplish so much without a strategy to move it forward. This is the purpose of the programs of a church. Think of a church’s programs like a trellis that supports a vine. The vine (missions) will grow so long as it has soil, water, and sunlight (the vision), but it can only reach so far without a trellis (programs) to support that growth (Marshall and Payne 2009, 8). Again, the goal here is not to create separate programs for missions but to integrate missions into the existing programs of the church. Everything that the church is and does should reflect its missionary calling.

This integrated approach also forces us to think holistically about missions. Acts 1:8 records Jesus’ marching orders to his disciples: “and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (ESV). Scholars note that the progression here parallels the actual spread of the gospel from the disciples’ city to their nation to the rest of the world (Bock 2007, 64). But the emphasis is on the geographical spread of the gospel not the chronological spread. From the beginning, Jesus calls the whole church to engage the whole world. So rather than breaking down the missions programs of the church into local, national, and international, a holistic approach engages all three spheres at the same time. The church is called to do fundamentally the same thing in its neighborhood that it is called to do on the other side of the world.

We have already discussed examples of how a church can build missions into kids, student, and college ministries. The following represent ways a church can incorporate mission into other major ministries of the church.

Corporate Worship

Mission should saturate the atmosphere of the church. People should experience it the moment they walk through the door. They should not have to wait for the annual “missions conference” to know that a church cares about missions.

In every sermon pastors prepare, they should ask, “Have I connected this text to missions?” Christopher Wright points out in The Mission of God that every chapter of the Bible is the story of God’s mission; therefore, to fail to see the missional applications of any passage is to interpret it wrongly (Wright 2006, 65). So in every sermon we ask, “How does this passage advance God’s global mission?” Think of preaching like bringing people the water of life—but not only a refreshing spring from which they slake their thirst and go back to their lives; rather, a rushing stream into which they jump and are carried to the nations.

Churches should design their physical spaces to communicate their value of missions. One of the things we say at our church is, “In light of global lostness, excellence must be balanced by ‘good enough.’” We aim for excellence because it reflects on the worth of the God we worship—Jesus told us that we should do everything as unto the Lord—but our physical environments should testify to the reality that Jesus also called us to reach the poor, the fatherless, the widow, and the foreigner. The appearance of our gathering places should communicate to people that we exist for more than what they see. Rather than leaving impressed by the quality of our spaces, people should leave impressed by the priority of our missions.

This does not mean we should not care about physical spaces. In fact, how we decorate those spaces should also communicate the value we place on missions. Our church puts pictures in our lobbies and verses on our walls that point people to the nations. At one point, we only served coffee that came from regions of the world where we had planted churches. Our goal was that people would come for a cup of coffee and leave ready to go on a short-term mission trip.

We should highlight missions stories and testimonies constantly in our services, on our websites, and in our publications. What you celebrate, you replicate, so we celebrate missions. We take every chance we get to platform a missionary or church planter. We give them a standing ovation and pray over them. We explain how giving is connected to missions. When we ask people to give, we use it as an opportunity to highlight what God is doing through their gifts around the world. We want the church to know that their giving is going outside the walls of the church and not only inside.

In many ways churches can incorporate missions into their gatherings. When we baptize people, we remind them that God has called them in order to send them. We ask people two questions: First, do you repent of your sin and trust Jesus Christ alone as your Savior and Lord? Second, are you willing to do whatever he calls you to do and go wherever he calls you to go? At baby dedications, we ask parents to commit to raise their child for the mission of God. At the end of every service, we commission our people to live on mission for the rest of the week. We call it a “missional blessing.” Most churches simply end with “you are dismissed.” But do we ever really “dismiss”? We gather for a few hours on the weekend so we can scatter more effectively for the week.

Small Groups

Small groups are the hub of discipleship in many churches, but they should also be the hub of missions. If we leave missions out of small groups, then we are subtly communicating that missions is not part of discipleship. On the other hand, small groups can serve as the primary vehicle of equipping and mobilizing people to live on mission locally, nationally, and globally. We train our people to live missionally through small groups. We encourage small groups to take on a service/mission project in their city. Every small group adopts a national or international missionary. The group takes responsibility for caring for that missionary, staying connected, praying for them, and even visiting them. Our dream is that entire groups will move overseas or to another city in North America to help plant a new church.

Small groups are also a primary means of a church multiplying its missions to the city. Adding new groups helps a church expand into new areas of their city. Rather than starting new groups from scratch or splitting existing groups (something people generally do not like anyway), existing groups can plant new groups in new communities. By raising up a new leader and planting a new group, churches cultivate a culture of missions in the smallest unit of the church.

Short-Term Trips

Short-term missions have earned a bad reputation. Much of this is deserved. Short-term trips are notorious for damaging long-term work. Many short-term missionaries do not understand the culture they are serving and do a lot of harm. On top of this, short-term missions are extremely expensive. For the cost of some trips, a church could put a long-term worker on the field for a year.

Yet despite these drawbacks, short-term missions play an important role in sending. First, dollars spent on short-term are not zero-sum. Money spent on a mission trip does not equal less money that churches could use to support a long-term worker; rather, people who see the mission field firsthand give more to missions the rest of the year. Second, a majority of career missionaries trace their calling back to a short-term trip. In fact, most of our people cannot wrap their minds around a long-term call until they have been on a short-term trip. Mission trips may be an expensive discipleship program, but they are effective. Third, short-term missions serve a strategic role for supporting long-term missionaries. In fact, one of the best ways for churches to do short-term missions well is in partnership with long-term missionaries. Long-term missionaries can guide churches to make short-term missions healthy, and churches can utilize short-term trips to support their missionaries on the field.

Long-Term: Missions as Church Planting

This chapter began by introducing the idea that missions is not an optional component of a church; the church exists for missions. We conclude by proposing that a vital part of that mission should be planting churches.

The local church is God’s “plan A” for taking the gospel to the world. Jesus commissioned his disciples to make disciples of all nations. They did so by planting churches. This was not by chance—it was God’s design. First, the Great Commission implies church planting. Jesus commanded his followers to make disciples of all nations, baptizing and teaching them (Matt 28:19–20). Baptizing and teaching implies incorporation into a covenant community (Keller 2013). Second, the New Testament describes church planting. This is the pattern of the book of Acts: wherever the disciples preached the gospel and people came to faith, they planted churches. When the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost and Peter preached the first sermon, the very first thing the Holy Spirit did was plant a church (Acts 2:41–47). Wherever Paul went and people followed Christ, he planted churches. Lastly, history testifies to church planting. Throughout Christian history, those movements that have had the most enduring impact planted churches (McDow and Reid 1997, 198). In summary, God’s strategy for fulfilling the Great Commission is planting churches.

This does not mean churches should not collaborate with or even start parachurch ministries—exactly the opposite—however, it does mean our missions strategy should place significant emphasis on planting churches. Whenever possible, we aim not to send a missions team only but a church-planting team. The goal of these teams is to make disciples and start indigenous churches that sustain themselves even after they leave. That may sound intimidating, but the reality is that our people are doing exactly the same thing there that we trained them to do here. They are leveraging their lives for God’s mission.

Conclusion

When missions is merely a program of the church, evangelism and church planting will always be exceptional and traumatic, like building a building: “one big traumatic event followed by a deep collective sigh of relief that it’s done” (Keller 2012, 357). But when missions becomes ingrained in the culture of a church, evangelism and church planting become normal and natural, like a husband and wife having a child. Like Paul, when the church is continually engaged in missions, the result is that disciples are made and churches are planted. The church reaches the lost, it makes disciples, and then it sends them out to repeat the process all over again.

Chapter 41

World Christianity

Keith E. Eitel

The Lions Look Back: World Christianity 25

“Until lions have their historians, tales of the hunt shall always glorify the hunters.”—African Proverb

(Park 2009, 143)

Dramatic transitions now in motion throughout the world show a new scene is actively on stage, specifically the drama of world Christianity. Western missionary roles are supportive, though more in the background now, at least in places. Exploding Christian populations in the non-Western world cycle to the next part of the script in motion. Props, and the next scene changes, are now being made.

Andrew F. Walls’s writings illustrate historic ebb-and-flow patterns of Christianity. His foci certainly spotlight this living drama as the paradigm for interpreting Christian history is shifting from Western myopia to non-Western points of view. Christians everywhere are standing at one of those major crossroads in time that Timothy C. Tennent calls “living on the seam of history” (Tennent 2007, 6–8), where many things are different and differently seen.

Walls points out an “indigenous-pilgrim” tension in Christian history. It accounts for the serial development of Christianity, and he notes that a dynamic set of forces that create differing momentums in the Christian church constituted the tension. Indigenous ideas take root in a given culture. Then believers speak or live out Christ prophetically in context. Yet the gospel is usually restless and moving to the margins of lostness with transformative energies of life and salvation. Christianity takes on flavoring from all its journeys and settings along the way. In his now famous article, Walls depicts a hypothetical “scholarly space visitor—a Professor of Comparative Inter-Planetary Religion” (Walls 1996, 3) who visits Earth at five distinct times and places over the past two millennia to study the phenomenon of Christianity. The visitor sees continuities and discontinuities in various forms of the Christian faith.

Just as the indigenizing principle, itself rooted in the Gospel, associates Christians with the particulars of their culture and group, the pilgrim principle, in tension with the indigenizing and equally of the Gospel associating them with things and people outside the culture and group, is in some respects a universalizing factor. (Walls 1996, 9)

While Christian presence in the West seems numerically to be waning as it encounters the full press of strongly secular and pluralistic cultural challenges, Christian principles and responsibilities regarding lostness are enduring wherever the church is present, including the West, that require missiological initiatives for the church to retain New Testament characteristics. Prophetic life and verbal witness constitute the proclamation engines of the pilgrim principle as it seeks new indigenous ground.

This chapter introduces the drama of contemporary world Christianity that developed most expansively during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (Latourette 1970, vols. 6 and 7) and is now center stage for the twenty-first. It delves into selected thematic categories and suggests ways in which Western academicians may inadvertently marginalize some world Christians by ignoring theological factors by which many believers outside the West define themselves, namely, their understanding and use of the Bible, theology (and yes, even denominational preferences), and striving for religious freedoms, particularly in crisis prone areas. So the lions have their own historians now, and have always had their own history makers, so the story of the hunt can be seen more completely if Western eyes will to see.

World Christianity in Motion

“OK, OK, Mister, same same but different.”—Bargaining Phrase

(often heard in Thailand’s night bazaars for an agreed price)

World Christianity: A Journey

It had already been an extensive trip, and I still had a long set of flights out of Nigeria routing back to the United States. During a visit to the Nigerian Baptist Theological Seminary in Ogobomso in 2010, I met many fine folk. They were actively doing theological education amid horrific conflict posed to the whole nation, and the world, from a violent stream of Islam known as Boko Haram. One of the institution’s administrators accompanied me back to the Lagos airport.

Nearer the airport, he pointed out a long stretch of highway that had many open-air ministry facilities, one after the other and on both sides. He mentioned how many people they were attracting to their “signs and wonders” styled meetings. Signboards all along the way advertised different ministries, and their emphases clearly were on miracles, healing, prosperity, and the like. After he pointed out these ministries, I turned to him and said, “Indeed, there seem to be many people in the ‘miracle’ business here.” The look on his face said it all. He was dismayed and replied, “Sadly that is true.” As elsewhere, certainly, theological challenges to faith exist for non-Western Christians.

Amazing Grace Growth: Good News Travels

Anyone traveling to non-Western settings (especially areas not predominately Islamic) observes a distinct rise in Christian presence and expressions, especially in Africa, Latin America, and Asia. The statistics per twenty-four-hour period of change is astronomical. Even if discounted for the fact that every group that even claims to adhere to Christianity is counted, this kind of growth is phenomenal. A respected group of missiological researchers assess annual global statistical summaries of Christian presence by region at the start of each year. One set of statistics now indicates an estimated twenty-four-hour change rate in Christian adherents for the year 2012: Africa increased by 37,000 per day, Asia by 23,000, and Latin America by 18,000 (Johnson and Crossing 2013, 32–33; for additional documentation from different points of view, see Daughrity 2012; Jenkins 2002; Johnson and Ross 2009; Johnstone 2011; and Stark, 2011).

With explosive growth rates like these, it is no wonder Philip Jenkins says that,

The era of Western Christianity has passed within our lifetimes, and the day of Southern Christianity is dawning. The fact of change itself is undeniable: it has happened, and will continue to happen. So little did we notice this momentous change that it was barely mentioned in all the media hoopla surrounding the end of the second millennium. (Jenkins 2002, 3)

Note that Jenkins’s use of the term Southern Christianity does not encompass the full scope of this growing phenomenon. China, for example, does not fit if one thinks only south of the Tropic of Cancer. The explosive Christian growth rates are best defined by theme not geography per se.

Global vs. World: Words and Their Meanings

Some things seem the same in this millennium; others are vastly different. The distinction between the terms global Christianity and world Christianity, for example, shifts one’s perspective and sheds light on newly perceived categories of thought. Lamin Sanneh, a native of Gambia now at Yale University, prefers the latter term because it gives greater credence to the recipients’ points of view in the expansion and development of world Christianity. He wants “to reverse the argument by speaking of the indigenous discovery of Christianity rather than the Christian discovery of indigenous societies” (Sanneh 2003, 10, italics his).

Theologically Marked: Convictions and Distinctions

Sanneh’s differentiation clarifies why, and perhaps how, categories of theology look the same yet different now. Some Western theologians are starting to note ways this thriving population of Christians sees things. Sanneh contends that,

“World Christianity” is the movement of Christianity as it takes form and shape in societies that previously were not Christian, societies that had no bureaucratic tradition with which to domesticate the gospel. . . . “Global Christianity,” on the other hand, is the faithful replication of Christian forms and patterns developed in Europe. (Sanneh 2003, 22)

A mediate position seems warranted instead of minimizing the complexities of non-Western Christianity to only these two options. In a middle view, one could recognize that the Bible is taken seriously and earlier forms of the faith were voluntarily embraced. Yet, there is new flavor for those historic traditions in the non-Western world. As long as the Bible is in local languages, indigenous theologizing occurs, and people come to faith in Christ; some adherents embrace semblances and continuities with other forms of the faith in other places. The idea of doctrinal bundles of beliefs, willingly and locally embraced, is a distinct possibility that could perhaps link to earlier forms of the faith that came to indigenous peoples sociologically or historically. Some categories of thought could be “same, same but different.”

How those differences come about, what prior contacts may exist with earlier forms of the faith, what they are functionally like in various settings, how local adherents digest them, and what common touch points may exist between various new forms of faith with the older ones are all subjects of interest for the student of world Christianity. The aim is to discover how Christianity has serially progressed over time as a cultural pilgrim becomes different while remaining the same.

World Christian Dimensions

“Christianity can only be expected to become even more multiple, diverse, and hybridized.”—Attanasi and Yong

(2012, series introduction)

Angles and Avenues: New Perspectives

Changes in angles make for unique viewpoints. Also, one’s point of view affects the ways of understanding and analyzing Christianity, especially its missiological and historical developments. The essence of world Christianity, in this analysis, is a perspectival shift. It involves learning to look at Christian history from the other end of things.

Like others, I have experienced frustration when teaching church history in Africa, thematically arranged as if only North American and European church history ever existed. Call it ethnocentric, and it is, though at the time it was done simply because of ignorance regarding a larger horizon of understanding, that of the gospel receiver’s view on a worldwide scale. An awakening of sorts comes about when historians see things from the inside out.

History Lives Again: A Fresh Look

God has been moving since before creation, always engaging, reaching out, around, and toward (Eph 1:3–14). He is, by his own nature, relational, redemptive, and—one can even say—missionary. It is evident now that the Christian church exists in some way throughout the world, and it has not grown consistently the same throughout time. It has grown iteratively; it has ebbed and flowed like a tide with rhyme and rhythm, push and pull. Telling the story of that rolling tide is the core task of those engaged in studying world Christianity. Such study goes beyond gospel transmission and delves into intricacies of the gospel translated into lives hitherto untouched among and between a myriad of global peoples. Then again, it latches onto the inmost parts of the human soul at deep levels; core convictions transform lives individually and corporately (Walls 1997, 55). This phenomenon repeats throughout the history of Christianity and gives rise to current non-Western growth. It is contingent on the “missionary.” Walls defines the term broadly to encompass two millennia of history: “The ‘missionary’ in the technical sense is one present, and historically important, example of a recurrent Christian phenomenon” (Walls 1987, 28). Further he observes,

Christian history has seen a constant tension between the forces which localize and indigenize it, and those which universalize it . . . . The universalizing forces are the same as ever: the worship of Israel’s God, the according of ultimate significance to Christ, the sense of continuing divine activity in the Christian community, the use of the scriptures and the consciousness of a community transcending time and space. It will be surprising if the localizing forces of the southern continents do not lead it into new paths. (Walls 1997, 157)

Evangelicals affirm Holy Spirit-inspired transformation and work to see it overflowing and retransmitted, or further diffused so that Christianity’s transforming germ will ultimately become an epidemic.

The Bible: Always a Prophetic Voice

Scholarly conversations surrounding world Christianity tend to diminish or perhaps overwhelm the more traditional Western conservative voices, though the non-Western populations now embracing Christ are often doing so with conservative evangelical views of the Bible and the faith. Why is there a conversational disconnection between biblically conservative views of millions of new adherents in the non-Western world and the same, or similar views, of their Western Christian counterparts? Again, one’s perspective matters.

In the ancient church, Tertullian contrasted Jerusalem’s biblical fidelity to the paganism of Athens. Jenkins notes a temporal metaphor between the early church and modern religious parallels: “Christians of the global South are citizens of Jerusalem, and they follow the Bible; Americans and Europeans, residents of Athens, obey secular texts. And what has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” (Jenkins 2006, 4). Jenkins further argues that a defining characteristic of world Christians is their embrace of “the Bible as an inspired text and a tendency to literalism; . . . Any acquaintance with African or Asian Christianity soon indicates the pervasive importance of the Bible and of biblical stories” (Jenkins 2006, 4). See also parallel arguments in Jenkins (2002, 128, 202, and 217).

Concluding that the Bible is inerrant means that in this conversation one can applaud the progress that an enlarged perspective yields, namely whole new vistas of study regarding burgeoning twenty-first-century world Christianity, especially that of the non-Western world. Yet, a sense of pause is felt regarding the tethering effect that ought to come along with revealed, inerrant truth. Scripture, taken for what it claims, is absolute, normative, and should have the determinative role over human experiences and cultures, especially in translation or transmission phases (for development of biblically conservative evangelical ideas see Hesselgrave 1985; Hiebert 2009; and Nicholls 1995). Scripture critiques culture rather than the reverse. Can someone thread the eye of the needle between such shifts in perspective while maintaining conservative, biblical convictions? It is not necessary to impose liberal Western convictions regarding biblically revealed truth into this discussion, especially when the non-Western leaders generally prefer to align themselves with existing evangelical traditions already.

Theology: In Technicolor

I confirm that Jenkins’s conclusions regarding the non-Western church not only exist and thrive but that those churches generally share the aforementioned normative view of Scripture (see, e.g., discussion of the Nigerian scholar, Byang Kato, who set the pace for a normative use of the Bible among African evangelicals [Noll and Nystrom 2011, 92]). Western Christian writers generally tend to express an ecumenical, more convergent view and downplay theological implications of the Bible and personal ethical issues, except where socially oriented. These implications are either unaddressed or only cursorily considered. Sanneh addresses Anglican struggles at Lambeth in 1998 over uses of the Bible, as related to homosexual issues. The West, and the Anglican rest, took differing sides. Western bishops accused African counterparts of being “misguided enough to think that the Bible could replace enlightened reasonableness as a standard of guidance and Christian teaching.” He concluded that this was a turning point for “a post-Christian West, still recovering from seeing religion as contagion, mobilizing behind a domesticated highbrow view of culture for safeguard” (Bonk 2003).

Additionally, doctrinal bundles and denominational polity are generally eschewed and deemed culturally conditioned, curiosities best left in sixteenth-century Europe that were framed in reaction to medieval Catholicism (Walls 1996, 245–47; Walls distinguishes between the doctrinal bundles, denominational polity or practices, and the formation of sending agencies since William Carey’s era and presents them as evidence of younger churches generating new avenues for implementing the Great Commission). Oddly enough, there are Christian populations in the non-Western world that appreciate their identity and heritages linking them to the historic churches that came and connected with them in their non-Western settings. While indeed not all came with the best interests of their hosts, others did (Woodberry 2012) and were well received. (For review of colonial and mission administrative policies illustrative of both negative and some positive aspects, see Hochschild 1998; Kwarteng 2011; Stanley and Low 2003; for American mission tendencies during the nineteenth century, see Shenk, 2004).

If study of world Christianity shifts one’s perspective by telling the rest of the story, particularly that of the gospel-receivers, then those same receivers’ convictions and distinctions should be told, heard, and studied. This is especially so lest an odd form of neocolonialism accrue in Western academia, one that prescribes ways for non-Western churches to view their vernacular Bibles that downplay scriptural implications and bundles of doctrine simply because Western denominational partners affirm the same convictions. Does enough academic freedom exist to acknowledge that some non-Western believers wish to link to historic, missionary related identities? Time will tell.

Critiquing Forward: Time for Western Introspection

Syncretism, spoken by one from outside the recipient culture, signals colonial attitudes or ethnocentrism as concluded by some World Christian Studies writers (Sanneh 2003, 44). This is largely because of their views and uses of the Bible. Traditional—and yes, formerly predominantly Western—evangelicals define their theology by interpreting the Bible didactically. Sanneh, for example, cites an unnamed African convert mentioned by Robert Moffat in nineteenth-century southern Africa as saying, “We thought it [the Bible] was a thing to be spoken to, but now we know it has a tongue. It speaks and will speak to the whole world.” With that evangelical perspective, self-theologizing commenced. Indeed, the translation itself was an act of indigenous theologizing (Sanneh 2003, 106).

If there is hope of reevangelizing the West through migrating diaspora populations of new Christians (Jenkins 2007, 91–93), then could it likewise be that a corresponding affirmation of the Bible and choice of denominational identity would come with them, albeit reshaped by their own cultural journeys? What would a Bible-believing Presbyterian, Baptist, or Methodist look like who brings the gospel molds of Africa, Latin America, or Asia to the process of diffusion into still other places? If Western theologians and students of world Christianity do not recognize, and even encourage, this sort of critical self-theologizing, allowing for indigenous embrace of historic identities from outside their contexts, then there exists a flip-flop vestige of colonial practice, though from Western scholars, namely ecumenical convergent writers (certainly an unusual source this time around).

Conservative contextualization methods intend the Bible to be meaningful and relevant in other cultures while not altering its original, template teaching. Ecumenical theologians tend to view its teachings dynamically, blended with recipient languages and cultural elements long since in existence prior to the influx of Christian ideas. That means many indigenous religions, beliefs, customs, and languages (using their own ideological syntax) set cultural beliefs in dialectic tension with incoming biblical truths. Might there be an alternative whereby the Bible critiques all cultures to accomplish what Walls calls “deep translation”? Walls concludes,

Cross-cultural diffusion (which is the life-blood of historic Christianity), has to go beyond language, the outer skin of culture, into the processes of thinking and choosing, and all the networks of relationship that lie beneath language, turning them all towards Christ. It requires generations to accomplish, for those processes have themselves taken many generations to form. This is deep translation, the appropriation of the Christian gospel in terms of that culture, down to the very roots of identity. (Walls 2002b, 220)

If cultural syntax determines the dance, so to speak, between Christ and culture, then doctrinal truth is secondary. This is the tendency among some Western theologians.

When self-theologizing occurs uncritically, and becomes self-validating simply because it is generated within, then it well illustrates this sort of reverse colonialism spoken of above. Lesslie Newbigin alerts those engaging these ideas to the potential of such inconsistency.

The churches of the Third World belong to societies which are struggling to achieve authentic nationhood after a period in which their cultures were overshadowed by the Western invasion. . . . Churches in the old colonial powers, ridden by feelings of guilt, are eager to apologize for the fact that their presentation of the gospel was so much colored by their culture, that they presented a European or American gospel instead of the pure, unadulterated article, and—for the same reason—are eager to welcome and applaud any expression of Christianity which is authentically Asian or African. . . . Thus we applaud in the younger churches a synthesis of nationalism and Christianity which we deplore in our missionary grandparents. (Newbigin 1989, 143, italics mine)

Now, however, the prophetic voices may be more loudly heard from the non-Western world’s affirmation and embrace of the Bible as the basis for critique of every culture, even Western ones.

The whole discussion needs balance. Every human brings to the drama of cross-cultural communication a set of gospel blinders, so to speak, that come with being human and sinful. Humans socially interact and do so with the taint of sin. Cultures bear the marks of fallen humanity in one way or another. Cultures are not amoral or neutral in the contextualization dance. People and cultures are given to flux and flow of every wind of thought for varying reasons. Yet the Bible stabilizes during life’s gales. Contextualization, or self-theologizing, without biblical certainty consistently guiding the process results in relativized messages and meanings.

With these concepts in place, and differences noted, one celebrates non-Western Christian partners and enters the conversation to understand better their living realities and how believers in other parts of the world can encourage and enhance those developments where invited and feasible. Additionally, missionary activities are different with new world Christian ideas in view.

Free at Last: Cry of Religious Freedom

Is religious freedom synonymous with separation of church and state? Historians debate motives and mandates regarding American exportation of the latter and note that a unique set of sociopolitical circumstances converged at the same point as the birth of the United States that may not be reproducible on a worldwide scale (Walls 1990, 14–16; Walls sees this as a characteristic of American missionary activity that uniquely fit the American experience and blended well with corollary concepts of voluntarism and entrepreneurial ways and means of carrying out missionary vision and activities. The setting was distinctly different from European practices that reflected less voluntarism and more coercion of church by the state).

The larger concept of religious freedom is a more universal and universalizing principle. Church and state separation is one aspect of American democratization. Where it was imposed in mission settings, it was contradicting itself. Where it was embraced and blended with deeper levels of gospel translation in mission settings, religious freedom was “picked up . . . from missionaries that stemmed from evangelical or Christian dynamics rather than the workings of American or Western culture. . . . This is a subtle but important distinction” (Case 2012, 257).

Drawing a distinction between religious freedom and the American experience of it is beneficial in the discussion and development of a modern understanding of world Christianity. Localized religious freedom will look and feel differently in various non-Western settings. Trails of persecution evident in Africa, Asia, and Latin America speak to the valiant efforts of many to protect conscience and religious conviction from despotic state controls.

Religious freedom, to be meaningful, is tolerant of religious pluralism but protects the right of persuasion regarding one’s own convictions in a free exchange of ideas. This is religious dialogue with purpose, and done well the weight of the message convinces and converts, not the strong-arm of political coercion. To undermine voluntary persuasion minimalizes the views of others because contrary convictions are ignored. Religious disagreement can be civil and polite.

Where cultures and civilizations clash, the gospel of world Christianity thrives, especially if freedom of conscience is protected; and where it is not it depends on a believer’s willingness to affirm the gospel regardless of costs, even possibly paying the ultimate sacrifice. Expansion of world Christianity is and has been costly.

Conclusion

“Listen to me and you shall hear, news hath not been this thousand year.” —The World Is Turned Upside Down, English Ballad, 1646

When first this English ballad was sung, it seemed like the world was topsy-turvy. Cromwell tried to abolish traditional English celebrations of Christmas. Once again it was significant when Cornwallis surrendered to Washington after the battle of Yorktown. To the English, and the colonialized Americans, the world seemed radically different for opposite reasons. The upstart set of colonies defeated the world’s superpower, Great Britain, to gain freedom. One’s loss blossomed into the other’s gain.

The bustling of Christianity in the non-Western world is another such moment in history. The loss of center stage for the West is leadership opportunity for the rest of the world’s Christians. It may not alter biblical truth and the theologically universal elements therein, but it does change the perspective from which we address theology, especially its application. Historical awareness of God’s activity globally is shifted in these contemporary scenes. Marginal voices of those believers who are self-identifying as part of a global family that affirms particular bundles of doctrinal assumptions and call themselves by denominational names can contribute to worldwide discussion of the Christian faith, and are doing so. Additionally, religious freedom is always a struggle to achieve and to protect. The church worldwide has vested interest in asserting and witnessing to this need far and wide.

So this is our brave new world. It changes at broadband speed. Yet it is the new serial segment in Christ’s story to the nations. As the church reflects continuity with earlier serial formations, it also develops new, perhaps sometimes contrasting ones. Each one is to play a role in the unfolding drama, and it is to be continued.

Chapter 42

Finishing the Task: A Balanced Approach

Jeffrey Brawner

The job of the church is not to “finish the task” in missions. Christ will finish the task. Instead, the church’s purpose is to strive to reach the current generation for Christ and lay the foundation for other generations to know him as well.

Often, young missionaries will cite Matthew 24:14 as a theme verse for their ministry: “This good news of the kingdom will be proclaimed in all the world as a testimony to all nations. And then the end will come” (HCSB). The verse drives current missionaries to have a passion to reach all the peoples of the world in order to fulfill its eschatological implications.

This type of mentality, whether consciously or not, puts the impetus for the return of Christ on human activity. Christians should remember that not even the Son knows when he will return (Matt 24:36). Missions strategy changes as well, depending on one’s interpretation of the verse. If Christ’s return really is dependent on missionaries reaching each people group, then missions strategy must logically lean toward attempting to reach as many peoples as quickly as possible. The task of creating strategies to reach all peoples is not so simple. Matthew 28:18–20 reminds missions strategists that the gospel is to be proclaimed to all the world. The Greek words translated as “all nations” in verse 18 are panta ta ethne. Panta ta ethne means “all peoples.”

How shall we define the word peoples? Both a missiologist’s and anthropologist’s definitions of a people group change frequently because of a variety of factors. What elements are involved in the definition of a “people”? Are “peoples” defined by ethnolinguistic, geographic, and/or sociological terms?

The Bible is not explicit on how to define a people group, utilizing any of these categories. It seems safe to infer from historical context that a “people” would not be defined geopolitically as one thinks of peoples of today. Certainly, the nation-state boundaries of much of Asia, Europe, and Africa would be completely nonsensical to someone living in the first century. Yet, one must guard against becoming dogmatic while defining the term peoples with modern terminology.

In the same way, how does one define the word proclaim in Matthew 24? One can assume that the word preaching has the idea of proclamation of the truth of Christ to a people group (Rom 1:16–17). However, at what point has one “preached” to a people to fulfill Jesus’ prophecy that “This good news of the kingdom will be proclaimed in all the world”? Did Christ mean that every person of a particular people group would hear the gospel in order to have received sufficient levels of preaching? Did Christ mean that 40 percent or 50 percent of a people had to hear the gospel? The current number that missiologists appear to target in evangelization of a group is 2 percent. However, if we take away anthropological and sociological foundations for attaining 2 percent as missionaries’ target goal, there truly is no biblical reason for choosing that percentage.

Biblically speaking, the definitions of whom to target are not abundantly clear. Nor is the decision of how long one should target a people clear, either. As future missionaries determine their role in this generation, they must be able to find their way through the fog of current missions strategy. As they attempt to set the agenda for the future among their adopted people, they need to determine to whom and where God has called them individually. In like manner, missions organizations must reject the herd mentality of following the latest fad only to target the “unreached” but instead recognize that the WORLD is unreached. All peoples need missions work.

Circumstances truly are dire in terms of global spiritual lostness. Yet, in the midst of these complicated times God is working in incredible ways among many peoples as well. Careful examination of resistant as well as fruitful mission fields should help future church planters/evangelists, seminary professors, and social workers follow a sound strategy for reaching each lost and dying generation.

What Should Be the Significant Factors in Choosing an Overall Strategy?

Current missions organizations obviously should choose an approach that is appropriate for the area of the world that they are trying to reach. Campus Crusade, for example, has a stated focus that their missionaries will attempt to reach college students. For that organization to determine suddenly that they need to work in Bible translation goes outside of the purview of what they have done so well for years. Consequently, each missions organization needs to focus on what its strengths are and what God has led its leadership to do.

However, God’s plan does not center primarily on a missions organization’s plans for reaching the world. God uses his church (Matthew 16), which is comprised of His people (saints), to reach the world (2 Cor 5:20). Each individual does not need to base a decision on where to serve based on an assignment request from a missions organization; instead, the individual missionary needs to determine prayerfully where God is leading, considering a variety of factors. A future missionary should ask, “What is my burden right now in the world? Where is God currently moving in the world today, and how do I jump on board with what he is doing? Where do my spiritual gifts and skills seem to fit best? What has God done in my life to equip me for this work?”

A future missionary needs to examine these questions while choosing a location of service. The missionary then needs to see what kind of strategy best fits how God has gifted him. Below are two general strategies one needs to consider first before deciding where to target.

Harvest Strategy—Targeting Where God Is Evidently Moving

In modern missions, this strategy seems to be all but forgotten. The idea, typified by the “people movement” strategy introduced by Donald McGavran and the church growth movement, provided a powerful strategy for reaching the world. Today, great areas of incredible harvests are occurring. China, sections of India, large swaths of southern Africa, and South America are only a few areas where incredible movements of God are occurring. Missionaries need to follow the advice of men like Rick Warren in searching for a place to minister by “finding the wave” of what God is doing and getting on board.

Ultimately, it is God who is drawing all men to himself. If a large segment of individuals are making professions of following Jesus, it certainly is not the Devil causing that movement to occur! Instead, missions organizations and individual missionaries should see that a harvest of great fruit bearing in an area is a strategic moment. They should send large numbers of missionaries to the harvest area, and let them reap as God is moving. These churches or organizations should work with great speed to send as many missionaries as possible.

Why should churches and organizations prioritize these areas? Put simply, historically, harvests never last. Examples from various time periods are abundant. One hundred years ago, Wales was a great harvest field. The Southern region of the United States saw massive growth in Baptist and Methodist churches after the Revolutionary War. Japan saw an incredible harvest in the sixteenth century during the ministry of Francis Xavier in which 300,000 possibly came to salvation (Neill 1990, 136). Yet, in all of these instances, as well as countless others, one common denominator reigned: the harvests all lasted for a period of time and then ended. Some harvests ended with persecution (Japan). Others ended with sin creeping into the church (Wales), and some died out from a variety of social and economic reasons (the South).

Harvests never last, and opportunities must be seized. As missionaries, churches, and organizations determine where they should target, an honest evaluation of reaching the harvest fields while they last should be evaluated.

So many positives for the kingdom come from reaching out to the harvest fields:

A soul is a soul is a soul. Often missions organizations and churches become so focused on reaching people groups for Christ, they overlook the fact that each soul matters for eternity. If a ministry in a harvest field will yield one thousand salvations in a year, but at the same time a ministry in a sowing field might yield ten salvations in a year, shouldn’t the reality of 990 more individuals knowing Christ be a factor in examining whether an area should be a target for missionaries?

Harvests provide the next generation of missionaries. America never has and never will bear the sole responsibility of reaching all the lost world for Christ. God can utilize Americans, however, to reap souls that will be the next generation of missionaries where Americans cannot move as freely. In certain locations in the world, Americans are disliked for political reasons. Current harvest fields exist that can produce missionaries to go to places where Americans are not as productive. Rarely have I met someone who is virulently anti-Brazilian, anti-Nigerian, or anti-Indonesian. Reaping the harvest in these areas can bear great fruit for future missionaries among unreached groups.

Harvests have biblical support. Christ commanded us to look unto the harvests (Matt 9:35–38) and even to be quick to move on if an area was hardened to the gospel (Luke 9:5). Beyond the obvious reasons in terms of evangelism and church planting, the biblical support for targeting the harvests is evident as well.

Missions organizations and future missionaries overlook the current harvests to their loss. People with a natural love and passion for evangelism and discipleship can have an incredibly fruitful impact for the kingdom by targeting these areas. Others who have a heart for seminary work or who have the desire to teach church planting can make a global impact as they reach their particular harvest field for Christ.

Sowing Strategy—Targeting the Unreached Groups of the World

Missionaries and missions organizations should consider a sowing strategy as well. Paul showed a great passion for going where the gospel had not been shared previously (Romans 15). He went to some places that were extremely difficult (Athens), and other times he went to great harvests (Berea). In each place, Paul strove to bring the gospel to unreached fields. With 6,546 peoples around the world classified as “unreached” or less than 2 percent evangelized (see http://public.imb.org/globalresearch/Pages/default.aspx; numbers as of August 2014), it seems obvious that God would send out many individuals, churches, and organizations to preach the gospel to them. While this strategy is certainly not easy, it bears remembering that someone must plow the difficult soil first. This task does not make the person who chooses the sowing strategy more sacrificial than someone implementing a harvest strategy, but it does mean that God calls different individuals for different purposes. The world provides ample locations for sowing fields.

Areas such as the Arabian Peninsula, the Middle East, North Africa, as well as Central and Southeast Asia combine to form what is called “World A,” or the 10/40 Window. This region is between 10 degrees and 40 degrees north latitude and comprises much of the world’s unreached population. Unreached peoples also can be found on every continent far outside of World A. With a population of billions who do not know Christ and have not had a chance to truly hear the message of salvation in a clear manner, these groups desperately deserve to receive missionaries.

Mission strategists have plenty of other valid reasons to target the sowing fields of the world:

The Issue of Fairness. Entire peoples have never heard the name of Jesus, while other areas of the world have had opportunities to hear about Christ from multiple sources. The Christian world must recognize and address this inequality.
Sheer Numbers. If 2.3 billion people in World A died today, they would spend an eternity in hell, separated from the Father. An army of believers needs to heed the call and try to reach these souls.
Tilling a Sowing Field. The purpose of missions to a sowing field is to make it a harvest field. Every farmer knows that you must first till the soil before it can receive the seed. God certainly chooses individuals to work the difficult ground.
Biblical Support. As with the harvest field, the sowing field has biblical support as well. Paul’s heart passion in Romans 15 has already been mentioned. The Bible contains examples of God fearers who went to supposedly hardened fields, and God brought a great harvest (Jonah, the demoniac among the Gadarenes, Phillipi, etc.).

Future missionaries, as well as current missions agencies and churches, should examine both approaches to missions—harvest and sowing—to determine their vision. The future of modern missions, in order to be both biblically and strategically balanced, needs both an army of harvesters and an army of sowers for the kingdom.

What Specific Geographic Areas of the World Need to Be Reached?

The simple answer to the above question is “Every area!” No “reached” areas exist in the world. For example, even in areas with many Christians such as the United States, the southern section of Nigeria, or even Seoul, Korea, a majority of people still desperately need Christ as their Lord and Savior. Missionaries from the United States only need to ask themselves, “Would I label the job in my hometown as finished?” Of course, no missionary would do that. A prospective missionary needs to keep an open mind that each area needs a risen Savior. Operation World, a prayer guide for international missions, provides us with information about the world’s needs.

Europe

It is difficult to imagine that Europe needs missionaries. After all, for hundreds of years Europe was the center of Christianity. In fact, if you are descended from a family of believers today, more than likely a missionary sent from Europe at some point in history influenced your family. The entire continent is filled with giant cathedrals and state-funded churches. On the surface, everything should be fine in Europe. However, those giant cathedrals stand empty, and many of the state-funded churches are steeped in theological liberalism. Europe is unquestionably lost.

In a recent study by the European commission, only 52 percent of Europeans claimed to believe in God (Zaimov, “Missionaries Moved”). Compare these numbers to almost 90 percent of people in the United States who claim to believe in God. Church attendance has plummeted across the continent. Sixty percent of those surveyed in France say they “never” or “practically never” go to church. In the same survey, 55 percent of those in Britain, 48 percent of citizens of the Netherlands, and 46 percent in both Belgium and Sweden never or practically never attend church (Knox, “Religion takes a back seat in Western Europe”).

These statistics are disheartening but still portray an overly positive perspective of Christianity in the continent. Even if many believe in God, this statistic does not translate into lives that have surrendered to kingdom living. Operation World lists the percentages of European evangelicals at 2.4, whereas the Joshua Project lists the percentage of evangelicals at 1.8.

Regardless of which statistic is accepted, the number of individuals who would proclaim Christ as Lord and Savior is dismally low and on par with the horrific figures one can find in Asia and northern Africa. Europe needs individuals ready to till the soil and reach this great sowing field.

Asia

The vastness of Asia merits more than only one section in this article. Southeast Asia, Central Asia, the Middle East, Eastern Russia, the Orient, and the Indian subcontinent all have massive populations and extensive land areas. Each should be discussed and researched. Plus, Asia is far more difficult to label as either a harvest or a sowing area. Just as Europe has areas that show signs of life for evangelicalism, Asia has a vast array of harvests as well. Movements of God have been reported all over Asia in recent years. While many movements are difficult to document because of security issues, anecdotal evidence of great movements abounds. For example, 10,000 Chinese a day are reportedly coming to Christ (“Christianity Finds a Fulcrum in Asia”). Also, in India currently there are between 58 million and 100 million believers. According to Serving in Mission, only 40 known believers were in Mongolia in 1990, yet today there are 60,000 (see “Mongolia”).

However, Asia also has areas that are extremely difficult to reach with the gospel. Huge sections of China and India are still resistant to the gospel. Afghanistan is considered 0.0 evangelical by the Joshua Project. The reports from other nations are equally dismal. Iran and Iraq are 0.2 percent evangelical. Bangladesh is 0.4 percent, and Kyrgykstan is 0.7 percent (see “People Groups”).

With a total population of 4.2 billion people, Asia must be a central focus of prayer for any future missionary. Missionaries are needed as evangelists in much of the Buddhist, Hindu, and Muslim worlds. Maybe missionaries will see great fruit, or possibly they will not, but regardless, an extremely fruitful life commitment would be to sow the seeds of the gospel among these groups.

At the same time, training current Asian believers can help move the gospel forward among other Asian people groups at a far greater rate than having an outsider from the West do the work. Missionaries are desperately needed as trainers. The sheer scale of geographic size, people groups, and population makes Asia a central focus of any missions organization.

Africa

With 15 percent of the world’s population, and 2,500 people groups, Africa has proven to be a dichotomy of results in missions. Nine percent of southern Africa was considered Christian in 1900, whereas 48.7 of sub-Saharan Africa officially is considered “Christian” today (Mandryk 2012, 30–32). Granted, those numbers can be exceedingly misleading without context. No lay person who has done any work in southern Africa would ever state confidently that five out of every ten individuals know Christ as Lord and Savior.

Africa provides young missionaries with an abundance of opportunities in both harvest and sowing fields. For example, 41 percent of the continent claims Islam as their faith. The reality of Islam provides missionaries with some strategic opportunities. Missionaries can target a central strip from western African nations such as Nigeria and Ivory Coast all the way to the border of East Africa in which Muslims and Christians interact on a daily basis. Truly, the harvest is plentiful among Muslims in these borderlands. However, Muslim evangelists have utilized massive amounts of petroleum dollars across much of Africa to gain many converts for Islam in these areas as well.

At the same time, missions in Africa provides opportunities for both medical and relief work on a scale that other regions of the world may not require. For mission organizations that utilize relief work, Africa provides many locations in desperate need.

For those missionaries who desire to teach, missionaries can train Africans to reach their own peoples. Sending new missionaries to guide Africans in basic evangelism, discipleship, and church-planting principles can help maintain the harvest in the area. Missionaries can also prepare Africans for international missions as well. As Africans flood the continents of Europe, Asia, and North America looking for employment, God can use them to lay the foundation for a new harvest in these regions as well. The great continent of Africa still needs missionaries.

Southern Americas (Latin and Central America, Caribbean)

Latin America only comprises 10 percent of the world’s population, but still, extensive work could be done in this region. One of the greatest harvest fields in the world today spans from Mexico to Argentina. Mission organizations can target most countries in this region and see great results. At the same time, some areas of the continent such as southern Brazil, Ecuador, sections of Mexico, and Uruguay have proven more resistant and provide true sowing field opportunities for missionaries.

The Christian population in Latin and South America hovers around 92 percent (82 percent of the Caribbean claims Christianity as their faith (Mandryk 2012, 45–47). As with other areas of the world, that statistic can be misleading. The vast, vast majority of the 92 percent are nominal Christians who are mired in syncretism and Mariolatry. Most Catholics of Latin America would put their faith in a works salvation.

Operation World states the evangelical population as 91 million or close to 17 percent of the population in South America (Mandryk 2012, 48). Christians around the world can give due praise to the Lord for the massive increase in Christianity in the region. However, many “evangelical” groups grossly inflate their numbers or have questionable theology. The number of true believers is far, far lower.

Latin America and the Caribbean provide ample opportunity for mission organizations to train current believers in how to reach their own peoples. With more than nine hundred people groups in the region, missions organizations can work successfully in this area with a renewed strategy. A reemphasis on evangelistic missionaries who will also devote time to training current believers can help reap this harvest. At the same time, a refocus on theological education can help insure that current churches can maintain proper theology. Finally, with proper training, Latin Americans and people who live in the Caribbean can comprise a significant part of the global missions workforce.

North America

North America often is overlooked in missions discussions. With the sheer number of churches across the United States, missions agencies rightly prioritize other areas of the world that need attention. After all, if the churches in America awaken to the spiritual needs of the country, numerically more than enough believers are in America to complete the task in not only the United States but also Canada and other surrounding island nations in the region. North America has around 350 million people, and the vast majority is located in the United States. Whereas a careful observer can find many churches that are seeing incredible growth through salvations, much of the “growth” that American churches are experiencing is biological (children of Christian parents coming to Christ) or transfer (people hopping from one church to the next).

The number of individuals in America who claim no religious affiliation has grown to 19.6 percent or 64 million people. The United States has the fourth largest unreached population in the world. Canada does not fare better as only 7.7 percent of the population is evangelical (Grossman, “As Protestants Decline”). As secularism rises, and each generation feels less of a burden to participate in church, churches and missionaries must contemplate the needs for evangelism, discipleship, and church planting at home.

Australia and the Pacific Islands

This area of the Pacific represents one of the great victories in modern missions. Incredible harvests have been experienced throughout this region in the past. However, the picture is rapidly changing. Today 74 percent of the region is classified as “Christian,” but only 17 percent of the region would claim to be evangelical. Only 19 percent of Australians are “frequent” (once a month) church attenders (Morgan, “Who Goes to Church”). Forty percent of people in New Zealand now would claim they are nonreligious. At the same time, Christianity faces a battle with various cults that have proliferated the region. Twenty percent of American Samoa and Tonga are now Mormon. Samoa (formerly Western Samoa) and French Polynesia are now 10 percent Mormon (Mandryk 2012, 87). Mission organizations need to have a renewed sense of concern for this region of the world. Although the region’s population is only a fraction of Asia or Africa, the need for discipleship and training is still great among the 45 million inhabitants.

Beyond Geography

For many young missionaries, reflecting on massive geographic areas can be overwhelming. Organizations and future missionaries can also examine two other approaches to reaching a lost world.

People Groups. The world is comprised of 16,601 people groups (www.joshuaproject.net). As a reminder, all of the groups need to be evangelized, and some need to be reevangelized. Each generation, of every group, needs to rehear the gospel. A common misunderstanding in missions today is that once a group is “reached,” missionaries can move on to the next group. It took Israel only one generation to fall from God’s ideal between Joshua and the judges. It does not take long for modern people groups to do the same.

Missions organizations must reflect on the great need of those who have never heard the name of Jesus for several generations. Currently there are 7,085 unreached peoples with 6,079 of these peoples located in World A. Missionaries would do well to pray about the urgency of reaching these peoples.

Cities. Finally, no strategy can be complete without an examination of the needs of the world’s cities. The world has become urbanized. In 1900 only 13 percent of the world lived in an urban setting, and by the end of the twentieth century 50 percent of the world lived in cities (Greenway 2009, 559). As of 2015, Mexico City has an estimated 18.8 million inhabitants, Beijing 19.4 million, Lagos 24.4 million, Mumbai 27.4 million, Cairo 14.5 million, Sao Paulo 20.8 million, and New York 17.6 million. The massive numbers of lost individuals in these areas merits attention. Considering Paul targeted major metropolitan areas (Athens, Ephesus, Antioch, Colossae, Rome), one can find significant biblical support for targeting cites. In fact, reaching cities was a primary emphasis in Paul’s strategy.

A quick visit to New York, Paris, Los Angeles, or London reminds missionaries of the immense possibilities of reaching the nations in these large cities. One can reach people groups from across the world and never leave one of these megacities. With biblical and demographic support, missionaries must consider the possibility of having a megacity approach to missions as well.

How Can You Be a Part of the Future of Missions?

Regardless of which continent, city, or individual people group an agency or church targets, the future of missions requires balance. New missionaries would do well to remember to have balance in the following areas.

Balance of Evangelism and Discipleship. First, the missionary must recognize that Christ’s pattern for ministry needs to be emulated. A missionary is not called to reach the entire world. That burden is far too weighty for our finite minds. For example, instead of reflecting on the 4.2 billion people who are lost in Asia, focus on twelve individuals who can be reached and discipled for Christ. If each missionary would focus on discipling a core and multiplying themselves through those twelve, then true long-term results would inevitably occur.

Balance of Vision: Harvest and Sowing. For the strategist of a church or missions organization, remember that a strong missions strategy will have a balance of focus on both harvests and sowing fields. Will some organizations target sowing fields? Yes. Will some organizations primarily target harvest fields? Yes. Should both groups see the legitimacy in each approach? Yes. Individual, local church leaders should send some volunteer teams (or long-term missionaries) to sowing fields and some teams to harvest fields. Individual churches should not try to target a multitude of fields at once. Instead, depending on the church’s size, they should try to focus on a few fields. They should keep returning to the same fields as they guide the new believers to the necessary steps toward maturity. When the church or missionary organization recognizes the indigenous group is completely ready to reproduce new disciples on their own, they can move on to the next field.

Balance of Ministries: Social Work and Evangelism. Evangelism is foundational to all missions work. However, often in recent years many individuals have spent the majority of their time simply on church planting/evangelism and little on social ministries. Performing social ministries in conjunction with evangelism is a powerful tool. Utilize social ministries whether your organization is working with individuals in a harvest or sowing field. Why should we utilize social ministries? Our Lord and Savior established this pattern as he constantly spread the message of the kingdom while ministering to people’s physical needs.

Balance of Priorities. Oftentimes younger missionaries forget the fact that they do not need to spend all of their time reaching all the world for Christ. Far too many missionaries focus on the lost and lose their own kids spiritually in the meantime. (On the other hand, many missionaries use their kids, or their computers, as an excuse to avoid ministry for the majority of their day—there is always a balance.) Seek to be a part of what God is doing. Strive to serve him in a missions capacity to the best of your abilities. Spend time with your kids so they can be trained to reach the next generation after you. Missionaries are truly promoting missions of the future when they are balanced in the home.

Balance of Safety with Boldness. Living among a people does not necessarily mean a missionary has truly impacted them. For many years, a noble effort has been undertaken to place missionaries among all people groups. This is a sacred calling. However, missionaries do well to remember that one can be living among a people and not actually be ministering among them. Paul, even in the difficult fields, was faithful to proclaim God’s message. Lifestyle evangelism is not enough to reach a people. People need to hear the truth, verbally, from this generation of missionaries.

Missionaries, churches, and missions organizations who seek a balanced approach between harvests and sowing fields, between lifestyle evangelism and verbal proclamation, between work and play with their children, and between social ministries and evangelism will make the greatest impact in this generation.

Each generation in each land needs to hear the gospel. As your studies come to an end, where do you sense God is guiding you?