[Jan.9] What is mission? A brief overview [Kraft, chs.1-2]

a) Jewish background? [Old Testament roots, translation of Scripture, Gentile converts to Judaism in the intertestamental period]

b) New Testament mission

c) The spread of Christianity

d) Mission and Christendom; Mission in and to post-Christian society

It is important that at the start of this course we have a fairly clear idea of what we mean by ‘mission’, just as it is important to understand what is meant by ‘culture’. In a recent book, Graham Cheeseman, the principal of Belfast Bible College, draws attention to the tendency in recent times to define mission as missio Dei, that is, as the expression of everything that God wants to say and do towards humankind. This has resulted in practice with mission being defined so broadly as to include almost anything, “from supporting armed guerillas in South Africa to protecting hairy gorillas in Zaire”.[1] There is a need for clarity about what we, as the Church, should be doing in the world. In subsequent lectures we shall discuss the cross-cultural communication of the Christian message and various other aspects of the relationship between culture and faith. But it is important to begin with the Biblical basis of mission before moving on to these other points.

1) ‘Mission’ in the OT

Many might presume that we would jump straight to the NT; but the NT is the culmination of God's self-revelation in history and not the start of God’s interest in humanity and in mission. We thus need to begin with the OT motifs that provide the foundation for NT mission.

a) God as creator

God's election of the people of Israel is important, but equally important is the fact that God is the creator of all things, and he thus has an interest in all creation and not just one people.

b) Abrahamic Covenant: Blessing for all nations as part of God’s aim in choosing an individual and in forming a special people for himself.

c) Prophetic challenges to Israel's nationalism

- The prophets (for the most part at least) condemn sin impartially, pointing out sin in Israel and Judah as well as in other nations. See e.g. Amos 3:2 (and indeed the whole of chapters 1-2 of Amos).

- The prophets likewise proclaim God's interest in all nations. A particularly striking example is Isaiah 19.

- Jonah: some regard this as a historical account, others take it as a literary work, almost like a parable. Whichever view one takes, what is clear is that in this book Israel's nationalism is being challenged. Jonah runs from God because he doesn't want God to forgive the Assyrians. On his way his disobedience results in many non-Israelites coming to worship his God. He then preaches to Nineveh and is upset when they repent and are forgiven. Shows (and challenges) the way that Israel's nationalism often got in the way of her being a light to the Gentiles.

d) Righteous foreigners: Rahab, Ruth, Job, Melchizedek (a Jebusite priest-king?!), Naaman. All these points need to be mentioned before moving on to look at the New Testament, lest we have the impression that God’s interest in people and nations other than Israel is a purely New Testament phenomenon.

e) Contextualization in the OT: Concept of covenant drawn from international (vassal) treaties; Prophets use the messenger form of address (see Isaiah 36); Ecclesiastes starts from the starting point of the skeptic or rationalist. Some wonder why Ecclesiastes is even in the Bible, but for others, it may be the only book in the Bible that makes any sense, at least to start with!; Genesis 1 uses and adapts ideas from the time (waters divided to make sea and sky; cp. Marduk killing Tiamat and dividing her body) to challenge the very presuppositions of that way of thinking and to emphasize the one true God’s sovereignty in and over creation; Use of concepts of clean and unclean, sacrifice, etc. to help people understand election, sin, and so forth.

f) Summary: While there is nothing in the OT that is quite like NT mission, the OT authors are not unaware of the existence of other peoples, nor of God’s interest in them, and they write in a way that contextualizes God’s truth and God’s message in a manner that their contemporaries could understand.

2) New Testament perspectives

a) Direction of movement changed: no longer about nations coming up to Jerusalem to worship but about the message going out from Jerusalem to all nations [DRAW]

b) The kerygma or the Gospel message that the early Christians preached.[2]

- Paul’s letters are addressed to Christians, and thus are not direct witnesses to Paul’s evangelistic preaching. However, there are a few places where he refers or alludes to that.

- 1 Cor. 15:1ff Paul sets forth the Gospel he had preached to the Corinthians (v11 - no matter who preached it, the fundamental message was the same! So, while there were differences of opinion and of emphasis between Paul and Peter at times, the fact that Paul says this here suggests their disagreements were not about what the Gospel is but about its implications).

- 1 Thess. 1:9-10 sums up the effect of Paul's preaching there, which presumably indicates something about its content.

- C.H. Dodd gathers together the fragmentary evidence from Paul's letters and suggests the following outline:

The prophecies are fulfilled & the new age inaugurated by Christ's coming

He was born of the seed of David

He died according to the Scriptures, in order to deliver us out of the present evil age.

He was buried. He rose on the 3^rd day in accordance with the Scripture

He is exalted at the right hand of God, as Son of God and Lord of living and dead. He will come again as the judge and savior of human beings.

- Acts bears testimony to a similar outline (many sermons recorded: cf. e.g. Acts 2-4; 10:34-43; 13:16-41; are these summaries or attempts to represent and depict all that was said on these occasions?). Three points which Dodd notes are present in Paul's preaching but not mentioned in Acts are: 1) Jesus is not described as 'Son of God' but rather as 'Servant', presumably having the portrait in the 2^nd part of Isaiah in view; 2) It is not asserted that Jesus' death was for our sins, although this may be implicit in the reference to him as Servant; 3) It is not mentioned here that the exalted Christ intercedes for us (although again this is clearly not a Pauline invention, since it is found in Hebrews, Matthew, John etc.). It also lays emphasis on the Holy Spirit in the Church as a sign that the new age of fulfillment has begun, and concludes with a call to repentance.

c) How does this relate to Jesus' own preaching (proclaimer becoming the proclaimed)?

- Focus in Jesus' proclamation = Kingdom of God (cf. Mark 1:15)

- “Sell all you have and follow me” would not be rated highly as an evangelistic sermon by modern Evangelicals! Yet Jesus spoke to individuals starting from where they were at. [N.B. Francis Schaeffer is supposed to have said that, if he had only an hour to share the Gospel with someone, he would spend the first 45 minutes finding out what that person already thinks and believes about God, and then spend the last 15 minutes sharing the Gospel in relation to where that person is at. He obviously understood an important aspect of Jesus’ approach!]

- Post-Easter perspective – the impact of the resurrection

- Jesus did not just proclaim the Kingdom: it drew near in him and in his ministry and activity. It is thus not surprising that the early Christians continued to proclaim Jesus as central to God's action in bringing his Kingdom.

d) Unity and Diversity in Early Christian Preaching

James Dunn, exploring this topic, stresses the different emphases of different authors, but nonetheless finds a common core in the following points: 1) Jesus is risen and Lord; 2) faith is called for in him; 3) the results of this faith (whether the emphasis is placed on the gift of the Spirit, the forgiveness of sins, or union with Christ).[3] We shall have a chance to discuss on another occasion what we consider to be essential to Christian belief and life and what we consider peripheral matters. But for the moment, it is important to note the diversity of ways Jesus and his earliest followers proclaim the kingdom and share their faith. There is nothing equivalent to the ‘four spiritual laws’ one sees on tracts. Why? Presumably because it is more effective and meaningful in the long term to deal with individuals and audiences starting from where they are. As we turn now to look at the relationship between apologetic and mission, we shall see an example of what happened in Paul’s missionary activity when he did not start where people were at!

e) Apologetics and Crossing Barriers: Paul in Athens (Acts 17)

- What happens when Paul first starts to talk about ‘Jesus and resurrection’?

- If we look at the speech at the Areopagus in Acts 17, we find a preaching which is rather different from that we have just mentioned. Why do you think this is the case? [Different context - addressing pagan philosophers]

- Take Acts 17 in small groups and make a list of ways in which Luke regards philosophy positively and negatively.

f) Were there missionaries in NT times? The word ‘missionary’ is not found in any English translation of the NT I know of. However, there appears to have been a word that meant essentially what is meant by missionary today. Does anyone know what word I have in mind? APOSTLE. ‘Apostolos’ was not a technical, theological term, but a common Greek word for an agent, someone who was sent to represent someone else in another place. Thus while the focus in the NT is on Jesus’ apostles, there is also reference to apostles of the churches (2 Corinthians 8:23) or of a particular church such as that in Philippi (Philippians 2:25). The term appears to have denoted anyone who was sent representing a church, and not only those who were involved in public preaching, but also those who were sent to Paul to assist him in his mission in various ways. Although the term does come to have a technical sense in relation to ‘the Twelve’, one could make a good case for translating ‘apostolos’ with ‘missionary’. Be that as it may, it is clear that there is a NT basis for what we today call mission. However, there are aspects that are without precedent: there were apparently no para-church organizations, and Paul (interestingly enough) does not tell those in the churches he planted that they should carry out evangelistic meetings or go door to door! It seems that the Gospel was shared exceptionally by people like Paul with a special calling, but normally by word of mouth and lifestyle through one’s circle of contacts and acquaintances. We also should ask whether everyone (or anyone!) is supposed to share their faith through methods like ‘door to door’, and yet many if not most Christians need to have a clearer idea about how to share their faith than they have, and what else they can say or do besides giving someone a tract or inviting them to church. [I had the sad experience of watching a well-meaning Christian with whom I shared a taxi when attending a conference, tell the taxi driver ‘I would have loved to have shared a Gospel tract with you, but unfortunately I don’t have one… (!)]

g) Paul’s method. Although we may trace Christian mission back to Jesus’ command to his followers, we must not underestimate the importance of Paul in both developing the Christian vision for reaching the entire world, and in developing a strategy to accomplish this. Paul focused on urban mission. He planted churches in cities, and left it to these churches to reach those in surrounding areas. He did this in a time in history and in a world in which roughly 80% of people lived in the countryside. Today, 80% of the world’s population lives in cities, and there are cities that have the same population as some countries! Paul was also important in developing a Christian understanding of the relationship between Christianity and culture, Christianity and ethnic identity, in his vision of the unity of Jews and Gentiles in the Church. [Note, however, that Paul’s focus on synagogues was not necessarily part of a coherent ‘mission strategy’. It was simply the place any Jew traveling in the Greco-Roman world had to start. One could not simply go to a hotel for accommodation, nor simply check the classifieds to find a job…]

h) Culture and mission in the NT: Two more examples from Acts

1. Acts 19 is a Biblical example of the way that society, religion, culture and economy are intertwined. David Burnett writes, “The oneness of culture needs to be appreciated especially in relation to Christian witness. We cannot think that we can replace the religion of the people by Christianity without radically affecting the rest of their culture. Their religion is interwoven with the whole culture and any change will have far-reaching repercussions”. Need to recognize that cultures are integrated wholes. While we may reject extreme forms of cultural relativism which say that everyone’s way of doing things is equally valid, we must at least understand the culture as a whole, and the role of an individual custom or belief in that whole, before we try to make changes. [Example…]

2. Acts 14 tells us about an instance of ineffective cross-cultural communication of the Gospel, at least at the outset. This is not surprising: the Bible is often descriptive without being either prescriptive or proscriptive. In other words, the fact that the Bible recounts that a great hero of the faith did something does not mean we should imitate that action. Otherwise your neighbor Bathsheba might be in trouble… At any rate, in Acts 14 Paul and Barnabas visit an area that is so rural that they can’t even use Greek to communicate! They are also unfamiliar with the local religious emphases. There was a story about an elderly couple in this region who were rewarded after they offered hospitality to the gods Zeus and Hermes who had come down disguised in human form, while most people had turned them away. The cult of Zeus and Hermes together in this area is reasonably well documented, and so it seems that this story had widespread influence.[4] Paul and Barnabas, unaware of the local religious beliefs and unable to speak or understand the language, perform a miracle, but rather than this providing a preaching opportunity as in other areas, it almost leads to their being worshipped. This illustrates that the early Christians became aware that it was not enough to speak about the Gospel and hope for the best. One’s presuppositions and background affected one’s reception and interpretation of the message. Thus it is important to contextualize the way one explains the Gospel if one wants to be understood.

It is a bit like the case of the Buddhist who was given a New Testament. He came back very excited after reading the Gospels and said ‘This Jesus of yours is amazing! The Buddha lived in hundreds of reincarnations before attaining Nirvanah; yet Jesus did it in only four!’ How did he reach this conclusion? He read the four lives of Jesus recorded in the NT, and interpreted them in the context of his Buddhist worldview. It was not only his mistake, but that of the person who gave him the New Testament as well, was it not? Similarly, if you were to go to India, many people would respond with great enthusiasm to your presentation of Jesus as God incarnate, and would accept him if they did not already. But within the context of their Hindu beliefs, they would merely be adding one more god alongside the others, and this is not what Christians usually mean by coming to faith in Jesus! So if you were a missionary you could well write a prayer letter home in which you tell how wonderful it is that so many people are coming to faith so readily, and yet you might not realize what is really going on in peoples’ hearts and minds. The New Testament authors appear to have been (or at least to have become) aware of this fact.

Conclusion: The Biblical evidence presents us with a missionary God. God is concerned with all humankind, and always has been. At the heart of the Bible is revelation, God drawing near to and reaching out to humans. The incarnation is the ultimate expression of this aspect of God's character. The incarnation also shows God's sensitivity to human cultures, something we'll be thinking about more next time: God does not necessarily want humans to all be the same, to all have one culture; he draws near to humans in a way that can be understood. We need to learn from God's approach!

---

[1] Graham Cheeseman, Hyperchoice, Leicester: IVP, 1997, p.100.

[2] On what follows cf. C.H.Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments, London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1944.

[3] James D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the NT, London: SCM, 1990 (second ed.), p.30.

[4] F. F. Bruce, The Book of the Acts, pp.274-275.