Trevin Wax has written a clear, simple, and charitable introduction to a debate about the nature and boundaries of the kinds of Christian activities that validly should be called "mission." In brief:
Should we use a broad definition, where "mission" encompasses all the various purposes which God calls Christians and the church in general to perform, e.g. being ethical at work; general acts of care and charity; standing against systematic oppression and working towards justice instead? If so, "evangelism" is only one part of the church's mission - a central, necessary, and irreplaceable part, but only one part nonetheless. The latter kinds of activities don't save anyone for eternity, but they do genuine good in this world which please God. And that kind of good makes a real difference in many parts of the world which have not benefited from the kind of Christian moral transformation which the West benefited from - the kind of moral transformation Tom Holland (the historian, not the guy who played your friendly neighbourhood...) reviews in his justifiably famous book Dominion, and which partially motivated former atheist Ayaan Hirsi Ali to become a Christian. Other places in the world, other cultures, have profoundly different values. Therefore living as a Christian is more distinct and potentially costly. Chris Wright is the best exponent of this kind of "integral" or "holistic" mission.
Or should we limit "mission" to the activities specifically focused on the verbal proclamation of Christ as Lord? That doesn't mean we shouldn't perform the non-salvific activities. It means we don't consider them the church's "mission." Wax holds this position, so read the article to see how he defends it.
For the record: I agree with Wax. I prefer to limit "mission" to the verbal proclamation of Christ as Lord and summons to repent and trust in him. However, I also believe in integrating (see what I did there?) mission with other ministries of ethical work, charity, truth and justice etc, which are all valid purposes of God's people here on earth. I see the relationship between mission and other ministries as being similar to the connection between justification and sanctification. We are justified by faith in Christ, not our Godliness: Romans 5. However, sanctification always follows justification: Romans 6. Eph 2:8-9 says we are saved by God's grace alone apart from works, but verse 10 promptly says we are created new in Christ with the purpose of doing good works. Similarly, while I limit mission to the proclamation of Christ and summons to faith in him, I connect that proclamation and summons with other ministries in Christ's name which demonstrate the fruit, the genuine this-worldly benefits, of that faith.
I hope this is not a polarising issue. As Wax says, this is an intra-evangelical debate. Everyone agrees on the the centrality of Christ, justification by faith in him alone, and the necessity of good works in his name. The difference has to do with the significance of theological nomenclature. Different terms and concepts get freighted with different meanings which set up certain long-run tendencies. I freely admit the danger of the narrower definition is, as Wax says, that it "render[s] evangelism the only real expression of mission while other forms of obedience are treated as optional or substandard" (emphasis in original). I try to guard against that fragmentation by integrating mission with other ministries. Is that adequate protection? Or is integral mission better, even if, as Wax reviews, it risks unintentionally diluting the significance of proclamation? You go ahead and decide, dear reader.
Photo by Ylanite Koppens, Pexels.
Comments