Missions? or Mission?
One of the most powerful driving texts for missions is the charge coming from Jesus just before his ascension in Acts 1:8 "But you will receive power when the Holy spirit has come upon you; and you will be my wintesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."
That four-fold grid is a helpful map for local churches and denominations to plan and evaluate missions. It should be taking place in our "Jerusalems" eg: right here in our back yards, in our "Judeas" eg: our region, easily accessible and known, in our "Samarias" eg: those different and strange places we do not regularly go to, people who do not share our language, customs, history and values, and our "ends of the earth" eg: the far places on the planet, remote, distant, totally other. The church ought to be deploying "witnesses" in all those arenas prayerfully and strategically according to both spiritual giftedness and divine calling.
In an interesting conversation I had recently, I proposed that missions belongs everywhere: from here at home to far away. Missions should be the "driving engine" for all that we do in the church. When we gather to worship our holy God, he calls us (Isaiah 6:8 "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?") So, whether it is a call to work with AIDS children in South Africa or serve food at Transition House, it's all misisons.
"No" my friend responded. Missions is by definition always cross-cultural. Missionaries have always been those called to leave their culture and bring the gospel across cultural lines to other people-groups. So while the Mission of the church has local and regional manifestations, Missionaries are those who go out, head across, and reach into other cultures with the Gospel. Missionaries can be right here in Santa Barbara if their ministry is across cultures.
That thoughtful response got me thinking. I know that cross-cultural understanding is historic in Christian and most powerfully, Protestant circles. But is it biblical? Is missions (or witness in Acts 1) across human cultural lines of language, ethnicity, and geography, or is missions primarily across faith-lines, to those who do not know Jesus, either next door or far away?
I have written to Dr. Ralph Winter about this, asking for his feedback and am waiting his reply. Now I'd like to know yours. What do you think? Where do you sense a missionary call? What Bible texts drive your understanding? What experiences have shaped your thinking?
posted by donnjohnson at 9:53 AM
1 Comments:
I've wanted to comment on this for sometime now but haven't been sure if what I would say might be more harmful than helpful. But seeing The End of the Spear, the new movie about the five missionaries who were killed in Ecuador in 1956 by the Aucca Indians, has solidified my thoughts. I think, Don, that we fundamentally agree about the role mission (and missions) is to play in our lives as followers of Christ. I share your vision of mission as what drives the church and support your persistent preaching of obedience in this matter. However, I feel strongly that it is inaccurate, counterproductive and perhaps even wrong to apply the term 'missionary' to ourselves, to describe our work as ‘missions’.
My reason for this position is the vast chasm that exists between me and Jim Elliot in terms of sacrifice. While I may pour out my life in service, I can in no sense match the true sacrifice of the missionary: obeying Jesus’ command to hate their family and leaving their home, all the comforts of a familiar culture, trading it for a total unknown. Years of heartbreaking toil at best, always with the possibility that it will be fruitless.
I am confident in this assertion because I am the granddaughter of a pioneer missionary. In 1962, in part due to the inspiration of the five who died in Ecuador, Dave and Janette and their three young daughters left their family in Minnesota for a life of ministry in bush Alaska that continues to this day. Continues, that is, for my grandfather; my grandmother forfeited her life in that brutal effort. Continues, I suppose, for the Native people who have come to Christ since, but not for my two aunts, so profoundly injured by the vocational hazards of the MK that they no longer speak to anyone in the family. And does it continue for me? I often wonder if the sacrifice of my grandparents hurt me in such a way that I can never willingly sacrifice.
I realize that my use of this personal argument has a weakness: despite its potency, the emotional appeal can be easily disregarded, minimized, because the source of bias has been exposed. But my pain should not diminish but underscore my argument - mine is a mere sip of the cup; what title do we accord those who have drained it dry? True justice, and true reward, will come only from God, but are we not to strive for justice in this world? Words have power, postmodernism has taught us, but words can also be stripped of their meaning, ruined by improper use.
Of course, if conferring the title ‘missionary’ on the laity had the power to spark a transformative revival in their understanding and work in mission, I would join missionaries around the world in advocating its adoption. But I doubt its power. More likely, those who do not already understand their call to mission would find the term ‘missionary’ a convenient excuse for the status quo, a church-sanctioned rubber stamp to label their whole life ‘missions.’ Montecito Covenant Church members who risk little more than discomfort in their ‘Jerusalem’ do not compare to Nate Saint touching down on the totally foreign, dangerous beach, willing to lay down his life, if need be, to bring the Gospel to even one Aucca. If our ministries within our culture had that level of radical commitment and true ‘mission’, then we might rightfully claim the title. Until then we shouldn’t cheapen the word.
Post a Comment
<< Home