Missions as Ecclesiology

We've moved

2007-08-22T22:05:00.001-05:00

For all you come here, This may, or may not be the last post on this blog, but you can find us here

http://missionsforum.wordpress.com

and

http://meditationsonthelaw.wordpress.com

Notice: Wordpress

Thanks for stopping by! I think you will love the improvements! A little less academic and a lot more personally fulfilling!

Love,

Wes and Dougald

Arab, Najdi Bedouin of Iraq

2007-06-01T10:58:00.000-05:00

Coming in 2nd on the "Most Unreached People Groups" over at the Joshua Project are the Bedouins of Iraq.

Who Are They? The Najdi Bedouin of Iraq are like most Bedouins. They make their dwellings near the deserts found in the Middle East. Usually recognized by their black tents made of goat hair, the Najdi Bedouin are a nomadic people who live on the outskirts of the deserts during the hot summer months and deeper within the desert during the winter. They eat mostly unleavened bread, products made from goat milk and yogurt with dates that they find in the desert oasis. They are a proud people who allow marriage only within their own people to preserve their lineage.

What do they Believe? It should be no surprise that they practice Islam. They are Sunni Muslims and practice the five pillars of Islam.

Status of Evangelization: There are very few known believers amongst the Najdi Bedouin of Iraq (or for any Bedouins for that matter). Mainly, because their beliefs require that a convert from Islam to Christianity is to be killed. Also, due to their nomadic nature, it is hard to interact with Bedouins and thus makes it hard to share the Gospel with them. No agencies or churches have engaged them. Maybe your church could be the first! They also do not have the scriptures in their language in any format.

How Can You Pray/Get Involved? For prayer, you can visit the
Joshua Project. By the way, half the links for prayer on this website are down, so there aren't many avenues to learn how to pray for these people outside of the JP. You can also visit here to learn more.

Getting Your Church Involved In Missions- Part 1

2007-05-26T16:59:00.000-05:00

Just before Christ ascended to the Father he gave a charge to his disciples to teach all that he had commanded them to others, as well as to baptize and disciple those whom they taught. This, of course, has been passed onto the church. Currently, missions looks a lot different from what it did back then. We hop on an airplane and can be all the way around the world in less than twenty-four hours. To the disciples a short-term mission trip would have been several months, not several days. Indeed, the way missions is done has changed drastically.

So, you or your church could, theoretically, open up an encyclopedia of world cultures, find a people, hop on a plan, pass out some tracks and come home to catch the Sunday football games on T.V. But, I believe that we should give more thought and care to the mission efforts of our local brothers and sisters than that. And, I am sure that most of you agree.

What I will be encouraging here is a long-term commitment to people groups by your church. And, it just does not have to be one people group. It can be as many people groups as you have people interested in going to people groups. But, that is beside the point. What I am hoping to talk about in these series of posts is simply how you and your church can get involved in missions anywhere. We’ll discuss some things that have been thought through by several people, and I’ll even ask for you to help me think of other things that we may consider as well as what I post here. But, my main commitment is to give you the tools and resources that I have to help you communicate, educate, and equip the people of your church to go anywhere and do missions/plant churches.

I’ll break it up into two main parts. The first, which we will spend the most time on, will be related to how your church can engage people groups. People groups are the key, not so much the missionaries in a church that engages missions. Now, I’m not saying, “Don’t support missionaries.” In fact, that is why I have a second part. But, the main thing is that sometimes missionaries are sent home for reasons they cannot control; they get sick, they die, they get too old to continue to work the same way they did before. Therefore, the main goal is to commit to working with a people group.

The second part will be dealing with the missionary—especially those that come from your own congregation. What are they going to be looking for when you want to help them? How can you help them before they even go? These are things that will be looked at in this second part.

This is a forum. We welcome discussion and there are many of you who read this blog with plenty of experience that will be helpful concerning this subject. We do ask that you share as freely as possible about the things that you have learned.

Thanks!

Through Christ,

Dougald

To Partner or Not To Partner that is the Question!

2007-05-19T13:29:00.001-05:00

Recently I have come across some interesting discussions. So, I figured since I know several missionaries frequent our blog, I decided that I would throw out that discussion to you guys and ask you what you think about it.

Let me paint a picture for you; one that I know many of you have experienced before—or, at least, some variant of it.

You meet with a fellow missionary working in your area for coffee to discuss partnering in evangelism. He tells you he met a man who would like to do some evangelization in your area and wanted to partner with you. Now, he's not of your denomination. Would you partner with him?

Well let's speak a little more about this man whom you have been asked to partner with by your missionary friend. You actually have read something he wrote before and you know that there he advocated inclusivism at least, maybe even pluralism. Now, would you partner with him in doing evangelism and planting churches?

Let me know why or why not and then I'll respond with a later post. PLEASE! PLEASE! PRETTY PLEASE! RESPOND!

dwmiii

SPECIAL: Zaramo of Tanzania

2007-05-13T22:29:00.000-05:00

We have slightly detoured our top 10 most unreached people groups from the Joshua Project to highlight the Zaramo of Tanzania.

Who are they? The Zaramo of Tanzania are farmers who live mainly in the area surrounding Dar es Salaam in Tanzania. There are about 737,000 Zaramo, all of them surprisingly living in that green blob on the map to the left. There are only about .73% of them professing to be evangelical believers (about 5,380). Their society is an agricultural society; they raise mangoes, cashews, oranges, coconuts and rice, with a few other crops like tobacco and corn. Livestock is also important in the life of the Zaramo and for them, none more important than the chicken. Their society is matrilineal, which means that the family lineage is traced through the mother. Despite the fact that the society is matrilineal, they still practice polygamy.

What do they believe? A few centuries ago the Zaramo were introduced to Islam. Like most African Muslims they practice a mixture of Islam and tribal superstitions. For instance, the Joshua Project says that most Zaramo fear witchcraft and poison and they blame nearly every death on this.

Status of Evangelization/Needs: As mentioned above, only about .73% of all Zaramo are evangelical believers. Several societies have committed to working amongst them, as well as a group of churches. They have the NT in their language, but they do not yet have the Jesus Film or any radio broadcasts in their language.

How can you pray? As always you can learn about the Zaramo at the Joshua Project. But I've summarized that information for you here.

Other places you can visit:

Global Prayer Project

Global 12 Project

Also, visit Faith Comes by Hearing to learn how you could sponsor MP3 bibles in their language, or any other unreached people groups language.

Waking up Dead

2007-05-07T21:46:00.000-05:00

It's _____ o'clock in the morning and your alarm goes off. It's time to get up and spend some time with God in prayer and reading the Bible. But, you've had a rough night. Your kids woke up in the middle of the night or you ate that certain something you shouldn't have after 8 pm and it kept you up all night (wow I'm actually old enough to know about that). And what do you do? You set your alarm for one hour later so you can get up and go to work. Clearly the thing you need now is sleep.

You wake up, get dressed and head off to work. Then you see your co-worker who is going through a tough time. But, you don't have time for that. You've got work to do and you want to surf the Internet for a new ____ to buy. Clearly that new _____ is what you need right now. You don't have time to hear their problems and offer them the hope that is in the gospel. Not thinking of all those times you've needed someone to talk to about your own problems.

Before you know it, the work day is done and you purchased your item. You head to your car in the rain and as you drive home you see a stranded motorist. You don't think to stop. Your family is waiting for you or maybe you're really hungry and besides you don't want to get wet. You pass buy thinking, "Surely someone else will stop."

I think you get the picture by now. The day is being lived for whom? That is a question that is coming to my mind when I lie down at night and the day is spent. My day was lived for whom? And most days, I have to admit I want to have that question in my mind at the very beginning of the day because I've lived it selfishly for myself.

Whom will I live for today?

We are called by Christ to die to ourselves daily. Many times I wake up in the morning and I see my alarm as a nuisance. Rather, I should see it as a bugle call to war—A war against my flesh, the devil and this world. And yet, most mornings I treat it lightly.

The call goes out to me, and I snuff it with the snooze. I ignore the scriptures about bearing one another's burdens or helping those in distress or loving my neighbor as myself etc., etc., and I live my life for myself.

So, what is the exhortation here? For us to wake up already dead. Dead to self that is. Then God can use us as we were intended to be used since the time Christ purchased us—as servants of God. Then, we'll see the hand of God in the world, we'll see God change people's lives. We'll see God change our lives and we'll know God more. If we wake up dead, we'll see true life.

So, it's _____ o'clock in the morning and our alarm goes off...Do we wake up dead?

Update on Martyrs in Turkey

2007-05-01T07:13:00.000-05:00

Over on another blog I read they have a letter concerning the Christians who were killed in Turkey . I will warn, it is not for the faint of heart. You will find their killing graphically detailed. The link is here. Please be in prayer for the families of these men. Pray for their killers to come to faith. And, pray for our persecuted brethren around the world. You can learn more about them here.

Through Christ,
Dougald

The Aimaq, Taimani of Afghanistan

2007-04-28T10:22:00.000-05:00

Over at the Joshua Project you can find a top ten list of the most unreached people groups in the world. Weighing at #1 are the Aimaq, Taimani of Afghanistan.

Who Are They? The Taimani are a large population of Char Aimaq people (a make up of four smaller clans within the Aimaq). Thus, the Char Aimaq are actually a sub-group of the Aimaq people.

Located in the mountains of Afganistan the Taimani are a semi-nomadic people. Like many peoples in Central Asia, they were nomadic before certain interactions with the U.S.S.R. brought about a change. They now leave only seasonally to graze their cattle in different, more fertile lands. They have practically disappeared off the map, sociologically speaking, since the time of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Therefore, there is not a lot of new information about the Aimaq and their language (Aimaq).

What do they believe? The Taimani are Hanafi Sunni Muslims. You can learn more about that here . This is the largest sect of Sunni Islam (49%). They know the Bible stories mentioned in the Koran but view Christianity, as most Islamic people, as heresy.

Status of Engagement: Right now there are zero believers known amongst the Taimani Aimaq. No surprise since they are #1 on the list given to us by Joshua project. Currently there is at least one agency committed to reaching the Aimaq.

They are hard to reach because of their isolation from the rest of the world. As they have said over at the Joshua Project, "The remote location and wide dispersion of the Taimani have made them hard to reach with the Gospel. At the present time, there is no Christian witness available to the Taimani. Prayer is the first step toward seeing them reached with the Light of the Gospel."

Learn More/Prayer: Since prayer requests change I won't list them here. But, here are some websites you can visit to learn more and get prayer requests for the Taimani Aimaq. You can also subscribe to a prayer letter for them on the first link.

Prayer Requests from the IMB
World Cultures (You can scroll to the bottom of the page and click on the bibliography to read about them.)

Would your church Get involved with the Taimani Aimaq?

Bible Translators Killed

2007-04-19T07:18:00.000-05:00

I hate to post this right on top of WLH's new post but you may want to be updated on this situation. So, before I get to that, please read the posts below. We've actually been posting here regularly, but with a greater frequency this week.

The BBC has an article on its web-site describing the deaths of three Bible translators who were killed intentionally. So, please be in prayer for their Christian community as they have specifically been targeted.

Is there a Theology of Cooperation?

2007-04-18T20:45:00.000-05:00

Dr Chad Brand and Dr David Hankins published a book about the Cooperative Program of the Southern Baptist Convention called One Sacred Effort.

I admit, going into the book, I was a bit skeptical. I do believe that churches are interconnected. I do not take the autonomy of the local church to be total separation from other churches. All churches are united in one head--Jesus Christ.

But on this very blog, I have accused Southern Baptists like myself of pseudo-cooperation. What I mean by pseudo-cooperation is sole financial cooperation. As such, the SBC would be some charity that I, or my church, gives to but has no stake in actively participating in the work of the charity. Following my missions training, I whole-heartedly affirm that missions cannot be done by proxy. I go a step further and say that the church is the primary agent of missions. And I do not think this contradicts the Cooperative Program. After reading One Sacred Effort and the 1985 version, Cooperation: The Baptist Way to a Lost World, I am less skeptical of the cooperative efforts of Southern Baptists. I would change a few things if I could, but overall its a sound method.

Before I begin to unfold how both the church and the International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention can be agencies of mission without contradicting one another, let ask you a question? (My answer prior to this past February would have been I don't know much).

What do you know about the Cooperative Program?

Follow Up Question:

Do you think that centralized programs, like the Cooperative Program, are efficient or inefficient at collecting and using funds?

Another and important question:

Do you think that cooperation should be based on a common mission, or a common theology, or both, or do you see another basis for cooperation?

I look forward to your input!

Contextualization- Your Thoughts

2007-04-17T10:04:00.000-05:00

Before I start to ramble about what I believe to be some of the most important parts of sharing the gospel/theology cross-culturally I decided to let you guys muse about it for this week.

So, what would you all consider important guidelines when attempting to share the gospel cross-culturally? Or, what else would you add to my question because of your concerns while working in other cultures?

Please feel free to post a comment and we'll get the ball rolling on what I believe to be a very important discussion.

Through Christ,
Dougald

The Word Among Us- Part Uno

2007-04-10T18:16:00.000-05:00

There are two things which I think about the most. 1) Interpretation and 2) Contextualization. The first term does not need a definition, for I think most of you know what it means to interpret something. However, contextualization may need a definition. The problem, if I give you a definition it is probably going to be used differently by some other author. Thus, your context will cause you to misinterpret their meaning. :)

The problem with contextualization has just as much to do with its history as its present. The term was first used by the World Council of Churches (see Gilliland's introduction to The Word Among Us, 2). Also, liberation theology, and black theology, are considered to be contextual theologies (ibid). This has caused evangelicals/conservatives to usually shy away from the discussion.

For the next long while we'll be discussing contextualization here. We'll be going chapter by chapter through The Word Among Us, edited by Deas S. Gilliland. This work was written by Fuller Theological Seminary staff and is useful, I think, in opening the discussion on contextualization.

In the forward of the book, David Allan Hubbard begins with the image of the fiddler on the roof, "fall to the right and you end in obscurantism...slip to the left and you tumble into syncretism." This is the whole issue of contextualization in a nutshell, how do we communicate God's word to other cultures? Will we do it in a way, like the right, where it means nothing to the people, or to the left, where it has nothing of the true gospel left in it. This is the fine line the missiologists have to walk when communicating the gospel, translating the Bible and discipling.

Therefore, at a blog like this, the topic of contextualization will have to come up. It will have to be discussed and that is what we are going here. In the next post I'll post some of my major concerns/biases in this whole discussion so you'll know them up front. But for now let me say on thing about the book, The Word Among Us. I am going to try to bring out its good points, but I am already not apt to do so. I read this back a few years ago and when I started to do my homework I found some errors on the part of those writing in their analysis of Greek used in the New Testament. I am more likely to criticize this work than present its arguments in a fair manner. If you catch me doing so—that is not presenting a balanced approach of criticism—call me on it!

I hope that this discussion is fruitful and glorifying to God. I hope that we all can learn from one another and that we can exchange ideas in a good way. Missionaries—speak up on this topic, we'll greatly appreciate your input.

Through Christ,
Dougald

People Groups, Churches and Blogging

2007-04-03T14:46:00.000-05:00

First, let me apologize for the fact that this blog has not been maintained too well. All three of us have hit a busy spell. But, I do hope to continue blogging here, even if my comprades do not. Though, they have not expressed any desire to quit blogging.

I cannot post with a great deal of frequency here myself, even on the light weeks. So, I have decided that once and possibly twice a week will be enough here.

So, what will I be posting about? Well there are three things I would like to do. First, I would like to start going through a book on Contextualization edited by Gilliand called, The Word Among Us. Second, I hope to profile a few people groups, maybe once or twice a month. Third, I will be discussing how your church can be involved with missions overseas, or to put it another way: how your church can mobilize for missions.

I hope that these topics will be a fruitful time of discussion about missions and ecclesiology.

Through Christ,
Dougald

Great Question

2007-03-06T08:40:00.000-05:00

Over at Alan's blog he has posted a great question that deals somewhat with what we are discussing in the previous comment thread. I think it would be worth reading and pondering. As always, Alan has asked great questions. And also, those who comment always seem to offer that good discussion in Christian love just as we have here. So, I was just passing this along.

Also, check out our links. We'll be adding to those as we go along. And, if you have any good links for missions post them and we'll add them.

Through Christ,

Dougald

How Should We Then Give?

2007-02-24T16:39:00.000-05:00

I've been perplexed over the past couple of weeks and I figured I would kick my question to the blogosphere to receive some dialogue with people who are far more intelligent/experienced in the area of missions than I am.

Recently, while discussing a few things with a friend of mine we began on the topic of power in missions. Namely, that sometimes, unwittingly, western missionaries will show their "power" over the people that they are working with. They can do this with technology, money and education, to name a few.

Steve Saint in his book, The Great Omission, which I mentioned in an earlier post, tells the story of how he went to Mali to work during a time of severe famine in the area. What was one of his goals? To set up radio communications in the area because there was none. The need was there for radio communication. Steve tells the story of a messenger who road his camel to the nearest road, waited a couple of days for a car to pass by and got a ride to the nearest metropolitan area. There, he informed some aid workers that there was an outbreak of cholera. Before he could return with medicines, over half the people had died. Radio communication would have helped greatly.

Someone had to pay for the radios that were given in Mali. Radios are technology that the people of Mali did not have at the time. So, was this a show of power?

Right now, at least the perception that I have, is that in several missions strategies we are moving away from introducing technologies. We are not providing much for the new churches that are being planted because they need to do it themselves. Part of me agrees. But part of me keeps asking.... "Is pulling out the best way?"

There are churches sitting on thousands of dollars in missionary funds that they use to send their people abroad. But, couldn't they just as well use it to help needs in other countries. I guess the great question is, "How should we then give?" We do not want to create dependency! That is something that I agree with. But, in doing so are we missing one of the great commands of scripture...to help those who are in need (a paraphrase I know)?

Maybe I don't know enough about these things. Am I right in seeing that we are focusing more on the preaching of the gospel than providing for physical needs? Yes, the former is far more important than the latter, but when we live in the lap of luxury and don't give to our brothers in another country who are hungry I feel we are not properly obeying scripture. I feel we may be on the verge of a major misstep, missoilogically speaking. But, I may not understand the subject fully so please give me grace.

What are your thoughts?

Through Christ,
Dougald

Understanding David Bosch--Part 1

2007-02-23T23:41:00.000-05:00

Bosch, David J. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1991.

As a reader living since the advent of the Emerging Church phenomenon, it is difficult to find Bosch’s work presenting anything new. However, pick up any book on the emerging church from Eddie Gibbs to Brian McLaren and one will find that David Bosch’s “emerging” postmodern paradigm is innumerably referenced to support their radically fresh ecclesiology. Though current theologies are rife with his ideas, in 1991, Bosch’s magnum opus emerged as a voice calling out in the wilderness preparing the church for a new paradigm of missions. According to his survey of the history of mission, he argues that “in light of a fundamentally new situation and precisely so as to remain faithful to the true nature of mission—mission must be understood and undertaken in an imaginatively new manner today” (367). However, rather than being a book of the history of missions, which it certainly includes, Transforming Mission is a book of theology. He making a persuasive argument for his Emerging Postmodern Paradigm. It is unfortunate that Bosch did not live to see how his influential ideas have been brought to life.

In Transforming Mission, Bosch takes on the gargantuan task of not only surveying in-depth the five previous paradigms in mission, but also of the task of presenting a new paradigm and trying to persuade readers to participate in it. He argues that the emerging mission paradigm is “the participation of Christians in the liberating mission of Jesus, wagering on a future that verifiable experience seems to belie. It is the good news of God’s love, incarnated in the witness of a community, for the sake of the world” (519). Much as the Great Commission formed the apex of the gospel of Matthew, Bosch’s detailed historical research and critical analysis leads up to these last sentences in his work.

He divides the book into three parts: New Testament Models of Mission; Historical Paradigms of Mission; and Toward a Relevant Missiology. Bosch’s incorporation of Kuhnian paradigms forms the backbone of his discussion. Though each part is relatively equal in size, Bosch devotes more space to the Biblical Paradigm and the Emerging Paradigm. However, one must read his proposal in light of his critiques of the Enlightenment Paradigm. His sixth paradigm is emerging from the Enlightenment paradigm and will stand in sharp contrast to it. Thus, by taking the two paradigms in tandem, the majority of the discussion, comprised of chapters 9–13, takes half the book. Nonetheless, primary to Bosch’s paradigm is his understanding of Jesus, the gospels and Acts, and Paul.

What is Missions?

2007-02-17T09:41:00.000-05:00

One of the members at my church, who has been a missionary overseas said that I needed to pick up the book The Great Omission by Steve Saint. I've only read a few chapters, which usually are short, and so far I have enjoyed the book. I recommend it to anyone else thinking about missions/ecclesiology. The remarkable thing that I found was its not primarily about missions. Now, those who have read it would be say, "Did he read the same book?" But, before my reading comprehension is questioned, let me explain what I mean.

The main question I believe that Steve Saint is trying to answer in this book is, "what is ecclesiology?" Now, he actually says it this way, "What is missions?" But, when we look at his answer it really comes down to ecclesiology. Missions is to him fulfilling the great commission by "making disciples and teaching them everything that Christ has commanded them." (My summation of his answer) This sounds very similar to the mission of the church. In fact, I believe that it IS the mission of the church. Therefore, it is an ecclesiological question. But, I believe that missiology is a subsection of ecclesiology, but I digress.

The question that I have is this: Is this the way that we conduct ourselves in our churches, mission trips or everyday life? When we go on short-term mission trips, how can we encourage this type of obedience? Do we encourage this in our churches? How can we?

Through Christ,
Dougald

Text or Context? Where is Theological Continuity Found?--Introduction

2007-02-08T22:22:00.000-05:00

The Bible is by nature a multicultural work of divine and human creativity. Each book of the Bible was written, compiled or edited during different times by different authors/editors from different cultural backgrounds and situations. Some would argue that this drastically affects the meaning of the text so that one cannot understand it clearly without understanding the cultural situations behind the writing (or behind the author). More radically, some hold that one cannot understand it fully because it is trapped by those same cultural situations and cannot be meaningfully extracted. Others argue that the reinterpretation of the text by each successive generation serves as a model for interpretation of the text for all contexts (the premise being that each generation changes the meaning to fit its own cultural context and needs). Still others find the meaning greatly transferable from one age to another but choose not to obey certain commands or truths revealed from the text because those propositions relate to another (different) cultural context. Moreover, some find that to label anything from the text as out-of-date or inapplicable for the current context compromises its truthfulness and relevance as God’s Word. So one must ask: which view is correct; or, what role does culture play in Biblical interpretation?

The answer that I will seek to establish is that the Bible, though being immersed in culture, is meta-cultural (i.e., its meaning transcends all human cultures); however, sensitivity to cultural forms is necessary in translation and communication of the text. This endeavor is closely related to the theology of revelation and inspiration. The very nature of the text (and some would say Christianity) is at stake. The role of Biblical Theology (and, hence, the original languages) is instrumental for establishing this thesis. Flowing from Biblical Theology, the nature and importance of sound translation and interpretation forms the background for my argument.

The Missionary Nature of the Church--Analysis of Continuity and Discontinuity

2007-02-08T22:09:00.000-05:00

Which view is right? Is there continuity between mission in the Old Testament and mission in the New Testament? Is there anything wrong with positing discontinuity between the Testaments? Honestly, one must assert that there is a degree of continuity and discontinuity between the Testaments. The question remains: how to resolve the differences?

Blauw sought the resolve the differences from understandings of the mission of the Jews in the Intertestamental period. For Peters, his dispensational system resolves the conflict. Israel had been put on hold until a future date. Senior and Stuhlmueller, on the other hand, did not find a resolution. They took a merely descriptive approach which results in subjective theology. Their methodology should be rejected. Kaiser does not find conflict between the testaments—God’s plan has always been missionary. Köstenberger and O’Brien, however, see the prospect of discontinuity, but uncover a consistent message throughout scripture that points to the Messiah Servant King. Finally, Wright assumes that the Bible is one continuous narrative from creation of the nations to consummation of the nations when the nations will be ingathered into the Israel.

Overall, theological discontinuity should be handled carefully. The danger is that Christianity could be considered just a heretical Jewish sect. Peters concern for the universal nature of the gospel is commendable, but, in light of the detailed analyses of Köstenberger and O’Brien, ignoring the eschatological nature the future ingathering of the nations and the restoration of Israel does not do justice to the message of the Old Testament. One might ask: What is meant by eschatological? Köstenberger and O’Brien do not make it clear if the Old Testament is speaking of a time to come or the eschaton. They seem to imply both. They see a fulfillment in the one coming and in the new heavens and the new earth. Wright also notes that the Old Testament predicts a future ingathering of the nations. If they are correct, then the reader of the Old Testament is given a taste of God’s eternal plan, but is pointed forward to the New Testament. Here theological continuity is found. It is not discontinuity, because this eschatological emphasis is the author-intended meaning.

Ultimately, theological continuity has to be found in the inspired words of Scripture. Since the message of the Old and New Testaments points to the mission of the Messiah, then any theologies that point to mission elsewhere are suspect. Given Kaiser’s good intentions, he still falls short. He argues for continuity between the Abrahamic Covenant and the Great Commission, for he believes Israel was equally responsible as the church to go to the nations, but mission is not possible unless it is inline with the mission of the Messiah. The message of the Abrahamic covenant was to point to the “seed” (singular) in whom all the nations would be blessed (Gen 12:3).[1] Though Kaiser, Köstenberger and O’Brien, and Wright all note the relationship between the covenants, Kaiser set himself on proving his thesis that the Great Commission was given in 2000 BC. Had he not been trying to prove this point, perhaps he would have found continuity in the singular Servant, not the corporate identity.[2] In order to move toward a solution, a fresh look at the Davidic Covenant is needed. It will be my thesis that the mission of God in the Old Testament and in the New Testament finds continuity in the coming Davidic Servant King. Primary to my thesis will be the theology of the Old Testament prophets that confirm that God's plan for Israel and the nations is consummated in the Messiah King.

[1]T. D. Alexander, “Further Observations on the Term ‘Seed’ in Genesis,” Tyndale Bulletin 48 (1997): 363–7.

[2]Kaiser may have been influenced by the concept of “corporate solidarity” in which the individual can represent the group or visa versa. See Richard D. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), 93. I am indebted to Dougald W. McLaurin III for this reference cf. McLaurin, Is Paul Doing Fuzzy Hermeneutical Math? A Dialogue Between New Testament Scholars and an Old Testament Enthusiast Concerning Galatians 3:16 and Paul’s Interpretation of the Abrahamic Covenant (Wake Forest: by the author, 2006).

Blogging and Time

2007-02-06T08:22:00.000-05:00

As I have posted on my other blogs, the time I have for blogging is little. So, to give blogging the full time that I needs I have decided that I will not start posting regularly until April 1st. I may post here two or three times during this period because I'll be teaching on a biblical theology of missions at my church, but other than that I probably won't post.

So, I hope that my compadres will pick up the pace (at least one of them perhaps). I will stop by and comment from time to time.

Through Christ,
Dougald

The Missionary Nature of the Church--Continuity Between the Testaments

2007-02-02T23:55:00.000-05:00

Having discussed the progress of missionary theology, particularly those finding discontinuity between the mission of Israel and the mission of the church, this question remains: Can the mission of Israel be squared with the mission of the Church? Three authors, in particular, within the last decade have presented comprehensive biblical theologies of mission. In other words, they all seek to find continuity between what God was doing with Israel in the Old Testament and what God is doing now with the Church. These three authors are: Kaiser, Köstenberger and O’Brien, and Wright.[1]

Of the three works to be considered, Walt Kaiser is the more well-known Old Testament theologian. Kaiser’s thesis is that the Great Commission was first mandated in the Abrahamic Covenant.[2] God’s promise to bless all the nations through the seed of Abraham is God’s universal mission to all the nations.[3] Thus, Israel had the responsibility to carry out that mission in the same way Jesus would later put that responsibility on the church—“The whole purpose of God was to bless one people so that they might be the channel through which all the nations on the earth might receive a blessing. Israel was to be God’s missionaries to the world.”[4]

In order to prove his thesis, Kaiser illuminates passages that describe Israel’s election, calling and ministry in light of their relationship to the nations (Exod 19:4–6; 2 Sam 7; Pss 67; 96; 117; Servant Songs; Jonah). Each scripture, he says, points to the centrifugal nature of Israel’s missionary calling. From Exodus, Kaiser argues that “the people of God” were to be agents of God’s blessing to the nations.[5] In 2 Samuel 7, Kaiser notes that the promised Seed through David is a reiteration of the Abrahamic covenant; thus, the blessing of the nations is in view. From the Psalms, Kaiser argues that the “praise of God preceded preaching, but both were part and parcel of Israel’s witness to the nations. The point is that there was a call for an active witness (i.e., it was to be centrifugal in its effect, reaching out from the center to others) by Israel to the Gentiles.”[6]

The crux of Kaiser’s argument is his treatment of the Servant Songs in Isaiah. The key to his interpretation is his identification of the Servant. He argues that the “single idea of this corporate figure represents a collective term that points to an individual as wall as to the whole group that the individual represents.”[7] In other words, the “servant” both points to the Messiah and the people of Israel at the same time. However, he has to admit that the references to the servant who “gathers” and “brings back” the nation of Israel cannot refer to Israel.[8] This fact is a weakness in his argument. It is fallacious to assume that a word carries the same meaning in every context it is given. Several references to “servant” in the book of Isaiah refer to slaves or laborers, but Kaiser may be looking only at Isaiah 40–55 where there are no references to slaves or laborers using the word. Nonetheless, Isaiah 49:6 states the servant is to be “a light unto the nations.” Kaiser argues that New Testament was reading this passage when giving the commission to the “ends of the earth.”[9] His conclusion is that Yahweh would lead the “remnant” in the power of the Spirit to witness to the nations unto “the ends of the earth.”[10]

The continuity with the New Testament is obvious. Kaiser is arguing that the expressions of the Great Commission in the New Testament were exactly what God has always expected. At this point, the mission of Israel is identical with the mission of the Church.

Whereas Kaiser was solely concerned with an Old Testament theology of mission, Köstenberger and O’Brien represent two New Testament scholars with a deep concern for a biblical theology that spans both Testaments. Given their particular specializations, their treatment of the Old Testament is fair, they do not try to read the New Testament back into the Old, and scholarly, though much shorter than their treatment of the New Testament. Nonetheless, their contribution to the discussion is helpful.

Köstenberger and O’Brien begin with the biblical discussion of creation. They note that the implication of Genesis 1 is “God’s lordship…over the whole creation including all humankind.”[11] The next event that affects all humanity is the fall. They argue that the remainder of Genesis 1–11 relates the pervasive influence of sin upon all mankind, though they note the promise of the seed in 3:15 and God’s continued covenant with creation after the flood in 9:9–13. From this point forward, they argue, there is an eschatological expectation of an ingathering of the gentiles, but Israel’s mission was to be one of holy dedication to God.[12] Thus, in their discussion of the Davidic covenant, they see the King as representative of the people. It will be through him that the nations are ruled. The eschatological gathering of the gentiles will be to this Davidic king on Zion[13] and will be concurrent with the eschatological restoration of Israel.[14] In regards to the Servant of the LORD in Isaiah, Köstenberger and O’Brien make it clear that the ministry of the Servant will have profound implications for both Israel and the nations. However, they claim there is a “paradox concerning the identity of the Servant” and that “Israel’s role of world mission…was forfeited through disobedience.”[15] However, these statements are inconsistent with their argument. They are arguing that God’s mission for Israel and the nations is tied to the Servant. If they mean by paradox that the exact identity is unclear until an eschatological revelation, then they assuage some inconsistency. If they mean by Israel forfeiting its role in world mission that the nation was not holy, but found itself deserving of judgment, but that God’s plan for the restoration of Israel is subsumed in the mission of the Servant, then they would have been clearer. Other than this concluding paragraph on the Servant Songs, Köstenberger and O’Brien’s argument has been consistent—the mission of Israel is to point to the God whom at a later time will send His Messiah Servant King to bless Israel and the nations.[16] How then do they find continuity with the New Testament?

Those finding discontinuity between the mission of Israel and the mission of the Church argue that God had a particularistic modus operandi concerning Israel in the Old Testament, but a universalistic method concerning the nations in the New Testament. Though Köstenberger and O’Brien are arguing that the mission of Israel was not centrifugal, they argue that God’s intention for the nations and Israel’s understanding, via Scripture, of God’s intention remained consistently universalistic. Israel’s concern for the nations was eschatological, when the Messiah Servant King would come. Thus, both the Old and New Testament mission is to point to that Messiah Servant King and His ministry. This is unlike Peters who argues that Israel failed in its mission, and thus God went to plan B—the mission of the Church.[17] Therefore, Köstenberger and O’Brien present a biblical-theological continuity between the mission of the Old Testament and the mission of the New Testament.

Another author seeking biblical-theological continuity between the Testaments is Christopher J. H. Wright in The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative. While Köstenberger and O’Brien took a diachronic approach, Wright is undoubtedly synchronic in his presentation. This is not to say that Wright employs the categories of Systematic Theology, but he discussed different motifs in the mission of the Bible. This systematic treatment is what makes him unique among the major works on the biblical theology of mission. However, he considers the same biblical data as Kaiser or Köstenberger and O’Brien, though in much more depth. Nonetheless, his chapter entitled “God and the Nations in Old Testament Vision”[18] provides the meat for the following discussion.

Wright interprets the Biblical Narrative between “the primal and ultimate states of the nations” (Gen 1–11 and Rev 22).[19] He argues that not only did God create the nations, but they served as witnesses of God’s dealing with Israel. Furthermore, the nations could be sovereignly judged or blessed, but the message of the Old Testament is that the nations would enjoy the blessings of Israel by being eschatologically joined with God’s people. Wright does not see a division between Israel and the nations, but “one people belonging to God.”[20] Therefore, both Israel and the nations will be united as one people in the worship of YHWH. So for Wright, “the distinction [between Israel and the nations] would ultimately be dissolved as the nations flowed into unity and identity with Israel. Only the New Testament gospel would show how that could happen. And only New Testament missions would show how it did and will continue to happen.”[21] Wright finds continuity in the mission of God between the Testaments, but he, like Köstenberger and O’Brien, saw the Old Testament pointing to a future gathering and restoration.

[1]A fourth author could be considered. David Filbeck exclaims, “To me, of course, the overall meaning of the biblical text—that “ordered progression”—is missions, the flaming center” in the universal Gospel of hope (Carl E. Braaten 1977), the missing dimension in theological interpretation. Indeed, it is this missionary dimension, so often neglected in modern theological interpretation, that unifies both Old and New Testaments and coordinates their various themes into a single motif.” David Filbeck, Yes, God of the Gentiles, Too: The Missionary Message of the Old Testament (Wheaton, IL: The Billy Graham Center, 1994), 10. His work is excellent; however, Kaiser notes a hint of discontinuity in his findings between the universal mission of God in Genesis 1–11 and the particular mission of Israel in the rest of the Old Testament. Cf. Filbeck, God of the Gentiles, 75; Kaiser, Mission in the Old Testament, 28.

[2]Kaiser, Mission in the Old Testament, 13.

[3] Note that “promise” is one of the central motifs of Kaiser’s Old Testament Theology.

[4]Ibid., 20.

[5]Ibid., 24.

[6]Ibid., 35. Original emphasis.

[7]Ibid., 56.

[8]Ibid., 57.

[9]Ibid., 60–2.

[10]Ibid., 63.

[11]Köstenberger and O’Brien, Salvation to the Ends of the Earth, 27.

[12]Ibid., 36–7.

[13]Ibid., 40–2.

[14]Ibid., 42–4.

[15]Ibid., 49–50.

[16]Ibid., 52.

[17]Interestingly, Köstenberger and O’Brien accuse Kaiser of this same discontinuity. Ibid., 35, n. 18. This critique may hold some merit, but Kaiser is arguing that the mission of the New Testament is the same as the mission of the Old. The fact that Israel does not keep its end of the bargain does not necessarily imply that Kaiser viewed the New Testament as plan B. I think he is pointing, like Köstenberger and O’Brien, to the one through whom the nations will be blessed—the coming Messiah Servant King. Nonetheless, Köstenberger and O’Brien may be lumping Kaiser into a dispensational mold he would not be comfortable with. Cf. Kaiser, “An Epangelical Response” in Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition, ed., Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 360–76; Kaiser, “The Davidic Promise and the Inclusion of the Gentiles (Amos 9:9–15 and Acts 15:13–18): A Test Passage for Theological Systems.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 20 no. 2 (Jun 1977): 97–111.

[18]Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 2006), 454ff.

[19]Ibid., 455.

[20]Ibid., 498.

[21]Ibid., 500.

The Missionary Nature of the Church--Discontinuity between the Testaments

2007-02-02T23:45:00.000-05:00

The modern missionary movement began with William Carey’s An Enquiry in to the Obligation of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathen (1792). He argued that the Great Commission had not been fulfilled by the apostles and urged Christians to be active in converting unchristian peoples. Thus Carey inaugurated a movement of not just missionaries, but of theologians looking to the scripture to validate their practices. As time progressed, theologies of missions matured. Initial attempts at theologies of mission were apologetics for the practice of missions. Later theologies began to look at the Bible as a whole to define mission more holistically—as God revealed His mission from Old to New Testaments. Though defenses of Christian missions did not ignore the Old Testament, it would not be until the 20th century that systematic expressions of biblical Christian missions would be published. As they began to be published, theologies of mission found great discontinuity between the plan of the Old Testament and the plan of the New Testament, especially given the advent of Dispensationalism and higher criticism.

In 1962, Johannes Blauw, in response to an assignment by the International Missionary Council, published The Missionary Nature of the Church. By his own admission, his work presented the missionary theology of the decades leading up to his day.[1] In penning three short chapters on the message of universalism in the Old Testament, Blauw admits that missionary scholarship had shamelessly prooftexted the Old Testament to support the missionary enterprise. He points out that theologians had pointed to a few Gentiles who follow YHWH, to the Servant Songs of Isaiah, and to Jonah as passages supporting the mission of the Old Testament. Blauw desires an Old Testament theology that is more comprehensive in nature, however, rather than developing such a theology, and rather than calling his work prooftexting, he points to the same passages and calls them the “highlights” of an Old Testament theology of mission.[2] Nonetheless, Blauw finds an inherent eschatology in the message of the Old Testament. This eschatology points to a Messianic figure to whom all the nations will be given.[3]

Given Blauw’s concern for a united universal message of the Old Testament, he posits a large amount of discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments. Granted, his concern is not to write a theology of mission, but to expose the thinking of his day, he does not find a centrifugal mission commanded or expected within the Old Testament. And though he questions the resulting lack of unity created by the theology he reveals,[4] he argues that the centripetal nature of the Old Testament is trumped by the centrifugal nature of mission in Judaism during the “inter-testamental period.”[5] In other words, the practice of Judaism after the Old Testament canon is closed is discontinuous with the theology of the Old Testament, though continuous with the practice of the New Testament.

George W. Peters, in discussing the particulars of his Old Testament theology of missions, finds that the Old Testament expects Israel’s mission to be intimately tied to the salvation of the nations. However, Peters overtly states the centripetal nature of mission in the Old Testament: “Never was there a time when the nations did not have access to God, although God mediated His revelation through Israel. It was the responsibility of the nations to inquire and to seek God.”[6] Self-admittedly, Peters takes a “Christocentric” approach to theology.[7] Everything, including the Old Testament, is interpreted through the final revelation—the New Testament. Therefore, his findings concerning the Old Testament theology of missions are incomplete, yet foundational, for the complete revelation in Jesus Christ: “Jesus…did not contradict or destroy but modified, enriched, expanded, and in many ways transformed and glorified the Old Testament.”[8]

Peters’ examination of the Old Testament is more thorough than Blauw’s. Thus, by 1972 missionary theology begins showing signs of maturity. Peters begins by noting the universal nature of the primeval history. God created all mankind, all mankind sinned in Adam, and God promised a savior to all mankind in the protoevangelium (Gen 3:15).[9] When God calls out Abraham and creates the nation Israel, Peters argues that God was being particularistic in method, but remaining universalistic in promise.[10] Furthermore, while “[t]he Abrahamic covenant makes Israel the people of God…the Mosaic covenant makes Israel a nation and servant of God.”[11] In other words, Peters argues that Israel had divine privilege as God’s servant which they fail to accomplish. Thus, the mission of Israel as God’s servant (Isa 40-55) is left unfinished. God’s universal promise had not failed, only the special privilege of Israel is lost, but the mission of Israel will be restored at a future time of grace and repentance.[12]

Ultimately, for Peters, the missionary message is of the Old Testament is found in the universal implications of the promise to Abraham, and through him the nations with Israel, and of the psalmody and prophets focus on the nations. Israel was to serve God as a model for the nations, but Israel gave way to the ideal Servant—the Messiah.

Peters, in his “Christocentric” interpretation of the Old Testament, finds great discontinuity between the mission of Israel and the mission of the Church. Prima facie, his argument appears to be for continuity between the two, that God’s mission to the nations has never changed. This may be true, but in dividing the methodology of the Old and New Testaments, Peters is arguing for discontinuity. He seems to be arguing that God’s plan was always for the ideal Servant, but he cannot help from ascribing the servant songs to Israel initially. However, could the mission of Israel ever bring salvation to the nations? Peters thinks so: “Thus universality of salvation pervades the entire Old Testament. It is not peripheral but rather constitutes the intent of the Old Testament revelation because it constitutes the dominant purpose of the call, life and ministry of Israel.”[13] Yet, in the same concluding section he argues that [in Christ] “man can now find perfect satisfaction for his spiritual and moral needs and fulfillment of his potentialities.”[14] Both of these statements cannot be true unless there is discontinuity between the mission of Israel and the mission of the Church.

Whereas Peters represents an evangelical theology of mission purporting discontinuity between the mission of Israel and the mission of the Church, Donald Senior and Carroll Stuhlmueller represent a post-Vatican II theology of mission. Furthermore, whereas Peters and Blauw argued from a scriptural perspective, though not denying scripture, Senior and Stuhlmueller take a primarily historical approach to a biblical theology of mission. In other words, Stuhlmueller, who authored “Part I, The Foundations for Mission in the Old Testament,” defines the historical religion of Israel in order to see how they formed their theology in response to their situation.[15] Therefore, he finds discontinuity even within the Old Testament, pitting Yahwist against the Deuteronomist, Isaiah against Ezekiel. For Stuhlmueller, the foundations for mission in the Old Testament stem from a common commitment to Yahweh.[16]
What one finds is Senior and Stuhlmueller is not so much a biblical theology but a theology of history.[17] The implications of God’s interaction with Israel, and later through Christ, lead to a theology of mission that is ecumenical, focusing on personal and social transformation. Thus, Israel serves as “the exemplary role of God’s people among the nations [which] was a vocation that the church received from Judaism and one that would be thoroughly transformed by the missionary consciousness of the New Testament.”[18] Therefore, these authors posit large amounts of discontinuity between the mission of Israel (even within its own mission) and the mission of the Church.

Neither Blauw nor Peters nor Senior and Stuhlmueller are making the same distinction between the mission of Israel and the mission of the Church. However, they reveal a tendency to see discontinuity between how God desired his people to carry out his mission in either Testament. We will refrain from judging this discontinuity as either good or bad at this time. However, with Blauw, and especially Peters, one finds a desire to reconcile the message of the Old Testament with the practice of New Testament missions. One might argue that Senior and Stuhlmueller have the same end in mind, but they do not approach the text with integrity, by trying to understand a unified message within scripture; rather, they come to the text with an agenda. They place the historical events over the words of scripture in trying to defend post-Vatican II ecumenical and liberation agendas.[19] Thus, the best representative of those finding discontinuity between the Mission of Israel and the Church is Peters.

[1]Blauw, The Missionary Nature of the Church, 11–5.

[2]Ibid., 29–34.

[3]Ibid., 52.

[4]“The question still remains whether one does not fall short of the unity of the Bible if one does not, with the ancient Church, acknowledge that the New Testament is hidden in the Old Testament, and that the Old Testament is opened up in the New.” Ibid., 53.

[5]Ibid., 55ff. Cf. Roger Hedlund’s monograph followed through with a more detailed analysis of the Old Testament. His primary texts are almost the same as Blauw’s (he titles one of his chapters “High Points in Isaiah”), yet Hedlund was able to incorporate the scholarship of George W. Peters on the Psalms. Nonetheless, Hedlund’s conclusion on the Old Testament was the same as Blauw’s—the intertestamental period served as a foundation for New Testament missions. Up to that time, Israel’s mission had been centripetal in nature. Roger E. Hedlund, The Mission of the Church in the World: A Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), 141–8.

[6]Peters, Biblical Theology of Missions, 23.

[7]Ibid., 30–1.

[8]Ibid., 83.

[9]Ibid., 83–7.

[10]Ibid., 89–101.

[11]Ibid., 112.

[12]Ibid., 113.

[13]Ibid., 129.

[14]Ibid., 130.

[15]Donald Senior and Carroll Stuhlmueller, The Biblical Foundations for Mission (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1983), 16–32.

[16]Ibid., 80.

[17]Ibid., 326

[18]Ibid., 338.

[19]See their “Introduction.” Ibid., 3–4.

Paradigms in Conflict-Chapter 1 by David J. Hesselgrave

2007-01-23T21:54:00.000-05:00

A while back I said that I would begin discussion Hesselgrave's book Paradigms in Conflict. I have been busy and I've posted about other things. In the time leading up to now I learned that my two compadres were reading the book as well. So, they said they would like to blog about some chapters. I, being busy, asked if one of them wanted to kick off the book and blog about chapter one. But, they would not. Why? Because they are wimps! :) Who wants to discuss sovereignty and free will on a blog? Not many. That's why I was trying to get one of them to do it. But, alas, someone must begin this book and I have decided that it will be me.

Before I jump into the main points of Hesselgrave's discussion, I think it might be wise to give a disclaimer. If you are a Calvinist you probably won't like his first chapter. Indeed, this chapter is not well argued on the finer points. He gets some things completely wrong. The most glaring one is on page 31 where he says, "William Carey (1761-1834) moved to [an Arminian] position after his rejection by some members of his own presbytery and it became the theological position of his Baptist missions board." Hesselgrave lists no sources. I have checked with a baptist historian on this. Carey started an organization which had the words "particular baptist" in it later on in his life. So, Hesselgrave is a little off here.

A couple of times his logic isn't too sound either and his arguments don't seem to flow together well. He also adds little words that could cause the readers view to be tainted. After discussing more Calvinistic views he turns his attention to three views that he believes are mediating options. He says, "All three are sincere attempts to wrestle with what the Bible actually has to say on this critical issue." As if the others don't. And the others contain John Piper, who I think has done a pretty good job of trying to wrestle with the text with his monograph on Romans 9.

Finally, the last thing that kind of got under my skin was the implication that missions spread due to the fact that people abandoned the Calvinistic theology. That is why, I think, he says Carey changed his view. In short, Hesselgrave doesn't give a fair representation to our reformed brothers and their missionary hearts.

Hesselgrave begins his chapter by categorizing different answers to the question of divine sovereignty and human free will. He has five: 1) Augustinian deterministic Calvinism (John Piper) 2) Moderate Calvinism (D.A. Carson) 3) A Mediate theological view (C. Gordon Olson) 4) Moderate Arminianism (Grant Osborne) 5) Open theism (Gordon C. Olson not the same as above; Clark Pinnock).

He then turns his attention to a loose exposition of Romans 9-11. I say loose because it only takes a little less than 6 pages to do when people have written whole books on one chapter. Here he basically works out his "Mediate theological view" with the text. Which, there is nothing necessarily heretical with what he says. In fact, I like his balance a little, though I still think it doesn't answer the question fully. And, he doesn't deal with other texts like Ephesians 1.

So, what is the point of his chapter? Mainly that human freedom and divine sovereignty can work together. He says, "In the end, divine sovereignty and human free will prove to be a perfect match, not an impossible mix."

I have to admit on my first reading of the chapter (my only reading) I did not catch how this affects missions. I have heard that it connects to the following chapter. I guess, he's suggesting that if you take a mediate position you'll do missions properly. But, maybe one of my compadres would like to shed some light on the matter in their reading of Hesselgrave's first chapter.

Through Christ,
Dougald

PS- If you are wondering where I fall on the Hesselgrave scale, he would probably put me at a 1 or 1.75.

Missions and the Local Church- A look at cooperative missions and missions sending orginizations

2007-01-15T08:19:00.000-05:00

For the sake of review, let me give a synopsis of the things that I am focusing on in this series before moving on to the subject of cooperative missions. I believe that the primary mission sending organization is the local church. Let me put that in a way that may be more biblical. The church's mission is to spread the glory and gospel of God throughout all nations. Now, I have said that one of the stumbling blocks to the church seeing this as their mission is the disconnect that both the church feels when its missionaries leave and the missionaries feel from their church when they leave. I would like to charge both to keep in contact with one another and to hold one another accountable. If you are a missionary out on the field and you are reading this and you haven't heard from your home church in years; send them a letter, or an email that lovingly asks for their support and care. If you are a church member and you haven't heard from missionaries in years but you remember sending them out, take the time to find out who has been sent out and contact them. They'll appreciate it. Most importantly—maintain contact.

Now, with that said, I know that I have also said that I feel mission sending organizations have unintentionally communicated that they are the primary mission sending organization. I, being a Southern Baptist, have looked directly at the IMB and asked what they are doing to connect missionaries to local churches. But, I also see the way they view themselves in the mission sending organization. They want to "lead" Southern Baptist in doing missions. I have suggested that they "serve." Now, what does that mean? Isn't cooperative missions important? Are there different ways of doing cooperative missions? How could the IMB serve the SBC churches in doing missions?

First, let me say that I am very supportive of cooperative missions. I am not against it, and I think that missions sending organizations have done a great service to the kingdom of God. So, by no means am I suggesting we kick the IMB or NAMB to the curb. Cooperative missions is very important especially for those churches that cannot afford to send missionaries out on their own. Now, I could continue to develop this point, but I'll be developing it throughout the post so I'll depart from it for right now.

Second, there are different ways of doing cooperative missions. One way, is through your local association (See this post for the importance of associational missions). There are a few advantages to this. First, it puts you in contact with people that are around you, can get to know you and examine your life. One of the greatest problems I've seen with the way we do missions in the SBC currently is that the IMB or NAMB has to make decisions based upon a few meetings and references. They really don't know the Christian who is applying to go overseas. My feeling is that the church could do a much better job at setting apart those who are to be sent out.

What if churches or associations were sending missionaries? Would we still need the IMB? Absolutely! The IMB could help coordinate these two in doing missions by letting them know of other churches/associations working in a particular area where they are sending people. They could also help by giving money to associations that struggle financially year after year. In this they would be providing a service. There also may be some associations and churches not actively sending missionaries. They could help encourage, educate and equip the church/association for this (wow I just did some alliteration! I have a three point sermon!). They would take less of a leadership position over these churches as they have now, but they would provide a great service to the SBC. Would the IMB be willing to do this?

The IMB could also be Johnny-on-the-spot when catastrophes happen (such as tsunamis) in the areas where missionaries are at work, all the time connecting with the local church/associations to do so. I've been part of several churches, and my father has been a pastor of some that have split just before we arrived. So, I know all too well that sometimes power struggles can happen in a church. The IMB could help a missionary family out who has been defunded because Mr. "I've got money" quits tithing because the new fellowship hall wasn't named after his grandmother. The IMB could help support those missionaries that lose their funding for reasons beyond the fact that the missionaries were not being faithful to what they had been sent out to do.

There are many other ways that the IMB could help serve us, the local church, that I haven't listed here . Nor, have I worked out all the logistical problems of my suggestion. All I want to do is ask, "can we do this differently?" My generation is good at asking questions and picking apart people and ideas (like some have done when they criticize the IMB), but we never provide any answers. I hope that this will cause us to reexamine the local churches role in sending missionaries and provide an answer to some of the question that many are asking.

Finally, let me say one thing to missionaries who feel called to go to a different country (this is a little off subject). You don't need a missionary sending organization, a church, or whatever, to pay your bills for you while you serve as a missionary. You could work overseas, or just buy a one way ticket and put your trust in God to take care of you. Read Bruchko. Here, you'll see a young man who bought a one way ticket to Colombia to work with Indians who had never heard the gospel. He did so with absolutely no financial backing. I do encourage you to seek your local churches support (none would give it to the author of this book) and work with them in what you feel called to do.

Through Christ,
Dougald

PS-Please have mercy on me if I have not said something well! Or, ask me to clarify! :)

The Old Testament and the Missionary Nature of the Church--Part 1

2007-01-06T10:25:00.000-05:00

Missions is considered by most to be a New Testament enterprise. From the inception of the Modern Missionary Movement, of which William Carey is considered the father, missions has been accomplished by means of missionary societies and agencies. The church has been a chief financial resource for the movement, but until recently, other than through individuals, the church has not been directly involved in the process, being separated by oceans and dependent on its agencies to carry out the work. Furthermore, the autonomy of churches that were being planted was not immediately assumed. Nonetheless, something about the nature of the church is missionary.

The classical marks of the church—one, holy, catholic, apostolic—assume a growing, universal mission. It is “One” in spite of its many congregations spread over the whole world. It is “Holy,” called out of the nations into a new people of God set apart for God and His purposes. The “Catholicity” of the church describes its universal nature, it crosses every geographic, racial, social and spiritual barrier in the power of the gospel. Finally, though “Apostolic” is generally concerned with the faithful passing on of the gospel, the fact that it is to be passed on points to a missionary purpose. In the 16th century, the reformers refocused the church on the gospel. Their marks of the church included the right preaching of the word and the right administration of the sacraments. Though the reformers have been critiqued for not being concerned with the conversion of the heathen, by keeping the gospel central in the nature of the church, they laid the foundations necessary for the great missionary movement beginning in the 18th century. Furthermore, the radical reformers, though perhaps because of persecution, were itinerant evangelists, with some Moravians allegedly selling themselves into slavery for the sake of the gospel. In contemporary ecclesiology, evangelism and social ministry are considered by most to be biblical marks of the church (see Hammett and also Warren). Moreover, discipleship is at the heart of the Great Commission (Matt 28:18-20). This brief survey of the historical considerations of the marks of the church reveals that mission lies deep at the heart of the church.

When it comes to missionary theology, the message of the Old Testament has not received the same scrutiny and consideration as the New Testament. The result is that readers of the Old Testament expect the same theological results from a cursory reading of the Old Testament that have seemingly popped up from the page through a “taken for granted” detailed and repeated reading of the New Testament. Allegorical and “moral” preaching of the Old Testament have not aided in the situation either. Furthermore, the poetic and prophetic genres of the Old Testament are some of the most difficult types of passages to interpret even through years of study. However, the renewed emphasis on Biblical Theology provides hope for this otherwise dark situation.

Key works that have addressed the Old Testament's contribution to missionary theology include the following:

Blauw, Johannes. The Missionary Nature of the Church: A Survey of the Biblical Theology of Mission. New York: and Toronto: and London: McGraw-Hill, 1962.

Filbeck, David. Yes, God of the Gentiles, Too: The Missionary Message of the Old Testament. Wheaton, IL: The Billy Graham Center, Wheaton College, 1994.

Kaiser, Walter C. Mission in the Old Testament: Israel as a Light to the Nations. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000.

Köstenberger, Andreas, and Peter T. O’Brien. Salvation to the Ends of the Earth: A Biblical Theology of Mission. Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 2001.

Peters, George W. A Biblical Theology of Missions. Chicago: Moody, 1972.

Senior, Donald, and Carroll Stuhlmueller. The Biblical Foundations for Mission. Maryknoll: Orbis, 1983.

Wright, Christopher J. H. The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative. Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 2006.

We will be interacting with these works, but the main focus of this inquiry is the unfolding message of scripture. Thus, rather than taking a synchronic approach that looks at certain themes individually and traces them throughout scripture, I will take a diachronic approach that investigates themes as they are produced in the text. However, at times I may vascillate between diachronic and synchronic. You will find that I prefer a Hebrew reading order of the Old Testament (the Tanak) and I will note, if necessary, places where there are differences in the order, even among Hebrew manuscripts (if I miss something, Dougald will fill us in through comments).

Missions and the Local Church: Part 2- Ecclesiology is Essential

2007-01-02T12:37:00.000-05:00

Before one can ask the question of what is missions? One must answer the question, what is the church? What is its function? How is one church or local believers supposed to work with another church of local believers? What is the responsibility they have towards one another in Christ?

These are questions I won't answer here, in fact, all I want to do is raise questions in this post. I hope that these questions stimulate us as we think about what the church is supposed to be biblically. One important question that I have is this: Have the church and its mission been separated from one another? Or, has the mission of the church been separated from its mission?

Growing up in several small country churches one of the best things that would happen is to have the opportunity to meet a RLM (Real Live Missionary). I don't remember any of the RLMs that I met actually being from my local church. It wasn't until I moved to a church in Nashville, NC that my father pastored for a while, when I actually met someone who had spent more than two weeks in another country doing mission work. Even my language betrays the bifurcation of the church and its mission. See, I am discussing missions as the work that only happens overseas. I probably should correct that.

But, I digress...My point here, is that no one went out from our church to do missions (even planting churches in our local area--unless of course there was a church split, which usually we arrived after this at churches). There was always a feeling that the RLMs were someone special who God called out from Churches, but usually not ours.

It also seemed that as I began to meet missionaries from different local churches, their connection to the local churches after they had left was slim. Very few people contacted them and the church never really held them accountable. They were, however, held accountable by a missions sending organization and their donors.

Does this communicate a close tie between the church and the one's sent out? What about a tie between the church and its mission? What are your experiences? Do we think that this is a biblical model? How can we change, if in fact, there needs to be one?

The mission organizations have done wonderful things, but I think they have run their course, at least in their present structure. Next time we'll look closer at why I want to change that word "lead" to "serve." And, what it would mean to "serve" Southern Baptist churches in doing missions.

Through Christ,
Dougald

The Beauty and Fufilling Nature of Our God

2006-12-29T12:48:00.000-05:00

My good friend, Mark Eidel posted a wonderfully written piece on his reflections on Psalm 34:8. Please check it out:

http://onthemark1.blogspot.com/2006/12/taste-and-see.html

Note: He has comment moderation turned on, so your comments won't appear right away.

Wes

The missionary nature of the church

2006-12-22T23:34:00.000-05:00

As we go about our discussion on Missions as Ecclesiology, we must discuss what we mean by missions and, ultimately, by church.

Traditionally, scholars have defined mission (singluar) separately from missions (plural). Furthermore, they have distinguished between church (local) and Church (universal)--not to mention church visible and church invisible.

First, mission usually refers to the mission of God, or the missio Dei. [The argument looms whether the discussion of missio Dei originated with Luther or Barth. This question is beyond the scope of this post. See Bosch for a discussion of the impact of Barthian theology on the discussion. David J. Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1991), 389–93. See Hesselgrave for a discussion of the impact of Luther’s theology on the discussion. David J. Hesselgrave, Paradigms in Conflict: 10 Key Questions in Christian Missions Today (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005), 348–9.]

Second, missions usually refers to the redemptive activity of the church. However, we must ascertain the content of missions from both the Old and New Testament. What has God's plan been for his people for all time? Has that plan changed? Or have methods changed? I will argue that God's plan has never changed, but that the content of missions is the pointing to the coming Messianic King who will rule over all the nations, including Israel. Though you may argue that the method of God has changed, the purpose of both Israel and the Church (universal and local) has been to point to this "seed." [Note: In the previous sentence, one may discern a dichotomy between Israel and the Church; however, I meant Israel as the Old Testament "People of God" and the Church as the New Testament "People of God," which prophetically includes both Jew and Gentile.]

We will have to see how this pointing is played out. God's mission is eternal and his plan from creation to consumation has been to bless and multiply His people and walk among them (Gen 1; Rev 21-22). The mission of the "People of God" has been to participate in God's redemption of mankind from the effects of sin. In Genesis 3:15, God promises a "seed" who would crush Satan. God would redeem his people. In Revelation 5, Christ is praised because he has "redeemed" a people from every tribe nation and tongue by his blood. At this magnificent scene of praise, a mixed multitude of millions raise their voice as one in praise of the Lamb. Isaiah 52-3 teaches us that the Servant of the Lord, the branch, would atone for the sins of a people who despised him. The book of Isaiah tells us of a Davidic King who would restore the people of Israel and gather in the nations to himself. The gospels teach us that Jesus is this king, and Jesus commands his people to "disciple" the nations. In Acts, the Holy Spirit empowers the spread of the kingdom. Thus, the New Testament "People of God" participate in the redemption of the nations by preaching to those who never heard so that they may believe and call on the name of the Lord so that they would never be put to shame (Romans 10). The Old Testament "People of God" were called to have faith (Gen 15:6) and wait (Isa 40:31) for this one to come. Then they would go and spread the fame of God's glory to the ends of the earth (Isa 11; Isa 66:18ff; Hab 2:3-4, 14). This paragraph is a small taste of what we will discuss in depth on this blog.

Third, I will have to note when I am speaking of church universal and church local. However, the church is primarily local. No universal church exists without local churches. You cannot have a gathered universal church that makes disciples, baptizes, teaches, fellowships, encourages, etc. Therefore, if I do not otherwise state, assume that I am speaking of the local church. [I suppose this answer in itself lends to my view of visible vs invisible, but perhaps I need to clarify here, but I will do that at a later time.]

As you can see, we are forming a Biblical Theology of Mission and Church. I hope you will be blessed and encouraged.

Grace to you and Peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Missions and the Local Church: Part 1-Introduction

2006-12-19T12:01:00.000-05:00

I hope to begin a series of posts related to missions and the local church. My overall goal in these posts will be to spell out what I hope would be a change in the way missions is related to the local church. This will require some rethinking (not bashing) of the IMB's functions and other mission sending organizations functions. I will call on my other two compadres to add their comments and posts as well during this time as they are more qualified. I also ask for a great deal of grace in this matter as I am not privy to the private things of the IMB. I do not know them, nor is my goal to expose them.

Mainly, I'm looking at how its ideology functions. What is the philosophy or purpose of the IMB as a missionary sending organization? I'm not asking, "How bad are the practices of the IMB?" My overall goal is to suggest a slight change in thinking where the local church is the primary mission sending organization. I would also like to change the IMB mission statement which says they hope "to lead Southern Baptists in doing missions." I would rather it read, "to serve Southern Baptists in doing missions." This is a slight change in terms, but a huge change in philosophy.

The essential problem is this. Why in the past have missionaries been so disconnected from their local church? Sure, the efforts have been made by some, but not by all, to keep the connection between the missionary and the sending church, but this has not been done successfully. I believe that this is due to the philosophy of both the local church and mission sending organizations. It separates the mission of the church and puts it in the hands of boards, and organizations. This is what we'll be looking at for the next couple of weeks. I hope to lay out what I think the fundamental misstep has been and then suggest some changes. Then, I hope to give a picture of what this might look like in the future for the SBC if the IMB were to serve and the local church were to send.

Finally, let me say that the local churches need to get in contact with their missionaries on the field. We have recently done so at my church and we are beginning a campaign to "Hold the Ropes." It is my hope that we will also become the primary missionary sending organization of for our church members. In short, we hope that churches will be truly planting churches, and not organizations planting churches (I am indebted to Wes Handy for this idea, though he might say it differently or say it in a different context). The mission of the local church is missions. Thus, the name of this blog: Missions as Ecclesiology. The two are not separate. As one of the bloggers that I read has said to me in conversation, "We're on a mission trip right now!" We end that trip when we die. And now I have officially slipped over to rambling.

With that said...Through Christ,
Dougald

Pradigms

2006-12-09T13:45:00.000-05:00

When it comes to missions I personally will not be able to contribute as much to the discussion as my compadres here will be able to. But, what I do hope to do is get into books about missions and ecclesiology and discuss them with all of you.

Perhaps this book was not the best place to start in a discussion of missions, but I thought that since it was a relatively new book in missions, it would be a worthwile one to read on my own. So, currently I am reading David Hesselgrave's Paradigms in Conflict.

I'll take it chapter by chapter and review its contents with a follow up post on my reactions and critiques. I, by no means, am one who is qualified to critique this book, or any book for that matter. But, I do hope that the discussion generated here will be food for thought for years to come—for you and for myself.

So, pick up and read and we'll meet back here soon enough to discuss what we have found.

Through Christ,
dwmiii

Welcome

2006-12-05T08:04:00.000-05:00

Welcome to "Missions as Ecclesiology." Here, we hope to discuss various things related to missions and ecclesiology. These two subjects, usually, are actually the same. We hope that our discussions foster further thoughts into the strong connection between missions and ecclesiology. To put it another way, we hope that this blog connects missions and the local church. We'll be discussing things that we have read and analyzing things, so feel free to comment and discuss these things with us.

Through Christ,
dwmiii