How Should We Then Give?

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

What is Missions?

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

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

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.

Pradigms

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