Skip to content

2

I've just written an essay on repentance and evangelism.  It was very hurriedly written, but basically my point is: Unbelievers can't repent, believers must - all the time

One of the implications is that evangelism is calling sinners to come to Christ just as they are.  Two men preaching in the 19th century grasped this very well indeed.

Here is Spurgeon calling sinners to repentance:

Do not attempt to touch yourself up and make yourself something other than you really are, but come as you are to Him who justifies the ungodly. ...The Gospel will receive you into its halls if you come as a sinner, not otherwise. Wait not for reformation, but come at once for salvation. God justifieth the ungodly, and that takes you up where you now are; it meets you in your worst estate. Come in your disorder. I mean, come to your heavenly Father in all your sin and sinfulness. Come to Jesus just as you are: filthy, naked, neither fit to live nor fit to die. Come, you that are the very sweepings of creation; come, though you hardly dare to hope for anything but death. Come, though despair is brooding over you, pressing upon your bosom like a horrible nightmare. Come and ask the Lord to justify another ungodly one. (From "Justification of the Ungodly" by C.H. Spurgeon.  A sermon on Romans 4:5)

And this is from a wonderful piece called Evangelical Repentance by John Colquhoun (1748-1827) 

Do you postpone the act of trusting in the Lord Jesus for all His salvation, till you first sit down and mourn awhile for your sins, or till your heart be so humbled that you may be welcome to Him, and so have from your own resources a warrant for trusting in Him? Do you object against coming to Christ because you are not certain that your conviction of sin and your repentance are of the right sort? Do you apply yourself to the exercise of repentance in order to be qualified for believing in Christ, or do you apply your conscience to the commands and curses of the broken law, in order so to repent as to be entitled to trust in Him? Know, I entreat you, that this preposterous and self-righteous course will but sink you the deeper in unbelief, impenitence, and enmity to God the longer you try in this manner to seek for evangelical repentance in your heart or life, the farther you will be from finding it... Do not try to wash yourself clean in order to come to the open fountain of redeeming blood; but come to it as you are, and, by the immediate exercise of direct confidence in the Lord Jesus, wash away all your sins (Ezek 36:25).

.

I'm no expert on the historical use of this phrase but surely there are some unhelpful ways of spinning this evangelical touchstone.  Here's what I think the phrase must protect:

  • The church as a whole is the only earthly priesthood the NT recognizes.  (Ex 19:6; 1 Pet 2:9; Rev 5:10) 
  • Every Christian has equally entered this priesthood. 
  • None is more priestly than another. 

To this should be added the indispensibile prior truth: Christ is our one and only, all-sufficient Priest.  (How easy it is to trumpet the priesthood of us against catholic understandings.  How much better to lead with the priesthood of Christ.  But that's for another time!)

So this is what we are protecting by the phrase.  BUT surely what we can't mean is:  Every individual is equally a priest in themselves.  Here is the great danger of misunderstanding the phrase - I may start to look for my priestliness in myself.  That is, I may say 'the priesthood is all believers; I'm a believer; therefore I, on my own, am a priest.'  To think like this is to completely invert the intention of the doctrine.  My priestliness is found only in union with Christ and with the corporate priesthood that is His body.  And I must look for priesthood in both those places - first in Christ and second in His body.  But never in me!  I, on my lonesome, am not a priest. I, on my lonesome, cannot begin to bring God to world or world to God.

Why is this important?  Well, let's just think of the implications for evangelism:

1. Upon trusting Christ I have joined a priestly body and therefore my whole existence is now caught up in priestly work - i.e. mediating God to world and world to God.  But...

2. It is a priestly body and so I must never do this in isolation.  The self-funded, self-governed, one-man evangelist is not godly evangelism.

3. Because there are many parts but one body (1 Cor 12:20) we can honour the different parts without forcing 'hands' and 'feet' to be lips!   In other words we shouldn't force non-speaking-gifted Christians into speaking roles.  But...

4.  We do have to encourage speakers and servers (1 Pet 4:10f) together to utilise their complementary gifts in mission.

That seems fairly straightforward.  And yet. 

  • How much of a church's evangelistic strategy simply involves bringing the non-Christian to the pulpit?
  • How much of evangelism training simply equips individuals for solo-witness? 
  • How much of it simply equips individuals for their verbal 'answer'? 
  • What does the average church-goer think of when they think of evangelism - corporate or individual?  The 'answer' or more than that? 
  • How many of the church's exhortations to evangelism are straight-forward challenges for 'hands' and 'feet' to be 'lips'?
  • How little do we encourage members of the body to come together organically and complement one another in mission? 
  • How do Christians feel who aren't gifted speakers - do they feel that they are just as missionary, just as priestly?

I think much of these problems come from an individualizing of the 'the priesthood of all believers'?  We have turned something inherently corporate into a private possession of each member.  As soon as this happens then I can be an evangelist without you.  The 'lips' get on without the 'hands' and we quickly revert to a 'priesthood of the few' - just via another route. 

.

Anyway, these thoughts have come out of preparation for this sermon on 1 Peter.

.

I'm no expert on the historical use of this phrase but surely there are some unhelpful ways of spinning this evangelical touchstone.  Here's what I think the phrase must protect:

  • The church as a whole is the only earthly priesthood the NT recognizes.  (Ex 19:6; 1 Pet 2:9; Rev 5:10) 
  • Every Christian has equally entered this priesthood. 
  • None is more priestly than another. 

To this should be added the indispensibile prior truth: Christ is our one and only, all-sufficient Priest.  (How easy it is to trumpet the priesthood of us against catholic understandings.  How much better to lead with the priesthood of Christ.  But that's for another time!)

So this is what we are protecting by the phrase.  BUT surely what we can't mean is:  Every individual is equally a priest in themselves.  Here is the great danger of misunderstanding the phrase - I may start to look for my priestliness in myself.  That is, I may say 'the priesthood is all believers; I'm a believer; therefore I, on my own, am a priest.'  To think like this is to completely invert the intention of the doctrine.  My priestliness is found only in union with Christ and with the corporate priesthood that is His body.  And I must look for priesthood in both those places - first in Christ and second in His body.  But never in me!  I, on my lonesome, am not a priest. I, on my lonesome, cannot begin to bring God to world or world to God.

Why is this important?  Well, let's just think of the implications for evangelism:

1. Upon trusting Christ I have joined a priestly body and therefore my whole existence is now caught up in priestly work - i.e. mediating God to world and world to God.  But...

2. It is a priestly body and so I must never do this in isolation.  The self-funded, self-governed, one-man evangelist is not godly evangelism.

3. Because there are many parts but one body (1 Cor 12:20) we can honour the different parts without forcing 'hands' and 'feet' to be lips!   In other words we shouldn't force non-speaking-gifted Christians into speaking roles.  But...

4.  We do have to encourage speakers and servers (1 Pet 4:10f) together to utilise their complementary gifts in mission.

That seems fairly straightforward.  And yet. 

  • How much of a church's evangelistic strategy simply involves bringing the non-Christian to the pulpit?
  • How much of evangelism training simply equips individuals for solo-witness? 
  • How much of it simply equips individuals for their verbal 'answer'? 
  • What does the average church-goer think of when they think of evangelism - corporate or individual?  The 'answer' or more than that? 
  • How many of the church's exhortations to evangelism are straight-forward challenges for 'hands' and 'feet' to be 'lips'?
  • How little do we encourage members of the body to come together organically and complement one another in mission? 
  • How do Christians feel who aren't gifted speakers - do they feel that they are just as missionary, just as priestly?

I think much of these problems come from an individualizing of the 'the priesthood of all believers'?  We have turned something inherently corporate into a private possession of each member.  As soon as this happens then I can be an evangelist without you.  The 'lips' get on without the 'hands' and we quickly revert to a 'priesthood of the few' - just via another route. 

.

Anyway, these thoughts have come out of preparation for this sermon on 1 Peter.

.

Our church is in a sermon series encouraging us to put mission at the heart of all we do and say.  It's got me thinking about one of my favourite verses: "I believed therefore I have spoken." (2 Cor 4:13)  I've been trying to think, what do I need to believe in order to be the evangelist God calls me to be?  Here are 21 thoughts:

  1. God is mission.  He is Sender, Sent and Proceeding.  His being is irreducibly bound up in sending - in mission.  He is the out-ward focussed God, the spreading God.  He is a fountain of sending love.
  2. Participation in the life of this God means, inescapably, participating in the glorifying/magnifying/proclaiming of the Persons ("Behold My Servant..." Is 42:1ff).  Life in God means life in mission.
  3. The Father is over all our missionary efforts.  He is the real One who summons the world to faith in Christ and who orders all things that they might be brought under His feet (Eph 1:10).  Therefore He is not limited by my limitations and can do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine. (Eph 3:20).
  4. The Son is the centre of all our missionary efforts (Rom 1:3-4).  He is the One proclaimed - the substance of all our proclamation.  Good thing too because He is unbelievably attractive.  Speak of Him and you cannot go wrong.
  5. The Spirit is the power of all our missionary efforts.  You are ‘clothed with power' as you go in mission (Luke 24:49).  The One whose very nature is to make known the Son is with you in divine power and presence. 
  6. Hell is real and the certain destination of all those apart from Christ.  (Acts 4:12; 2 Thes 1:8-10)
  7. The gospel is the power of God for salvation (Rom 1:16).  I am unleashing divine potency as I testify to Christ.
  8. The love of Christ compels us (2 Cor 5:14).  This is not a case of God saying, "I've been good to you in X, why don't you be good to me in Y."   It's a case of "I have swept you up in my mission to the world.  Now carry on!"
  9. I am salt and light (Matt 5:13-16). I am a witness (Acts 1:8). Whether I act on this or not, I don't have to become an evangelist.  God has made me what I need to be.
  10. My flesh is the real enemy to evangelism not lack of evangelistic techniques!  My flesh curves me in on myself when mission is to extend myself into the lives of others.  The arguments against me evangelizing always revolve around my present comfort, introspection and the status quo.  My desire for vain glory, approval and ease stops me gospelling.  My fight against the flesh is one fought on the front lines of the mission field.
  11. My authority to speak of Christ is not about me 'earning the right' but the authority is Christ's resurrection from the dead. (Matt 28:18-20)  That is the Ultimate Disruption that authorizes all other disruptions of the status quo that aim at making disciples of Christ. 
  12. Giving myself away is the happy life - the way of Christ, the way of blessing.  (Mark 8:35)
  13. Disgrace for the sake of the Name is glorious (Acts 5:41).  There is nothing like evangelism for experiencing standing with Jesus as one chosen out of the world (John 15:18-21). 
  14. Nothing is neutral (Matt 12:30).  My friends, family, colleagues and the public space is not neutral but conveys spiritual values all the time.  I never 'inject' God-talk into the world.  All talk is god-talk, that is - talk about ultimate spiritual values.  I never need to be ashamed that I'm the one forcing spiritual views on another.  Such proselytising is a necessary part of all conversation.  I may as well bring true God-talk to bear.
  15. The Gospel is about everything!  Fundamentally I don't have to turn the conversation to spiritual things.  It's already spiritual and it's already addressed by the Father in the Son and by the Spirit.  (I just have to figure out how! - but that will come in time.)
  16. The community is chosen, dearly loved and special in its world-focussed outward-looking-ness (1 Pet 2:9).  I have a whole body - the body of Christ - behind me.  In fact no, let me re-phrase.  The body of Christ surrounds me as an intrinsically evangelistic organism.  The burden is never simply on my shoulders.
  17. The community in its unity is hugely important  (John 13:34-35; John 17:20-26).  Before I've loved the unbeliever, my love of the believer (if done in view of the world) has already witnessed powerfully to Christ.
  18. The community in its diversity is hugely important (Eph 4:10-12).  I have been uniquely gifted in the evangelistic task and I am surrounded by others (who I need) who are likewise uniquely gifted.
  19. I don't have to be holy first then a missionary.  I strive for holiness in mission.  (More on this in other posts).  It is the outward-looking holding-up-of-Christ that is the umbrella activity of the Christian under which my holiness is worked out.  So don't wait to evangelise while you sort out your personal walk.  Use mission to conquer those besetting sins and habits (they won't be properly conquered any other way!).
  20. I don't have to be complete in knowledge first and then a missionary.  John 9: "I was blind but now I see."
  21. There is reward for the evangelist!  (Dan 12:3; Luke 16:9; 1 Thes 2:19)

.

I'm sure others can add more.  What is it that we need to trust that will motivate our evangelism?

.

"A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." (John 13:34-35)

"May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me." (John 17:23)

"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house.  In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven." (Matt 5:14-16)

The congregational life of the church has breath-taking potential.  We are on show to the world - even beyond this world! (Eph 3:10).  Jesus wants the world to look on and to say "The love these people display reminds me of Christ.  This love is out of this world. Now I believe that Christ came from the Father.  Praise be to God!"

If we took this seriously we would see that there is not 'fellowship' on the one hand and 'mission' on the other.  But in the plan and purpose of Jesus our fellowship is missional.  Our life together is to the end that we witness to the world.  We are a missionary body - a kingdom of priests. (Ex 19:6; 1 Pet 2:9; Rev 5:10).  The community of the church is not a community for its own sake but for the sake of the world.  This outward focus is constitutive of our life together.  Thus we are neither a 'holy huddle' nor a loose association of evangelists. 

These are the two errors we could fall into.  On the 'holy huddle' side we may invest in community life for its own sake.  And yet Jesus expects that the world will be able to see our united love.  On the other side we may neglect our brothers and sisters for the sake of mission.  Yet this is impossible if we've understood Jesus' commands above.   Loving the 'brotherhood' is missional.  Thus when Paul says to do good "especially to those who belong to the household of faith" (Gal 6:10) it is not simply an inwardly-looking nepotism.  The love of the Christian family is the shop-window of the gospel and has unparalleled magnetic potential!

The question in practice is how do we make this gospel fellowship visible to the outside world?  I have three suggestions, I'd love to hear any that you have.

  1. Churches should keep 'church' commitments to a minimum so that Christians can actually engage in the world around us.
  2. Home groups should be places where non-Christian friends can come along and see fellowship (over meals preferably)
  3. Church members should be encouraged to collaborate in efforts to 'infiltrate' clubs, sports teams, bars etc.  This way Christians can 'love one another' before the watching world rather than having guerilla soldiers go on individual 'raids.'

Any other thoughts on the practicalities of this?

.

For a sermon I just preached on John 13 which prompted these thoughts go here.

.

7

Check this out.  From Steve Holmes.

‘Our task is not to tell people that they must believe in Jesus, but so to tell them of Jesus that they must believe in Him.’

Spot on!

.

A little detour on Barth...

Last century, Karl Barth was key in re-emphasizing mission as the outflow of the life of God.  At the Brandenburg Missionary Conference in 1932  he said:

"Must not even the most faithful missionary, the most convinced friend of missions, have reason to reflect that the term missio was in the ancient Church an expression of the doctrine of the Trinity-namely the expression of the divine sending forth of self, the sending of the Son and Holy Spirit to the world? Can we indeed claim that we do it any other way?"

The mission of God flows from Father to Son to church and out to the world.  And just as the God from whom this mission flows is a Gospel God - One who is who we see in the events of the gospel - so His mission is a gospel mission.  Just as the Father committed His words (remata) to the Son (John 14:24), the Son entrusts them to His followers (John 17:10) to be taken out into the world (John 21:20).

For this reason Barth was very particular about what he thought mission to be.  It is a word-y business.  It is about proclamation, about publishing this Gospel to the world.  Consider these quotes from a variety of his writings:

“The essence of the Church is proclamation.”  (Homiletics, p40)

“the event of real proclamation is the life-function of the Church which conditions all the rest.” (I/1,p98)

“The first if not the only thing in its witness is the ministry of the viva vox Evangelii to be discharged voce humana in human words.  It is its declaration, explanation and evangelical address with the lips.” (IV/3, p864)

“…we learn from the Biblical witness to revelation that, over and above the command to believe, love and hope, and distinct from the command to call in common upon His name, to help the brethren, etc., Jesus Christ has given His Church the commission to proclaim, and to proclaim through preaching and sacrament.” (I/1, p62)

“At bottom, the Church is in the world only with a book in its hands.  We have no other possibility to bear witness except to explain this book.”  (God in Action, p107-108)

Now, before we ever write off such a mission as narrow - ignoring the social and political needs of the day - consider article 6 of the Barmen Declaration which Barth penned in Germany in 1934:

“The Church's commission, which is the foundation of its freedom, consists in this: in Christ's stead, and so in the service of his own Word and work, to deliver to all people, through preaching and sacrament, the message of the free grace of God.”

Consider the context.  Germany. 1934.  Wouldn't there have been immense pressure to deliver another message alongside that of the 'free grace of God'??  Wouldn't we have been tempted also to address the extemely pressing social and political needs of the day??

Yet Barth's definition of mission speaks extremely pointedly into the social and political needs of the day because it refuses to deal with those needs on their own terms.  Instead, the church serves and confronts the world (even Nazi Germany!) by first serving its Lord.  This service is gospel proclamation.  And through it, the world is confronted with its true Fuhrer (Christ) and its true Reich (the Kingdom).  The church most engages the world when it most rejects the world's agendas and presses its own - the Gospel of Christ.

.

For more on this see my essay on What is the mission of the church?

.

God is a Gospel-Alone God.  He is known only in the Gospel.  His very being is a Gospel Being.  There's no use even conceiving of a God other than the Father revealed in the Son by the Spirit.  If you're not convinced, read these posts which were digressions to bolster the point:

       The Trinitarian OT

       Oneness and Threeness

Now if this is true then the Gospel-Alone God is honoured in the world by a Gospel-Alone mission.  This is what I was trying to say with the first two parts of "Mission, evangelism and social action." (part one, part two).

Here are some more thoughts on the topic...

.

7)  Much talk in this debate is founded on false dichotomies.

Take as an example Dwight Moody's comment:

"I look upon this world as a wrecked vessel.  God has given me a lifeboat and said to me, 'Moody, save all you can."

Many of the 'evangelism-only' advocates in this debate sound closer to Plato than Scripture as they forward an essentially dualistic world-view.  Here "this world" is pitted against a salvation that is clearly 'out of this world.'  Salvation is from this 'wrecked vessel'.  Such thinking is very common.  People play off against each other then and now, soul and body, heaven and earth, individual and corporate, internal and external, rational and physical.  In each case it is the former that is given precedence. 

Yet surely God's purposes for 'this wrecked vessel' are to renew it not abandon it!  The new creation - the realm of salvation - is this creation renewed.  The spiritual realm is not anti-physical, the Word became flesh!  Any arguments for Gospel-alone mission must avoid such dualisms.  But...

.

8) We must also maintain some Biblical distinctions.

'Spiritual vs physical' is more recognisable as a Greek dualism  But the Bible puts forward some right distinctions.

  • Adam vs Christ
    • Adam refined is still Adam.  "Flesh gives birth to flesh." (John 3:6)
  • Works vs Faith
    • Even faultless legalistic righteousness is dung in God's sight. (Phil 3:1-9)
    • "Faith comes by hearing." (Rom 10:14)
  • Christ's work vs Our witness
    • All authority is given to the risen Christ - the Church goes in a word and sacrament ministry. (Matt 28:18-20)
    • We do not redeem the world - Christ has done it.  As ambassadors, we bring word of this finished work (2 Cor 5: 18-21)
    • We are not the doers.  It is finished.  We bear witness to His once-and-for-all Doing.

.

9)  'Service to the world' does not co-ordinate our mission.  Mission co-ordinates our service to the world.

Often people conceive of 'service' as the umbrella activity under which evangelism sits (side by side with social action).  Yet, what does 2 Corinthians 4:1-6 say?  Apostolic ministry is setting forth the truth plainly - in this context we serve. 

It's always perilous to claim 'this is how Jesus did it' but that's what I'm claiming.  Ministries of mercy always accompanied Christ's preaching of the word.  Praise God!  I mean, really, can you imagine a Christ who ignored the physical needs of those who came to Him??!  Not for a second! Yet His service was in the context of His Gospel (word) mission:

Think of Mark 1:

"Everyone is looking for you!" 38 Jesus replied, "Let us go somewhere else--to the nearby villages--so that I can preach there also. That is why I have come." (Mark 1:37-38)

His word ministry co-ordinated His mercy ministry. 

Think of Mark 2: the paralytic's physical need was met but first Jesus pronounces forgiveness and then heals him as a witness to the reality of that forgiveness. 

Think of Mark 3:  Jesus appoints the 12 and sends them out to preach and to drive out demons.  Now whatever you think about this second task it surely functions similarly to the way it functions for Jesus (it is His authority He gives them to do it).  In Jesus' ministry it functioned as authentication that the Strong(est) Man has come.  It can't be interpreted today as sanction for elevating social action to the level of proclamation.  Jesus could easily have said 'Go and campaign for social justice.'  Instead He said v14 and 15,

Think of Mark 4.  The Kingdom grows in the power of the word.  In fact the power to grow a world-dominating kingdom organically resides in this word alone.

Think of Mark 5. The woman with the flow of blood simply wanted a physical fix.  Jesus wants a personal encounter and to pronounce a word of forgiveness.

Think of Mark 6. Jesus identifies the people's need - teaching (v34)!  Those who would sit under Jesus' teaching were shown tremendous kindness - the feeding of the 5000!  Yet even this deed is a sign proclaiming Christ and Jesus uses words to explain it as such.  To those who come under the word, their every need is catered for.  Yet even these needs are met in Gospel-proclaiming ways.  No-one could doubt that here is a Gospel, Word-ministry.  But one in which the full, vibrant, physical life of the Kingdom is manifest.

We could continue in Mark, but let's stop there.  Doesn't Jesus' example challenge our mission strategies?  We often put on a meal to attract non-Christians then tack on a Gospel talk.  Jesus puts on a teaching event and then, in costly love and in demonstration of the miraculous resources of the kingdom, He meets the physical needs of those who come.  What should be our response?

Should we put on a soup kitchen for the homeless and have a five minute 'God slot' in the middle?  Or shouldn't we rather move into the deprived areas of our world on a Gospel-proclamation footing, and in that context offer food, clothing, shelter, brotherly-sisterly love to any and all who will come under the sound of that Gospel. 

All this is part of what it means to have evangelism co-ordinate our 'service' rather than the other way around.

.

In my next post I'll talk about the costly, life-sharing, counter-cultural, need-meeting love we ought to be manifesting in our churches.  None of that is a betrayal of our mission of Gospel-proclamation.  In fact, Jesus thought it was the back-bone of it!  (John 13:34-35)

20

I tried to argue in the last post that neither soteriology nor ecclesiology nor eschatology should define our priorities in mission.  Rather, it's our doctrine of God that must be our first point of call.  It is the God whose being is in the Father's sending (missio) of the Son who is the proper foundation for missiology.  If that's true then it follows...

  

4)    A deficient doctrine of God will lead to a deficient missiology

5)    The divorce of 'God the Creator' from 'God the Redeemer' is one of the chief errors in doctrine of God and, consequently, missiology. 

John Stott has been a vocal proponent of “evangelism + social action = mission.”  The links with his doctrine of God are exposed in quotes like this: 

"[There are two freedoms and two unities for which Jesus Christ is concerned] On the one hand there is socio-political liberation and the unity of all mankind, for these things are the good will of God the Creator, while on the other there is the redemptive work of Christ who sets his people free from sin and guilt, and unites them in his new community.  To muddle these two things (creation and redemption, common grace and saving grace, liberation and salvation, justice and justification) is to plunge oneself into all kinds of confusion." (From a sermon quoted in Timothy Dudley Smith, John Stott: A Global Ministry, IVP, 2001, p204). 

Here we see God the Creator and God the Redeemer laid side by side.  The concerns of creation and redemption are, in this way of thinking, separately addressed by the Living God. 

Now of course the Father is very interested in the whole spectrum of these activities above.  Yet He accomplishes them through the one Gospel. 

As Athanasius was so keen to stress:

“The first fact that you must grasp is this: the renewal of creation has been wrought by the Self-same Word Who made it in the beginning. There is thus no inconsistency between creation and salvation for the One Father has employed the same Agent for both works, effecting the salvation of the world through the same Word who made it in the beginning.” (Athanasius, On the Incarnation #1)

The Word became flesh – there are no purposes of God that are not bound up in the exaltation of His Son, in Him creation and redemption are inseparably bound.

 6)    God’s mission is a Gospel mission 

.

The purposes of the Father from all ages have been exclusively focussed on His Son (Psalm 2:1-12; Psalm 110:1; Daniel 7:13,14; Romans 8:29; Ephesians 1:10; Colossians 1:15f).

.

 

In the power of the Spirit, His word has been the agent for all divine activity in creation and redemption.( 2 Peter 3:5-7; Hebrews 1:3; 1 Peter 1:23; John 1:1-3; 5:24; 6:63,68) 

.

In the Incarnation of the Word, the Father gives to Jesus His word (John 8:55; 14:24), which accomplished all that Jesus does (John 14:10; Mark 4:41; Luke 4:43; John 5:24; 12:48; 17:17).

.

It is this word that Jesus entrusts to his followers (John 15:20; 17:6,14,20). 

.

The Church has inherited a Gospel mission for the world, i.e. the Father’s mission to the exalt His Son in His Spirit-empowered word.

.

God is exclusively concerned for the exaltation of His Son.  All other interests (in justice, liberation, common grace etc) find their place under this one agenda.  And the Father has committed all His omnipotent power to Christ (Matt 28:18) who in turn grants it to the Church (Matt 28:19-20; Eph 1:22-23).  The Living God has unreservedly committed Himself to the Gospel mission of the Church.

.

Barth saw these things so clearly.  In 1934 the pressure for the Confessing Church to have another agenda was immense.  Yet even (and especially) here Barth is adamant that the mission of the Church is the proclamation of Christ: 

‘The Church's commission, which is the foundation of its freedom, consists in this: in Christ's stead, and so in the service of his own Word and work, to deliver to all people, through preaching and sacrament, the message of the free grace of God.’ (Barmen Declaration, article 6)

 Or as he says in IV/3: 

“The first if not the only thing in its witness is the ministry of the viva vox Evangelii to be discharged voce humana in human words.  It is its declaration, explanation and evangelical address with the lips.”  (IV/3, p864.) 

Now if Barth can say that in the face of the Nazis, can we really countenance a socio-political side-show in our own day?   In my next post I'll tease out some of the implications for the Church's ministry today.

Here are some thoughts on the inter-relation of mission, evangelism and social action. I have written a longer essay on this on my website here.  Here are some abridged thoughts… In part one I will flag up the doctrine of God issues which ought to be the very foundation of our missiology.  But first, a word of warning… 

1)    I lavish exhorbitant amounts of money and time on my own ‘non-spiritual’ blessings 

 

Before we say anything else, let’s admit this.  I will argue strongly that the mission of the church is to proclaim the Gospel and that to add social action as a separate component is confused and confusing.  BUT… before we get into all that let’s come clean: I love myself by spending many resources on my own health, comfort, recreation, food, clothing, shelter etc etc.   If I am to love my neighbour as myself, will I really with-hold such blessings from others – those blessings which I indulge myself with on a daily basis??  If someone refuses to feed and clothe the poor let them never claim justification in an ‘evangelism-only’ missiology.  It is greed pure and simple. 

 

 

2)    Mission is God’s work first, then ours 

“It is not the church that has a mission of salvation to fulfill in the world, it is the mission of the Son and the Spirit through the Father which includes the church.” (Jürgen Moltmann, The Church in the Power of the Spirit: A Contribution of Messianic Ecclesiology, London: SCM Pr., 1977, p64).

  

3)    Mission is founded in our doctrine of God 

 

“As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” John 20:21 

 

“Must not even the most faithful missionary, the most convinced friend of missions, have reason to reflect that the term missio was in the ancient Church an expression of the doctrine of the Trinity—namely the expression of the divine sending forth of self, the sending of the Son and Holy Spirit to the world? Can we indeed claim that we do it any other way?” (Karl Barth, quoted in Norman E. Thomas, ed., Classic Texts in Mission and World Christianity, Orbis, 1995, p105–6.) 

In evangelical circles we are accustomed to thinking through this question from the perspective of certain priorities.  That is, we begin with “We’re on the Titanic!  Get people to the life rafts, don’t re-arrange the deck-chairs!”  The urgency driving such thinking, the priority of the gospel task that this engenders, is completely admirable.  If you’re proclaiming Christ from the roof-tops out of this understanding of mission, I stand with you, shoulder-to-shoulder!  Evangelism is my passion, my gifting and my job!  But is this really where we should begin??  Such a perspective often leads to the following assessments: 

 

 

We highlight the priority of then over now, of soul over body, of heaven over earth, of individual over corporate, of internal mental acts, over external physical acts.   

 

 

If we start here, we’re defeated before we’ve begun.  First of all, so much of this dichotomous thinking is closer to Plato than Scripture.  But more importantly, our first thoughts should be about our God, not our plight.  We must begin with doctrine of God.  We should be asking: “What do we learn from the Father’s sending of the Son? (a mission constitutive of the divine being).  “What is His mission in creation and redemption?” 

 

 

 

As we do so, we will see that there is a tremendous urgency to proclaim the Son, yet it springs from a different well.  More in part two…

The rest of the series:

Part two

Part three

Part four

Part five

.

 

Twitter widget by Rimon Habib - BuddyPress Expert Developer