Check this out. From Steve Holmes.
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:
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.
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)
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: