Do We Need a New “Call to Mission”?
March 5, 2009 – 1:54 pmIn an article entitled “Is the Age of the Great Commission Over?” Eddie Arthur (Executive Director of Wycliffe Translators UK and former translator of the Kouya translation team in the Ivory Coast) offers a new “call to mission.” In reference to the tremendous effect that the Matthew 28:19-20 “Great Commission” passage had he posits the question “has our situation moved on and is God saying something else to us at this point in our history?” He answers this question by stating that the new “call to mission” for this generation is not the traditional Matthew 28:19-20 passage, but is the message that Jesus gave to his disciples in John 20:21: “As the Father has sent me, so I am sending you.”
Does the church need a new “call to mission?” Is the Great Commission passage a dated, colonial-era imperative? Is there benefit in attempting to reinterpret the Great Commission in light of an earlier summary statement? I will first examine Arthur’s article, then offer a critique. Here’s an excerpt of his presentation:
When the modern missionary movement started, Matthew 28 was a radical, counter-cultural call to arms. For the most part, the church was self-absorbed and indifferent to the fate of people worldwide (“when God chooses to save the heathen, He will do so without your help or mine”). The call to Go and make disciples wasn’t popular; it meant changing the way things were done. And, of course, people had to go. There were very few Christians outside of Europe and the colonies and to travel long distances to reach people.
The missionary movement was amazingly successful. There are now believers all over the world and many of the former mission fields now have far more Christians than the old sending countries. Don’t get me wrong, there is still plenty of mission work to do (including in many former ‘Christian’ countries), but things today are not what they were two hundred years ago.
Just the simple idea of ‘going’ has now become very complex. At one time, a cross-cultural missionary got on a boat and disappeared to the other side of the world for years at a time. These days, we can reach the rest of the world without anyone even going as far as Heathrow. Sponsorship and partnership schemes allow Western churches to make a huge impact for the Kingdom around the world. We can reach hidden groups, where traditional missionaries could never work simply by opening Overseas Students’ cafés in British cities. What does going mean today?
To this “predicament” of needing a new “call to mission” he offers a solution:
The Great Commission is composed of active verbs; ‘go, baptize, teach’. This is very appealing to Westerners at the start of the 21 Century. We like doing things and we are very good at planning and organizing activities. Would you believe that there are about fifty new plans for world evangelism produced every year? The Great Commission is far from complete, but it has become comfortable; it is no longer counter-cultural. We can plan and organize mission strategies, we can do stuff – that’s what we are good at. Yet, at the same time, world Christians such as Brother Yun comment that Western Christians seem dry and struggle with the intense times of prayer and teaching that are part of the life of the World church. I recall with some embarrassment the end of a three day retreat in Africa where one local leader stood up and said that at last he was sure that missionaries were Christians! He’d always understood that missionaries knew a lot about the Bible and could help organize and run churches, but he hadn’t been at all convinced by the depth of their personal spiritual walk.
At this point in history we don’t need a call to mission that tells us to do things. We still need a call to mission, but we need one which upsets our presuppositions and gives a call to radical discipleship – the way the Great Commission did 200 years ago, or the call to unity in Galatians did for the early church.
As the Father has sent me, so I am sending you. John 20:21
A number of mission scholars have suggested that these words (especially when combined with the following verse, where Jesus breaths on his disciples and tells them to receive the Holy Spirit) are the counter-cultural call to mission which we need today.
This passage puts God right back at the centre of mission. The Father sends Jesus and Jesus sends the Church (empowered by the Spirit). As a missionary, I’ve been sent out by a church to work for a mission organization. However, this verse reminds us that all Christians are sent out by Jesus – just as he was sent by the Father. This doesn’t mean that the Church and mission aren’t important, but it does put them in their proper place, and puts God right in the centre of things. This passage also helps to get rid of the concept of the professional missionary. Though it is common enough to say that we are all missionaries, there is still the lingering feeling that those who have gone are in a special class. John 20 takes the focus off ‘people going’ and places it on ‘Jesus sending’ – and he sends every one of us.
Jesus was sent out in the power of the Spirit – and he sends us out in the same way. Mission which is not Spirit breathed will struggle for effectiveness. The best training and organization count for little if God’s people don’t show evidence of the work of the Spirit in their lives and ministries.
Arthur has carefully crafted a strong case for a new “call to mission.” He has endeavored to “rally the troops” around the same banner, just with a different theme. He says that this new theme actually corrects the former philosophies of “mission”1 by putting “God right back at the centre of mission,” implying that he was not at the center of previous “calls to mission.” To some degree Arthur is saying that this new “call” is superior to previous calls because it better represents the true nature of what God is calling us to do today. In essence, Jesus’ final, specific command is improved by a previous, general summary statement.
The two passages have some things in common. The former, Matthew 28:19-20, applies directly to the apostles and indirectly to believers because we have been “taught to observe Jesus’ commands” through the inspired Word which they penned. The latter, John 20:21, applies to the apostles directly, and indirectly to believers as we are the visible “body of Christ” (1 Corinthians 12:12-14). They both involve sending and going; they both occur at the end of Jesus’ earthly ministry (after his resurrection) and in a private setting.
But there are also differences between the two passages. Matthew 28:19-20 is an imperative, summarizing the core task of the apostles (and therefore the church today). John 20:21 is a description of the end of Jesus’ earthly ministry and the beginning of the apostle’s “Spirit-filled” ministry. Unlike the Great Commission’s specific command to make disciples, through going, baptizing, teaching all that Jesus has commanded,2 Jesus describes what is going to take place in regards to the disciples ministry in John 20:21.
Arthur’s use of the word “mission” and his preference of John 20:21 as the new “call to mission” (in replacement of Matthew 28:19-20) is in keeping with the modern understanding of evangelism and gospel ministry by evangelicals of the past 50 or so years. John Stott was at the forefront of this shift. David Doran, in chapter 5 of For the Sake of His Name addresses this holistic approach to missions, pointing out the historical development and present implications of this philosophy. Readers would do well to download this chapter (The Task of the Great Commission II: The Method of Discipleship) and gain an understanding of its damaging effects.
1His preferred word, not mine; see MM’s “Mission or Missions?” & “Mission” discussed in Themelios articles)
2Implied in the making, baptizing, and teaching of disciples of all nations is the centrality of the gospel of Jesus. The gospel creates disciples, is the grounds for their baptism into the body of Christ (the local church) and is the core of the teaching that Jesus commands.
5 Responses to “Do We Need a New “Call to Mission”?”
Thank you very much for taking the time to read my article and to comment on it. I very much appreciate your reflections and you have given me some food for thought.
I don’t want to engage in detail with such a long article in a comment, but I would just like to comment on your last paragraph.
I’m afraid that you do me an injustice by criticising my use of the world ‘mission’. I’m afraid that on this side of the Atlantic, we do not use the term ‘missions’ at all. You are basing your criticism on a linguistic distinction which is simply not a part of my language. Actually, all you can infer from my use of ‘mission’ is that I am British.
I think it is disappointing that you have not addressed the concern that my article was looking at: that missionaries are all too often driven by activism and not by a close relationship to their Lord.
Once again, many thanks for taking the time to read and consider what I wrote.
By Eddie on Mar 5, 2009
The last paragraph seems to imply that the “holistic approach to missions” has “damaging effects.” Could you please clarify what you perceive to be the “damaging effects”? Would “damaging effects” mean prioritizing social action before evangelism?
I read the section from Doran’s book. The approach proposed by Stott intentionally includes both evangelism and social action–unlike the ecumenical movement’s approach. I’m unclear about the danger you see with Stott’s holistic approach.
By Troy S on Mar 6, 2009
“Follow Me and I will make you a fisher of men” was the Lord’s word to Peter and in the 20th century to me as well. I was trained in Personal Evangelism, but I don’t think the church realised what it had done. More recently a school teacher who had gone on an All Souls’, Langham Place, London, “Wet Foot” project (trial short-term mission) said much the same thing: “You have made me into a missionary.” The same was true of me when I was in my twenties.
By Miss J. Whitcombe on Mar 6, 2009
I don’t know what you mean. What do you want me to say?!
By Miss J. Whitcombe on Mar 6, 2009
Mr. Arthur,
Thank you for your reply on this blog. My question to you is regarding the word “mission.” I understand your point that in Britain that the word employed is “mission” but do you see a validity to Aynes argument that John Stott introduced this emphasis? Why or why not? Thank you for your time.
Ben
By Ben on Mar 7, 2009