Transcending Mission

The Eclipse Of A Modern Tradition

Michael W Stroope

• Publisher: Apollos
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN:
  9781783595525
• eBook ISBN:
  9781783595532
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Ministry

Today the language of mission is in disarray. Where do the language and idea of 'mission' come from? Do they truly have precedence in the early centuries of the church? Michael Stroope investigates these questions and shows how the language of mission is a modern phenomenon that shaped a 'grand narrative' of mission. He then offers a way forward.

1

---

Partisans and Apologists

Christian missions are as old as Christianity itself. The missionary idea, indeed, is much older.

Gustav Warneck, Outline of a History of Protestant Missions

Mission is what the Bible is all about; we could as meaningfully talk of the missional basis of the Bible as of the biblical basis of mission.

Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God

From cover to cover the Bible is a missionary book, so much so that, as someone has expressed it, one cannot cut out its missionary significance without completely destroying the book.

Robert H. Glover, The Bible Basis of Missions

The claims for mission by Gustav Warneck, Christopher Wright, and Robert Glover are quite grand. Robert Horton goes further, claiming that “the gospel not only contains the missionary idea, but it is the missionary idea and nothing else.”1 Walter Kaiser likewise asserts, “Missions cannot be an afterthought for the Old Testament: it is the heart and core of the plan of God.”2 Are assertions that mission is the core of God’s plan, as old as Scripture, and what the Bible and the gospel are about justifiable? Is mission the heart and core of God’s plan? Is Christian mission as old as Christianity itself? These interpreters maintain that mission stretches back to the beginnings of Christianity and even into divine purposes. Are these the isolated claims of a few on the margin, or are these representative of mainstream Christianity?3

Douglas Webster makes a bold statement of another sort. He claims that “if any subject needs demythologizing, that subject is mission. The myths which surround it are not to be found in the Scriptures but in people’s mind.”4 Webster argues that many of the biblical claims for mission are fanciful assertions without a shred of biblical evidence, and they exist only as created myths. He suggests that a “reassessment” of the biblical concept of mission is in order.

The aim of this chapter is to join Webster and others in examining the claims for mission language and determine to what extent mission as an interpretive framework can be substantiated. The central and crucial questions include the following: Are mission and the words derived from mission, such as missionary and missional, found in Scripture? How do interpreters of the Bible treat these terms? In what ways are these terms nuanced or employed by different interpreters from the earliest generations of Christians? And must mission and missionary be “biblical terms” to justify their use today?

Our beginning point is to state the obvious. Mission and missionary are extrabiblical language. And yet, many within the church assume that both words can be found throughout the pages of the Bible. While some Christians might not be entirely sure as to whether these terms are in the Old Testament, they insist they are definitely in the New Testament. Mission and missionary, they believe, are among the words spoken by Jesus, and if not him, then certainly by the apostle Paul and the early church. And yet, the majority of translators through the history of the church have not employed either word in their translations of the Old or New Testaments, nor have they attributed them to the sayings of Jesus and Paul.5 Mission and missionary are not biblical language but religious terminology. So, in answer to the first of our questions above, we can say mission and missionary are not strictly biblical terms. But a quick, definitive answer does not completely settle the matter. There are attendant questions that a critic of the rhetoric of mission must address: Do corresponding, word-for-word sources for mission exist that warrant its use in modern translations? Can present-day translators and interpreters of Scripture justify in some manner the use of mission as a concept? Do the earliest traditions of the church argue for the use of mission terminology? If so, then by what means or under what conditions can mission and missionary be used? Who defends the use of mission and for what ends? We begin with the last of these questions.

Activists and Defenders

Interpreters who endorse the use of mission and missionary can be divided into two groups. I characterize the first of these as Partisans. Partisans are activists for mission. They read and apply Scripture with a view to promote mission endeavors. In churches, conferences, and publications, Partisans speak and write of mission and missionary with the assumption that both words—or at least the meaning of both words—are evident throughout the Bible. The aim of the Partisan is to convince and move people toward commitment to or support of contemporary mission activities and missionaries. They proclaim mission and missionary as biblical without qualifying statements or accompanying evidence. Their argument is usually based on an uncritical, and at times naive, reading of these terms into Scripture. Partisans leave the impression that Jesus and Paul speak of mission and missionary, and thus both words are in the Bible to be literally seen and understood. Moreover, these preachers, writers, and conference speakers rush past matters of terminology and passionately proclaim that Scripture offers a foundation for mission and proof for the existence of New Testament missionaries. Their concern is not to nuance terms or discern the meaning of words but to justify missionary work and supply ample motivation for Christians to join the “mission cause.” Thus, their interpretations are often romanticized, sentimental versions of mission.6 Rarely is the basis from which they make their plea critically examined. They are not trying to justify the rhetoric of mission and missionary but employ it to move others to commitment and participation.

And yet, similar partisan readings of Scripture can be found among a few within academic circles. In scholarly literature, mission and missionary are often depicted as biblical without critical assessment and argument. These scholars either assume a biblical pedigree for mission, or they use the term in a broad, commonsense manner, letting the reader insert his or her own assumptions. In this way, mission is used in a nontechnical manner but still used for the purpose of interpreting Scripture and promoting the mission endeavor. As a partisan interpretive device, mission describes an all-encompassing and boundless phenomenon. With such a broad use of mission, the Partisan is able to locate mission within a number of emphases, activities, and people within the biblical text and then from these promote the modern mission cause.

The chief aim of the Partisan is to construct a biblical foundation for both the idea and activity of mission. While this may be viewed as acceptable and necessary, the problem arises when these interpreters uncritically assume the meaning of mission as legitimate and coherent, or when scholars fail to acknowledge that mission is an interpretive rather than a biblical category. The obvious difficulty is that such an unexamined practice with so many unchecked inferences opens the door for Partisans to interpret Scripture from mission’s wide range of meanings, each with a host of freighted assumptions.7

Apologists are the second group of interpreters. They recognize the obvious absence of mission in Scripture and seek to establish justification for the term. These interpreters acknowledge that the use of mission and missionary cannot be assumed, so they mount a defense of their use. Unlike Partisans, Apologists do not rush past terminology without giving some definition to their use or making a case for mission and missionary. Eckhard Schnabel, Andreas Köstenberger, Andrew Kirk, Christopher Wright, and David Bosch are among those representative of this group. They address the absence of mission and justify their use of this language in various methods and by different means. While Partisans may refer to these same methods and means, justification of mission is chiefly the concern of Apologists.

Methods and Means

The use of mission as an interpretive category is justified by way of three methods. Partisans and Apologists either construct a biblical foundation for mission, interpret the whole of Scripture via a missional hermeneutic, or identify mission themes. Partisans justify mission chiefly via a biblical foundation, while Apologists may use all three methods but mainly develop a mixture of missional hermeneutics and mission themes. Alongside these methods, Apologists argue for the language of mission by means of a lexical trail or by establishing mission through a semantic field.

Biblical foundation for mission. The most common method by which Partisans and some Apologists justify mission is through a biblical foundation.8 The tack is to build a “foundationalist” case for mission by assembling biblical texts into an argument, with the majority of emphasis on New Testament passages, especially the commissioning words of Jesus. As a result, “Mission texts” are carefully arranged into a sustained argument to bolster the need for deeper and bolder mission commitment and effort. The line of argument usually begins with a broad foundation of God’s work and purpose in creation and the disobedience of Adam and Eve. The fall of humanity establishes the need for the “call” of Abram and the election of Israel to be a blessing to the nations and thus the basis for mission. So, Abram’s call and Israel’s election are identified as “mission.”9 Some go as far as naming Abraham as the “first missionary.”10 Some similarly identify God’s call to Jonah as a “missionary call” and thus as instructive for today’s missionaries.11 For others, these are only pre- or protomission, while a true foundation for mission is located in the New Testament.12

The primary aim of the “foundationalist” approach is to build a case for mission commitment and participation. For example, Avery Willis expresses the hope that a biblical basis for mission will result in his readers “making world missions the overriding purpose of [their] life.”13 Likewise, after a quick overview of Old Testament Scriptures in order to establish that Jesus came to fulfill the mission of God, Bryan Beyer asserts, “The Bible calls everyone everywhere to participate in the mission of God.”14 Following an extended argument for the biblical foundation for and dynamics of mission, George Peters similarly concludes that because mission is inherent in the nature of Christianity, the church that neglects mission “deprives herself of the most intimate relationship with her Lord, fails to identify herself with the primary purpose of God, robs her membership of the deepest experiences of the Holy Spirit, and denies the world the greatest blessings the Lord in grace has provided. She ceases to be truly Christian.”15 For these interpreters an inquiry into Scripture should lead the reader to make a decision for “mission.” Call to mission and promotion of mission are the reasons they construct a foundation for mission and are where they conclude their argument.

The foundation for mission in the New Testament does not rest ultimately on broad arguments but in a singular manner on Jesus. In the sending of the Son by the Father, one finds mission. The justification for contemporary mission then develops from the specific sending of Jesus to include the apostles and the early church and extends to the present day. Some interpreters describe the link between Jesus’ sending and the sending of contemporary missionaries as “the incarnational model of mission.”16 Followers of Christ are to approximate the same sentness of Jesus. Whether through a careful arrangement of “mission texts” or the sending of Jesus, “mission” provides the connection and a biblical basis...

Table of contents

• Abbreviations
• Acknowledgments
• Prologue
• Introduction
• I
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• II
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• III
• 9
• 10
• Epilogue
• Works Cited
• Search names for authors
• Search items for subjects
• Search items for Scripture references
• Notes