Sixteenth-Century Mission

Explorations in Protestant and Roman Catholic Theology and Practice

Robert L. Gallagher, Edward L. Smither

• Publisher: Lexham Press
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781683594666
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Ministry

Did the Reformers lack a vision for missions? In Sixteenth-Century Mission, a diverse cast of contributors explores the wide-reaching practice and theology of mission during this era. Rather than a century bereft of cross-cultural outreach, we find both Reformers and Roman Catholics preaching the gospel and establishing the church in all the world. This overlooked yet rich history reveals themes and insights relevant to the practice of mission today.

Part One

LUTHERAN, REFORMED, and ANABAPTIST MISSION

1

CORRECTING THE RECORD

The Reformers on Evangelism and Missions

Ray Van Neste

Over the past century, many of the books dealing with the history of Christian missions have declared, with varying degrees of certainty, that the Protestant Reformers were derelict in their duty to spread the gospel throughout the entire world.1 Writers have accused the Reformers of both inactivity and indifference. This unverified opinion has become a virtual certainty among the popular audience. However, is this a fair assessment of what the Reformers did and taught? In this chapter, I will trace the history of this deleterious account of the Reformers in regard to missions and evangelism, critique the methodology of this view, and then present the writings and actions of three Reformers—Martin Luther, Martin Bucer, and John Calvin—in order to show the missional ventures of the Reformers.2

A NEGATIVE INTERPRETATION

The Reformation has long been considered by Protestants as a great spiritual revival and doctrinal renewal of the church. However, some writers have argued that the Reformers failed to grasp the missionary imperative of the church and have even accused the Reformers of leading the church astray. This view appears to originate with German missiologist Gustav Warneck (1834–1910), a pastor and missions enthusiast whom many regard as the father of Protestant missiology.3 In his influential survey, Warneck stated that although the conclusion was “painful,” nevertheless it is clear that Luther and Calvin’s “view of the missionary task of the church was essentially defective.”4 Warneck concedes that Luther preached the gospel earnestly himself, but “nowhere does Luther indicate the heathen as the objects of evangelistic work.”5 Furthermore, Luther “never gives an intimation from which it can be inferred that he held direct mission work among the heathen to be commanded.”6 Warneck concludes “the mission to the heathen world had no interest for [Luther] or his fellow-labourers.”7

What evidence does Warneck produce to ground such a conclusion? He acknowledges the many obstacles confronting any worldwide effort from Protestants in the sixteenth century, including persecution, lack of contact with “heathen” nations, lack of infrastructure, and the inability to travel to newly discovered lands since Catholic countries (e.g., Spain and Portugal) held sway over the oceans. Still, Warneck faults the Reformers for not lamenting such limitations, suggesting that if they really wanted to reach such far-away areas, there would be indications in their writings of strong yearnings to break through these obstacles to mission.8 Instead, according to Warneck, we find among the Reformers no idea or activity of missions “in the sense we understand them today.”9

According to Warneck, faulty theology caused the Reformers’ defective perception of the imperative of missions. He specified three problematic ideas. First, Warneck says Luther believed the apostles had fulfilled the Great Commission so it no longer applied to the church of his time. However, Warneck acknowledges that Bucer and Calvin did not believe this. Second, Warneck says the Reformers’ doctrine of election kept them from sensing any missionary duty. Even though Bucer and Calvin did not think the Great Commission was fulfilled, their belief that the work of salvation was God’s work meant there was no human responsibility for the work of missions. Third, the eschatological views of the Reformers inhibited missionary thinking. “Luther and his contemporaries were persuaded that the end of the world was at hand … so that no time remained for the further development and extension of the kingdom of God on earth.”10

Warneck’s negative representation has been echoed by others through the years. Kenneth Scott Latourette says the Reformers were indifferent to the task of world missions due to their faulty theology, though he does not mention election specifically.11 Herbert Kane marvels that “spiritual forces released” in the Reformation failed to produce any missionary activity, and he blames the same three points of theology that Warneck lists.12 Stephen Neill finds “exceedingly little” interest in missions from the Reformers.13 Neill says little about the reasons for this deficiency, but does comment that the Reformation churches did not feel that missions was an obligation on the church. William Hogg says the Reformers “disavowed any obligation for Christians to carry the gospel.”14 Michael Nazir-Ali charges the Reformers with abandoning the responsibility of world missions and blames this on their understanding of election and the idea that the Great Commission no longer applied.15 According to Ruth Tucker, during the Reformation “the urgency to reach out to others was not seen as a top priority,” and she suggests the Reformers did not acknowledge the responsibility to evangelize those without the gospel.16 She also roots this problem in faulty theology. Johannes Verkuyl blames the Reformers’ lack of missions activity on their belief that the Great Commission no longer applied, but he does not reference election or eschatology.17 Justice Anderson, in a standard missions textbook, attributes the Reformers’ lack of missionary zeal to a misunderstanding of the Great Commission and eschatology.18 The recent Encountering the History of Missions by John Mark Terry and Robert Gallagher stands out wonderfully by engaging substantively with the actual writings of the Reformers and appreciating their evangelistic and missional impulse.19

This negative interpretation of the Reformers appears commonly in more recent theological writings as well. For example, Ed Stetzer writes, “The church that ‘reformed’ lost touch with the God who sends, and the mission of the church suffered.”20 Missions professor Alton James says, “the Reformers’ theology had little or no room for missions activity” and “a faulty theology served as a hindrance to the early Protestant church being involved in missions.”21 David Allen refers to the “general consensus” that the Reformers had almost no missionary vision.22 Paige Patterson, in a column posted at the website of the Southern Baptist Convention’s International Mission Board, charged the Reformers with being ineffectual in missions and cited their doctrine of election as the reason.23 Ralph Winter says Christians of the Reformation era sent no missionaries, “did not even talk of mission outreach,” and did “not even try to reach out.”24

Clearly, Warneck’s argument took root. Few of these works present their own primary source research on the topic. They simply cite or allude to Warneck or to someone who has followed him. Rarely is there evidence of Warneck being read critically. Typically, Warneck’s view of the Reformers is simply asserted or assumed as one of the proven facts of historical scholarship. However, this raises the question of whether Warneck was correct or even if he has been properly understood. Thus, we now turn to critical interaction with Warneck, particularly how he defined missions and his appraisal of the Reformers’ theology.

WARNECK’S DEFINITION OF MISSIONS

Following the literature just reviewed, popular theological literature and conversation often carry the assumption that the Reformers had no concern for the salvation of souls or the preaching of the gospel. However, this is not what Warneck argued at all. In fact, he concedes that the Reformers were effective in Christianizing Europe and, in this sense, the Reformation “may be said to have carried on a mission work at home on an extensive scale.”25 Warneck also concedes that Luther encouraged any who were taken captive by the Turks (a real threat in the sixteenth century) to be prepared to be a gospel witness to their captors. Luther urges such Christians to faithful living and witness that they might “convert many.” This would appear to be significant mission-mindedness but Warneck dismisses it as simply “the spirit of Christian testimony” rather than proper “missionary work” since this comes from the scattering of persecution rather than the systematic sending out of missionaries.26 Elsewhere Warneck quotes a long excerpt from an Ascension Sunday sermon of Luther’s where he describes how the gospel will go out to the whole world “sped ever farther by preachers hunted and persecuted hither and thither into the world.” This, however, cannot be understood as an interest in world missions, Warneck says, because there is “no reference to any systematic missionary enterprise.”27 These are just two examples of many that show that Warneck is operating with a very narrow, even anachronistic, view of missions. To be reckoned as missions, Warneck believes it must be a systematic work, preferably by an institution outside the church that consistently sends missionaries to previously unevangelized areas.28 As a result, Warneck completely discounts numerous mission-minded statements made by various Reformers because they do not call for the establishment of a missions agency. ...