Apostolic Imagination: Rethinking Purpose and Mission 4

In this post, I continue my Apostolic Imagination series with some thoughts on rethinking purpose and missions. You may find the previous two posts HERE and HERE.

Biblical Purpose is in Biblical Language

As long as we continue to use extra-biblical language to describe the work of the Church, we should not be surprised when, over time, the purpose connected to such language becomes multifaceted. Definition becomes socially constructed. As mentioned in a previous post, this is the present reality in which the Church finds Herself when it comes to mission and missions. The use of such language is not necessarily a bad thing. However, if our purpose becomes unclear, then it is time to stop and evaluate our language in light of the Scriptures. Biblical purpose is found within the biblical language.

When it comes to repurposing extra-biblical terminology, our present challenge is nothing new. Donald McGavran, one of the most significant missiologists of the 20th century and founder of the School of World Mission at Fuller Theological Seminary, became troubled over the Church’s use of the language church growth. McGavran had established the definition and purpose in the mid-twentieth century, but the Church took the term, redefined it, and thus revised the purpose of the Church’s ministry. In 1988, he published his last book, Effective Evangelism, in which he bemoaned the fact that church growth had become redefined and repurposed to mean many things, specifically transfer growth. McGavran called for a new terminology to return the Church to conversionary growth: effective evangelism. It never caught on.

Clarity is Lacking

Confusion continues with the language of the mission of the Church and its relative, missions. For example, missions is now understood as: 1) Taking a trip to Central America to put a roof on a church’s fellowship hall; 2) Digging wells in the Pacific Rim so people may have clean drinking water; 3) Conducting medical clinics in Central Asia; 4) Teaching missionary kids in East Africa; and 5) Planting churches among people groups in South Asia. All of these activities are radically different in purpose. All of these actions may or may not include “testifying both to Jews and to Greeks of repentance toward God and of faith in our Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 20:21, ESV).

An examination of the Gospels reveals an emphasis on the Son seeking and saving the lost (Luke 19:10). John notes as the Father sends the Son, the Son sends His disciples (John 20:21). After the resurrection, the first thing Jesus emphasized to the disciples (Luke 44:45) was that repentance for the forgiveness of sins was to be proclaimed to all nations (Luke 44:47). He reminded them His presence would be with them and they were to make disciples of panta ta ethne by baptizing and teaching everyone to obey (Matthew 28:19-20). The mission was clear. The purpose was clear. Every purpose to which they could give attention was not equal (cf. Acts 6:1-7). There was no equality of tasks. (I’ll save this discussion for a future post.)

Apostolic Purpose is Now Optional

Apostolic purpose has become optional when it comes to the Church on mission. It has become consumed in the grand diversity of established Church ministries. While the apostolic purpose is centered in and emanates from the local church (Acts 13:1-3), it extends into a realm where the Church is not established (Rom 15:20). A clear distinction must be made between the Church’s purposes where ecclesiastical hegemony exists and where it does not. And it is in this latter realm that the Church needs to apply the understanding and purpose of what She used to understand as missions.

(Am I against Christian ministry throughout the world? Absolutely not! Much of this activity is very good. Many excellent Kingdom purposes are being carried out among the nations. I have participated in some and plan to do so again in the future. But maybe we should call them “ministry trips” or “ministry tasks.”)

McGavran realized the definition of church growth had been repurposed. There was no way to return to his original purpose. I wonder if the same could be said of missions. I am having a difficult time seeing a return to the biblical purpose of the Great Commission using such language and activity. The Church uses missions to include many purposes even when the purpose of making disciples of all nations is omitted from such actions. It is unlikely that the language of missions will be repurposed again.

Missions are Multifaceted; Apostolic Purpose is Singular

A way forward involves a return to the Scriptures to understand that the apostolic purpose of the Church was a singular purpose. It was not multifaceted. After local churches were established, ministry rightly became multifaceted. The apostolic purpose involved evangelism that resulted in disciples, disciples gathered into local expressions of the Body of Christ, and such expressions developed contextualized leadership to live out the commands of Jesus in the world.

We have substituted the language of missions for the language of ministry and repurposed the task.

Maybe there was a time in which the Church held to a more singular understanding of missions. If so, that time has passed and likely never to return. Now is the time to return to the Scriptures to understand both the language and purpose of the apostolic labors of the Church as our generation seeks to make disciples of the five billion.