I am continuing my Apostolic Imagination series started a few weeks ago. If you have not read the previous posts, I recommend doing so before reading today’s post:
Rethinking Contemporary Missions
Rethinking the Language of Mission
Rethinking Purpose and Mission
Missions are multifaceted; apostolic purpose is singular. Few people desire to hear this.
We love generalities, not specialities, when it comes to missions. We fear if Great Commission labors are identified with specific functions, then less people will be involved in such Kingdom activities. I agree. But I am not referring to less people going to the field. I shall explain in a moment.
A return to the Scriptures reveals the apostolic work of the Church involved a specialized task, one in which not everyone was directly involved. We should remember He gave some to be apostles, prophets, evangelists, and pastors/teachers (Eph 4:11). While the apostles recognized the importance of the daily food distribution to the widows, they understood such ministry was not for them and should be done by others (Acts 6:1-7) (Prayer and evangelism had been hindered.). Paul would later raise the questions to the Corinthians: “Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles” (1 Cor 12:29)?
Over the years, the Church has rightly looked to the Scriptures to understand what She eventually called missions (likely around the sixteenth century). Throughout the years, She was drawn to the labors of those early teams. In fact, in the least used section of most Bibles–Maps–there are three trips of Paul that we identify as “missionary journeys.”
An examination of the Great Commission labors of those individuals connected to Paul and his teams reveals they were engaged primarily in three interconnected activities:
- Evangelism that resulted in disciples
- Disciples taught to obey the commands of Jesus
- Disciples taught to self-identify as local expressions of Jesus’ universal Body.
- Appointing/training elders for those local expressions
The apostolic labors were highly specialized in the Body of Christ. Teams sent to do such work were specialists, with everyone likely engaging in evangelism, teaching, and leadership development.
I return to the notion if missions is seen as something specialized, defined only in line with the apostolic, then does this mean less people will go to the nations? Does this mean that less people will be engaging in Great Commission labors? Am I advocating that the generalists stay home and only the specialists go?
The answer is I want more people going to the nations, engaging in Great Commission labors: more generalists and more specialists.
The point I am addressing is that the Church must distinguish between the apostolic function that is observed in the Scriptures (and throughout history) from other ministry functions. Both are important. Both are valuable in the Kingdom. Both are needed.
But there is a reason for the distinction in the Scriptures.
The Church has lost this functional distinction and now finds Herself in an equal opportunity world of missions. We created a machine with every cog the same. We now go to the nations and call it missions whether we engage in food distribution or church planting. Both are important. Both are necessary. But there is to be a prioritization with apostolic function.
Pingback: Apostolic Imagination: Rethinking Identity in Mission | Missiologically Thinking
My big question is what you think the root cause of this is. How did building a house in Jesus’ name become just as missionary as telling people who Jesus is and that they must abandon all to follow him?
Maybe you’re building toward that.
Mike–I think a move away from biblical terminology and definitions is part of the issue. Also, a shift from the mission of God being focused on conversionary work to primarily social relief and justice matters is another reason.