This post continues my Rethinking Contemporary Missions series. If you are just joining, you may find the other posts linked below. Context is king. Some of your questions related to today’s post may be answered in one of these previous writings:
Rethinking Language in Mission
Rethinking Function in Mission
In my last post, I addressed apostolic function. Function affects identity. A lack of clarity related to identity leads to unclear expectations and actions on the field. Contemporary missionary identity should be rooted in apostolic function.
Why is there a crisis of missionary identity? One reason is related to the term itself. The use of missionary allows us to upload a variety of definitions into this sixteenth century expression because we have come to understand missionary function as complex and multifaceted. We primarily do not understand missionary function as apostolic function. Therefore, we do not equate missionary identity with apostolic identity.
In his helpful book, Apostolic Function: In 21st Century Missions, Alan R. Johnson writes:
Apostolic function as missionary identity takes on paradigmatic status because it acts as a master rubric for all that we do. It covers why we do missions (for the sake of His name), where we do it (where Christ is not known), what we do (proclaim Christ and plant churches that live under God’s rule), and how we do it (by the leading and power of the Spirit, with signs and wonders confirming the Word) (77).
Johnson recognizes a great intimacy exists between identity and activity. To understand apostolic identity, we must understand apostolic function (see previous post).
The Church has reached the point where there is no distinction between a missionary and any Christian. The identities (and activities) are indistinguishable. While “every Christian is a missionary” will preach, it causes confusion to state the least. Johnson explains the impact of this identity crisis when he writes,
if there is indeed no difference between what I should be doing in my own local church in my own sociocultural setting and somewhere else, there is no compelling reason to cross geographic and cultural boundaries at all. Local need will always overwhelm the less visible and tangible need of those different than us and who are far removed via physical or cultural distance (52).
Johnson calls the Church to pause and ask: What is the difference between the apostolos and any follower of Jesus? Granted, both have identities in Christ and are responsible for the same activities assigned to all believers. However, there is a difference between the two. And it is at this point of difference that we begin to distinguish the identity of the apostolos from all believers.
We would do well to reexamine the “missionary” methods of Paul and his understanding of apostolic identity which includes but is not limited to:
A slave of Jesus (Rom 1:1)
A steward of the mystery of God (1 Cor 4:1)
A spectacle to the world (1 Cor 4:9)
A fool for Christ’s sake (1 Cor 4:10)
Function follows identity. Could a loss of apostolic identity be part of the reason why so many people groups remain unengaged and unreached? Could a loss of apostolic identity be part of the reason why apostolic church planting is viewed as a strange activity?
Pingback: Apostolic Imagination: Rethinking Location – Missiologically Thinking