I encourage bloggers to use their posts to work through new ideas, concepts, and theories. Most do not engage in such experimental writing. Rather, they believe their ideas and arguments must be airtight before they push the publish button. While there is much commendation for this practice, I follow this approach about 85% of the time, some of my public writings include “thinking out-loud” and encouraging conversation and more-than-normal levels of critique.
This post falls into the 15%.
Concerns related to the language of mission are not new. Before I published my thoughts in Apostolic Imagination, Michael Stroope addressed the matter in Transcending Mission, and Denny Spitters and Matthew Elliston in When Everything is Missions. Conversations are taking place, but progress is slow.
A great deal of what is called missions today involves a multitude of actions done in a variety of locations throughout the world. Missio Dei theology was helpful in many ways, but the Church still clung to sixteenth century language and definitions when it came to the practical application of such theology in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.
If you are interested in the history, see Apostolic Imagination or the videos I have posted on this topic at my YT Channel.
The Church is, and has been doing, a great deal of wonderful Kingdom-related matters throughout the world. Such must continue in the name of Christ. However, the New Testament notes while Church activities are numerous, some matters are to receive prioritization (e.g., Acts 6:1-7). The apostolic functions related to gospel advancement and new church development into areas and among peoples without a foundation (Rom 15:20-21) receive the gravity of attention.
Today, nearly everything the Church does in the world is considered missions. Everything is considered equivalent. Such realities have resulted in a great fog surrounding our Great Commission work. Broad is the way of missions, narrow is the way of the apostolic. Or, to phrase it another way: broad is the way of ministry, narrow is the way of the apostolic.
Maybe the time has come to make a distinction when we speak of the Church’s global efforts?
Instead of calling everything missions, what about describing the multitude of actions as “service,” or a generic “ministry,” to distinguish them from apostolic functions among the unreached peoples?
And if you are curious as to what I mean by apostolic functions, check out my video HERE.
My suggestion is not neat-and-tidy. For example, though diakonia, service, may occur today without any apostolic component, it is often connected to apostolic labors. Also, diakonia frequently is found in connection with evangelistic work. Compartmentalization is not always a reality with the Great Commission task. The apostolic laborer was a minister engaged in service. Paul considered himself a minister (Rom 15:16) and engaged in ministry (Rom 15:19).
While my recommendation has limitations, it attempts to move away from the nebulous “doing missions” to making a distinction between Christian service and apostolic functions related specifically to evangelism, church planting, leadership development, and new church strengthening. Such is not a new concept of categorization (especially in the Catholic tradition), but space will not allow me to develop the history here.
The way forward is not easy. We did not arrive here overnight. There are limitations to my suggestion of affirming the multitude of Kingdom activities as service in order to distinguish them from Kingdom activities related to apostolic labors.
Let’s talk. Where am I off-base? What am I missing? Where are the shortfalls with two categories of distinction? As always, I welcome your nice 🙂 comments below. Or, feel free to reach out via email: jd.payne@samford.edu.
The five billion remain.
I am reading Apostolic Imagination. I agree. I think it would be also help if we stopped using the term “gospel” as an adjective to describe our activities, (i.e., gospel service) as opposed to the gospel being the ultimate goal of our serving.
Thank you, Randy, for sharing. . . and reading my book! Hope you are doing well, brother. You do bring up a good point regarding how we use gospel. I need to ponder this.
I think there’s nothing wrong with the church as Mission motif. But I think if we leave it there, obviously we run into areas of definition and re-definition. A model that we’ve been working on for the past 20 years here in the Philippines continues the idea of Church as Mission but then leans towards defining what that mission looks like. Just as most of us learned about Church as Mission from David Bosch, we can also look to see what else Bosch was teaching us. We have focused on four aspects — one of which you mentioned in the article. We call them functions of the church (most likely derived from Charles Van Enggen) and we identify them on kerygma, koininia, diakonia, and marturia. And so as we think about church engaging society, we use this as a framework.
J.D., I am grateful and encouraged by this article. We too lament the fact that the church in the west seems to consider everything “missions”. While I may prefer to set aside the word “apostolic” for the office rather than the action desiring instead to reclaim the word missions, I greatly appreciate your clarity regarding the true apostolic task. Biblical missions must center itself on the Gospel and in the Church. In addition, I believe our “service” activities would be much more effective if they were entrusted to and run under the oversight of faithful indigenous churches. Serving for the last 10 years in Sub-Saharan Africa we’ve see far too many Western funded service endeavors purposely avoid the involvement of local churches. The Bride of Christ is being subverted by professing believers from a half a world away! Much of this is in the name of pragmatism and efficiency. It is true that partnering with local believers can slow the process. It can be challenging to find mature, trustworthy Christian leaders. Shallow rapid growth models have produced far too many unhealthy churches and unqualified leaders, which is exactly why the western church needs to concentrate more on sending missionaries qualified to engage in the apostolic tasks! Elliot Clark’s book Mission Affirmed is a great resource encouraging greater discernment and calling the church to rethink its fixation on its immediate results.
J.D. I am grateful for your wisdom and for your influence in my son’s life! Thank you for your faithfulness brother!
Thank you for sharing, Michael, and for your ministry. If memory serves correctly, those four categories precede Van Engen as the Catholic church used them for years. Maybe these categories need to be revisited as you are doing in the Philippines.
Great thoughts, Kristopher! Thank you for sharing. I agree, the responsibilities of the local indigenous churches are broad and less focused than missionary (i.e., apostolic) teams. We collapse a great deal of responsibilities on to missionaries, when national churches should use their gifts and resources as the local expressions of the body of Christ.
Thank you also for your kind words. And your son is a great blessing!