The Roots of Two Missions Tensions

by Francis R. Steele

Missions are faced with restless emergent churches overseas and at the same time are exposed to false theologies in segments of the professing church at home. The two problems are clearly interrelated, having both sprung from an inadequate understanding of the nature of the church and its message.

Missions are faced with restless emergent churches overseas and at the same time are exposed to false theologies in segments of the professing church at home. The two problems are clearly interrelated, having both sprung from an inadequate understanding of the nature of the church and its message.

In one case, conservative theology lacks complete expression in the body of the church as a whole, giving rise to a false pattern of professional versus non-professional Christianity. This pattern, in turn, affects relations between missionaries and national Christians, producing paternalism. In the other case, false theology distorts the gospel and undermines the ministry of the church.

Let’s look first at the tension between missions and the developing churches overseas. This is not a new problem, but it is assuming new proportions. A hundred years ago, Africa, Asia and Latin America were largely unevangelized. Western penetration in the early days was limited, in most cases, to coastal areas. During the past century, prodigious efforts have produced millions of Christians and thousands of churches. With this growth came problems. As the emerging church grew, tensions developed between it and the missionary bodies over authority and administration. National Christians expressed dissatisfaction, even resentment, regarding what were felt to be repressive or paternalistic attitudes. The upsurge of political independence following World War II accentuated these tensions.

It seems that wherever these tensions exist, they spring largely from one of two false assumptions. First, that the "native," living on a lower economic scale and blinded by paganism, is inherently inferior and therefore incapable of exercising responsible leadership; all part of the myth of "race" which still plagues our own society. This assumption led naturally to a paternalistic attitude which discouraged efforts to give to prospective leaders training commensurate with personal potential.

The second false assumption is that authority and administrative control in the church is the prerogative of trained professionals, not just average Christians. In this case, the substandard pattern of American church life was exported to the missionary scene, further stifling natural development.

The second problem is the introduction from liberal theological circles of a new interpretation of the meaning and purpose of the missionary function of the church. In fact, a new name has been suggested as a replacement for the old. We are told to think of "mission" not missions; of a natural aspect of the church, not a separate function. Missions, it is said, do not serve the church, the church is "mission." Wherever the church is around the world, there by its very presence is "mission."

This concept also rests upon two false assumptions: one called "Christian presence," and the other a modern form of universalism. The first assumes that the presence of the church – the fact that professing Christians are in residence at any place – precludes the necessity of proclamation. Their presence is sufficient witness in itself. This concept is linked with the insistence that the ministry of the church should be carried out in dialogue as opposed to debate. All will agree that debate construed as acrimonious dispute is obviously foreign to genuine Christian witness. But this fact often obscures the real point that proponents of "presence" are opposed to proselytizing by any means. They feel that Christians should simply share their faith in "dialogue" – prepared to acknowledge good in other religions – but should not insist on the uniqueness or essentiality of Christianity. Such ideas, however, are completely at variance with the clear teaching of the New Testament regarding "persuasion" and "conviction" in the ministry of the Holy Spirit and the message of the apostles. The Bible does not countenance neutral dialogue, it commands preaching with authority for decisions.

A corollary to the concept of "presence" is a basic assumption best described as universalism; that is, that eventually all mankind will be saved. It comes through in interpretations of Scripture verses like ". . . so in Christ shall all be made alive" (I Cor. 15:22; see also Rom. 5:18) to mean that the redemption of Christ will be applied to all men, whether or not they have either heard or responded to the gospel. In fact, we are told that the "heathen" are already saved and need only to be informed of their salvation, not exhorted to repent and receive it by faith. This nonbiblical theology strongly supports the concept of nonpersuasive dialogue and fits neatly into the current philosophical climate of relativism. No absolutes, no certitude, no convictions, no condemnation, nothing but vague religious dialogue about conditions which, though presently quite unpleasant, must certainly turn out all right in the end.

Ironically, however, there is a germ of truth in the idea of "church is mission," which, if interpreted correctly, would help to solve the basic problem of church-mission relations. For the normal expression of any truly healthy church will be "mission." But the biblical "mission" will be to exhort all men everywhere to repent of their sins, believe the gospel, and be saved from hell. And that vital expression of "mission" in a really spiritually alive church will involve the total membership. Thus the arbitrary distinction and false separation between the professional Christians, hired to carry out the ministry of the church, from the nonprofessional membership which functions as a passive, uncommitted audience will disappear and the whole body will function fully, each member in his appointed place. The vitality of such a church would be so contagious it would strongly affect its environment at home or abroad.

Agreed that such a church is highly ideal and few if any local congregations ever reach such spiritual heights of perfection. Nonetheless, the ideal is not for that reason unreal, and it should be kept in view as the goal toward which every church should aspire. Furthermore, if missionaries are brought up in such truly alive churches here at home, and not conditioned by the false dichotomy of professional versus nonprofessional Christianity, it is more than likely that they will expect and encourage more responsible leadership to develop in the overseas church. Based on a healthy home experience, they can avoid the trap of professional paternalism on the mission field, and urge new Christians recently won from paganism to allow the Holy Spirit to reveal and develop the gifts God has given them for the church.

The answer to both of these problems – church-mission relations and the theological rationale of missions – is the same: regain from the Bible an understanding of the true nature of the church, its constitution, characteristics and message. And then put these principles into practice at home and abroad.

In so doing, tensions will be relaxed as Christians, foreign and national, recognize their fraternal relationship (as opposed to paternal) and determine that in an atmosphere of mutual love and respect they will work out their problems, not to individual personal advantage but to the glory of God. It will then become unmistakably clear that no church is inherently subordinate to or inescapably dependent upon another as though it were the "end of the line" of witness. But as God raises up new churches overseas in response to the preaching of the gospel by foreign visitors, these new churches become one more stage in the spread of the gospel throughout the world. So, the newly emergent church will in turn become a responsible "sending" church from which witnesses will go even further with the message of individual commitment to God by repentance and faith for personal salvation.

There will be no artificial distinction between the church, on the one hand, and a "service agency" on the other. But all Christians in whatever capacity at home or overseas, will think of themselves as members of one church, each serving in his particular place by the appointment of the head of the church for the sake of the growth of the one church which is his body.

——-

Copyright © 1973 Evangelism and Missions Information Service (EMIS). All rights reserved. Not to be reproduced or copied in any form without written permission from EMIS.

Comments are closed.