A post in which I can't keep my mouth shut

Are you taking the broad road or the narrow road in your mission definition?

[AI image and AI proofread - misteaks are mine]

I wish I were better at keeping my mouth shut, but I’m not good at that. An article came into my inbox recently from Lausanne, written by an important missiologist, and it has big ramifications - ramifications that I don’t altogether appreciate.

Christopher Wright is an eminent missiologist, author of many missions texts, a key player in the development of the Lausanne Covenant, the Global Ambassador and Ministry Director of Langham Partnership, and lots more. He is one of the most cited contemporary missiologists of our day. I met him briefly once, in Germany at a WEA event that was held before the 500-year anniversary of Luther’s posting of the 95 bad things to say to the Catholic church. I liked him immediately. I am sure he does not remember little old me.

He recently provided the world with his definition of mission, in an article titled What is Mission? I am going to critique this article, but I want to start by saying this is not a personal attack, and Dr. Wright is an eminently respected theologian by me and so many. I have profited from reading his books and listening to his teaching. But… the definition for mission which he published in the linked article is, from my perspective, dismissive of Jesus’ command to disciple the nations. I suggest you read his article first and then continue here.

Defining Gospel

First, he gives us this definition:

Gospel-centred integral mission is now my own preferred phrase for what I believe to be the biblical mission mandate, in theology and practice.

In the article, he breaks this down into these two components: gospel-centered and integral. For Wright, the gospel is what God does, and evangelism is what we do. Fair enough - standard Missio Dei missiology. The gospel is what God does (some may say, did, but that is another can of worms) and evangelism is what we have been commanded to do. He further expands this to all that God does as the gospel. In other words, the gospel cannot be contained to soteriological issues. This is rather self-evident, as all that God does is, of course, good and good news. At the same time, there is a material difference between all the good that God does, and the specific good God does (did) to redeem us. Furthermore, the command that Jesus repeated for us to be involved in taking that good news to the nations is not to be lost in the broader meaning that he suggests.

Wright is using some rhetorical sleight of hand here with the expansive use of the word “gospel” in this definition of mission. If I ask you if you have heard the good news, and you say, “yes, I have,” you must be a liar. You certainly have not heard all the good that God has done. If you want to use Wright’s definition, (inclusive of all God has done) then you should repond with, “I have heard some of it.” Obviously, we do not do this, but we reference the good news in the narrower sense of its meaning. Wright writes that the “full biblical sense” of the word gospel adds in all of the “implications as regards his status (as Messiah and Lord), the Kingdom of God, the destiny of all creation, and our own destinies.” That is a big, sloppy bucket of meaning. My concern is that it denudes the word gospel of its more narrow, specific, and common use, referencing the work of Christ on the cross and his resurrection.

• 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 gives a very specific definition of the gospel which Paul preached.

• When Philip evangelized the Ethiopian Eunuch, Acts 8:35 says that he “told him the good news about Jesus.” What good news? Was it the “full biblical sense” that Wright refers to? If so, it was a very long chariot ride.

• Romans 1:16-17 “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes..."

• Ephesians 1:13 calls the gospel, “the gospel of your salvation.”

I could go on, of course, but you get the idea.

Salvation is front and center - not always, I grant you, but most often. Wright’s view that “gospel centered” means that all aspects of the gospel (along with its implications which further erode any specific meaning) are necessary for defining mission.

In some biblical texts a broad definition is warranted (I believe that some of the “gospel of the Kingdom” passages in particular lend themselves to this use). However, this does not obviate the narrow sense, which is also used in the New Testament. It is often used in regard to salvation, the spreading of the message, and what we typically call “mission.” Insistence on the broad definition leaves me with the question, “Why did Jesus give specific injunctions for mission if all that God does is mission?”

I agree with Wright when he says, “the gospel is what God has done… whereas evangelism is what we do.” A proper definition of mission must, therefore, include both these parts. Jesus commanded us to do something and that is to communicate what God has done. If we are obedient to him, we will do something. Thus, the two most specific elements of this for a definition of mission are evangelism and discipling. I often say that these two, if obeyed, result in the planting of churches. A definition of mission which does not include what “we do” is why I am increasingly disillusioned with Missio Dei missiology. It tempts the theologian to abstract mission into only what God does, removing from us the need to obey Jesus’ command to disciple the nations.

What about Holistic/Integral Mission?

The second half of Wright’s thesis is that holistic/integral mission must be included in the definition of mission. This is also a direct result of expanded definitions. Because he defines the gospel as a totality, then included in the bucket is all of our actions as Christians.

Let me start by saying I am no enemy of holistic/integral missions. Most missionaries that are heavy on proclaiming the gospel are also heavy on demonstrating it. I realize that simplistic definitions of the gospel in Western contexts have sullied the good name of evangelism (see my post on Reductionism - Honey, I Shrunk the Gospel). I have been involved in significant humanitarian aid, relief, and development operations. Holistic ministry can be a requirement because of local contexts. War zones, famines, and similar human tragedies require us to see the whole person.

But this is not the same as requiring holistic/integral in our definition of mission. We will often believe this is the best way, but Wright is arguing for more than that. For him, holism is baked into the definition.

Was Philip doing holistic mission when he shared the gospel with the eunuch? How was Stephen’s sermon holistic? Paul and Silas in Thessalonica? How about Paul and Barnabas at Lystra? When Lydia was converted, what was the integral ministry that accompanied it? What did Paul deliver “as first importance” to the Corinthians? “…that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures” (I Corinthians 15:3). Yes, I am sure that one could come up with abstract holistic demonstrations in some of these Bible accounts. For the most part, though, these are verbal proclamations of the gospel, sans holism as we know it.

The obvious reality is that, in the New Testament, we do not see holistic/integral mission practiced in every instance. Nor, by the way, do we see proclamation in every instance of “gospeling.” Yet, there is something substantive about mission and its accompanying message. The only way one could come to the conclusion that mission, by definition, must be holistic is through an expansive definition that loses any sort of meaning regarding both proclamational and integral/holistic mission.

When I served in a war-torn region, we conducted a great deal of holistic/integral mission. This included humanitarian aid, business development, and educational programs. There were some very well-known Christian humanitarian aid organizations that had programs in operation that were completely indistinguishable from programs offered by the UN. We used to ask ourselves, “Is what we’re doing right now any different than what the UN is offering?” If the answer was no, then we needed to stop and ask ourselves about how much mission was in this holistic work. Where were the evangelism, discipleship, and planting of churches in this (I call these three “EDP”)? Ultimately, it comes down to the difference in how the gospel was being communicated alongside/in/and through the holistic/integral work.

I am not arguing here that all holistic/integral work be accompanied by gospel tracts. What I am saying is that the good news has substance and should not be lost in a soup of good things.

One might argue that the Christian thing to do is to help people holistically regardless of whether the message gets shared or not. I agree. But let’s not call that mission. Let’s simply call that being an obedient Christian.

When Everything is Missions, Nothing is Missions

The way we end up with a definition of mission that loses its saltiness is by expansively defining it such that all things are included. This is precisely why the phrase, “when everything is missions, nothing is missions” is helpful. This is what Wright’s definition of mission yields.

If you think I am making an unfair accusation, we can read what he has written about this very charge. In in his book, The Mission of God’s People, we find this:

That is why I also dislike the old knock-down line that sought to ring-fence the word “mission” for specifically cross-cultural sending of missionaries for evangelism: “If everything is mission, then nothing is mission.” It would seem more biblical to say, “If everything is mission…everything is mission.” Clearly, not everything is cross-cultural evangelistic mission, but everything a Christian and a Christian church is, says and does should be missional in its conscious participation in the mission of God in God’s world.

I understand why he does not like this phrase - he is contributing to the problem that this little “knock-down” line highlights. I believe a little “ring-fencing” is in order. The command of Jesus to disciple the nations means something tangible. Wright’s broad definition removes any sense of the specific commands given to us by Jesus to do mission (John 20:21, Mark 16:15, Matt 28:18-20, Luke 24:44-49, and Acts 1:8). How can a Bible expositor avoid the reality that Jesus had something specific in mind when he delivered these commands? The way to arrive at that conclusion is change the meaning of the words in question. That is what has happened here.

The infamous church parking lot project comes to mind. David Mays used to tell the story of a church that was paving its park lot out of the missions budget. How did they justify this? Because, of course, getting more people into church on Sunday “was missions.” I suppose that fits Wright’s broad and expansive definition of mission, but for me, it is not mission.

On Lausanne

Lausanne was founded by two men with differing views of mission. Billy Graham was an evangelist who had a specific ministry focused on sharing a short gospel presentation. Stott preferred a broader definition, including creation care, holistic mission, justice, peace, and so on. From my perspective, this tension has been a feature, not a bug, of Lausanne. This is healthy, not something to be avoided, creating great conversation and dialog.

I lead a broad and expansive network of missionary agencies and churches. There are multiple viewpoints and opinions expressed with some disagreement in the mix at any given time. Missio Nexus has a tradition of focusing on EDP. I have often said that if you believe in EDP, you will fit right in. Let me be clear, though, that I hope this has not been institutionalized to the point where a ministry emphasizing holistic/integral approaches feels like they are outsiders. That would be tragic. We need the participation of those who focus on holistic/integral mission. Together word and deed ministries can offer their best while obeying Jesus’ command to disciple the nations. There is no tension when these two meet in gracious collaboration and cooperation.

The mainline Protestant mission movement redefined mission in the 1920s and 1930s. The Hocking Report suggested that missionaries would be better utilized focusing on social issues, education, and medical care. They lost their saltiness when they stopped emphasizing the spiritual aspects of missionary work - the EDP. Today, these formerly significant contributors to global mission are gone. It is intriguing to me that this redefinition of mission took place at about the same time that Missio Dei became a dominant influence in global missions. In their place rose a large, independent missionary agency movement with a narrow definition of mission with a tighter focus on EDP. The point here is that history suggests that broad definitions of mission have led down a slippery slope to no mission.

Wright is probably the most significant theological and missiological voice alive today. He has a huge influence in the Lausanne movement. He represents John Stott well. My question is “Where is Lausanne’s Billy Graham, bringing a balance to this question of defining mission?” This is a foundational issue that the movement needs to face, particularly as the more conservative Global South church grows in influence.

Something I Like

Before closing, I do want to make a point of abject agreement I have with Wright in his article. This is something I love about how God crafted the Great Commission.

Embedded in those famous verses of Matthew 28:18-20, we find the Great Commandment. As Wright notes, when Jesus commanded the disciples to “disciple the nations” he instructed them to teach obedience to all he had taught them. This is an important guardrail against “drive by missionary work,” which is all too prevalent in today’s global mission efforts.

What do I mean by “drive by missionary work?” I mean simplistic training programs, highly reductionist theological education, sharing a reductionist message, short term mission conducted at the expense of long-term outcomes, outreach that is not contextualized, the desire to scale things numerically, outsiders that do not empower insiders, strategic planning over and above spiritual guidance, and similar problems in how mission is conducted. These temptations seem to get worse when we focus on Kingdom expansion and neglect Kingdom depth.

What a beautiful thing Christopher Wright reminds us to consider. Jesus’ command to disciple the nations charges us to think not only about the sharp tip of the spear (discipling the nations) but also the long tail of gospel ramifications in all areas of life (obeying all he taught the disciples).

My Definition

In conclusion, it is only fair that I give my own definition of mission if I am going to critique others. I am sure it is lacking and deficient for the academy. Yet, it contains the one-two punch that I think is more helpful than an “everything is missions” approach. There is both a narrow sense and the broader nature of what Jesus called us to do.

Mission is obeying Jesus’ command to disciple the nations and to teach them to observe all that Jesus commanded the disciples.

That little “and” is doing a lot of work in my definition. Why? Because one can focus more on the first part, or the second part, but without a sense of both, it is not mission - it is not what Jesus commanded us to do. The sense of “nations” is a concept that runs through the heart of the Bible. It provides the necessary “ring-fence” to our definition. Without it, we are talking about the Great Commandment, not the Great Commission, though they are intertwined. Together, but different. Both need to be included in a solid definition of mission.

There is something about this simple definition that reminds me of something somebody once said…