Ted, a fine discussion worthy of our time and attention. Dr. Wright opens, "For many Christians, the word ‘mission’ immediately brings to mind images of missionaries travelling to distant lands to preach the gospel. While this is certainly part of mission, it barely scratches the surface of what the Bible teaches. Mission is far bigger." Uh-oh. Mission may be "bigger" than missionaries travelling to distant lands to preach the gospel, but it is not "far bigger." "Travelling to distant lands," which Dr. Wright diminishes, is the sum of all that Paul is doing (and all that our Lord commanded him to do), "We did make it as far as you, but with your help, we are going to the regions beyond" (2 Cor. 10:16). There are still regions beyond, and there are still unreached peoples in the regions beyond. Is this not the highest priority, as stated at Lausanne 1974 by Ralph D. Winter? Mission cannot be "far bigger" that this, unless we raise too high the other, but lesser urgent, mission tasks. Let no one say that the mission is ONLY to the peoples and the places in the regions beyond, but let none divert the entire force of the Bible, since Abraham and his descendants were called to bless all the families of the earth, by pointing out the other tasks that God has given His people. The purpose of God's chosen people, and the force of all the promises made to the patriarchs, and the reason God send Jesus to be "a servant to the Jews," as Paul sums up everything in Romans chapter 15, is "so that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy" (15:9). This is the answer to the question, "What is mission?"
Ted, I really like this assessment you have made. I had the same qualms you do about his article. I'm completely with you in your weariness of and souring to the Missio Dei. Thank you for speaking your mind about it. I agree.
I can't help but think that the tension between proclamation and holistic mission is only resolved in the institution of the church, with some (elders) devoted to preaching and others (deacons) to humanitarian work. The mission exists because the church does not.
Thanks for posting this, Ted. I've started work on a bigger project intended to be an alternative to Wright's Mission of God. Ultimately, Wright's missiology is a biblical theology issue--how he understands the Bible to fit together and how the newness of the new covenant fits into the story of the Bible. I have, however, found it difficult to neatly categorize Wright's biblical theology. Being Anglican, he certainly holds to a type of covenant theology, although it differs from the Presbyterian version. I've also struggled to define Chris Wright's relationship to NT Wright and the New Perspective. I think he has been significantly influenced there or at least they are swimming in the same streams. Like you, I think Wright is a great man who has done so much for the Lord, but I also agree that we need to challenge his assumptions and not allow his voice to be the only or loudest voice in the missiological conversation. Unfortunately, he has been incredibly dismissive and disparaging of anyone who would prioritize the "so-called Great Commission," as Wright puts it.
I think sociological context is under theorized here. What mission looks like "on the frontier" vs "in the normal world" is significant. The form follows the frontier, and not everything is a frontier. The appropriate set of apostolic actions and the missional responsibility of normal Christians is very different in London than in India and we need to continue to take that distinction seriously. I wonder if we are actually arguing about the prioritism and resourcing and attention paid to key frontiers, rather than missional definitions.
Secondly, also sociologically, I think ecclesiology can get swallowed up here. Both evangelism and integral mission are derivative functions of a new kind of social community. The missiological debate causes us to oscillate between ecclesiocentrism and ecclesially-unrooted activism. I see this play out in the practical divides between church planting, missions, and redemptive social innovation.
I think this is why I find myself continually returning to Newbigin's "sign, foretaste, instrument" construct (I think he was trying to integrate the best of missio dei without losing the plot like his colleagues). The church as a social body contains a proclaiming function (sign), an embodying function (foretaste), and the enacting function (instrument), in a given missional context, over time. It's the ecclesiology that holds it together.
So maybe we need to further debate our ecclesiology and argue about which frontiers really matter most right now instead.
Thank you Ted, as a missionary in Africa for over a decade we lived the word and deed tension in mission that has been ongoing. Christopher Wright has my deep respect with his book on the fruit of Holy Spirit and I wrote my doctorate thesis with his Mission of God as a resource. So in summary, I love your line…” There is no tension when these two meet (word and deed) in gracious collaboration and cooperation. “
Branding in the church has broadened the definition of mission. Your emphasis on EDP…evangelism, Disciple making, and Church planting is hard work in 4 soil and a spiritual battle of intimacy with Holy Spirit to not water down in broad definitions.
As an aged mission's practitioner, concur. I watched 475 Riverside drive, N C C ,move from its original purpose "evangelization of the world in this generation" to just a lobbying office for humanitarian projects. while C W S enforced no sharing among refugees.
As WCC gobbled up International Missions Council, the definition broadened and dramatically changed. The demise of "Missions" occurred as the definition broadened to include Salvation in the name of Fidel and Mao, and missions as aiding Marxist Liberation fronts.
Exact same slippery slope.
By 1968 Uppsala the full impact of definition change was evident and cross-cultural gospel bearers were the enemy. At Lausanne listened to Graham plead for evangelism to be primary while other voices proclaimed NO, loving the world in word and deed are co-equal and both and either are missions.
Ted, a fine discussion worthy of our time and attention. Dr. Wright opens, "For many Christians, the word ‘mission’ immediately brings to mind images of missionaries travelling to distant lands to preach the gospel. While this is certainly part of mission, it barely scratches the surface of what the Bible teaches. Mission is far bigger." Uh-oh. Mission may be "bigger" than missionaries travelling to distant lands to preach the gospel, but it is not "far bigger." "Travelling to distant lands," which Dr. Wright diminishes, is the sum of all that Paul is doing (and all that our Lord commanded him to do), "We did make it as far as you, but with your help, we are going to the regions beyond" (2 Cor. 10:16). There are still regions beyond, and there are still unreached peoples in the regions beyond. Is this not the highest priority, as stated at Lausanne 1974 by Ralph D. Winter? Mission cannot be "far bigger" that this, unless we raise too high the other, but lesser urgent, mission tasks. Let no one say that the mission is ONLY to the peoples and the places in the regions beyond, but let none divert the entire force of the Bible, since Abraham and his descendants were called to bless all the families of the earth, by pointing out the other tasks that God has given His people. The purpose of God's chosen people, and the force of all the promises made to the patriarchs, and the reason God send Jesus to be "a servant to the Jews," as Paul sums up everything in Romans chapter 15, is "so that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy" (15:9). This is the answer to the question, "What is mission?"
Ted, I really like this assessment you have made. I had the same qualms you do about his article. I'm completely with you in your weariness of and souring to the Missio Dei. Thank you for speaking your mind about it. I agree.
I can't help but think that the tension between proclamation and holistic mission is only resolved in the institution of the church, with some (elders) devoted to preaching and others (deacons) to humanitarian work. The mission exists because the church does not.
Thanks for posting this, Ted. I've started work on a bigger project intended to be an alternative to Wright's Mission of God. Ultimately, Wright's missiology is a biblical theology issue--how he understands the Bible to fit together and how the newness of the new covenant fits into the story of the Bible. I have, however, found it difficult to neatly categorize Wright's biblical theology. Being Anglican, he certainly holds to a type of covenant theology, although it differs from the Presbyterian version. I've also struggled to define Chris Wright's relationship to NT Wright and the New Perspective. I think he has been significantly influenced there or at least they are swimming in the same streams. Like you, I think Wright is a great man who has done so much for the Lord, but I also agree that we need to challenge his assumptions and not allow his voice to be the only or loudest voice in the missiological conversation. Unfortunately, he has been incredibly dismissive and disparaging of anyone who would prioritize the "so-called Great Commission," as Wright puts it.
Really good Ted. This is a core fault line.
I think sociological context is under theorized here. What mission looks like "on the frontier" vs "in the normal world" is significant. The form follows the frontier, and not everything is a frontier. The appropriate set of apostolic actions and the missional responsibility of normal Christians is very different in London than in India and we need to continue to take that distinction seriously. I wonder if we are actually arguing about the prioritism and resourcing and attention paid to key frontiers, rather than missional definitions.
Secondly, also sociologically, I think ecclesiology can get swallowed up here. Both evangelism and integral mission are derivative functions of a new kind of social community. The missiological debate causes us to oscillate between ecclesiocentrism and ecclesially-unrooted activism. I see this play out in the practical divides between church planting, missions, and redemptive social innovation.
I think this is why I find myself continually returning to Newbigin's "sign, foretaste, instrument" construct (I think he was trying to integrate the best of missio dei without losing the plot like his colleagues). The church as a social body contains a proclaiming function (sign), an embodying function (foretaste), and the enacting function (instrument), in a given missional context, over time. It's the ecclesiology that holds it together.
So maybe we need to further debate our ecclesiology and argue about which frontiers really matter most right now instead.
Thank you Ted, as a missionary in Africa for over a decade we lived the word and deed tension in mission that has been ongoing. Christopher Wright has my deep respect with his book on the fruit of Holy Spirit and I wrote my doctorate thesis with his Mission of God as a resource. So in summary, I love your line…” There is no tension when these two meet (word and deed) in gracious collaboration and cooperation. “
Branding in the church has broadened the definition of mission. Your emphasis on EDP…evangelism, Disciple making, and Church planting is hard work in 4 soil and a spiritual battle of intimacy with Holy Spirit to not water down in broad definitions.
As an aged mission's practitioner, concur. I watched 475 Riverside drive, N C C ,move from its original purpose "evangelization of the world in this generation" to just a lobbying office for humanitarian projects. while C W S enforced no sharing among refugees.
As WCC gobbled up International Missions Council, the definition broadened and dramatically changed. The demise of "Missions" occurred as the definition broadened to include Salvation in the name of Fidel and Mao, and missions as aiding Marxist Liberation fronts.
Exact same slippery slope.
By 1968 Uppsala the full impact of definition change was evident and cross-cultural gospel bearers were the enemy. At Lausanne listened to Graham plead for evangelism to be primary while other voices proclaimed NO, loving the world in word and deed are co-equal and both and either are missions.
Definitions matter.