Prioritism
Does this "ism" clarify or create a conundrum?
[Thanks to GP for stirring my thoughts on this.]
Prioritism can be defined as “emphasizing the teaching and proclamation of the gospel message as an indispensable part of the missionary task.” The concept implies that demonstrations of love or acts of service are not sufficient in themselves to communicate the gospel, and that verbal, written, or other means of communication are necessary.
The opposing (and probably also a more popular viewpoint) is reflected in the phrase, “Preach the Gospel at all times. Use words if necessary.” This quote is often attributed to Francis of Assisi though its origins are in dispute. For lack of a better term, I am going to call this “acts of service” philosophy “demonstrationism.” Prioritism, in contrast to demonstrationism, might rephrase Assisi’s quote as, “Preach the Gospel at all times. Use acts of service if necessary.”
Some call demonstrationism “holistic ministry,” but holistic ministry is actually a larger topic, past the scope of this short article. Each of the two views, prioritism and demonstrationism, can use holistic ministry methods, and both can deficient in communicating the gospel.
The split between prioritism and demonstrationism has haunted missiology for some time. The most infamous split happened in the fundamentalist/modernist confrontation of the early 1900s. This ultimately led to the dismantling of the mainline church’s missionary movement, elements of which we are still seeing putter out today. Historically, many of the missions and denominations that leaned into demonstrationism have suffered from mission drift.
The split is still here and active today. At the recent Lausanne event in Seoul, Korea, you might have seen it playing itself out over the issue of justice and missions. This was more or less born into the DNA of Lausanne, as John Stott leaned toward demonstrationism and Billy Graham was more of a prioritist.
My view is that prioritism is a better framework for global missions and demonstrationism needs to be fit “underneath” prioritism. Why? Because prioritism is almost always inclusive of acts of service. Acts of service, on the other hand, are often performed sans proclamation. Do we need both to fulfill the Great Commission? No, we don’t. We need proclamation. We sometimes need acts of service. Thus, prioritism serves as a better overall rubric for what we might consider Great Commission work. At the same time, words without an aligning demonstration (if possible and necessary) are hypocritical and weak, empty of the power of the gospel.
I have been in many after-the-war ministry situations. I mean literal war. This scenario is one which requires more than words for successful gospel communication. People who have suffered need us to love them in tangible ways. They also need us to be bold about the gospel. Their suffering needs to be tangibly connected to Jesus’ suffering.
In Sarajevo, in 1996, I walked into the offices of a very well-known Christian aid organization. When they learned that we were purposefully witnessing to Muslims, the leader of the group asked me to leave and not return. He was incredulous that I would be so insensitive as to provoke Muslims regarding Jesus so soon after the peace agreement for Bosnia had been signed. I asked him if he was there to spread the gospel, and he very pointedly said,
“Yes, with every person whose home I rebuild, and with every meal we serve.”
“What about telling them that your motivation for this is the love of Jesus?” I asked.
“They don’t need me, or you, forcing your religion on them,” he replied.
“So, how are you different than the UN?” I asked, “they also rebuild homes and feed people.”
“Get out of this office,” he repeated. And so I left, and we never did any ministry alongside this multi-million-dollar Christian organization that was telling a very different story about their work in their fundraising materials back in the US.
Thus, after a life of ministry I find myself firmly planted in the prioritism camp.
Can I write this without offending my brothers and sisters who prefer one approach over the other? It is hard. Past experience indicates that both sides of this debate are rather unforgiving in very nice, Christian ways. All believers should not only speak the truth but demonstrate and live out the truth - who can argue with this? You can do both. These two camps would be better served respecting the other’s position while lovingly calling them to closer cooperation.
The urgency of the gospel, if we really do believe that people need to know Jesus to be a part of the Kingdom, calls us to boldly proclaim him. This is something that requires words. Yet, those words are so much stronger when infused with demonstrated love.
I wonder if this discussion through the ages as an either or discussion isn't actually just a false dichotomy. The good news must be preached and as Jesus followers, we must always show love.
Ted, I appreciate you writing this. I think you have the right priority. I find it helpful to compare missions to the work of the church. The early church faced the same issue as early as Acts 6. As with the work of the church, so goes the work of missions, there must be a priority. Such a priority that we pay some pastors to make it their job. The balance in a church is a helpful comparison to the balance that we need in missions. The job of one man is to preach, while the entire congregation is tasked with living out the implications of the gospel in their lives. So too in missions, we designate one person as a church planter - the leader of the task you might say, while there is a swarm of support work that validates the message through lives of good works. What's needed in a culture for effective gospel witness is not just the proclamation of one man, but an entire congregation shining the light.