Reformation Errors, or Ted's Errors? Part 2

In which I discuss feedback on last weeks post and offer a modified mea culpa

Well, I got a flood of email responses on my post last week. This post will serve to correct a citation I missed by Calvin.

One note, first. I recognize that not everybody wants to comment publicly, and I understand why. When you send direct email to me, though, the conversation here suffers a little. If you can, let’s move the conversation into the comments, below. However, for those that are a bit timid and perhaps for good reasons, I do certainly appreciate it when you hit reply and let me know your thoughts directly if you must. If you correspond with me in this way I will do my best not to “out” you.

A reader wrote to me and offered this citation from Calvin, which I had not read before:

“For so hath the Lord commanded us, I have set thee for a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth” (Acts 13:47). … Hence we gather that it is our duty to proclaim the goodness of God to every nation. For the Lord hath not only appointed that his word shall be preached to one or two nations, but to all men without exception. The work is such as ought not to be concealed in a corner, but to be everywhere proclaimed. Therefore, let us with one consent set ourselves to advance the glory of God, and to obey his command, that we may be the means of bringing many to salvation.

- Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles in his exposition of Acts 13:47

That is more like it!

It does provide a more balanced view than what I wrote last week. My error here, not Calvin’s, in not balancing out my critique which you can read here.

BUT…. it is only a half apology.

I would still argue that the overall bent of Calvin’s view is better reflected in the quote I provided. This early Reformers displayed an astonishing lack of cross-cultural, cross-global missionary work much more in line with the theology that the Great Commission was given to the apostles and not the church then (or now). They were enamored with the role of the pastor and wasted little ink on the missionary team.

A few other tidbits shared or commented on:

• The Reformer’s primary fight was against the Catholic Church and, unfortunately, other reformers who had different theological positions (sometimes resulting in their deaths). This may be one reason why there is so little emphasis on the Great Commission in The Institutes and other writings of the day. I feel that I mentioned this, but a few people noted that many church happenings are misinterpreted because we lack their historical context. That is true. And yes, I realize the the phrase “The Great Commission” is anachronistic as applied to the Reformation.

• Somebody was snarky and wrote that Calvin’s statement, that the Great Commission was only given to the apostles, was rather dispensational. Irony of ironies. To be fair, all reasonable Christian traditions recognize that the apostles played a unique role which ended with their exit from this life.

• Nobody “bit” on Luther’s comment. I suppose he can be hard to defend for a variety of reasons, but his position aligned with Calvin’s.

• I also find Calven’s statement, that “the pastor has not a commission to preach the gospel over the whole world, but to take care of the Church that has been committed to his charge” to be patently true. Just not for the reasons given by Calvin. The pattern in the New Testament is not pastors-as-missionaries. Rather, a chosen team took the message to the Gentiles, establishing new churches as a primary focus. Staying on to be pastors of local congregations must have happened in some instances, but this is not the narrative of Acts or is it reflected in the pastoral epistles to any great length.

The Larger Questions that Lay Unanswered

There is a larger theological issue to be discussed that was not possible in the scope of my post. How did Paul relate to the local churches of the day? Did he submit to their authority in how he did missions work? We know that a council was held to determine the specific para

meters of that mission theologically, but not methodologically. In point of fact, Paul spent much of his ministry life defending the inclusion of the Gentiles to the Jewish-dominated early church. He needed this council, this “parachurch body,” to weigh in and give him assurances that would fuel his mission beyond the walls of a local church.

I am being a bit provocative using the word “parachurch” in this context. There is a growing movement called “church-centric missions.” They fear that “parachurch ministries” are too dominant in missions (even though they themselves have already created a set of parachurch ministries to promote their views). From my view, bring it! More church involvement in missions is a great thing. There are some great elements to this movement. There are also some dangers, including dismissing the unique role that the missionary team had in the book of Acts.

Is Calvin correct in how he understands the scope of the pastoral role when he writes, “to take care of the Church that has been committed to his charge?” If so, we should not be asking local church pastors to see themselves as missionaries. That has been the drumbeat of the missional movement. This has big ramifications for the local church.

Going in the opposite direction is framing the missionary around a pastoral model. This may be the temptation presented by the church-centric movement. This is appealing to mono-cultural, US pastors, who like the emphasis on preaching and teaching using the methods and models they are comfortable with on Sundays in America. It may be less than Biblical, though, when we consider that the sermons in the book of Acts were more often preached to the unconverted than the gathered church, thus requiring a different homiletic. Jesus himself was highly interactive in his teaching, rarely as didactic as the contemporary preaching model we are so accustomed to in local churches. Perhaps Calvin and Luther have unwittingly led to this approach with their dismissal of the apostellos of our age.

FYI, I personally do not believe there is such a thing as a “parachurch ministry.” This might be a topic for a future post. Sorry if this reads a bit hurried. I am moving this week but wanted to get this out before the error lay there too long.