May
14
stott on mission (3)
Posted by Jon Trainer at 12:53 amFiled Under book reviews, church, theology
Having established that Stott in Christian Mission in the Modern World advocates a missional third rail between the concepts of “mission as strictly evangelism” and “mission as only social action,” namely, that mission entails everything God sends His people into the world to accomplish, let’s explore the relationship Stott perceives between evangelism and social action.
Three viewpoints seem to dominate the ecclesial landscape. First, social action is used by some as a means to evangelism. Medical, financial, or humanitarian assistance is the bait on the evangelistic hook. Stott considers such tactics to be hypocritical at best and deceptive at worst. Second, many may regard social action as a proper manifestation of evangelism. Instead of attaching some good work in an arbitrary manner to what is ultimately an opportunity meant to be exploited for evangelism, in this second view, the chance to share the gospel is born naturally out of a good work done for the sake of doing good. Words and deeds go together. Still, Stott is somewhat uncomfortable with this, as it “makes service a subdivision of evangelism” — a more cleverly veiled means to an end. Third, Stott advocates for a perspective in which social action is the partner of evangelism. How does this differ from the other two? He sees gospel proclamation and social action as being related to one another, but mutually independent. “Each stands on its own feet in its own right alongside the other. Neither is a means to the other, or even a manifestation of the other….Both are expressions of unfeigned love” (1 John 3:17, 18). There will be times when they exchange places in order or priority…a wealthy, but spiritually famished man may need to hear the gospel, but the man who fell among thieves needed physical attention first.
At this point in the text Stott returns to the Great Commission in order to refute a foreseen objection. What if someone still believes the Great Commission texts refer exclusively to evangelism? Stott, in a sentence no doubt meant to surprise, postulates that it may be because we place too much emphasis on the Great Commission (because they are Jesus’ last words). Quick to backpeddle a bit, he nevertheless points the reader toward the Great Commandment and reminds us that the Commission does not nullify the Commandment. In fact, the one loving his neighbor will no doubt share the good news of the gospel with him. “Therefore, if we love our neighbor as God made him, we must inevitably be concerned for his total welfare, the good of his soul, his body, his community.”
To sum up, we are sent into the world, like Jesus, to serve. For this is the natural expression of our love for our neighbors. We love. We go. We serve. And in this we have (or should have) no ulterior motive. True, the gospel lacks visibility if we merely preach it, and lacks credibility if we who preach it are interested only in souls and have no concern about the welfare of people’s bodies, situations and communities. Yet the reason for our acceptance of social responsibility is not primarily in order to give the gospel either a visibility or a credibility it would otherwise lack, but rather simple uncomplicated passion. Love has no need to justify itself. It merely expresses itself in service wherever it sees need.
In conclusion, Stott offers three areas of practical import for the ideas he has explored. First, he believes greater emphasis should be placed on vocational calling in the lives of individual Christians. The believer must have a sense in whatever field of endeavor he pursues that God is glorified, the gospel adorned, and the community graced when that profession is practiced with excellence. Second, for the local church Stott recommends “study and action groups” that capitalize on individual member’s passions and callings, and target them into evangelistic and social activities for which they are keenly concerned. He rightly points out that not all Christians are gifted or called to the “soul-winning enterprise.”
…One might concentrate on house-to-house visitation [remember this was written in 1975], another on the evangelistic penetration of some particular unreached section, another on community relations among immigrants [prescient!], another on setting up a housing association to help the homeless, another on visiting old folk or the sick, or helping the handicapped, while others might address themselves to wider socio-ethical or socio-political questions such as abortion or labor relations or permissiveness and censorship.
Third, Stott attempts to make a case for engagement at a national level. Here he appeals to denominational and para-church organizations to make a broader impact on society.
I know this has gone on past the point of most blog reader’s word count tolerance level, but let me make a few comments at this point:
First, I like Stott’s explication of the Great Commission, especially as he includes the Johannine text; however, I would defer to Kostenberger and be of the opinion that proclamation is the primary emphasis of mission in the New Testament.
Second, that being said, I believe that we have ridden the primary proclamation horse so hard that the secondary social action pony looks ready to gallop for days by comparison.
Third, a healthy social action baby can only be born in a theologically robust pre-natal environment. The early church gave themselves to the Apostle’s doctrine first. Loving acts were the result. Many of the churches and denominations embarking on social action lifestyles are theologically shallow. The danger is losing the gospel deposit.
Fourth, the emphasis on individual responsibility to heed the vocational call is the correct one. Much more can be done by a scattered congregation living 24/7 in the community than by the institutional church. Let the church, when gathered, give itself to those things she does best: worship, edify, encourage, equip, etc. That being said, there are times the task at hand will require greater organization and numbers. In this regard, I like Stott’s idea of “study and action groups.” I think small groups in the church (for us, Heart Groups) could accomplish a great deal in collaboration. A few churches as well, when equally-yoked, may be able to work together to reach a common goal. The more elaborate the goal, the more vital the equal yoke. Sponsoring a yearly conference along some ethical theme is far different than planting a church together.
Fifth, I don’t know where Stott is going on the national level, and I am not sure he does either. Things get pretty political pretty fast when breathing the air at those altitudes. It takes a Daniel.
I am not sure whether to post this here or on the previous post, but obviously here’s where I landed. Hope that’s okay. The reason for my confusion is because my basic question/concern is really on the definition of mission (which seems like the last post).
As you may know, I don’t agree with Stott on this matter. The keys to my disagreement are: (1) he mishandles the two John texts (17:18; 20:21) by arguing that the point is in the words As-So, when the focal point is sent/send concept; and (2) he then shoehorns way too much into that comparison (and incarnational imagery).
On that first point, in reality what Stott ends up arguing for is not really the concept of being sent, but of coming. That is, Stott really says, “Jesus came this way, so we should come this way.” But the text isn’t about how the Son came into the world; it’s about how the Son was sent into the world by the Father. Just as He was sent, so we are sent. The sending language is authorization and commissioning language. What this text does is show that Jesus has commissioned us and we must go to other texts to understand the task to which we are commissioned (17:20 helps a lot with this, so does 20:23).
On the second point, Kostenberger’s book on this matter is more clear than the article provided with an earlier post. Here’s a sample:
“The notion of the disciples’ mission as “service to humanity†founded on the model of Jesus’ mission appears, contrary to Stott’s assertions, to be inconsistent with the Fourth Gospel’s teaching on mission. A focus on human service and on human need, though often characteristic of contemporary mission practice, is not presented in the Fourth Gospel as the primary purpose of either Jesus’ or the disciples’ mission” (The Mission of Jesus and the Disciples, p. 215).
I’ll restrict myself to this foundational point because I believe Stott’s house stands or falls on this (which may explain why he has invested so much energy into this concept).
FWIW, I think the EDT article doesn’t support Stott’s read at all, and Wright’s most accurate statement was “Jesus claims that the mission of preaching repentance and forgiveness to the nations in his name is ‘what is written.’”
Obviously, no one can deny that believers are to love their neighbors, but is that the mission of the church? I just don’t see Jesus commanded the church to do the kinds of things that Stott commends.
Jon -
Taking a cue from you and enumerating my comments
1) Not to minimize the proclamation aspect of the Great Commission, but it is also very instructive to consider not only the Great Commandment but Jesus’ final teaching in Matthew 25 around the sheep and goats. See Matt. 25:31-46, with particular emphasis on 34-40. There is definitely a social action component here!
2) I don’t agree with Stott that using social action as an entre for proclamation is at best hypocritical and at worst deceptive. in fact, in some places in the world that is the ONLY way Christians can have entrance to proclaim the gospel.
3) It will be interesting as we go through Acts to see how much social action balances proclamation
For that matter, should we not consider Jesus’ own ministry, and his balance between social action and proclamation?! And it is instructive to see that oftentimes his healing and whatnot appeared to have no link to particular proclamation or salvation.
4) Too many doctrinally-centered and proclamation-oriented churches are fearful of social action because of seeing it being done by liberal churches or even non-Christians. Let it be! In fact, we should recognize that is an aspect of being created in the image of God and common grace – that non-Christians can and do engage in acts of nobility of charity, and we should not be fearful of that. Should we not seek to outdo in love?! And, in fact, we should be able to work alongside the liberal churches and non-Christians arm-in-arm.
5) As a follow-on, I liked what you had to say about Stott’s view of the relative independence of social action and proclamation, although that was not fully satisfying in terms of then how the two do get associated or linked at some point.
6) You know I am passionate about the concept of vocational calling and working in a God-honoring way at whatever we do. However, that is far from sufficient in and of itself with respect to either the Great Commission or the Great Commandment. It is entirely possible to be God-honoring in work, yet neither proclaiming nor participating in social action – those take extra initiative and effort. Accordingly, I don’t see vocational calling as providing more than a context – we are still left with the issue of how to go beyond merely doing one’s job well and with integrity to being a field for more.
7) Just because there is a recognition that some of us aren’t gifted with proclamation (and I would certainly place myself there!), that really isn’t too relevant. Is that not an area of growth for all of us, then?
Dave,
Thanks for taking time out of your schedule to read the blog and post a response. Regarding John 20:21:
To whom are the words of Christ addressed? (1) The apostles alone, (2) the apostles and other disciples within earshot, or (3) the church through time?
What is the focus of the text? (1) The Father’s authoritative commissioning of the Son now given by Christ to those that are the answer of the first question, (2) John’s unique great commission emphasis on “as…so” highlighting perhaps the manner of the Son’s sending and/or its object, or (3) the relationship between persons as emphasized in the Father sending and Jesus being sent, now transferred to Jesus sending and those that are the answer to the first question being sent? Must we limit the view of the text to one of these options? Surely the Father’s sending activity begins in authority and ends in a ministry of (proclaiming) reconciliation (2 Cor 5:18).
What to make of the perfect tense verb “has sent me”? 1) Is this a reference to the authority of Christ’s commission by the Father that was made in the past, but continues in the present (the aorist of 17:18 makes more sense to me), or 2) is this a reference to Christ’s continued mission begun in the past, but now embodied in the calling of His followers–”my mission begun in the past is continuing in you”?
If I interpret vss 22 & 23 in light of v21 it seems there is something more than just an authoritative commission happening in v21…it is a sending that is embodied in mission…in this case, a spiritual one. Lenski even links the greeting “peace” with the gospel which the apostle’s will now proclaim, though that seems a stretch.
The text is a difficult one. Isn’t this always the case on these tricky matters? Regardless, I agree with you that the NT emphasis, as highlighted by Kostenberger even in these passages, is on proclamation. No argument there.
I also think Stott recognizes the value of the individual versus the institution in effective gospel embodiment. His emphasis on vocational call is one sorely lacking in conservative evangelical circles and I was delighted to see it. Veith and Ryken’s works are particularly helpful reads along these lines. All of life is an aspect of mission every time a Christian puts his feet on the ground in the morning.
Stott does try to stuff an awful lot into his incarnational model, particularly regarding the institutional church. This is why I struggle with the concept of “justice revivals” or their equivalents. It seems that when the church loses track in any of her activities, of what is primary, she quickly stumbles and soils the pure garments of the gospel.
Hans,
Thanks for your enumerated comments!
1. Who is the object of all the love in Mt. 25? Seems to be those proclaiming the gospel. The sheep and the goats are distinguished by their response to and treatment of God’s messengers.
2. Stott is focusing on motives. He is upset with evangelists that are truly using deceitful means in order to gain an opportunity to evangelize. There are places on the planet that require the faithful witness of believers committed to live out the gospel with pure motives and no hope of a verbal witness, unless granted by God. Don’t we always struggle with seeing others as a means to an end?
3. Yes!
4. “Fear not and Yes” to letting it be. “It depends” to working arm-in-arm.
5. He just views them as partners. He really wants to keep them distinct to some degree since motives get confused fast. Stott says, “If we truly love our neighbor we shall without doubt share with him the good news of Jesus.”
6. Yes. We need to talk more about that.
7. Stott was actually quite bold here…equating a call to evangelism with a call to social service.
Sorry to disagree, but I don’t see the object of the love in Matt. 25 (particularly the portion I quoted) as “those proclaiming the gospel”. In fact, that’s what I find astonishing about this passage! The chapter as a whole revolves around 3 separate stories Jesus tells regarding readiness for His coming and things to do (or not do) between now and then. This particular story, focuses particularly on reward to those who show mercy (social action) to fellow members of the body of Christ. I don’t see anything about proclamation (or, for that matter, reward based on salvation) – I think we have to look elsewhere for that.
It is interesting that the focus is on showing mercy to other believers particularly, rather than people in general. But if Christ takes this so seriously, then we should definitely err on the side of showing mercy broadly to all people, especially as we don’t know who may be a member of the body. We can of course consider the impact on pre-believers of both seeing love shown within the body as well as love shown to those outside the body
Hans
Jon-Divine irony. Give me a call (check your church voice mail for the number)–I’ll help you test your mission blogging in the trenches.