- Exegetically, this is an enormous amount of freight to pack into the word "as." Clearly a point of comparison is being made, but the comparison is far from clear. Most likely the similarity is that of the action only. God sent Christ; God sent the apostles. To conclude that this tiny word "as" must necessarily include in it comprehensive identity of the mission of Christ with the mission of the people of God seems a real stretch. And to conclude (as some do) that this is an extension of functional Trinitarianism frankly reeks of heresy.
- Practically, it seems obvious that the missional understanding cannot hold. The church is not making substitutionary atonement (!); not demonstrating divine lordship over wind, waves, disease, and death; not offering a Kingdom (certainly, at least, not in the sense that Christ was offering it--as King). The distinction of the parties being sent alone seems adequate to topple the missional understanding.
- Historically, for all the strenuous denials by proponents that the missional model is in no way related to the social gospel, I find an overwhelmingly curious resemblance of the missional use of John 20:21 to Charles Sheldon's use of 2 Peter 2:21 as supplying the mission of all believers to follow "in his steps."
There is much to criticize in the missional model. Its glib use of proof texts is a primary one.
MAS
10 comments:
I have actually started an article on this because I think this is a major problem in that they pick the wrong emphasis of the verse.
I do not object to the idea that the church is sent into the world. I think that is clear from a number of Scriptures.
In my estimation, the problem is that some missional people emphasize the "as/so" rather than the "sent." The similarity is on the sentness, so to speak, not on likeness of the mission. In other words, I would say it is not "AS the Father sent, SO send I you," but rather "As the Father SENT me, so SEND I you." Jesus' mission was substantively different.
What I see is the critique of "a" missional model. I haven't seen "the" missional model. Neither has anyone else. It's far too easy to find excesses, which certainly exist, and make fatuous comparisons – like “the church is not making substitutionary atonement” (although Paul was filling up in his body what was lacking in Christ’s afflictions, Col. 1:24). It’s like saying that we can’t really imitate Paul although he says “Be imitators of me” since we haven’t been beaten, gone to prison.
I hope the DBTS conference will be more substantive than raising up straw men to trash. There may be curious resemblances between Sheldon and missional proponents. There are resemblances between men and monkeys but we aren’t arguing for making them the same (in most cases). There may be much to criticize in some missional articulations but the accusation of glib use of proof texts sounds like a substitute for presenting a credible alternative.
Steve Davis
www.gracechurchphilly.org
www.urbanmissional.com
Steve, I'll grant that there are variations of "missional," and that there is no creed that unites all who claim the title "missional." But there are major players, and there's quite a bit of agreement on appeals to John 17:18/20:21 as THE text for missional. I can't logically establish a universal, of course, but this is pretty hard to deny.
To offer criticism of what I see as errant proof-texting is not creating a straw man. I'd rather like to think that I'm questioning a straw text. And if that's THE proof text, an exegetical rebuttal should be fairly easily mustered. I'm not seeing that happen.
To the degree that this text is used to esablish an appeal to the church to go out to the world vis-a-vis attracting the world, I have sympathy for the missional model. But for most of the major players in the missional movement (e.g., Stetzer, VanEngen, Guder, Wright, etc.) application of this verse is also made to believers being part of a rather flattened "mission of God" that amalgamates the dominion mandate, Mosaic ethics, Christ's mission, and the mission of the church as more-or-less one.
That to me is a problem, not only as a dispensationalist, but also as a more general adherent to the two-kingdom model of the intersection of church and culture (a variation of which I offer, BTW as my "credible alternative" to missional).
MAS
Mark,
I had to go back and reread parts of Christopher Wright's "The Mission of God" to see if you are really being fair in your evaluation. Since he is the only missional writer you mention (in your comment to Steve) that I've read extensively, I used him as the example.
Interestingly, John 20:21 is only one of the many N.T. texts that he uses and he only refers to it 3 times in this book of over 500 pages. Furthermore, twice he makes sure that 20:21 is connected to the confession of Thomas in John 20:28(“My Lord and my God!”) and one of the times he also connects it to 20:31(but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name). The other time, he uses 20:21 as a passage reference along side of Matt. 28:18-20 and Luke 24:46-49 to explain the post-resurrection commission to the disciples. Interestingly, he emphasizes and explains the Matthew and Luke passages but doesn't even mention the John passage. At least in Wright's "The Mission of God," John 20:21 isn't the primary text that encompasses everything which you seem to be implying. So if the main theologian of Missio Dei (Christopher Wright) sees John 20:21 as only one of the commission passages rather than THE commission passage, doesn't your argument fall apart?
Second, the incarnational aspect is more along the lines of I John 2:6, not in a way that blurs the divine distinctions that sets God apart from humans. They realize there is no way the church can offer substitutionary atonement, only Jesus.
Third, there may be some who use the term missional that end up more in the social gospel camp because they are trying to "embody the gospel" without any proclamation and I believe they need to be called out and critiqued. Yet, writers that you mention such as Ed Stetzer have harshly criticized those that don't evangelize because they are trying to "embody the gospel." Even Wright makes sure that evangelism/verbal proclamation is ultimate in relationship to other aspects of God's mission in "The Mission of God." My point is that the majority of proponents of being Missional are quite evangelistic. Contrary, proponents of the social gospel movement in the late 19th century and early to mid 20th century made evangelism secondary and/or eliminated evangelism entirely for social causes of the day and because they were denying the fundamentals of the faith. Therefore, I am not sold on your historical argument.
Mark,
Probably the most theological of the Missional writers would be Christopher Wright with his book, "the Mission of God." Yet he does not make John 20:21 as THE primary text for the mission of the church. It is only referred to 3 times in the book, twice in the context of the Thomas confession of Christ (20:28), once including vs. 20:31 which gives the purpose of the book of John (that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name..) The other time, it is referenced alongside of Matthew 28:18-20 and Luke 24:46-49 as the post-resurrection commission of the disciples. Interestingly, he chooses to emphasize and explain the Matthew and Luke passages, but not John 20:21. Its quite clear that Christopher Wright does not make John 20:21 as the all-encompassing verse that summarizes the mission of the church, but rather just one of many passages from the Scriptures. Now, if the primary theologian of the Missional movement doesn't hold to what you are initially saying about the missional church and John 20:21, do you think that maybe there are some strawmen being created?
Also, in the circles that I interact with, most people who claim to be missional see being incarnational through the eyes of I John 2:6. Maybe they are careless in their wording, but they realize that they cannot provide substitutionary atonement or have divine authority over creation (even some of my charismatic friends realize they don't have any authority over the seas or the winds, and etc.....) Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems as if you are creating a problem that doesn't exist yet. I will also post about the Social gospel comment when I have the time.....
A helpful resource of which you may or may not be aware is Andreas J. Köstenberger's work "The Missions of Jesus and the Disciples according to the Fourth Gospel: With Implications for the Fourth Gospel's Purpose and the Mission of the Contemporary Church."
Köstenberger's study on the language and motif of mission in John's Gospel is thoroughly exegetical. He has a significant section (ch. 3) where he examines the lexical forms and implications of John's "sending" terminology for Jesus and the Disciples (ch. 4)and the other characters in the Gospel. He closely examines John's two words for "sending," and then offers the interpretation and implications that flow from a such a biblical-theological study.
The interpretation of John 17:18/20:21 must be filtered through John's use of the "sending" language and motif throughout the Gospel, which begins in the prologue of the book with John the Baptist (1:6). It continues throughout the book and climaxes in 20:21.
Köstenberger offers several observations that may help us move in the right direction. John presents the sent one as having certain responsibilities in relationship to his sender:
1) Bring glory and honor to the sender (5:23; 7:18, 8:50, 54, 11:4)
2) Do the sender’s will and works (4:34; 5:30, 36,38; 6:38-39; 9:4); speak the sender’s words (3:34; 7:16; 12:49; 14:10b, 24); and be accountable to the sender (esp. ch. 17)
3) Represent the sender accurately (5:19-23; 12:44-45; 13:20; 15:18-25); bear witness to the sender (5:36; 7:28-29; 8:26; cf. 18:37); exercise delegated authority (5:21-27; 17:2; cf. 13:3; 20:23)
4) Sustain an intimate relationship with the sender (7:29; cf. 1:18; 15:21; 17:8, 25); live in a close relationship with the sender (8:16, 18, 29; 16:32)
From these categories an underlying emphasis emerges concerning a sent one. The fulfillment of the mission of the sent one requires complete obedience and dependence on the one who sent him.
Köstenberger offers this summary statement: "Within the framework of Johannine teaching on mission, the sending of the Son seems to represent the element focusing on the ‘human’ side of Jesus’ mission, i.e., the aspects of obedience and dependence of the sent one on his sender"(121).
Furthermore, the nature of the disciples sending consists primarily with entering into the relationship between the sending Father and the sent Son. The Father (the Sending One par excellence) sent the Son, and now the Son (the Sent One par excellence) sends the disciples. The disciples are to emulate and experience the same kind of unity and love that is experienced between the Father and Son (cf. esp. 17). In fact, the disciples are to understand that they have been given authority to enter God’s family as children of God (1:12-13). Therefore, the disciples are not sent to mimic Jesus in his coming as Messiah or as Lamb of God or as Son of Man. They are sent back into the world to live out their new relationship. They are to live as successful sent ones:
1)They are to do Jesus’ will, perform Jesus’ works, and speak Jesus’ words.
2)They are to witness to Jesus.
3)They are to represent him accurately.
4)They are to know Jesus intimately, live in close relationship with him, and follow his example.
“Their relationship to their sender, Jesus, is to reflect Jesus’ relationship with his sender, the Father” (Köstenberger, 192).
I trust these thoughts might help us all move in a biblical understanding of our mission as sent ones into the world.
All,
Sorry for the delay in posting these--I was out of town. There are some good points raised here that I'd love to interact with in detail, but a few short takes:
(1) I'm not sure that the number of times a text is used is necessarily determinative although, interestingly, DuBose appeals to John 17:18 and 20:21 some 24 times--four times more often than he does any other text. It is the very first text Guder mentions, and the whole book flows from its implications. Go to the Wikipedia entry on missional living and it's the first text mentioned. Etc.
Ultimately I find this whole debate rather curious. While the missional movement has great diversity, the thing that unites them is the biblical-theological theme of sending that worms its way through the whole Bible (Wright, of course, focuses on the OT, but he does park on Christ's sending ministry in John in his Mission of God's People [2010]). I'm puzzled that there would debate that this verse is one that is very heavily used in missional discussions.
(2) My major point here is that a common sending theme does not demand a common mission. For this reason I'd like to engage in debate on the statement Matt made that NT believers are to "perform Jesus' works." My question here is this: Which ones, and why? I deliberately proposed his work of substitutionary atonement, not because anyone is advocating this as part of the church's mission, but to make a key point: We except this particular work of Christ from the church's mission. Why? Well, I can't speak for everyone, but the most evident answer seems to be that atonement was part of Christ's exclusive mission as Messiah. Only Messiah could do this. My suggestion is that there are other works of Christ that fall into the same category. Feeding the multitudes, healing the sick, and raising the dead (all miraculously I might add), for instance, I see as aspects of the Messianic mission. Only he could do these things. What are the criteria for deciding which of Jesus' works I should do and which ones I shouldn't do?
(3) Two caveats:
(a) That believers are sent out by God I do not debate. To the degree that the missional model has broken up the bunker syndrome in the church I laud it.
(b) I also celebrate the emphasis on believers pursuing justice, righteousness, and mercy in the world. This is a perpetual area of neglect among believers and this neglect should be challenged. Vigorously.
(4) What I would suggest positively is that the believer has two spheres of responsibility, and these cannot be merged into one. As a human he has a cluster of responsibilities (to neighbor, family, government, environment, etc.), and as a citizen of God's church he has a cluster of corporate responsibilities (to God, to those within, and to those without). What troubles me is when these spheres of responsibility are amalgamated into one--a practice that has historically had a very bad track record. That is, in a nutshell, my concern with missional models of the church.
MAS
Sorry that I posted twice, saying essentially the same thing. After the first time, the blog stated that I wrote too much and there was an error so I tried to condense it on the second try.....
I haven't read Wright's new work (2010) so you are ahead of me. Maybe he changed his tune from 3 years ago when the Mission of God came out. My point was that he spends a considerable amount of time in "The Mission of God" (which is considered his "Magnum Opus) working through the entire Bible with mission, and spends much more time on other N.T. passages than John 20:21. It was one of the many, not THE primary text in that piece of work.
As for your #4, I wrote my Masters thesis, "Helping Resolve the Tension between Evangelism and Social Responsibility by Rooting Mission within the Doctrine of Creation" to show that the two spheres can be brought together. In my thesis, I view Mission through the lens of what D.A. Carson calls the major turning points of redemptive history (creation, fall, redemption, and consummation). Of course since I am still a dispy (more progressive, however) I do make the distinctions between Israel and the Church.
As for history, just as there are many bad examples of when the two spheres are brought together, whether it be the current Christian left with its "red letter Christians" or current Christian right such as the failed Christian coalition and the moral majority or the social gospel of the late 19th to early 20th century, there are many shining examples where Christians did not deviate from the truth when they brought the two spheres together. For instance, what about William Carey, who not only preached the gospel, translated the Bible, and began churches, but he also initiated social reform such as helping get rid of widow burnings, female infanticide, started a savings bank to counter the evil practice of usury, started schools to combat illiteracy, and many other aspects of culture? http://www.mondaychurch.org/Websites/mondaychurch/Images/A%20Quiz--Who%20Was%20William%20Carey.pdf
Also, I have ministered to the urban poor for some 20 years now. Even though our ministry (Urban Transformation Ministries) combines evangelism, discipleship and community development in partnership with Berean Baptist Church of Grand Rapids MI, we have never had to choose between evangelism and social action/responsibility. When you live and minister in a impoverished community that has been devastated by crime, violence, abortion clinics, unemployment, substandard education from the public schools, teen pregnancies leading to single/female parent families, illiteracy, and a whole host of other social pathologies, if the church doesn't somehow address some of these problems it becomes as useless as salt that has lost its savor. We are doing holistic mission that is centered around the gospel of Jesus Christ. Several of our students (some of which were former drug-dealers and gang-members) have been saved, discipled, and incorporated in the local church. Many are now attending college. Anyway, enough of my rant.......
Joel, Thanks for your comments. I'd enjoy seeing your thesis. Is that available through UMI/Proquest?
After reading Carson's Christ and Culture Revisited, I came away thinking he had considerable sympathy for the two-kingdom theology model (Hart, Horton, et al.). Am I wrong on that?
MAS
Post a Comment