I had some interesting comments from one of my students. I had written down that in our interactions with people of other faiths there are times when prayer may be an inadequate, or wrong, tool.
I am not sure that this student was arguing that prayer may, in and of itself, be inadequate. He was certainly wondering whether prayer is ever wrong.
Good question. Good point.
On reflection of things, I am first drawn to James 2:15-17.
15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
James 2:15-17 (NIV)
I could be wrong, but when looking at verse 16, I see the statement “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed” not as a command, or a personal reflection, but as blessing— or a prayer. It suggests that prayer is certainly not wrong, but inadequate. Why? Frankly, because God tends to answer prayers through His people. To pray and walk away is almost like playing children’s games such as “hot potato” or “old maid” (“I don’t want it, you take it.”).
The Christian life is a life of prayer, but also a life of action. The Bible DOES NOT SAY:
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you PRAYED I WOULD BE FED, I was thirsty and you PRAYED I WOULD HAVE DRINK, I was a stranger and you PRAYED SOMEONE WOULD INVITE YOU IN, 36 I needed clothes and you PRAYED I WOULD HAVE CLOTHES, I was sick and you PRAYED SOMEONE WOULD CARE FOR YOU, I was in prison and you PRAYED SOMEONE WOULD VISIT YOU.’
A messed version of Matthew 25:34-36. Read the NIV version for the correct form.
We are called to act, not just pray. A similar thing can be drawn from the Parable of the Good Samaritan. One can imagine that the priest and the Levite prayed for the injured man. However, their physical action was to pass him by uncared for. In fact it might even be probable that the person may pray in that circumstance. However, in the parable, whether or not the men prayed appears to be irrelevant. What is important is that they turned away and left the man in his plight. And since the parable is showing in a particular circumstance what obedience to the Great Commandment looks like, clearly prayer alone was disobedience to the Great Commandment.
But does any of this imply that prayer is a WRONG tool. Should the priest or Levite NOT pray? Should the person in James NOT pray? I don’t think so. I think prayer is always good, as far as I can see.
HOWEVER, let’s consider a different spin. Suppose that the Levite or priest said to himself, “I don’t want to help this person, but perhaps I must. But wait! Instead of checking on him and caring for him, I can pray for him. Problem solved!” In that case, prayer is used to justify not helping in a tangible way.
Putting this all together, I don’t think prayer is ever the wrong tool. However, I believe the following statements are correct.
I was reading the ABWE (Association of Baptists for World Evangelism) list of basic qualifications for being a missionary. You can read them by clicking below:
I find them to be, generally, a good list. I found it interesting that there is no specific mention of “Calling.” I assume that this is partly a response to decades of overemphasis on a poorly defined understanding of what it means to be “called to missions.” Some people feel certain that their interest in mission work must be a direct calling of the Holy Spirit to go into overseas ministry. Others may go the opposite extreme and never embrace their path to missions because they are expecting some sort of Isaiah 6 or Burning Bush experience. This doesn’t mean that ABWE throws out the idea of calling (based on this particular webpage at least). Rather, they put it under “Church Member.” In it, ABWE notes that they are not a “sending agency.” Rather, the local church is. So if the local church wants to send a person, ABWE is interested. This suggests one of two things— either that means that the local church is responsible for identifying the “Call to Missions,” or perhaps they see it as the “Call to Missions” is the same as the “Call of the Church to Send.” Or perhaps it is a bit of both. One could argue whether the Holy Spirit in Acts called Barnabas and Paul to go on their first missionary journey, or that the Holy Spirit called the Church of Antioch to send them. It is kind of a bit of both, really.
The qualification that gave me a bit of pause was “Gospel-centered.” I will quote it here:
We hope you share our passion for evangelism and discipleship through planting and multiplying local churches. For us, platforms like medical ministry, education, and poverty relief are simply bridges to take the gospel to the unreached to spark new church communities.
The term “simply bridges” kind of got me a bit. I suppose the expression gets me on two aspects.
#1. ”Simply bridges” suggests that social ministry platforms have no value except to the extent that they “take the gospel to the unreached to spark new church communities.” This is classic “Ulterior Motives” view of social ministry. From my perspective our mission theology should be Biblical with emphasis in the example of Christ. We find in Jesus a much more nuanced understanding of social ministries. Yes, Jesus did social ministry (such as healing or feeding) to underscore His message of the Kingdom, serving as a bridge to respond to the gospel message. However, that is not the whole story. Numerous times Jesus healed because He was “filled with compassion.” As such, social ministry is a response to need identifying who He is, not just what He wants them to do. Relatedly, it identifies in some way what the Kingdom of God is like, as it reveals who God is. If God is love, and the Church is to identified primarily by love, social ministry should indeed be, in part, an outflowing of that love— in some sense an end on its own needing no further justification— carrying out an aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant of being a blessed people so that we can bless others. Social ministry may indeed serve as a bridge, but that is not all it does.
#2. ”Simply bridges” suggests that bridges are not all that important. At least that is how it sounds. Bridges, however, are hugely valuable. Theology bridges God’s revelation and Man’s setting. Contextualization bridges God’s message to our understanding. Translation bridges one language to another. Physical bridges connect islands, sides of a river, cities, communities, and more. Bridges should never be undervalued. To me it is like saying “The Heart Simply Pumps Blood.”
Now, I really need to bring up a BIG caveat to what I have just written. This is that ABWE was probably not trying to express a robust theology of missions. (In a previous point they make it quite clear that they are more concerned with Doctrine than Theology.) Rather, it could be that they were simply expressing a personal choice based on their doctrine and history. Historically, ABWE formed out of the controversies between liberal and fundamentalist factions among the Baptists in the early 20th century. Some of this showed itself in missionary hospitals where medical missionaries were to focus on physical needs and NOT address spiritual needs. This deprioritization of spiritual needs led to the ABWE splitting away from its denominational mission roots. The statement I am quoting here can be said to be an expression flowing from that controversy. That may be one reason why the sentence I am quoting starts with “for us.” It is as if they are saying, “Based on our historical roots in turning away from the so-called Social Gospel movement, platforms like medical ministry, …”
Anyway, I am not speaking ill of ABWE. My wife and I had thought about applying with them for mission work decades ago (I don’t THINK we ever turned in an application, but I think we might have asked for an applicaiton— I truly cannot remember). We have friends who are retired from ABWE or still with them. I guess I wish that they worded things a bit better (better in my view at least). Perhaps I would suggest something like this:
Gospel-centered.
We hope you share our passion for evangelism and discipleship through planting and multiplying local churches. We utilize platforms like medical ministry, education, and poverty relief at times but choose to do so primarily to open up doors of the hearts of people and communities as valuable bridges to the message of the Gospel.
Quote from “Good News and Good Works: A Theology for the Whole Gospel” by Ronald J. Sider –
It is… “simply incredible that so many modern Christians, especially evangelicals, have largely ignored this central truth about God. I remember talking to a prominent evangelical leader about fifteen years ago. He had just discovered the hundreds of biblical verses on God’s concern for the poor. How, he asked me, was it possible for him to study at an evangelical college, take his theological degree at an evangelical seminary, and become a faculty member at an evangelical school and never learn about God’s special concern for the poor? It is difficult to overstate the importance of this biblical teaching about the poor—but it can be done! Some liberation theologians[11] and some statements from the World Council of Churches12] make it the central biblical truth, the criterion of biblical faithfulness and evangelism. That, too, is wrong. That is to overstate a crucial point. Concern for the poor is not the only important aspect of Christian social concern or mission. We dare not become so preoccupied with it that everything else becomes secondary.”. Page 139
You can look at PART 1, if you haven’t read that yet.
I would like to give three formative stories on my thoughts on this one.
Story #1. This is the least story-ish. I was reading T4T: A Discipleship Re-Revolution. It is a so-called CPM strategy. CPM stands for “Church Planting Movement” and refers to efforts to create a culture where churches rapidly self-propagate in a homogeneous setting. T4T I am tempted say is about multiplying evangelistic bible studies, not churches, but I won’t dwell on that. But as I was reading the book, a question came up about doing social ministries or felt-need ministry while following the T4T strategy. The advice given was NO. The reason is because it slows the strategy down. I guess I am still American enough to struggle with that for a little while. I really think social ministry is important— in fact, God-ordained. But if it slows things down, doesn’t that really speak against its need, or even its “rightness”?
I then was struck by a thought that if I wasn’t brought up in the American culture, I would have thought of immediately— WHY IS FAST A GOOD THING? I used to be an Engineer and I still remember the Design Triad. When thinking of designing/creating something new, one had three characteristics to aim for (beyond such direct things as function, durability, and aesthetics). The three are: High Quality, Low Cost, and Fast Development. Of those three, you can choose any two. If you want to have a fast development, you need to sacrifice either quality or cost.
If we assume (and I think this assumption would ultimately prove true) this principle applies to Christian discipleship as well. If you want quick multiplication and quick discipleship, quality will suffer or cost (include money, time, energy) will. Mostly likely it will be quality.
Looking at the ministry work of Jesus, we could imagine he would respond almost the opposite to that book. When asked about why He did social ministry, perhaps He would have said, “I do social ministry— healing and feed— to slow things down. They don’t just hear about the Kingdom of God, they get a small taste of it. I am looking for true, mature, self-identified disciples— following my example. And that takes time.”
Story #2. Years ago I was in a mission organization, “Dakilang Pag-Ibig DIADEM Ministries”— DPDM. Our primary ministry was medical mission events. This is a Fast form of ministry. You take a team to a community in the morning. We did registration, blood pressure, evangelism, medical care (or dental or surgical or eye care) and then pharmacy. And then we would leave. We would work with local churches and give them the registration forms with giving them the call to do follow-up. Now some people have complained about this form of ministry, — and sometimes I am one of these. The medical care is generally of a very limited nature— and an evangelism presentation tied to medical care can sound an awful lot like a cynical manipulation. But let’s ignore this for a moment and look at some of the transitions we made.
Over around a 5 year period we did 70 medical missions, reaching around around 30,000 with over 10,000 “praying to receive Christ” (not getting into the question of authenticity of such prayers). Early on, we were quick to say yes to churches or churchplanters who would invite us. However, over time, we started to discover three things. First, we realized that medical mission events work better in certain communities, and not so well with others. Second, we realized that it was really really important that we visit a potential site for a medical mission beforehand, as well as talk to the local church, local school and so forth weeks before we go there for the mission. Third, and perhaps most importantly, we needed to have really good local churches to partner with.
Taking the third point— we would do a medical mission at a particular site and a few months later we would contact that host church and would ask them how things have gone since we met— has anything changed? Many would say that pretty much nothing has changed. Others on the other hand would give a very different report. Perhaps one would say, “We did follow-up on the names we were given. When we did so, we were able to establish three new Bible study groups. A few weeks ago we expanded the ministry to have a Saturday morning kids ministry. Hopefully, we will start gathering them into a separate Sunday morning group once a month in the not too distant future.”
We gradually learned that doing more is not necessarily doing more. In fact, we probably could have done more like 25 medical missions in those 5 years and got as much ministry done. Utlimately, we learned that we needed to slow down— focus more working on locations that make more sense in a manner more tailored to that location, and working with partners who are more committed to take a quick project and turn it into a long-term program. Fast projects need slow planning and slow partnerships.
Story #3. This story is not part of my story but of Evangelical missions back in the 1960s. I recall reading about the tension that existed in the Evangelical missions community. The WCC and IMC had moved further and further away from traditional (and rather conservative) missions, and the Evangelical community rebelled and established its own structures for missions. But the question came up what to do about social missions. Some like Donald McGavran, Billy Graham, and Peter Wagner looked on social ministry rather negatively. In some cases they were not actively opposed, but did not give priority (seeing social ministry as taking the lead on proclamation ministry) or weight (seeing social ministry as being part of the Great Commission). Billy Graham, for example, said that he believed that a lot of social problems solved themselves if enough people become saved. I think the data on that is truly lacking— especially if those who are saved had already been indoctrinated with the belief that social problems are not really their problem.
However, one other reason that social ministry was pushed down at that time by some Evangelicals is what I would call “Apocalypticism.” This perspective goes like this— “Jesus is returning ANY DAY, and so we must do methods and strategies that will lead to the most spiritual responses in the least amount of time. Social or Developmental ministries are slow and therefore don’t make sense in these ‘last days.'” Of course, there were three problems. The first is historical. Jesus did NOT return in the 1960s, or 1970s, or 1980s, or… . They made strategic decisions based on a guess that proved wrong. Second, I believe that the idea of trying to make strategic missiological decisions based on trying to time Christ’s return is inherently flawed. I have written on this before and so don’t want to repeat myself. Generally, Jesus said it is not for us to know the time of His returning and that we are to be faithful until the end. Bringing these two together leads to the conclusion that we are to do what is right and what is right is not dependent on how close it is to Christ’s return. If it is right today with Christ not returning for 500 years, it is right today if Christ was coming this afternoon. Third, I theorize at least that if in the 1960s investment was placed on developmental transformational ministries rather than on short-term quick-fix programs, I think there may have proven to be more long-term tangible results than what we have. This last point is hard to prove, but I would push back on this by pointing to my second story. Definitely in that setting, doing holistic ministry that properly tied projects to programs, social to spiritual, and sought to be slow and careful in selection of work proves more effective than doing a lot of fast projects without the long-term in consideration.
In Evangelical circles there has been a strong emphasis on the “Great Commission.” Of course, as I have noted numerous times, there are several presentations of the Great Commission. The two most popular (again, in Evangelical Circles) are in Matthew 28 and in Acts 1. Acts 1 is popular because it points to the outward direction of the GC and its call that seems to suggest that we are to seek to reach everyone and everywhere. The Matthew 28 version is popular because it suggests a certain process— #1 (Wherever) You Go, #2 (evangelize and) You Baptize, and #3 You teach (or disciple).
Both of them are good. But it is funny how what is good can become kind of bad when poorly understood. One of the worst areas of misunderstanding (in my view, obviously) is the tendency to see Matthew 28:18-20 as providing limitations on either Missions or Ministry. I will address the more eggregious (and less common one) first.
A. I have heard it stated that Matthew 28:18-20 provides the full counsel of the ministry of the church. The church is suppose to evangelize, baptize (bring into the church), and disciple. And that is it. Any other ministry is not part of God’s commissioning. I almost feel like this is a strawman and it is a waste of time to knock this down. I will go to the slightly stronger perspective and then challenge it. I think that the challenge to it would also serve to challenge this point. (Decide for yourself.)
B. More commonly, I have heard that Matthew 28:18-20 provides the boundaries for what can be considered missions. This seems weak, but I think it is worth digging into a bit. This has come through a process of history. The Great Commission was to the Apostles… technically. It was directed to them. They were “sent out ones.” They were what we would generally call missionaries today, in that they were to go out of the church to where the church is not to establish communities of faith, expanding God’s kingdom on earth. Like most all of the Bible, it was NOT TO US, BUT FOR US. As such, it sometimes gets a bit confusing as to what things apply to us and what things don’t. In the US and the Philippines, people love to take I Chronicles 7:14 and say that it applies to us despite the fact that this promise was ABSOLUTELY NOT DIRECTED TO US. That being said, could I Chron. 7:14 provide an overarching principle of how God works that we can take comfort in (or more reasonably embrace with great concern)? Hard to say. However, in the case of Matthew 28:18-20, there are pretty clear indications that it applies to the church as a whole (especially the promise that Jesus said He would be with them (us?) even to the end of the age. William Carey used this universal call to the church as an argument for carrying out mission work. This is good… but in so doing, the Great Commission (all versions of it) became identified as the work of missions, rather than of the church. Not sure that is a great thing, but that still brings up the question, does Matt. 28:18-20 provide limits to what is missions? Is missions ONLY evangelism, church planting, and discipleship?
I will address this question from Part B, but only after looking at a different version of the Great Commission. Another version is John 20:21— “Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.'”
While it looks a lot different from the Matthean, Markan, and both Lukan versions, we can be pretty comfortable that it is also the Great Commission. It appears to happen in the same conversation with the apostles, it has the same charge— to go out and continue the work of Jesus. It, however, is much more broad in what it says to do. It doesn’t give any suggestions of limits like only to evangelism, church planting, and discipleship.
Because of this, John Stott had argued that this version suggests “Holistic Missions.” By this is meant that missions is not just about proclamation, planting churches, and teaching doctrine, but also involves compassion ministry, social justice, healing and more. He notes that the apostles being sent out in the same way that Jesus was suggests that the apostles should generally do what Jesus did. What did Jesus do? Holistic missions— he healed, he fed, he taught, he evangelized, he baptized (or at least his disciples did), he declared the kingdom of God and everything that suggests.
I have heard this challenged, and the challenge is pretty simple. Technically it does not say to do holistic missions, it just says they are sent out, and this being sent out by Jesus is in some way related to Jesus being sent out by the Father.
I think there is some value in this. We can’t just take everything that Jesus did and say that we must do the same thing simply because he did. We don’t necessarily have to overturn tables in the Court of the Gentiles. We don’t necessarily have to exorcise demons. We don’t necessarily have to hike around the Middle East. We most certainly don’t have to atone for the sins of the world (rather beyond our capacity anyway).
On the other hand, we can’t take it so far as to divest it all meaning. To be sent, does suggest a purpose for being sent. I suppose one could come up with language (in English at least) that does not imply purpose. Perhaps, it could be something like, “And Jesus said, as I left Heaven, and I am asking you to leave now.” There is no implied purpose, but the Greek roots associated with “pempo” and “apestalken” do seem to imply (I think… I am not a Greek scholar) that this not an aimless act. But if it is not aimless, the aim must be linked it seems. The purpose of being sent out by Jesus is informed by being His being sent out by the Father.
Since Jesus’ ministry is very much holistic, it seems like Stott’s point stands. But maybe you don’t agree. That is fair. Perhaps the fact that it is not explicitly commanded means that holistic ministry is not part of the Great Commission. That is where Matthew 28 comes in. Matthew 28:18-20 explicitly states that all that God calls, wherever they go they are supposed to “teach them to obey everything I (Jesus) commanded.”
That is a pretty explicit statement. We are to do what Jesus said we are supposed to do. So, for example, in Matthew 25, that includes feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and so forth. I don’t see any reading of the Gospels that shows Jesus commanding anything less than a whole gospel expressed holistically.
Perhaps, however, the argument is made that missionaries are supposed to evangelize, church plant, and disciple, but in their discipling, the disciples are supposed to be holistic (social and spiritual ministry both) but not the missionaries. I see three problems with this (at least). First, it implies and interpretation like, “You missionaries go forth and train people to obey everything that I have commanded, but you are called NOT to do everything I commanded. You are to do less.” That sounds like a good point at first, but it can break down under scrutiny. Perhaps missionaries are to obey all the commands of Christ and teach others to do all things that Christ commanded, but missionaries are not actually doing mission work when they are doing things outside of… you know… evangelize, church plant, and disciple. But that brings us to the second point. Second, typically teaching in the Bible is active and participative. Jesus discipled using a master-apprentice model. He did not teach with words disconnected from practice. It is hard to imagine that Jesus was suggesting, “teach using a very different model of training that what I have been doing.” If teaching is participative, then concern about social and physical and psychoemotional needs is very much part of the Great Commission. Third, while the Matthean Great Commission certainly applies to missionaries, there seems no reason to limit it. William Carey’s analysis of the Great Commission does not lead to “The Great Commission applies to specially designated missionaries only.” Rather it leads to “The Great Commission applies to the church, yesterday, today, and for the foreseeable future.” If that is true, then one can absolutely not remove social concerns from the Great Commission. This undermines the strawman at the top of this post. The church is to carry out the Great Commission and that implies the total calling of Jesus in expanding the Kingdom of Heaven here on earth,
Bringing this all together? What does “So Send I You” imply? Understanding that John 20:21 cannot be separated form Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and Acts 1, then Jesus sends (1) all of us (the church), not just missionary, out with purpose. That purpose is inextricably linked to (1) the commands of God that must be lived out in all of its dimensions (spiritually, physically, socially, and psycho-emotionally), and (2) the need for the Kingdom of Heaven to be lived out everywhere to the far corners of the world, as a testimony to all peoples.
<I was recently asked to create a Bachelor’s level course on Holistic Missions. I think it will be called, “Foundations of Holistic Missions.” Anyway, in my latest book, “Walking With: A Theological Reflection on Christian Missions,” I had written a chapter on holistic missions— or at least theological perspective that supports holistic missions. However, in the published version, the chapter was missing. Although it is a topic that I am very interested in, and one that is important in Theology of missions, in the end, my three part structure on my reflections, left this topic as the odd one out. I removed it. However, here it is. I don’t think it made it to a final edit, so please excuse any typos or other forms of awkwardness.>
Chapter 11
Nature of Ministry in Missions
As noted in a previous chapter, there is a great disagreement of what ministries should qualify as missions. Part of this is because of the reaction between conservative and liberal Christianity. Often the argument is centered on where social ministry fits into the overall ministry of missions. This conflict has not always been an issue. For example, consider the “Nestorian” mission work that extended across Asia during the first millennium.
“As part of their missionary strategy, the Church of the East set up a number of schools in the Persian Empire where monks studied theology, medicine, music and other academic subjects before being sent out to evangelize. Whenever the Nestorians established a new episcopal see (the seat of a bishop), they also set up a school, a library and a hospital, thus combining educational and medical work with their preaching.”1
The monks served as the missionary arm of the Church of the East. For example, a mission team to the Haphthalite Huns in the sixth century included four missionary priests, one missionary bishop, and two merchants. They were to move to an unreached city on one of the major trade routes. The team would establish a church, library, and hospital— evangelizing, healing, and training. The merchants not only provide funding for the mission, they also provided a very acceptable reason for being there.2
This may be innovative in some ways, but is not without precedent. Paul and his partners evangelized, planted churches, trained leaders, healed the sick, and even collected moneys for the needy. They also made tents. This tentmaking certainly provided funding for their mission trip, but it also gave them a purpose to interact with people in the marketplace.
We see this same sort of multifaceted ministry work with William Carey. William Carey evangelized and sought to plant churches, but also was involved in legal reform, translation, publishing, teaching, and more. With such patterns from the Bible, early missions history, and early Protestant missions history, it seems like it should be obvious that mission work should be broad in scope. However, there were factors pushing towards a more narrow interpretation.
First, many see the Great Commandment as a calling for missionaries, rather than a calling for the church. Further, the Matthew version of the Great Commandment is seen as the guidance for what missionaries are supposed to do, and by inference, what they are not supposed to do. The Matthew version of the Great Commandment can be seen as describing a 3-part cycle.
Evangelize (proselytize them)
Baptize (bring them into the church)
Teach (train them to be multiplying Christians)
Looking at this, there seems to be no room for other forms of ministry. John Stott and Leslie Newbigin, among others, noted that this limited view of missions ministry is in no way supported by other Scripture. They would point out the John version of the Great Commission that notes that the apostles are commissioned to be sent out as Christ was. This suggests that Jesus is the model for the apostles. Jesus integrated social ministry (healing), signs, evangelizing, and teaching.
The Great Commandment and the Great Commission
The Great Commandment, not the Great Commission, should be seen as the key guide for Christians. The Great Commandment guides one’s relationship to God, others, and self. But how does one apply the Great Commandment? Jesus used the Parable of the Good Samaritan to not only explain who is one’s neighbor, but apparently also what obedience to the Great Commandment looks like lived out. Much of Sermon on the Mount is application of the Great Commandment. The same is the Great Commission. One of the ways that one lives out one’s love for God and for one’s neighbor, is to go into the world and act as witnesses and messengers of God’s love and message to all.
Why does this matter? It matters because this means that one cannot say one is accomplishing the Great Commission if the activity is inconsistent with the Great Commandment. For example, activities such as forced conversion (“Cross or Sword Evangelism”) is not obedient to the Great Commission. Some may not have trouble with such a method because it may be seen as an end that justifies the means. However, most I believe would say that forced conversion stands condemned by the Great Commandment.
What about social ministry? If one proclaims the message of God while refusing to meet evident physical, psycho-emotional, or social economic needs, can one justify this by the Great Commission, understood as an application of the Great Commandment? Good people can disagree, but the process of testing the methodology requires both the Commission and the Commandment. It needs to be “Doubly Great.”
20th Century Rejection of Social Ministry
The Liberal-Fundamentalist conflict of the early 20th century had its effect and how missions and ministry were viewed. As noted in a previous chapter, there was increased questions about missionaries going out and proselytizing those of other faiths and cultures. Religious Pluralism grew in the early decades, drawing into question of whether proselytizing was necessary, or even desirable. Tied to this was the growth of what became known as the Social Gospel. While proponents of this view have often been unjustly exaggerated in their views, the thought was that missionaries should focus on works of social ministry rather than proselytizing. As some mission work became lopsided toward social ministry, other missionaries and mission agencies moved in the opposite direction, rejecting social ministry.
The 1960s brought strange trends to missions. As noted before, there was a shift in concilliam missions (missions associated with the World Council of Churches) to see missions as incompatible with proselytization. In reaction to this, Evangelicals created their own alternative first with the World Congress on Evangelism, held in Berlin (1966). The group’s noble goals were driven by an attempt to restore evangelism to missions. However, there was a tendency to overreact, and pull away from Social ministry. Part of this was aided by supporters of Donald MacGavran. His work in missions and church growth, while ground-breaking in so many ways, did sometimes tend towards a pragmatic approach to missions and narrowing of the missions call to churchplanting. The pragmatism could also be seen in a tendency to take missions theology less seriously.3
Additionally, during this time there was a promotion of what I might call “Apocalypticism.” In this I mean that many believed that Jesus Christ was ‘returning any day.’ As such, Christians had to put all of their efforts into quick conversions. As such, medical ministries, community development, and work on human rights, could be seen as more of a distraction than part of real missionary work. This is hardly new. The Student Volunteer Movement of the 19th and early 20th centuries had a slogan, “Evangelization of the world in one generation.” This idea was repeated with the AD2000 movement, and others. While goals are not a bad idea, it is a bit troubling that the Great Commission is seen to have an expiration date built into it, rather than that Christians are to be faithful until the Lord comes. Further, quick methods for evangelization may seem more effective up-front. But 50 years later, one must wonder if development ministries would have proven more effective in time.
Perhaps the most odd of these reasons for minimizing social ministry is the view of some missiologists that they can “speed up” Christ’s return. They point to the prophecy of Jesus in Matthew 24:14, “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.” Some have taken this verse to mean that if the gospel message is preached effectively to every people group on earth, Jesus will suddenly return. This perspective reminds me of the short story by Arthur C. Clarke entitled, “The Nine Billion Names of God.”4 This story is about a fictitious group in Central Asia who believed that if they could write down all 9,000,000,000 names of God, the Universe would come to an end. Considering that to be their noble quest, they buy a supercomputer (back in the day when such a task would require a supercomputer) to speed up their slow, pain-staking work. As an outsider to this group, one may wonder why this group would want the Universe to end, but one could also question why some missionaries wanted to speed up the return of Christ. If one has compassion for the lost, lessening the opportunity for them to respond seems out of sorts with such compassion. Thankfully, there seems no good reason to see this verse as saying that God is timing the return of Christ on our mission work. And if, by some chance He is, it is really uncertain what criteria would qualify as the gospel being preached “in all the world for a witness unto all nations.”
The 1960s and 1970s were challenging times for Social Ministry in Evangelical Missions. John Stott as a conservative Anglican, bridged the gap between Conciliar and Evangelical missions. He worked very hard to change the minds of several Evangelical leaders, such as Billy Graham and C. Peter Wagner, who sought to define missions in more “Spiritualistic” terms. It seems as if Stott was not really able to change their minds. However, he was able to change the wording of some the early pronouncements of the Evangelical Missions movement that formed in the 60s.5
While I know this is still a touchy subject in Evangelical circles, I am thankful for the work done to prevent a view that undermined the value of Social Ministry. If Jesus embraced both social ministry and proclamation ministry, why would we seek to do less?
Views Regarding Social and Spiritual Ministry
Jerry Ballard in his article “Missions and Holistic Ministry”6 describes several major perspectives regarding how social ministry is viewed by Christian missionaries or ministers. This section will use his work as a starting point. Spiritual Ministries would include things that are, right or wrong, seen as more spiritual than other ministries. This is not very informative, but such ministries may include: evangelism, churchplanting, discipleship, prayer, worship, and so forth. These may be (perhaps) seen as having eternal value. Social Ministries would include pretty much everything else— those ministries that are primarily addressing, physical, social, psycho-emotional, economic, and ecological concerns. These (again perhaps) may be seen as having temporal value.
Figure 14. Spiritual versus Temporal/Social Ministry7
If Spiritual Ministry is seen as the vertical axis and Social Ministry is seen as the horizontal axis, then one has created a plane of ministry. Figure 14 shows this plane. A rectangle of Spiritual Ministry covers any ministry that is highly “spiritualistic,” while a different rectangle shows ministry that is highly “social.”
A Spiritualist perspective may be seen as the view that Christian ministers should only be doing spiritual ministry. Other ministries are essentially a distraction, drawing one away from what God has called to be done.
The extreme opposite of this view could be described as the Social Gospel perspective. If the Spiritualist perspective is drawn from the Great Commission as described in Matthew 28, the Social Gospel perspective could be seen as drawn from Matthew 25. In Matthew 25: 31-45, obedience to God is seen in doing social ministry. In the extreme of this perspective, if one is doing social ministry, one is doing the whole calling of God.
The Convenience perspective is somewhat similar to the Spiritualist perspective. However, one who embraces the Convenience perspective would accept the premise that “It is nice to be nice.” As such, this person may not really think their calling is to do social ministry. However, this person would not see social ministry as a distraction. If there is a need, and helping out would not undermine doing their “real work,” the missionary will try to be a blessing.
The Ulterior Motive perspective sees Social ministry as an important part of Christian ministry. However, one who accepts this perspective doesn’t see social ministry as inherently important but as valuable to open doors for spiritual ministry. This person may see spiritual ministry as “the real ministry” but recognize that social ministry is still an important part of the process. I used to be involved in medical missions. In these medical missions activities, we would provide free medical, dental, and surgical services, along with free medicines and vitamins. Normally, we would also evangelize. Many of the people I worked with in this activity would say that their real ministry is to evangelize and get people to be part of a home Bible study and a church family. They saw the medical and dental services as the way to draw them in and get them to respond positively to the “spiritual ministry.”
The Holistic perspective sees Social Ministry and Spiritual Ministry as both being part of God’s call to Christian service. As such, a person with this viewpoint would value both and seek, when possible, to integrate both in their ministry work. This view may be seen as being more in line with John Stott’s imagery of ministry being like a pair of scissors, or wings on an airplane or bird. Some may see one as having priority over the other… but in for those who have the Holistic perspective, priority doesn’t mean choosing one over the other. (An emergency room team may prioritize certain forms of care in rapid response, but that does not mean that they don’t provide all forms of care.) In the medical mission work I was involved in, there were also many team members that saw spiritual ministry and the medical and dental care as important and working together. As such, they saw no value in separating them and prioritizing one over the other.
Returning to Figure 14, the perspective is likely to have affect behavior. A missionary who embraces a Spiritualistic perspective is going to invest time, energy, and other resources into spiritual ministry, and little into social ministry. One who embraces a Social Gospel perspective is likely to be the opposite, putting most resources into social ministries, with little into spiritual ministries. Figure 14 shows Convenience and Ulterior Motive perspectives as sharing the same space on the diagram. Both do not highly value social ministry. One does it because the missionary wants to be nice when possible. The other sees it a means to the end of doing “real ministry.” As such both are likely to be invest more seriously in spiritual ministry, and much less diligence in social ministry. Finally, one who embraces Holism will seek the overlap of the two ministries— high quality and resource investment both in spiritual and social ministries.
Summary
Missionaries should, as part of developing their own theology, address the issue of what truly entails mission work. How narrow or broad is one’s calling. The answer is not simple since our chief example, Jesus Christ, did not make it simple. He embraced a broad understanding of what it means to serve God, guided by the Great Commandment. At the same time, God does empower people differently and places them in unique situations. As such, even if one a Holistic Perspective in theory (for example), one’s circumstances and giftings may place one in a position of doing ministry that leans towards one extreme or another.
In my case, I presently teach missions in a seminary as my primary ministry role. That role is not overtly holistic. Some may see it as more Spiritualistic since it involves training people to do Christian ministry. Others may see it as more Social ministry since its focus is on education and research rather than evangelism, discipleship, and church planting and growth. I spend very little time worried about the bounds of Spiritual Ministry and Social Ministry. In fact, it is entirely possible that dividing Christian ministry into two categories is a human construct rather than one that God would recognize as valid.
3 We are back to Rodger Bassham’s book, Mission Theology.
4 Arthur C. Clarke, “The Nine Billion Names of God.” Originally published in Star Science Fiction Stories, Frederick Pohl, ed. (New York: Ballantine Books, 1953).
6 Jerry Ballard, “Missions and Holistic Ministry.” In World Missions: The Asian Challenge: A Compendium of the Asia Mission Congress ’90, Held in Seoul, Korea August 27-31, 1990. 342-344.
7 Much of this is expanded on in Robert H. Munson, Christian Medical Missions:: Principles and Practices in the Church’s Role for Effective Community Outreach in the Philippines and Beyond, Rev. A (Baguio City, Philippines, MM-Musings, 2013). Also video on this available, “Social Ministry as Part of an Integrated Mission Strategy, Parts 1 and 2.” These can be found at https://vimeo.com/user42611623
The title says it. I don’t involve myself in evangelistic events anymore. Years ago I did… and I will go into that. I have a number of reasons to, perhaps not oppose them but, choose not to support them. I will give two.
#1. Historical. I come from Western New York. This area had the term “Burned Out District” associated with it. This term was inspired by a quote from the 19th century revivalist, Charles Finney.
“I found that region of country what, in the western phrase, would be called, a ‘burnt district.’ There had been, a few years previously, a wild excitement passing through that region, which they called a revival of religion, but which turned out to be spurious.” … “It was reported as having been a very extravagant excitement; and resulted in a reaction so extensive and profound, as to leave the impression on many minds that religion was a mere delusion. A great many men seemed to be settled in that conviction. Taking what they had seen as a specimen of a revival of religion, they felt justified in opposing anything looking toward the promoting of a revival.”
I am quoting from the Wikipedia article “Burned Out District” that quotes “The Autobiography of Charles G. Finney.”
Western New York transitioned from a place of great Evangelical revival to one of lukewarm faith, and a hotbed of cultic groups. Hardly surprising. When religion is expressed in terms of revivalist fervor… the fervor can eventually die down and people begin to wonder, “Is that all there is?” Because of this, I cringe when a group talks about saturation strategies for evangelism’ or churchplanting. I have grown worried of bigger and bigger evangelistic events. I have known people (including friends) who would attend them over and over to get their spiritual ‘BUZZ.’ Maybe that is okay for some… but I think it may well drive more away than it attracts. I have attended funerals where the preacher turned it into a hard-sell evangelistic message. I feel that the result most commonly was the opposite of what was anticipated.
#2. Personal. For years I was involved in evangelistic events. From 2005 to 2009 I was involved with doing evangelistic medical mission events. These were trips to an area where we would have doctors and nurses provide medical, dental, and surgical care, sometimes other care such as eye glasses, or training seminars, and medicines to the people there. We would also do evangelism as a required part of the care. As an organizer and sponsor of the medical group DPDM for those five years, we treated about 30,000 patients. Additionally, we had around 10,000 people who stated that they prayed to receive Christ during that activity. This sounds pretty awesome. And I don’t really want to denigrate the activity. I like holistic ministries, where one genuinely attempts to integrate care— spiritual care with other types like medical, social, educational, etc. Still I gradually found reasons why I did not want to stay involved in this.
The Philippines is a country of Reciprocity. Utang ng Loob (debt of gratitude) is important. This is common, frankly, in much of the world. There is a tendency of many to think that since we are providing free care, their payment back is to go along with the group and respond to the prayer invitation. In fact, the response rate is about 33%. However, if one doesn’t count members of the host church or partnering churches (who already probably have done the Sinner’s Prayer before), children who are too young to respond, and members of minority faiths where responding in prayer to any outside group is anathema, the response percentage is MUCH higher… well over 50%. Sometimes, this activity seems more of an exercise of gratitude than an exercise of evangelism. Gratitude is fine… but perhaps it would be better simply to say, “We are Christians committed to love God and our neighbors, and provide this service free of all charge or obligation.” When there seems to be a payment involved (explicit or implicit) we start to look like Gehazi pulling a gift from Naaman after his healing.
Most places we went, changes were not measurable. There were exceptions, however. Over time, we began to learn what churches we could partner with effectively. Some took the partnership seriously, working with those who had come to the medical mission. Most, however, did not. Six months after a medical mission we would often (but not always) call up the host church and ask how things are going. The answer commonly was “Fine.” Then we would ask about any changes after the medical mission (such as growth of church membership, greater involvement in Bible studies, and so forth). Some would be able to describe positive changes. The more common response was something like, “Everything is about the same. When can you come back to do another medical mission?” Generally, those churches that thought that the event would just organically lead to people showing up at their church on Sunday morning would find that nothing changed. (Actually, I know of one exception. We had done a medical mission at a relocation center for those who had been connected with Communist rebels, but had surrendered to the Philippine government. As a show of “gratitude” for their putting down arms, the Philippine government shoved them into a very inadequate living situation. Anyway, we did a medical mission event on Saturday, and on the next day, the church was bursting with people showing up. Of course my suspicion was that their unique response was due to people showing them God’s love and probably not due to the evangelism. They had not been shown much love.) The goals of local churches should be to disciple followers of Christ, and express God’s love to their neighbor. While proclamation of the Gospel is vital in these,doing so should become a substitute for the two goals.
Unfortunately, these evangelistic missions can perpetuate the weird theology associated with the Sinner’s Prayer. In the Philippines over 90% consider themselves to be Christian (as in sincere followers of Christ). While there is a high level of nominalism in the Philippines, it is clearly messed up to presume that those who have not prayed the Sinner’s Prayer are not followers of Christ, and that those who have prayed it are. Eventually, as I was keeping track of metrics from the medical mission events. I stopped pretty early describing the number who became saved, and switched it to those who had “prayed to receive Christ.” 10,000 people “prayed to receive Christ,” but we have no idea how many have been saved through our activity. I found that a better metric was to track how many people had said that they were interested in being involved with, or even host, a Bible study.
The following numbers I found to be pretty typical for a medical mission.
Number of total patients: 400
Prayed to receive Christ: 150
Interested in a Bible Study 70
Actually become part of a Bible Study 30 (assuming the church does its job)
If good things happen, it would be out of the 30.
Now, if you read this and you find my reasons unconvincing…. actually that is fine— even Good. I am not trying to talk anyone out of doing evangelistic events. I think they can be good. But I would recommend some reflection and careful planning. A badly planned evangelistic event is not better than not having one. In many cases there are better ideas out there that express God’s love in a way that one’s neighbors can recognize and respond to, and then help them to grow as followers of Christ.
My favorite “Great Commission” is the one recorded in John “As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” (John 20:21). But it is not the most popular one. Some people prefer the one in Acts 1:8. That sending forth nature of the Gospel Call is inspirational. I recently read one writer who noted his preference for the Luke 24 version. I can’t remember why but maybe because it was more clearly focused on redemption. Most prefer the Matthew 28 passage. I suppose it is that it is suggestive of a process— Discipling in terms going, baptizing, and teaching.
But there is a more questionable side to the preference, or priority, of the Matthew 28 passage. That is the tendency to see that passage as providing a limitation of what is “Real Missions.” Should such a limitation be considered appropriate? I don’t really think so. For the following reasons…
#1. A missionary is first of all a Christian. As such, a missionary is responsible to live out the ethics of Christ. So, for example, the ‘extreme spiritualistic’ perspective of missions really cannot be justified. That perspective says that one should not be involved in caring ministries, or social justice ministries, because they are a distraction from the “real” work of missionaries. Since holistic care and justice are front and center in terms of the ethics of Christ, a missionary should be involved with them as Christians EVEN IF HE OR SHE FEELS THAT THAT IS NOT PART OF THEIR CALLING AS A MISSIONARY.
#2. The Great Commission is simply an application of the Great Commandment. Some have suggested that we are missionaries because of the Great Commission. Arguably, we would not need the Great Commission to know that we need to serve in a missions capacity. The Bible as a description of God as a Missionary God who calls us to join in His work, tied to our call to love our neighbors as ourselves, as part of our love of (and obedience to) God, is enough. But I don’t think a narrow interpretation of the Great Commission really stands up in this same way. God’s mission is so much bigger, and so is the Great Commandment.
#3. A missionary is driven by the example of Christ. In part, this ties to the John’s version of the Great Commission. Christ’s sending of us is linked to the Father’s sending of Christ. Therefore, we learn something about our role in being sent by understanding Jesus’ role in being sent. Beyond that, a disciple of Christ is obedient to Christ, in terms of calling, in terms of proclamation, in terms of service. To know what a missionary should do, one should look to see what Jesus did as a missionary. Jesus was, after all, a missionary. This is consistent with the Hebrews passage describing Jesus as an apostle (Hebrews 3:1), and (once again) John’s version of the Great Commission where it is stated that he is one sent out by God.
Looking at it a different way, we know who we are to be by what Jesus commanded us, and by what Jesus actually did.
<I am drawing much here from “Encountering Theology of Mission” by Ott, Strauss and Tennent.
A number of reasons that Jesus was sent does not apply directly to missionaries.
Paul focused on Jesus’ coming as primarily about redemption. It is hardly surprising then that many Evangelicals today seem to think that Jesus only came to save us from our sins (“Born to Die”) Evangelicals (and they are not alone) often focus on the Epistles rather than on the Gospels. Seems backwards, but that is the way it is. Missionaries are not “the way to redemption” and they are not a “ransom for sinners. Perhaps we cannot say that we were sent to the “Lost Sheep of Israel.” However, others are more applicable.
Jesus was (1) Sent to preach the Kingdom (Luke 4:43 et al). This is a purpose for missionaries as well. That links also to Luke 10 where Jesus disciples were to travel announcing the kingdom of God.
Jesus was (2) Sent to create division. (Luke 12:49, 51 et al). Missionaries are not tasked to destroy families or cultures. Nevertheless, the message does call for transformation, and forces a decision to accept or reject.
Jesus was (2) Sent to create division. (Luke 12:49, 51 et al). Missionaries are not tasked to destroy families or cultures. Nevertheless, the message does call for transformation, and forces a decision to accept or reject.
(3) Jesus was sent to give social justice and holistic care (Luke 4). In Nazareth, Jesus quoted Isaiah and then declares that this passage is being fulfilled at this time. This is generally viewed as a declaration of Jesus’ understanding of His own mission. Some people like to take this declaration very figuratively (often by people who if anything tend towards knee-jerk literalism in other parts of the Bible). But Jesus actively preached against the abuse of the poor, especially by the Jewish elite, and healed the sick. Additionally, He trained his disciples to do the same. Frankly, for those who like to look at Jesus’ reading in Luke 4 as figurative needs to look on the broader thrust of the Gospel of Luke as Jesus as caregiver and compassionately siding with the marginalized. In that light, Jesus’ declaration was placed there and is thematically significant for the book as a whole.
(4) Jesus was sent to “do the work of the Father.” (John 6;38 et al)
(5) Jesus was sent to “teach the truth.” (John 18:37)
(6) Jesus was sent to give fullness of life. (John 10:10) Again, some may try to narrow that down to salvation, but the broader context of that verse is Jesus using the metaphor of Shepherd. While one of the potential meanings of the metaphor is self-sacrifice, the dominant themes that relate to the Shepherd are more in terms of care and faithfulness.
I have noted that Barnabas and Paul are the best exemplars for missionaries. However, Jesus is the ultimate exemplar for being a Christian. And since missionaries are Christians first, ministers second, Jesus is in many ways a better guide for what a missionary is to be than Barnabas and Paul.
Twelve years ago, I finished my dissertation at Asia Baptist Graduate Theological Seminary. It was on medical missions in the Northern Philippines. Although I would have written some of it different now than I did back then; still, the findings were solid. I hope that the findings are helpful to people, but all too often dissertations (even more so ones published in Asia) go up on shelves and are not looked at again (except perhaps by a few doctoral students trying to pad out their bibliography).
So I was glad to see some of my dissertation utilized in a recent book on Medical Missions. The book is called, SHALOM: GOD’S PURPOSE FOR THE WORLD: MODERN MEDICAL MISSIONS IN THE ISLAMIC CONTEXT (by Dae-Young Lee, Wipf & Stock, 2021). Technically, the book used an article I developed from the dissertation, and a book that summarized the dissertation. Lee is a medical doctor who served for years as a medical missionary in an Islamic region. As such, he is well positioned to see the best and worse of medical missions— as well as its potential.
I have only just recently started reading the book, but so far it has been excellent. Actually, the first two paragraphs of the Preface (by Jerry M. Ireland) summarizes a lot of the concerns with Christian Medical Missions I found in my research, as well as my personal experience. (since I spent around 8 doing monthly medical missions in the Philippines). Here are the two paragraphs:
In the world of Christian compassionate missions, and, more precisely, the world of Christian medical missions to the Arab world, pitfalls abound. There exists the ever-present danger of doing medical missions merely as a “platform,” and thereby disingenuously. Or, more palatably to the non-Christian world, one might engage in medical work in a foreign land that has no genuine Christian content because there exists no explicit link to the gospel. Additionally, medical mission efforts have too often subverted, ignored, or dismissed local medical professionals, guidelines, and government regulations, putting the missionaries at odds with civil authorities in ways incompatible with the gospel and with truth. Paternalistic tendencies, especially among western mission workers have at times resulted in the sending of so-called “medical teams” that lacked even basic medical and missionary training.
These far-too-common shortcomings in medical mission work have minimally left dark stain on the church but also raised (further) questions as to the legitimacy of the entire mission enterprise. If Christians cannot show compassion to the most needy and vulnerable, especially the sick, in ways that are Christ-honoring, culturally considerate, and carried out with honesty and integrity, then is there any hope at all for Christian cross-cultural efforts?
— Jerry M. Ireland, Preface to “Shalom: God’s Purpose for the World,” by Dae-Young Lee
My wife is a certified pastoral counselor, so I sometimes get pulled in on CPE (Clinical Pastoral Training/Education) groups to lead a small training session. This weekend, I led one in Pastoral Theology. I utilize the definition for Pastoral Theology used by Margaret Whipp, in her book “SCM Guidebook: Pastoral Theology,”
PASTORAL THEOLOGY IS THE STUDY OF HOW AND WHY CHRISTIANS CARE.
Several times (too many times?) I made the statement that good pastoral care depends on good pastoral theology. I also made the statement that how we carry out pastoral care points to our pastoral theology. Thus, if we don’t have a reflected on pastoral theology, we will simply have a tacit (and typically bad) pastoral theology.
This seems a bit ridiculous, especially considering how busy people seem to be in Christian ministry who appear to have no time to worry about such unnecessary things as theology or theological reflection.
But I found a nice little example of tacit pastoral theology in a Youtube Video I watched from a strange source. The channel is “Tasting History” and the particular video is “Irish Stew from 1900 & the Irish Potato Famine.”
It is not a religious or theological channel. But it is quite relevant.
Starting around 1845, Potato Blight hit Ireland hard. People were starving and different people responded differently.
Charles Trevelyan. This man was placed in charge of the relief work by the British government for those starving in Ireland. In the youtube video (link above) it quotes Trevelyan as saying,
“The judgment of God sent the calamity to teach the Irish a lesson, that calamity must not be too much mitigated… The real evil which we have to contend is not the physical evil of the Famine, but the moral evil of the selfish, perverse, and turbulent character of the people.” (Charles Trevelyan)
Admittedly, Trevelyan’s views reflected the views of many in power in England. Those in power commonly do see those without power as unworthy in some way… presumably because that implies that they with power have somehow earned their position. However, Trevelyan’s perspective does have an underlying theological perspective. Bad things are happening to the Irish because God wants bad things to happen to them. They have earned what they are getting. And to help people under the judgment of God is to work against God. This is a bit akin to what happened in the 1980s and 1990s when many saw the AIDs epidemic as a judgment of God against homosexuals (particularly). The thought of some was that to work on a cure was to undermine God’s good work.
So what was Trevelyan’s pastoral theology? It is hard to say, but by appearance it seems to be that Christians should care for those who appear to be cared for by God. In other words, we should provide care only for people who don’t require care. This may not be true. Perhaps he was simply an ethnic or religious bigot, and simply justified his prejudices with theological language. In the end, however, it doesn’t matter. In practice this was his theology within this specific context. Pastoral theology is highly contexstual.
Bible Societies. Tasting History noted that many Bible Societies (essentially parachurch mission organizations) provided food for the Irish who were starving…. BUT ONLY IF THEY CONVERT TO THE SOCIETY’S DENOMINATION. Since the vast majority of the Irish were staunchly (religiously and culturally) Roman Catholic, care was only given if people left the Roman Catholic Church.
So what is the pastoral theology here? Since conversion (at least change of denominational affiliation) was a prerequisite for receiving care, they were in essence saying, “Christians care for people only if they are like us Christians. If they are different, they can starve.” This sort of thing has happened a lot in Christian (and non-Christian) societies. There has been many times where the “Cross or the Sword” form of evangelism has been active going back to at least Charlemagne. Again, other groups have their own versions, such as the “Shahada or the Scimitar.” Essentially, the idea is that converting to our faith (or in some cases converting to our denominational perspective) is such an inherent eternal good, that pretty much any means to make that happen is a good thing.
Sometimes, it can go the opposite way a bit. As noted, my wife is a pastoral counselor. Usually, she counsels Christians. Sometimes, however, she counsels non-Christians. Some pastoral counselors say that one can only counsel Christians— for all others, the only thing one can do is Evangelize. That is quite a statement if one thinks about it. Probably, they don’t mean this. Probably what they mean is that Conversion to Christ is such a totally important and good thing, that any other good thing we might be able to do with and for this person pales in comparison. That seems a bit dubious. After all, if someone is suicidal and a Christian counselor talks that person out of committing suicide, that hardly pales in comparison to salvation. In fact, not being dead is an essential prerequisite to conversion. Regardless, it is likely that the refusal to help (except evangelize) a non-Christian is likely to be interpreted as “You have NOTHING to offer me that I presently see as valuable.”
This view tends to lend itself to the perspective of the “Ulterior Motive.” We don’t provide care because we love all people. We don’t do it because Jesus commanded us, and modeled it for us. Rather we do it, to get because we expected a quid pro quo. Quid pro quo can be initiated by either side. When a typhoon hit our area, a mission care provider came to the Philippines to provide resources for those hurt by the landslides. The local missionary he was working with began to plan out all of the places they would visit to help. However, the mission care provider had no interest in that list. He only wanted to go to places where there were churches tied to their denomination to provide care. If one of their churches wasn’t there, that was someone else’s problem. While I understand the logic of it, I still must say that it is a sub-Biblical perspective.
Society of Friends. The video noted that one group that did things differently was the Society of Friends (Quakers). There may have been others, but this is one that was singled out by the video. They gave based on the need of the people… regardless of anything else. This has a very different underlying pastoral theology— of how and why Christians provide care to others. In my mind, this is the one
MMM -- Mission Musings 