Tena tātou katoa e te iwi mīhana… (Greetings to all the people in mission),

This month’s whakataukī (proverb) speaks of shared objectives and mutually figuring out a way to achieve them: “Tē tōia, tē haumatia” [Nothing can be achieved without a plan, workforce and a way of doing things]. The lengthy English translation explains a Maori idiom of successfully dragging a waka (canoe) to shore with help. A plan helps to achieve the objective.

How we conduct missions is determined by what we think we’re supposed to achieve.

What is the objective of missions? This is a critical question because how we conduct missions is determined by what we think we’re supposed to achieve. Back in 1974 at the Lausanne Congress a new objective was defined that has become quite popular: reach the unreached. This grand idea spawned multiple strategies. It ultimately attracted me to missions involvement. But is it Biblically accurate, let alone realistically achievable? I’d suggest not, but let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

For some time now I’ve been on the sidelines of a missiological debate concerning the prime objectives of “missions” (human activity in fulfillment of God’s ‘mission’). When Ralph Winter, supported by Donald McGavran, popularised the idea of hidden or unreached peoples in 1974 and beyond, it sparked new life into a global missions community that was waning and wanting for a fresh vision. Their ethno-linguistic rationale turned the spotlight on great hordes of global inhabitants that had yet to know about Jesus. It birthed a rallying cry leading up to the turn of the century for us to “finish the task”! Despite valiant attempts to keep that focus alive, it seems the wind has well and truly shifted so it’s time to reset the sails afresh. What remains are some challenging analyses concerning the theological validity of the concepts put forth in an era now past.

Our job, our mission, is to point (Gentiles) to the gate and invite them in.

One such analysis was recently published on the US Gospel Coalition blog site. I think the authors make a good case for viewing Winters’ (among others) interpretation of ‘panta te ethne’ as eisegesis (reading meaning into the text that is not what was originally intended). The Biblical writers clearly could not have had the ‘people group’ concept in mind. That was created relatively recently in the fields of anthropology and sociology. Rather, the Greek phrase probably meant, ‘everyone not a Jew’; in other words, ‘Gentiles’. This is certainly supported by Paul’s more specific reference to Gentiles in his epistles. From a Jewish perspective, the Gentiles are the outsiders. From a Christian perspective, Jesus has opened the gate for all to become insiders. Our job, our mission, is to point them to the gate and invite them in.

I am a good way through reading Jackson Wu’s latest offering, “Reading Romans with Eastern Eyes“. Wu (a pseudonym obscuring the fact that he does NOT in fact have Eastern eyes) makes a good case for the insider/outsider perspective. In short, he claims that the book of Romans is a mobilisation letter, seeking to motivate the Greek-thinking Roman Christians (insiders) to open their wallets in support of Paul’s mission to the Barbarian Spaniards (outsiders). In doing so he highlights the fact that to the Jews (insiders) the Romans were outsiders, but through Christ they became insiders… and without Christ, unbelieving Jews become outsiders. It all makes perfect sense in the book. My main critique of Wu’s handling of it is his two dimensional understanding of honour cultures—and his insistence on matching honour with shame, a missions fad that has gone beyond irritating. Anyone from an honour culture will know that shame is not the opposite of honour. It’s not even on the same spectrum. Shame is a social consequence of dishonour, and the honourable will go to great lengths to guard their honour, not to avoid shame, but because honour is currency. In this regard and some others, I believe Wu reveals the limits of his genetic heritage. But I digress (for now).

The writers of The Gospel Coalition blog post claim that a focus on reaching unreached peoples as quickly as possible has resulted in diminished discipleship depth in favour of rapid conversionism. There might be something to that, but considering less than 1% of the resource applied to Christian missions is focused on the unreached, I don’t think there’s much to fear about draining resource from other important aspects of disciple making. If anything, we need MORE resource focused on where the gospel is least represented, to create the depth that is the real objective of missions—best articulated in John 17:20-25.

It is our deep, mutual, reciprocal, interpersonal and intercultural lived-together unity as disciples that is the objective of missions.

It is our deep, mutual, reciprocal, interpersonal and intercultural lived-together unity as disciples that is the objective of missions and the aim of God’s mission according to Scripture. This lived reality witnesses to the world that the Father lovingly sent the Son who gave the Spirit to reconcile us… so the world will believe and know. The relationship-reconciling power of the Spirit made available through allegiance to the risen Christ is the grand plan of missions in Scripture. The ‘where’ is almost immaterial. It’s required everywhere, but we do well to continue to prioritise where it is not yet. Whether we conceive of that as unreached/unengaged peoples or as marginalised or at-risk or oppressed or impoverished, the point is not who needs it most, but how are we obeying God’s call on our lives to go and provide it.

How might this objective affect the way we #stayonmission?

Whakapaingia te Atua, to tatou kaiunga ki te ao whanui (Praise to God, who sends us into the world),

Jay