EAUK.org
Share
Integral Mission Jesus Style
Integral Mission Jesus Style
The vast majority of evangelicals now find themselves embracing both evangelism and social action. The 1974 Lausanne covenant was seminal in this regard, and its fundamental message that these two aspects of our ministry must go hand in hand has been repeated ever since. Having said that, there remains an inherent ambiguity in how we see these two tasks inter-relating. That they do relate is a given, but how they relate remains uncertain.
At the time of Lausanne, this issue was paid little attention, but in 1982 at the Grand Rapids summit a major report was produced which explicitly addressed the relationship of evangelism and social action. Three conclusions were reached. The first of these was that social action was a ‘‘consequence of evangelism’’. It is worth remembering that the command in the so-called ‘great commission’ was not that we make converts, but that we make disciples ‘‘teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you’’ (Matthew 28: 20). Hence, if we fulfil this commission then the transformation that takes place is not merely cognitive a new set of beliefs -- - but also practical -- - a new set of behaviours. Such reoriented praxis would presumably include a greater concern for compassion and justice, and therefore social action among the poor and marginalised. This is how social action and evangelism might work together to serve Hope in her situation.
The second form of relationship identified in the Grand Rapids document was that social action may be a ‘‘bridge to evangelism’’. It has frequently been noted that ‘empty bellies don’t have ears’, and therefore if we want people to hear our gospel proclamation, it is imperative that they are not treated as detached Cartesian minds.
As John says, ‘‘If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.’’ (1 John 3:17) Having acknowledged this, the report goes on to stress that we must never be in the business of using our social action as a ‘‘bribe’’ to evangelism. Our service of the poor must always be out of genuine compassion for their needs, and not because of some ‘‘ulterior motive’’.
Finally, the report notes the way in which evangelism and social action should be seen as partners. ‘‘They are like the two blades of a pair of scissors or the two wings of a bird…[Jesus’] words explained his works, and his works dramatized his words. Both were expressions of his compassion for people, and both should be ours.
This, then, is how the Grand Rapids report articulates the relationship between social action and evangelism. Since then, a number of scholars have questioned whether Evangelism and Social Responsibility went far enough in identifying the necessary integration between these two aspects of our ministry. In the course of these deliberations, the concept of ‘‘integral mission’’ has been adopted, and many of its proponents would argue for a stronger sense of integration than was evident in the Grand Rapids report. In particular, there is a concern amongst some that Evangelism and Social Responsibility continued with such a dipolar view of mission that inevitably each could be conceived as existing on its own.
David Bosch writes: The moment one regards mission as consisting of two separate components one has, in principle, conceded that each of the two has a life of its own. One is then by implication saying that it is possible to have evangelism without a social dimension and Christian social involvement without an evangelistic dimension.
What is more, if one suggests that one component is primary and the other secondary, one implies that one is essential, the other optional.
In fact, Evangelism and Social Responsibility itself acknowledged this issue of primacy when it wrote: Seldom if ever should we have to choose between satisfying physical hunger and spiritual hunger, or between healing bodies and saving souls, since an authentic love for our neighbour will lead us to serve him or her as a whole person. Nevertheless, if we must choose, then we have to say that the supreme and ultimate need of all humankind is the saving grace of Jesus Christ, and that therefore a person’s eternal, spiritual salvation is of greater importance than his or her temporal and material well-being. (Emphasis added)
Yet, as Bosch has said, ‘‘One has to ask whether this approach is theologically tenable.’’ The 2001 Micah Declaration on Integral Mission was one attempt to address this issue by signalling a greater sense of integration without conflating evangelism and social action. It states: Integral mission…is the proclamation and demonstration of the gospel. It is not simply that evangelism and social involvement are to be done alongside each other. Rather, in integral mission our proclamation has social consequences as we call people to love and repentance in all areas of life. And our social involvement has evangelistic consequences as we bear witness to the transforming grace of Jesus Christ.
In contrast to Evangelism and Social Responsibility, the Micah Declaration does not specify whether evangelism or social action should be considered as prime, and thereby it might be concluded that the Declaration is moving away from the position articulated at Grand Rapids. However, apart from that implied stance, it is not immediately clear that this declaration takes us any further beyond the Grand Rapids report. Evangelism and Social Action are still both necessary, and both relate to each other. Therefore, both are required. The implicit questions regarding primacy and ultimate aims remain in the background.
More recently, Vinoth Ramachandra has suggested that we need to develop this sense of integration even further. Referring to the paragraph above from the Micah Declaration, he writes: This is often taken to mean that there can be no authentic Christian social action that is not accompanied at the same time by the verbal proclamation of the Gospel (‘evangelism’), just as there can be no authentic proclamation that is not accompanied at the same time by social action. This approach then tends to understand ‘integral mission’ as holistic practice, a strategy or methodology for our missionary outreach. The search then begins for ‘models’ of such ‘integral mission’ across the world for us to emulate.
He then goes on to suggest: Whatever the intention of the framers of the Micah Declaration, can the lingering sense of ambiguity be dispelled if we understand ‘integral mission’ less in terms of the church’s activities and more in terms of what the church is called to be (which, of course, includes its actions in the world)?....The emphasis lies, then, not so much in the practical ‘balancing’ of our various activities, but rather in the firm refusal to draw unbiblical distinctions. When, for instance, Jesus voluntarily engaged a social outcast like the Samaritan woman (John 4) in face-to-face conversation was he doing ‘evangelism’ or was he performing a ‘political action’ in challenging the political taboos of his society?...When the Rev. Martin Luther King confronted the white racism of American society in the name of the living God of Scripture who had declared all human beings equal and reconciled them to each other through the death of Jesus, was he evangelizing the nation or engaged in political action?...To raise these questions is to take the Micah Declaration in a direction that challenges the whole church of Jesus Christ, and not just those who are professionally involved with the poor. It is not only the case that…Gospel proclamation has ‘social consequences’ and social involvement has ‘evangelistic consequences’, but also that all such actions can be narrated under other, alternative descriptions with more profound implications for our lives. When Jesus was asked to sum up what God required of us, he did not answer in terms of either a set of ‘projects’ to be performed or a set of ‘doctrines’ to believe. Instead we are called to love God with our whole being, and to love our neighbour in the same way we love ourselves.
I believe that Ramachandra is on to something profound here - perhaps even a paradigm shift in our concept of integral mission. For too long, we have interpreted these activities -- - evangelism and social action -- - by means of our limited frame of reference as ‘activities of the church’. To use some UK based examples, we are either ‘painting railings and picking up litter’, or we are ‘doing evangelism’ by running an alpha course or preaching a particular kind of sermon. What we are not doing, however, is simply being the people of God. We have adopted the viewpoint of the strategic manager who is positioning his staff for maximum effect. Indeed, in our churches we even have the ‘social action’ team, and the ‘evangelism’ team -- - and we somehow conclude that because we have both, we are doing ‘integral mission’. However, as Tim Chester has said, ‘‘The New Testament does not describe development projects or, for that matter, evangelistic initiatives. Its focus is on Christian communities, which are to be distinctive, caring and inclusive. Integral mission is about the church being the church.’’ Surely, it is time for a new approach and a new understanding.
Moreover, given that the mission of the church is derived from and dependent on the missio dei, it is imperative that we look to Jesus’ model for integral mission. In John 20:21 (see also John 17:18), Jesus speaks these words to his disciples following his resurrection, ‘‘As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.’’ Don Carson rightly warns against an over-literalist interpretation of this verse.13 Clearly, we are not all meant to die on a Roman cross! Yet, it would be wrong to deny that they point to Jesus’ model of mission as a paradigm for our own. The verse is immediately followed by the gift of the Spirit, and as Carson notes the perfect tense of ‘sent’, ‘‘suggests…that Jesus is in an ongoing state of ‘sentness’…Thus Christ’s disciples do not take over Jesus’ mission; his mission continues and is effective in their ministry.’’
This article is an excerpt from Justin's HOPE08 Theology article.
