Why Foreign Missions? 20h. The Gospel According to Paul—Word Study 5: Mystērion

Why Foreign Missions? 20h. The Gospel According to Paul—Word Study 5: Mystērion

The term ‘mystērion’ is the fifth term to consider in a discussion of the Gospel.  It has no nuanced meaning as a word, but it does have two contextual uses of interest to a study of the term in relation to the Gospel.  One is the use of the term in Daniel 2, and the other is the use of the term in the Graeco-Roman world.  These uses shed light on the use of the term in the New Testament and, particularly, Paul’s use of the term in reference to the Gospel.

‘Mystery’ in Daniel

The word ‘mystery’ is only found in the Greek Old Testament in Daniel chapter 2.  King Nebuchadnezzar required of his sages not only that they tell the mysterious meaning of his dream to him but also that they tell him what he dreamed in the first place.  What he dreamed, and the meaning of the dream, were truly a mystery.  Yet Daniel was able, by God’s revelation, to tell this mystery.  The king’s dream was about a large statue that was made of different substances in different parts, each indicating a different ‘kingdom’ that would arise in succession to the former one.  A stone, not cut by human hands, rolled into and toppled the statue, and it became a huge mountain that filled the entire earth.  The stone represented the kingdom of God:

And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall this kingdom be left to another people. It shall crush all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever… (Dn. 2.44).

Thus, in a single passage from the Old Testament, we have a link between the word ‘mystery’ and the notion of the kingdoms of the world that culminates in God’s Kingdom.  This link can also be connected to the word ‘Gospel.’  We have already noted a connection between the restoration of Israel from captivity and the establishment of God’s reign in Isaiah, where the announcement of this is spoken of as ‘Good News,’ or ‘Gospel.’  So, despite the single occurrence of the word ‘mystery’ in such a context in the Old Testament, Dn. 2 does provide the background for Paul’s usage of the term ‘mystery’ in reference to the Gospel.

In addition to the connection between the word ‘mystery’ and both (1) ‘kingdom’ and (2) ‘Gospel,’ we can also see that ‘mystery’—understood with Dn. 2 in view--captures two aspects of the Gospel: (3) it is God’s plan, and it is (4) God’s hidden plan unfolding according to his sovereign will.  A final observation in regard to Dn. 2 is that (5) God’s Kingdom will overthrow other kingdoms and be universal.  This last point means that the Gospel as God’s mystery (a) has political significance for other kingdoms and, as a kingdom, (b) operates according to its own laws rather than being an adaptation of or to another kingdom.

Daniel 2 and New Testament Uses of ‘Mystērion’

Daniel 2 seems an appropriate enough background for the use of the term ‘mysteries’ on one occasion in the Synoptic Gospels.  Jesus refers to the ‘mysteries of the kingdom’ that are revealed to the disciples but that remain riddles in Jesus’ parables to others (Mk. 4.11; Mt. 13.11; Lk. 8.10).  Apocalyptic writings are revelations of the mysteries of God’s plan for the world, and we find the term used four times in the book of Revelation.  Yet the term is mostly a Pauline term in the New Testament.

Herman Ridderbos says that Paul’s use of the term ‘mystery’ is 'materially altogether in harmony with the great theme of Jesus' preaching of the coming of the kingdom of heaven,’[1] and 'the mystery is the real content of Paul's gospel (Rom. 16.26).'[2]  The Gospel's content, moreover, is Jesus Christ.[3]  The connection between ‘mystery’ and ‘kingdom,’ already found in Daniel 2, can be connected with the Gospel precisely because Jesus is the one who brings the kingdom and is the content of the Gospel.

Similarly, Joseph Fitzmyer says that ‘mystery’ in Paul

introduces us more deeply into the content of the gospel, which concerns Christ, by enhancing the total view of it as a revelation.  For in the gospel is revealed the divine plan of salvation, which is being realized in Christ Jesus.  It is particularly in contexts mentioning the gospel as revelation or manifestation that mystērion occurs.[4]

The Gospel (our faith, our religion) is linked to the term ‘mystery’ in several passages in Paul (in both undisputed and disputed texts in regard to Paul’s authorship):

Romans 16:25 Now to God who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages….

Ephesians 6:19 Pray also for me, so that when I speak, a message may be given to me to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel….

1 Timothy 3:8-9  ⁸ Deacons likewise must be serious, not double-tongued, not indulging in much wine, not greedy for money;  ⁹ they must hold fast to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience.

1 Timothy 3:16 Without any doubt, the mystery of our religion is great: He was revealed in flesh, vindicated in spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among Gentiles, believed in throughout the world, taken up in glory.

The Gospel is a mystery in that it is the secret plan of God.  Three passages in Colossians demonstrate this claim:

Colossians 1:24-27  ²⁴ I am now rejoicing in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church.  ²⁵ I became its servant according to God's commission that was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known,  ²⁶ the mystery that has been hidden throughout the ages and generations but has now been revealed to his saints.  ²⁷ To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.

Colossians 2:2-3  ² I want their hearts to be encouraged and united in love, so that they may have all the riches of assured understanding and have the knowledge of God's mystery, that is, Christ himself,  ³ in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

Colossians 4:3-4   ³ At the same time pray for us as well that God will open to us a door for the word, that we may declare the mystery of Christ, for which I am in prison,  ⁴ so that I may reveal it clearly, as I should.

The same understanding can also be found in Romans and Ephesians (a point worth emphasising in light of the fact that the Pauline authorship of Colossians and Ephesians is sometimes disputed):

Romans 16:25 Now to God who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages….

Ephesians 1:7-10   ⁷ In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace  ⁸ that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and insight  ⁹ he has made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure that he set forth in Christ,  ¹⁰ as a plan for the fullness of time, to gather up all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

As a mystery, the Gospel 'is apprehended only by faith.’[5]  This aspect of the Gospel as God’s plan now revealed also relates well to Daniel 2.

‘Mystery’ in the Graeco-Roman World

Paul’s usage of the term ‘mystērion’ may have been encouraged further because of its use in his context of ministry—the Graeco-Roman world.  Certainly his hearers would have first heard the term from this context, since it was frequently associated with the religions of the Roman Empire.  The Greeks referred to the cultic practices of these religions as ‘mysteries.’  Several facts should be noted about the mysteries in Graeco-Roman religions: (a) the use of the term in the singular and plural; (b) the role of priests in the mysteries; and (c) the mysteries of a religion are not to be revealed.

 

The use of the plural, ‘mysteries,’ extends the meaning beyond beliefs and includes the practices of a religion.  We might first note that these mysteries were not to be revealed.  Revelation of and making light of the mysteries of a religion was expected to result in severe consequences from the gods or the city.  Several primary sources illustrate this.  Thydidides records a story about certain drunken youths who ‘had in private houses acted the mysteries of their religion in mockery’ (Thycidides,  History of the Peloponnesian War, 6.28; cf. 6.53).[6]  Many young men, some innocent, were imprisoned (6.60), and the leader of the Athenian warriors, Alcibiades, was also accused of participating with them.  He recognises that he has been accused of ‘great crimes’ (6.29)—enhanced because the fate of the army could hang on whether or not the crimes were true, since the gods may punish them under his command.  In Euripides’ Hipolytus, Hippolytus travels to ‘see and celebrate the holy mysteries of Demeter’ (Euripides, Hippolytus 25).[7]  Euripides also tells a story of the slaying of a man by the goddess Athena because she mistakenly believed that he had revealed ‘the dark mysteries with their torch processions’ (Euripides, Rhesus, 943).[8]

Second, we should note that priests of the religions were entrusted with the mysteries.  They beheld, celebrated, and kept them (cf. Plutarch, Biography, ‘Marcius Corolianus,’ 32.2.1-2).

This background enlightens our understanding of Paul’s use of the term ‘mystery’ on several occasions in 1 Corinthians and Romans.  First, Christians experience their faith as a speaking of mysteries in the Spirit when they speak in tongues that are not understood by others, only by God.  Believers may have a great spiritual understanding into the mysteries of their religion—something the Corinthians gloried in but Paul downplays with his concern for believers to love one another:

1 Corinthians 14:2 For those who speak in a tongue do not speak to other people but to God; for nobody understands them, since they are speaking mysteries in the Spirit.

1 Corinthians 13:2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

Second, while these passages suggest something mysterious, Paul can use this language in reference to eschatology, to various theological teachings about God’s future, ultimate plan:[9]

God’s Future Plan Regarding the Resurrection: 1 Corinthians 15:51 Listen, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed….

God’s Future Plan for Jews and Gentiles: Romans 11:25 So that you may not claim to be wiser than you are, brothers and sisters, I want you to understand this mystery: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.

God’s Unfolding Plan for the Church: Ephesians 5:29-32   ²⁹ For no one ever hates his own body, but he nourishes and tenderly cares for it, just as Christ does for the church,  ³⁰ because we are members of his body.  ³¹ "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."  ³² This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the church.

God’s Future Plan Regarding the Man of Lawlessness: 2 Thessalonians 2:7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, but only until the one who now restrains it is removed.

Third, Paul is also a keeper of the mystery, but he understands this role to involve revealing the mystery of God, the Gospel, rather than keeping it a secret.

1 Corinthians 2:1 When I came to you, brothers and sisters, I did not come proclaiming the mystery of God to you in lofty words or wisdom.

1 Corinthians 4:1  Think of us in this way, as servants of Christ and stewards of God's mysteries.

Various points already noted can be found in Ephesians 3.1-12:

Ephesians 3:1-12   This is the reason that I Paul am a prisoner for Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles--  ² for surely you have already heard of the commission of God's grace that was given me for you,  ³ and how the mystery was made known to me by revelation, as I wrote above in a few words,  ⁴ a reading of which will enable you to perceive my understanding of the mystery of Christ.  ⁵ In former generations this mystery was not made known to humankind, as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit:  ⁶ that is, the Gentiles have become fellow heirs, members of the same body, and sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.  ⁷ Of this gospel I have become a servant according to the gift of God's grace that was given me by the working of his power.  ⁸ Although I am the very least of all the saints, this grace was given to me to bring to the Gentiles the news of the boundless riches of Christ,  ⁹ and to make everyone see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things;  ¹⁰ so that through the church the wisdom of God in its rich variety might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.  ¹¹ This was in accordance with the eternal purpose that he has carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord,  ¹² in whom we have access to God in boldness and confidence through faith in him.

I see the following points related to the Gospel in this passage:

1. The Gospel is a mystery in the sense that it is something that God has revealed (to Paul and, through him, to others; vv. 3, 5, 9);

2. The content of the mystery is the content of the Gospel (v. 7), which is Jesus Christ (v. 3);

3. The ‘mystery’ as God’s secret plan now revealed, includes, as in Rom. 11.25, what God has planned for Jews and Gentiles (v. 6).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the term ‘mystērion’ opens up further insight into the content of the Gospel, particularly in Paul.  The term’s use in Daniel 2 brings out the following points:

          *’Mystery’ is related to God’s kingdom.

*’Mystery’ in reference to God’s kingdom means that God’s kingdom will overthrow other kingdoms.  God’s kingdom has political significance for other kingdoms and is different from the other kingdoms--it has its own laws.

*’Mystery’ as God’s eventual bringing of His kingdom rule in Dn. 2 should be related to passages in the prophets that speak of the 'Good News' (as Isaiah puts it) of restoration of Israel from captivity and the return of God’s rule over Israel.  In this way, ‘mystery’ and ‘Gospel’ are already related in Old Testament theology.

*’Mystery’ has to do with God’s plan—his plan for the world from the time of its very foundation.

          *’Mystery’ has to do with God’s sovereign plan being hidden at one time but now revealed.

These points do relate to the use of ‘mystery’ in the New Testament, particularly to Paul’s use of the term for the Gospel.  Use of the term ‘mystērion’ in Paul not only relates to Daniel’s use of the term but also to the use of the term in the Graeco-Roman world.  It has to do with the ‘mysteries’ of a religion—its teachings and practices.  Christians, too, enter into the mysteries of the Spirit, speaking mysteries in other tongues.  However, unlike those religions, when the term ‘mystery’ is used of the Gospel, Paul's commission is not to hide divine mysteries but to reveal the ‘mystery’ of God, the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  The hiddenness of the mystery of the Gospel has to do with the fact that only in Christ is God’s plan made manifest.  Only in Christ is God’s plan accomplished.  There is, simply put, no other way of salvation, no other rule of God, no other truth.  The mystery of Christ has been revealed.

---

[1] Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975), p. 48.

[2] Herman Ridderbos, Paul, p. 47.

[3] Ridderbos, Paul, pp. 49ff.

[4] Joseph Fitzmyer, S.J., 'Pauline Theology,' in Jerome Biblical Commentary, Section 79 (New York: Prentice Hall, 1968), p. 807.

[5] Joseph Fitzmyer, ‘Pauline Theology,’ p. 807.

[6] Thucydides, trans. Benjamin Jowett (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1881).  Online: www.perseus.tufts.edu (accessed 28 July, 2013).

[7] Euripides, with an English translation by David Kovacs (Cambridge. Harvard University Press, forthcoming).  Online: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0106:card=25; accessed 21 July, 2013.

[8] The Plays of Euripides, translated by E. P. Coleridge, vol. 1 (London. George Bell and Sons. 1891).

[9] By making the point in this way, I am also suggesting that those who claim that some author other than Paul uses ‘mystery’ in a different way in Ephesians are simply wrong.  Paul actually uses the term in reference to his eschatological beliefs, as noted.  Moreover, in Ephesians there is a link between ‘mystery’ and the revelation of God’s secret plan, as in other letters.  The revelation of God’s secret plan includes what God has planned for Jews and Gentiles in both Rom. 11 and in Ephesians 3 (see below).  I find the dispute over Pauline authorship of Ephesians over this issue to be remarkably weak.

Engaging the Bible in Mission Theology: Scripture Tools for Every Person (STEP)

Engaging the Bible in Mission Theology Scholarship: Scripture Tools for Every Person (STEP)

An essential part of mission theology is an engagement with Scripture.  For years now, those of us who could afford it have used Bible programmes that allow us to search Scripture for words and phrases in a variety of languages, including the original languages.  The top commercial programmes have been BibleWorks, Accordance, and Logos.

Just rolled out in its first edition this week is StepBible.  See www.StepBible.org.

This is a simply fantastic development in the world of Biblical literacy.  Now, for free, people around the world will have at their fingertips a large number (and growing) of translations, including critical editions of the Old Testament and New Testament in the original languages.  To get a tour of the site, go to: https://stepweb.atlassian.net/wiki/display/SUG/Quick+overview+using+Screenshots

Congratulations to Dr. David Instone-Brewer and those assisting him in developing this through Tyndale House, Cambridge (see: http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/).

Making the Scriptures accessible and developing tools to study it is a large part of the Great Commission--to make disciples of all nations.

Issues Facing Missions Today: 2. Biblical Illiteracy in the Western Church: (b) Problems at the Personal and Community Levels

Issues Facing Missions Today: 2b. Biblical Illiteracy in the Western Church: Problems at the Personal and Community Levels

Introduction:

The Church’s mission to ‘make disciples of all nations’ (Mt. 28.19) entails ‘teaching them all that I [Jesus] have commanded you.’  The charge of Biblical illiteracy in the Church involves a failure of mission.  Whatever is going on in churches today—and I have primarily churches in Western contexts in view in this commentary--the overall result is, generally speaking, Biblical illiteracy.  Having laid this problem first at the feet of theologians who come up with creative ways to deny Biblical authority in the previous post, we need to consider the problem at personal and community levels as well.  I will note five causes for Biblical illiteracy and try to discuss each as briefly as possible—so much more could be, and needs to be, said.

*Biblical Illiteracy and the Challenge of a Post-Christian Culture: The most dramatic change has taken place in Western culture during the 20^th century.  The Church that stood at the centre of European and American culture—no matter how inadequately representing true Christianity—is now a Church that is marginalized by these cultures.  Whatever perks, whatever infrastructure, whatever customs that were in place to favour Christianity have been or are fast being removed.  While this may actually be a blessing, since the pseudo-Church of Christendom is being exposed, the effect of this is that Christians must work harder to teach Biblical faith and practice in a hostile culture in the West.  (I could not be a more avid supporter of the Christian schooling movement!)

*Biblical Illiteracy and the Challenge of Technology: Technological advances have an impact on literacy.  The affect may be positive for some, but for others the simple practice of reading a book is discarded for the more pragmatic practice of ‘using’ material from books or the more engaging experience of ‘seeing’ a book in video form.  An electronic Bible allows one to search key words or phrases—or even to find the book in Scripture—such that the reader uses Biblical content more than follows the literary flow, canonical shape, and detailed communication of particular texts.  The reader is more in control in his or her use of the text than is the author in leading the reader through his thoughts.

*Biblical Illiteracy and Preaching: A key answer to Biblical illiteracy in the Reformation of the 16^th century was the sermon.  Whether the pulpit replaced the Eucharistic table at the center of the church building or was raised to lofty heights at the front corner, the sermon gave a new prominence to Scripture.  Sermons were reflections on the Biblical text.  In some circles, Church music was restricted to the words from the Psalms.  Also, at the heart and centre of the Reformation was Bible translation.  The Reformation was a reforming of the theology, practices, and ethics of the Church based on a fresh understanding of what Scripture said, and discovering what Scripture said was the engine that drove reformation.

Yet, sermons can and often do contribute to Biblical illiteracy!  The lectionary was developed to make certain that preachers delivered messages from all parts of Scripture, not just their favourite sections of Scripture.  It sets passages on which the sermon should be based for each Sunday of the year.  However, this assumes, wrongly, that those developing lectionaries do not have their own agendas.[1]  The lectionary also places significant pressure on the preacher to grasp the issues of different books of the Bible each Sunday instead of developing a study of one book of the Bible over several weeks.  This is also a challenge to those hearing the sermons, since they move from passage to passage without gaining an understanding of what an author has written in a particular book.  If a lectionary is to be used, it should be used alongside a robust teaching from the Scriptures in some other, weekly venue.

Moreover, many sermons fail to teach the Scriptures by the way in which the preacher develops them.  I tell students that a sermon should both explain what the Scripture says in its context and train listeners to look for what texts say in the context.  This is what is meant by ‘expository preaching’—an exposition or teaching of the text.  I also tell students training for ministry of the Word to read Biblical theology to gain an understanding of the forest and not just have as their goal an exposition of an individual text in a sermon.  Both the overall understanding of Scripture and the specific understanding of a text need to be presented in a sermon.  The sermon may and often should include teaching about how we form our convictions from the text of Scripture and practice the Biblical teaching in our contexts, although I could see this being done more effectively through discussion after the exposition of Scripture in a sermon.  My overall point here is that sermons need to blur the line between ‘preaching’ and ‘teaching’ so that, whatever one means by preaching, it includes a clear teaching of what the Scriptures say.  The audience, furthermore, needs to be able to see how the preacher has derived the point or points of the sermon from the Biblical text.

Approaches to preaching form the content of many books.  Where preaching leads to Biblical illiteracy is where hearers are not shown by the preacher how the message has been derived from Scripture.  Some brilliant forms of communication can be excellent examples of this problem.  Three examples I often hear may suffice to demonstrate my point. 

First, there is the sermon that develops around stories, humour, pithy sayings, and other rhetorically strong devices.  Listeners seem to enjoy hearing a piece of the preacher’s life that is connected to some wise word for living.  They enjoy connecting the events of the week, from sports to international news, to a thought from Scripture.  These are great examples of rhetoric—they are good communication.  They are not examples of Biblical preaching. 

Second, there is the sermon that has as its goal communicating a single idea—the ‘big idea.’  The preacher is expected to do his or her exegesis, figure out the big idea (this is ever so reductionistic), and then present the big idea to the congregation in some engaging story-telling.  The message may be straight from the Scriptures, but the work of exegesis is hidden from the congregation.  This requires a tremendous amount of trust from the congregation in the preacher, but it also does not teach them to become interpreters of Scripture themselves.  In the weekly home Bible study, the church’s members are likely to tout their own big ideas that the text somehow raises to consciousness rather than focusing on what the Bible says.  Hearers of such sermons, moreover, will not have been trained to hear errors in interpreting the text: they will be listening more for to the rhetoric than focusing on whether the preacher has rightly interpreted God’s Word.

Third, there is the topical sermon.  Sometimes, topical sermons are necessary.  At least, congregations that understand themselves to be ‘family’ have lots to talk about, and sermons can be used to address some of the issues that they are facing.  Often, however, topical sermons are derived by the preacher through using a concordance and looking up passages related to a topic.  The result is almost inevitably a bad piece of Biblical research and, in the sermon, a demonstration of how to jump around Scripture without attention to the context of any given passage.

In a word, I would say that Biblical illiteracy is to some extent caused by a steady diet of bad preaching in churches that, in turn, models bad study of the Bible for individuals and Bible study groups.

*Biblical Illiteracy and the Practice of ‘Church’: Here I would like to raise three issues. 

First, our practice of ‘church’ in many parts of the world has changed considerably over the past half-century.  Sunday morning worship has been shortened, Sunday evening services have often been abandoned, and the mid-week service or Bible study has been cancelled.  People spend less time in contexts where they hear the Scriptures read and proclaimed. 

Second, in most parts of the world, ‘Sunday School’ is something for children and not for adults.  There may be an alternative setting for adult Bible study, but the question needs to be asked everywhere, ‘How are different age groups learning from the Scriptures on a weekly basis?’  I daresay that too many churches have too little of a focus on teaching the Scriptures, particularly after the age of 12. 

Third, too many churches have lost the concept of having a ‘teacher’ or ‘teachers’ in the local church.  Frankly, a good pastor may not be a good teacher, although the roles may overlap.  What each church needs to ask, however, is, ‘Who are the church’s teachers and how are they being prepared for their role in the church?’  For Paul, especially the elders who ‘labour in word and teaching,’ were worthy of ‘double honour’ (1 Tim. 5.17), and the next verse clarifies that this double honour includes financial remuneration.  Imagine a church that pays its elders to spend time in study and teaching!  All too often, the reality for pastors is that they are so busy with meetings, overseeing programmes, addressing staff issues, visiting the sick, and counseling, that studying Scripture and sermon preparation are pressed into a short time during the week that is devoted mostly to rhetorical concerns for the sermon.  What if, for argument’s sake, all those other tasks were unpaid positions in the church, whereas the teachers in the Church were remunerated?

An alternative, perhaps, would be Christian learning communities that bring churches together in a city or region, communities comprised of several churches paying teachers.  These might offer certificate programs for adults, internships training believers in spiritual life, ministry, and the Bible, seminars, and retreats.[2]  I do not think that this is different from what the early house churches would have done.  While different ‘congregations’ would have met in different houses around, say, Corinth, a teacher such as Apollos or Paul would have spoken in those homes and somehow to all the congregations.  The seminary of our day offers this ministry, but only to persons pursuing master’s degrees, often in contexts that require students to move far away from their churches and homes, and at a very high cost of tuition.  Teaching needs to be locally available at low cost for all believers.

*Biblical Illiteracy and the Challenges of Our Daily Lives: One final subject that I wish to note is the fact of our busy, daily lives and the difficulty we have to find time for Bible reading and study.  This is a family problem, a personal problem, and a problem related to what we do in relation to the local church. 

Time and space is an issue for our spiritual lives in general.  Even in rural Galilee in the first century, Jesus had to find a private spot on a mountain at night to pray (Lk. 6.12).  He had the pressure of public ministry, of course, but we all need to be intentional about finding that ‘spot on the mountain at night’ to tend to our souls.  Biblical literacy, however, is not so much a matter of a private, quiet time—many of us have that idea.  Rather, it is more about finding time and space to come together, with a qualified teacher, to study Scripture.  We should try to find some time each day to read Scripture and pray.  Yet we need more than this to learn Scripture.

We also need an understanding of Sabbath rest that involves Scripture reading and study in corporate settings.  How about turning upside down the notion of Sunday that sees Sunday School and worship as something to do before we get our personal time of rest?  What if we had the idea that our whole Sabbath day belongs to God?  As God says in Isaiah,

If you refrain from trampling the sabbath, from pursuing your own interests on my holy day; if you call the sabbath a delight and the holy day of the LORD honorable; if you honor it, not going your own ways, serving your own interests, or pursuing your own affairs;  ¹⁴ then you shall take delight in the LORD… (Is. 58.13-14).

I would propose that the busyness of our lives should be met with a better understanding of the Sabbath along the lines of Isaiah, and I would propose that the problem of Biblical illiteracy should be met with a more robust plan for teaching the Bible on Sundays.  We need to see the Sabbath as a day to ‘take delight in the LORD,’ and that might centre on study of His Word.  My own view is that teachers shared by several local congregations and teaching in lay certificate programmes would be a good start for a more robust study of Scripture for all believers.[3]

In conclusion, we seem to have a variety of challenges to Biblical literacy.  I have not addressed the challenges that those without Scripture in their native languages face, or perhaps a host of other challenges faced by those of us outside the West or outside the cities of the world.  Perhaps some reflection on the challenges I have addressed as well as others in our own contexts will help us come up with creative answers to the problem of Biblical illiteracy that so many note.  Whatever the causes, Biblical illiteracy stands at the very centre of the challenges that we face in missions today—the mission to make disciples of all nations.  To solve this problem is, to a great extent, to fulfill the Great Commission.

---

[1] If you use a newer lectionary, check to see if there is a reading from Rom. 1.18-3.20, where Paul develops the idea that the human problem is sin.

[2] Several of us are exploring how to run such a learning community in the Western Cape of South Africa.

[3] Several of us have begun this kind of teaching in Port Elizabeth, South Africa, and we hope to expand it in other cities.

Issues Facing Missions Today: 2. Biblical Illiteracy in the Western Church: (a) The Loss of a Concern for Biblical Authority Among Theologians

Issues Facing Missions Today: 2a. Biblical Illiteracy in the Western Church: The Loss of a Concern for Biblical Authority Among Theologians

Introduction

The strangest thing happened on the way to the twenty-first century: the Western Church became Biblically illiterate.  This has a direct and dramatic effect on its mission in the world.

The point being made here is not at all new.  In recent years, I have heard the conversation repeatedly being made in Europe, America, and South Africa.  There may be wonderful exceptions to this all over the world, but one challenge missions faces is a fairly massive element of the Church being biblically illiterate.  How can we possibly go about the mission of the Church if we are Biblically illiterate?

Just how did this state of affairs come about?  Studying ‘cause’ is challenging.  What I present here are analyses that should contribute to a new strategy to re-establish Biblical literacy even if they fail to explain the causes fully.

In this post, I will discuss the loss of a concern for Biblical authority among many theologians.  This is, necessarily, a more theological discussion.

 ‘An Old Bitch Gone in the Tooth’

Ezra Pound, speaking of soldiers who died for Western civilization, described the West as ‘an old bitch gone in the teeth:’[1]

There died a myriad,

And of the best, among them,

For an old bitch gone in the teeth,

For a botched civilization.

I think that he got this wrong, or at least his eulogy came a little too early for the West.  Yet these words fit well when directed at the oldline denominations that are no longer able to stand up and guard or hunt.  They are left in a smiling heap of tired bones by the hearth, wise but worthless, and having nothing more to offer the world.

We have the oldline denominations to thank for the loss of a concern for Biblical authority in many Western Christian circles and, to some extent, in those non-Western regions where they have had influence.  For example, the challenge of Biblical authority is keenly felt among world-wide Anglicans as their Western seats of power have unseated Scripture as the final authority in matters of faith and practice. 

Just look at the struggle among Anglicans in South Africa to address the social realities this country faces from a Biblical perspective: Biblical training for ministry is minimal or even non-existent, some bishops openly oppose Scripture as authoritative, and social agendas in society at large determine the theology and practices of the Church.  The Anglican Church in South Africa is struggling to have a Christian identity.  British Anglican theologians outside the Evangelical movement, by and large, have nothing to offer their mature daughter church, except their encouragement for South African Anglicans to be free from restrictive authorities that once were the sources of Christian identity—the Bible in particular.

For Rowan Williams, the former archbishop of Canterbury, Scripture does not contain revelation in itself; it rather generates revelation in the Christian community’s experience.[2]  Relocating authority in a community also emphasises the notion that it is, by its very nature, not static but dynamic.  It is dialogical and therefore always diverse. 

This suggestion (on what is it based?) has an eerie ring to it.  One might well recall the first theological dialogue in Scripture.  ‘Look, Eve,’ said the serpent in the Garden of Eden, ‘the problem you are facing in this place is that you are approaching revelation from an author-oriented perspective.  As long as you do so, you will be subjecting yourself to a hierarchical—may I even say ‘patriarchal’?—approach to interpretation.  You presently see revelation as objective truth to be unveiled by an authoritative author, God, rather than as subjective truth that you yourself construct.  You and Adam need a community-oriented approach, whereby ‘right and wrong’ will be in your power to discover, not God’s power to determine.  God is, frankly, afraid that if you begin to determine right and wrong as interpreters you will have the same authority that he has as the author of this garden.  Have a bite.’

The loss of Biblical authority to community authority has been given a positive face by many interpreters in the past decades.  As Stephen Sykes avers, ‘Christian identity is…not a state but a process; a process, moreover, which entails the restlessness of a dialectic, impelled by criticism.’[3]  Robin Gill finds this perspective encouraging for Great Britain: it allows the Church as community to embrace diversity and process in moral issues rather than seek to come to a definitive position.[4]  Gerald West finds this encouraging for Africa.  He insists that contextual Bible studies, wherein participants allow themselves to be partially constituted by each other’s subjectivities, need to connect interpretation with social commitments.  West suggests the following three steps to accomplish this:[5]

1.       Commitment to Liberation: Be committed to the experience of the poor and marginalised.

2.       Commitment to Postmodernism: Turn from finding the elusive ‘right’ reading to the ‘useful’ reading.  Shift from ‘epistemology to ethics, truth to practices, foundations to consequences.’[6]

3.       Commitment to Reader-Response Criticism: Realize that the reader ‘creates’ meaning and does not merely ‘receive’ it.

The Search for a Dynamic View of Revelation

The need for something dynamic in Biblical revelation found an initial resting place in narrative theology.  Thirty-two years ago, George Stroup, writing on how narrative theology had given an answer to this need over the previous ten years, pointed out that there was a crisis over the identity of Christian community.  He identified four symptoms of this crisis:[7]

…the curious status of the Bible in the church’s life, the church’s loss of its theological tradition, the absence of theological reflection at all levels of the church’s life, and the inability of many Christians to make sense out of their personal identity by means of Christian faith.

Each of these symptoms can be related to the problem of Biblical illiteracy, but for Stroup the primary missing piece was the dynamic dimension of narrative in Scripture, theology, church life, and personal identity.  The narrative move on the theological chessboard, however, only postponed checkmate.  It was a good move in many ways, but it missed the fact that the power of a narrative is in its ability to change the reader, not in the reader’s ability to find multiple uses for a narrative.

For L. Gregory Jones and Stephen Fowl, the dynamic dimension of narrative theology was primarily located in the interpreting community.  We need to identify the readers’ interpretive interests rather than fret over identifying the author’s intentions when looking for the meaning of a text: [8]

Rather than pursue this illusory quest for the meaning of a text, we recommend that we think in terms of 'interpretive interests' … Once we acknowledge the plurality of interpretive interests, we need not treat alternative interpretations as failed attempts to discover the meaning of a text.

The historians among us may recall any number of attempts of the Church through the ages to declare ‘failed attempts’ of interpretation to be heresy.  Theologians are now pawn stars, reselling these failed attempts as valuable, alternative, previously discarded theologies and practices.  They are now valued, alternative, interpretive interests of past communities.

The dynamic element such postmodern approaches to the Bible and its authority are seeking need not, however, be located in an undermining of Biblical authority and revelation.  The dynamic element in interpretation needs to be found in the work of Christ and the Spirit in the interpreters, the teachers, and worshipers. 

In Col. 3, for example, sexual immorality as Paul understood it from his Biblical (Old Testament) reading is still sexual immorality for the Christian community in his day; it is not redefined for a different cultural context in a different era by a community that holds the keys to the Kingdom apart from God’s Biblical revelation.  Paul does not offer a license to the Christian community to come up with its own sexual standards in its own cultural and historical context.  Sexual immorality is never redefined in the early Church over against what the Old Testament had always said it was.  What is new is the dynamic power of Christ working in believers such that they are able to 'put to death'--through Christ's death--such sin, for they can now 'put on'--like a new robe after their baptism into Christ--the life of our resurrected Lord (Col. 3.5ff).  Just how does a Christian hermeneutic affirm that readers play a role in interpretation?  They need to read with an understanding that the life-transforming power of Christ spoken of in the text is a life-transforming power for them.

As Gordon Fee writes,[9]

…the aim of exegesis [is] to produce in our lives and the lives of others true Spirituality, in which God's people live in fellowship with the eternal and living God, and thus in keeping with God's own purposes in the world.  But in order to do that effectively, true 'Spirituality' must precede exegesis as well as flow from it.

The Problem of Static, Rationalistic, Evangelical Theologies

This point brings the present argument back home.  By no means are all Evangelical theologies static and rationalistic.  Yet not a few Evangelicals have affirmed the authority of Scripture only to find modernistic or rationalistic ways of denying the power of God among us today.  Grace is, on such views, all about forgiveness and not also about the transforming work of God.  Christian counseling is offered as the solution to struggles in discipleship rather than the power of the Spirit to change lives.  Miracles are relegated to a past phase of Church history, ending with the apostolic era nearly two thousand years ago.  Justification is so neatly packaged apart from sanctification that the latter is merely a life expressing gratitude for the certainty of the former.  Christian theology is a set of doctrines to be affirmed rather than an encounter with the living God.  Prayer is merely an ordained link in the chain of God’s predetermined plan rather than a powerful intercession for God to make a difference in our lives.  Such Evangelicals may know the Scriptures, but they do not know the power of God.  They affirm the authority of Scripture only to deny the divine power of which it speaks.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the first responsibility for Biblical illiteracy, then, is to be laid at the feet of the theologians (among whom I stand!), with their crafty ways of denying Biblical authority.  This is not only true among the hospice theologians of the dying oldline denominations.  It is also true of the Enlightenment-driven Evangelical theologians who would locate the power of God in the text of Scripture alone and not also in God’s powerful ministry among his people in our own day.  Both remove the Bible a great distance from the life of believers.  This contributes to Biblical illiteracy in the Church.  In turn, the mission of the Church is undermined in a world that longs to hear from God and to know Jesus’ resurrection power.

---

[1] Ezra Pound, ‘Hugh Selwyn Moberly,’ V.

[2] Rowan Williams, On Christian Theology (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000), p. 134f.

[3] +Stephen Sykes, The Identity of Christianity (London: SPCK, 1984), p. 134.

[4] +Robin Gill, Churchgoing and Christian Ethics, New Studies in Christian Ethics 15 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).

[5] +Gerald West, ‘Reading the Bible Differently: Giving Shape to the Discourse of the Dominated,’ Semeia 73 (1996): 21-41.

[6] Quote in Gerald West, Reading the Bible Differently, p. 27, from Cornel West, Prophetic Fragments (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988): 270-1.

[7] George W. Stroup, The Promise of Narrative Theology (London: SCM Press, 1984; 1^st publ. John Knox Press, 1981), p. 24.

[8] Stephen E. Fowl and L. Gregory Jones, Reading in Communion: Scripture and Ethics in Christian Life (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), pp. 15f.

[9] Gordon Fee, 'Exegesis and Spirituality: Completing the Circle,' in his Listening to the Spirit in the Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 6.

Issues Facing Missions Today: 1. The Loss of Mission

Issues Facing Missions Today: 1. The Loss of Mission

The greatest challenge to missions in the past forty to fifty years in the west is the loss of mission.  This deserves a book.  I will limit myself to a few examples.

Exhibit A: Denominations have, by and large, lost the vision for mission.  First, loss of numbers: denominations in general have been losing numbers (except for a few), while independent churches have been growing.  Second, loss of fervor: some denominations have lost their missionary fervor, becoming more self-focussed.  Third, loss of purpose: oldline denominations—the ones that have been around a long time and put the word ‘Church’ right in their names because they thought that the word in a big sense actually applied to them—have been losing an understanding of purpose and, with it, a vision for missions.  Why?  At least three reasons.  (a) They have been losing a vision of what the Gospel is.  (b) Embarrassed by complicity in colonial expansion in the 1800s and early 1900s, they called a moratorium on missions and began to cut their mission forces decades ago, turning over their ‘interests’ in foreign countries to the nationals.  Finally, (c) challenged by falling numbers in their pews, the oldline denominations cut back the mission forces that they once supported out of denominational funds.

Exhibit B: Independent churches cannot hold the vision of mission by themselves—they cannot hold it intelligently, adequately, accurately, efficiently, or appropriately.  The best definition of a megachurch is a church that thinks it can hold the mission of the church by itself.  They can’t, and the mission of the Church is in peril in their hands.  Some work more with others, some are accountable to others, some are stable enough not to change vision and staff on an annual basis, but all too many have become the Kingdom of God.  The little independent church is better off, since it is less pretentious, but it struggles to connect to a larger vision of mission.

Exhibit C: Local churches have lost the vision for mission.  Sweeping statements apply here—of course I’m not talking about your local church.  Yet here is a list of ways in which the local church loses a vision for mission:

                1. Missionaries are not given time to speak in church services.

                2. If missionaries are given time to speak in church services, they are expected to give a ‘minute for missions’ segment in the church, or they are asked to preach.  Preaching is not really helpful at all if the missionary understands preaching to be presenting the Word of God to the people of God rather than talking about his or her mission.

                3. Churches have mission committees with people who typically do not know anything about the Church’s mission.  They may have gone on a 2 week ‘mission trip’ and are seriously concerned about the church's mission.  Yet they often need solid teaching on what the church's mission is and how to go about it.

                4. Many churches think that overseas exposure trips are mission work.  With improvements in global travel (I used to go to South Africa from America on a boat that took nearly 3 weeks!) and communication (a letter from America took the same amount of time), more average people are travelling overseas.  The two week mission trip has become a fad in American churches.  It is particularly popular as a way to send children abroad for a short time.  Look: this is not a bad thing if done properly, but it is not missions.  Put this in the education budget of the church, not the mission budget.  I’ve sent my son to Nicaragua twice, and it was great for him.  Also, missionaries are not simply people who ‘go overseas,’ they ought to be (ahem!) a highly trained mission force accomplishing a clearly defined mission.  ('Dear Missionary, Our church recognises the importance of your ministry.  However, we are so fully engaged in mission work ourselves through our own overseas project and short-term missions that we are too financially stretched to support your work at this time.')

                5. Many churches do not want to meet with their missionaries or get to know them well.  They would rather send around a ‘grant application form’ to their missionaries every year.  Whatever happened to being in prayer together and hearing the voice of the Holy Spirit say, ‘Separate unto me Paul and Barnabas for the work to which I have called them’?

                6. Many churches like to collect missionaries like exotic, salt-water fish.  Here is the beautiful missionary map on the back wall of the church (I really love these, but they do confuse people about missions).  On the map, you will find colourful pins showing where the church’s supported missionaries serve.  Somewhere in the church building there may be flags representing the countries where missionaries serve.  There may even be an annual mission conference held by the church when missionaries dress up in their foreign costumes, serve spicy food, and show slides of far-away places.  Look, this was not a bad idea fifty or more years ago, by and large.  People were far less aware of the world back then, missionaries tended to go to specific countries for their entire lives and stay there, and so forth.  But the exotic country approach to missions is a vestige of colonialism, and many local churches have not given this up these 50 years on.  David Livingstone is hailed as a great African missionary, but people really remember him more for his exploring the continent than for his ministry.  The focus on places in missions pushes ‘mission’ into the background.  Some churches will drop a missionary if a door for ministry opens for the missionary in another place where the local church has no interest.  ('Dear Paul and Silas, Since you are not going into Bithynia and keeping your ministry in Asia Minor but are instead relocating to Macedonia, our church has decided to drop its financial support of your ministry.  Of course, we will continue to pray for you.')  The local church needs to support the vision of a mission, not collect missionaries in localities.

                7. Many churches like to define what the mission should be.  ‘We support church planting, and we want to plant fifty churches in the next five years around the world.’  Local church visions for missions like this usually come from one or two people in the church that are excited about something good but have no understanding of the devastation that they are planning.  Suddenly the church writes its missionaries a letter asking whether their work includes planting churches—if not, they are dropped from support.  Imagine a missionary family that has given up some job in the west and become dependent on mission support getting a letter like that!  It happened to us, and we’ve heard it happen to a number of other colleagues.  The antidote to this sort of power abuse by a local church of its missionaries is to work more directly with mission agencies—but first the mission agencies need to change (my next point).

Exhibit D: Most mission agencies have lost the vision of mission.  Yes, it is true—and I am not trying to be sensationalist about this.  I’m not saying that they have the wrong mission—they probably have pretty well worked out mission statements, and they likely are all passionate about their stated mission.  True, some of the agencies have such broad statements of what their vision for mission is that they lack any focus (I have worked for mission agencies like this, and it makes ministry difficult as there is little support from the mission for your ministry).  The problem with mission agencies typically lies not in their vision and mission statements, though, but in their practice of mission.  Let’s set aside mission agencies with a singular focus, such as Bible translation, relief support, development, or medical missions.  Let’s talk about the ‘sending agency’ missions.  Someone gets excited about foreign missions in a local church and is directed to a mission sending agency.  They get screened with the usual screening: they are Christian, can articulate some sense of calling into missions, pass a battery of psychological tests, and seem to have a way of fitting into the many things going on in the mission agency’s fields of ministry.  This is enough to convince people that some kind of mission is taking place. 

However, at a cynical and darker level (I am willing to go there in order to urge us all on to better practice), I  might suggest a different dynamic.  The mission agency is struggling in its home office to fund the operation, and its leaders are glad to get new recruits who will have to pay 13% operational funds.  There may be other benefits to the agency or its key members as new recruits contribute some of their support to the overall work of the mission.  The mission agency needs to keep accepting missionaries to fund its operations and replace missionaries who have left the mission.  The mission agency, furthermore, functions more like an employment placement agency, helping to place workers who come with their own pay in overseas jobs.  This is not necessarily all that bad, as long as the overseas ‘job’ has a decent ministry, but the point is that the mission agency probably does not have a clear understanding of its own mission beyond placing people overseas.  The mission agency needs to understand how it relates to the mission of God as it is laid out in Scripture and then ask itself how it is accomplishing this mission.  If it did, it would probably be a leaner, highly qualified, and focussed mission.

Exhibit E: Missionaries have little understanding of the mission of the Church and little training to accomplish this mission.  Sure, not you, or not the missionary you support—I’m talking about the other ones.  I could come at this from various directions.  Here is one.  Most missionaries have not been to seminary or Bible school anymore.  Mission agencies require a little training—probably unaccredited—for their missionaries.  They will be asked to acquire a little Bible knowledge, some cross-cultural training, and so forth—perhaps a semester’s worth of study at a very low academic level--but nothing approaching what typically used to be the case for missionaries in the days when people had less education in the general work force in the West.  No wonder churches do not want missionaries to speak in a service!  Poorly trained missionaries also do not have life-long learning built into the ethos of the mission.  The best kept secret of mission agencies in our day—speaking ever so broadly--is that the mission force is less equipped for service than the people they serve.  Instead of thinking about missions as an agency putting into service its crack force to accomplish a mission, the reality is that undertrained people with big hearts are sent abroad to be nice.  That may very well be nice, but it is not accomplishing the Church’s mission.

Exhibit F: The approach to financing missions is disconnected to the mission of the Church.  When missionaries are asked to articulate their own sense of calling to a particular ministry in order to raise support from a host of churches in the west, there is a 'hole' in the 'system' for financing. The articulation of the mission and the evaluation of it lack key partners.  Where is the input from the particular ministry, which is probably overseas?  Where is the role of the mission agency in supporting and promoting the ministry?  Where is the needed networking of various churches that would engage the local church, the mission agency, and the ministry in conversation?  In fact, where is the seminary in the dialogue?  The system for financing missions in our day is most often that of 'everyone doing what is right in their own eyes.'

Imagine an alternative: churches band together in a variety of ways to accomplish a mission.  The seminary professors who understand the mission of the Church and overseas realities are involved in this discussion.  The dialogue partners identify, with a mission agency or the denominational mission agency that has an understanding of the Church’s mission, gifted people with good Christian character and help them train to an advanced level.  They take on themselves the task of financial support for these missionaries recruited for the cause so that they are not distracted by fund-raising—although the missionaries participate in articulating the mission and speak publicly in various venues.  Without articulating a plan in full here, the point is that the mission is clearly articulated and owned by dialogue partners who are responsible for fund-raising: a fellowship of churches, seminary professors, and the/a mission agency/agencies.  They clarify who should go, where they should go at this time, what training is needed for the mission, when and where they should be relocated in 5 months or 5 years, what team they need for the work, and so forth.  And the mission is driving the fund raising that the churches and mission agency/ies (not the missionaries) recognize as their responsibility to raise inasmuch as this is equally their mission.

Instead, missionaries are given tin cups and made to feel like beggars from philanthropists and churches with their tax exempt status and benevolence funds.

This is why I love 3 John—that little letter that nobody seems to know what to do with in our New Testament.  In it, John the elder asks Gaius to fund some missionaries.  Let’s unpack three verses briefly:

You will do well to send them on in a manner worthy of God [here’s the request for funding];  ⁷ for they began their journey for the sake of Christ [that is, they are part of a clear, Christ-focussed mission], accepting no support from non-believers [that is, this is a mission that belongs to God’s people and needs funding from God’s people].  ⁸ Therefore we ought to support such people [note: the request doesn’t come from the missionaries—the church in John and Gaius is actively working to fund the mission], so that we may become co-workers with the truth [mission giving is not philanthropy: those giving are part of the mission just as much as are the missionaries] (3 Jn. 6-8).

Maybe one other thing to note about 3 John is that the church is actually the problem!  John has to write Gaius because Diotrophes is controlling the church and obstructing this mission.  All too often, the ‘Diotrophes’ pastors, mission chairmen, or committee members, with their powerful status dictating the direction of missions in a local church, chase hair-brained schemes in mission work that have nothing to do with the Church’s mission.  Perhaps they will get a building named after them in a far-away country.  Perhaps they will get to take a fun trip to a tropical country.  Perhaps they will feel fulfilled by preaching at a group of appreciative-looking nationals.  Perhaps they are on a power trip by overseeing  funds, programmes, and people through their church’s mission programmes, feeling ever so powerful in their local church and abroad.  But one thing Diotrophes was not doing: he was not in synch with the Church’s mission and not in cooperation with others like John and Gaius in defining the Church’s mission and assisting it.

In conclusion, we might note that there are some good things going on in the midst of all these problems.  Consider the Lausanne meetings in Lausanne, Manila, and Cape Town since the 1970s—meetings called to clarify and articulate the mission of the Church as seen by the Evangelical movement.  Lausanne offers a helpful 10,000 foot high perspective for the more particular and practical discussions that need to take place, but this is helpful.  Scholars also need to engage the subject at a much deeper level than is possible at a large conference and through committees.  Yet this blog post points to a whole different matter: the need to reshape our very understanding of the practice of mission in the North American churches in particular.  Denominations, independent churches, local churches, mission agencies, and missionaries need a very different understanding of how to go about the mission of the Church.

Already in this blog, I have pointed to some of the changes that need to take place.  My current focus is to get a clear understanding of the Church’s mission from Scripture—this is the first step and what readers will find in my ‘Why Foreign Missions?’ postings.  Yet I throw down the challenge to get on with rethinking mission practice in our day.  I have been blessed with some wonderful mission partners, churches, and individuals who are doing some excellent things for the Church’s mission in our day.  I do have hope moving forward, even as I call for significant changes in the practice of mission.