The Church 11: Christian Mission to the Post-Christian West
Introduction
Early Christian mission was far more than a
theological challenge to Jewish and Graeco-Roman belief systems. Our understanding of mission in terms of
presenting a message about Jesus Christ and a challenge to believe that message
to some extent accurately reflects the kind of missional preaching we find in
the book of Acts. Yet Acts also tells us
that early Christian mission was not merely about what one believed; it was
also about repentance and the transformation of one’s life. Peter concludes the first missionary
discourse in Acts by telling his audience what the expected response is to the
Gospel message about Jesus Christ that he has just preached:
Acts 2:38-39 Peter said to
them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus
Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the
Holy Spirit. 39 For the
promise is for you, for your children, and for all who are far away, everyone
whom the Lord our God calls to him."
Indeed, early Christian mission was also a
direct personal and social challenge to Jewish and Graeco-Roman society. Such challenges do not come without a hostile
reaction from society.
In our day in Western society, there is a turning from what people have believed about the Gospel of Jesus Christ, a rejection of the Christian way of life, and a hostility to orthodox Christians. In this context, Christian missionary efforts are hampered from some within the Church. Unbelievers are confused about what a Christian really is when persons (including scholars and ministers) teach against the Church’s long-held teaching and practices that are Biblically founded. At the same time, society at large has an increasing antagonism towards Christians themselves. The early Church, however, was able to advance the Church—its beliefs and ethics—in the context of antagonism and persecution.
The question for missions today is the one that
the early Church had as well: ‘How should Christians engage in the Christian
mission as they (1) present the message of the Gospel, (2) challenge social and
ethical aspects of the culture, and (3) negotiate the Church’s own status in a
somewhat hostile and post-Christian culture?’
This essay will address these questions in reverse order. The fact that the early Church was facing the
same questions in its day should lead us back to the writings of the Church
Fathers (to about the early 500s).
Proclaiming God’s Word in a Hostile Context
John the Baptist and Jesus
Proclamation of the Kingdom of God began during
a time of foaming political and social unrest in Israel. The alternative ‘Kingdom of God’ was welcomed
by average people as much as it was deemed insurrectionist by political rulers. John the Baptist and Jesus were both executed
by the government—by Herod Agrippa and Pontius Pilate, respectively. John the Baptist met his death because his moral message (‘proclaiming a baptism of
repentance for the forgiveness of sins,’ Mark 1.4), when applied to King Herod
Agrippa, was offensive. Herod had married
his brother’s wife (Mark 6.18). He had
actually divorced his first wife in the process, and so the wording in Matthew’s
Gospel of Jesus’ teaching on divorce could especially apply to Herod: ‘And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries
another commits adultery’ (Matthew 19.9).
Jesus’ death came at the hands of Jewish leaders and Pontius Pilate, and
so it was a political matter. His
message involved proclaiming the coming of God’s rule through him, and so he
called people to believe this message and to believe in him. Yet his proclamation of the reign of God was also
to a great extent a moral preaching, as John’s was. Jesus proclaimed, ‘The time is
fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent, and believe in the good
news’ (Mark 1.15).
Faithful Jews and the Prophets of God of Whom
the World Was Not Worthy
John the Baptist and Jesus were
continuing a pattern set much earlier by Israel’s righteous martyrs and the prophets
of God. 1 and 2 Maccabees tells the
story of faithful Jews martyred for their faith in the 2nd c.
BC. Books like Esther and Daniel tell of
persecution during the earlier time of the exile. Still earlier, Isaiah understood his
prophetic ministry to be one of constant opposition from the Jews themselves
(Isaiah 6.9-10). Hebrews 11.35-38
summarizes the history of faithful Jews, persecuted for their faith, and it in
particular has the prophets in view.
Hebrews 11:35-38 35
Women received their dead by resurrection. Others were tortured, refusing to
accept release, in order to obtain a better resurrection. 36 Others suffered mocking and
flogging, and even chains and imprisonment.
37 They were stoned to death, they were sawn in two, they
were killed by the sword; they went about in skins of sheep and goats,
destitute, persecuted, tormented-- 38
of whom the world was not worthy. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and
in caves and holes in the ground.
Isaiah, for example, was said to
have been arrested by King Manasseh and sawn in two while false prophets and
leaders exulted (Martyrdom of Isaiah
5 and Lives of the Prophets, both
from c. AD 100). The Lives of the Prophets also tells of the
deaths of other prophets, several of whom were martyred:
·
Jeremiah was
stoned to death in Egypt by Jews
·
Ezekiel was
killed by Jewish leaders in Babylonian exile because he accused them of
idolatry
·
Micah was
thrown from a cliff by King Joram because he accused him of following in the
wicked ways of his father King Ahab
·
Amos was often
beaten by Amaziah, priest of Bethel, and finally delivered a deadly blow with a
cudgel by Amaziah’s son
·
Zechariah son
of the priest, Jehoidah (cf. 2 Chronicles 24.20), was killed (stoned) beside
the altar by King Joash because he said, ‘Thus says God: Why do you transgress the
commandments of the LORD, so that you cannot prosper? Because you have forsaken
the LORD, he has also forsaken you’ (2 Chron. 24.20)
The Early Church
Persecuted Christians found
themselves picking up the narrative of the persecuted righteous, of whom the
world was not worthy. Contrary to
Christians with a Christendom narrative, they did not see themselves as a majority
maintaining control of a culture, or as a group that needs to try to regain
recently lost authority. They saw
themselves as a moral, persecuted minority.
Paul went so far as to say, ‘Indeed, all who want to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted’ (2 Timothy 3.12). The emphasis for Paul is not on what one believes but how one lives (eusebōs) in this passage, although it would be wrong to make too much of a distinction between theology and ethics. The early Church faced waves of local and universal persecution until the Emperor Constantine in AD 312. Nearly 300 years of persecution gave rise to an ‘apologetic’ literature that sought to explain Christianity to the larger society. Learning to articulate the faith in a hostile context is something that the Church in our day needs to practice because nothing can still be assumed on the part of the larger culture. That is, the Church is increasingly at odds with Western culture, and we need to learn how to dialogue intelligently with the newly emerged, post-Christian culture.
Teaching God’s Righteousness in an Amoral or Immoral Culture
Where Christianity is coming into conflict with Western
culture most is in the area of social and personal ethics. Beliefs are, peculiarly, often considered
private and independent from behaviour, and so the focus is more on Christian
social and personal ethics by Western culture.
The early Church found particular opposition to its sexual ethics,
refusal to abort or kill children, distancing itself from the gods of the age
and social practices associated with them (socially correct worship in a given
city and religious engagement in festivities), and Christians’ refusal to serve
in the military. Oddly, in my view, the
last of these is not on the agenda of many American Christians. Yet in many of the issues facing the Church,
Christians today are once again finding themselves having to proclaim a message
of righteousness that cuts right into the social and personal morality of
contemporary culture. Mission in Western
countries, then, needs to be understood more and more as a message about a
transformed life. In a culture that
values tolerance of any view (allegedly!—we know this is not really so) and that
reductionistically determines most every ethical issue in terms of a single
value—freedom or right—does not want to tell people that their choices are
wrong or that they can and should change.
In the early Church, however,
teaching a new morality was part of mission.
Jesus’ Great Commission focussed on preaching the morality of the
Kingdom of God. He said to his disciples
that they were to teach the nations everything that he had commanded them
(Matthew 28.20). Such a concept of a
moral mission was much earlier seen as the role of Israel, to whom, one day,
the nations would stream to learn righteousness (Is. 2.1-4). Peace was not conceived as learning to live
and let live, to allow various ethical beliefs to coexist. Unity was not found in the tolerance of
plurality but in teaching the One God’s commandments. Turning to God was not merely a belief system
but also a new righteousness according to God’s Law. Israel’s failure at the time of the early
Church was a general failure to live up to the Law of God that it acknowledged—the
problem was not a work’s righteousness but a sinfulness despite acknowledging
the Law. Non-Jews, who did not know God’s
Law, needed to be taught to live righteously.
So it is not at all surprising to
learn that Paul’s missionary proclamation of the Good News was followed by
teaching about God’s righteousness. We
see this approach to ministry through a study of Paul’s ministry to the
Thessalonians. According to Acts, Paul
was only in the city of Thessalonica for three Sabbaths (Acts 17.1-2). Having left the city in haste and under
hostility, Paul wrote two letters to the young Christians. In 1 Thessalonians 4, Paul admonishes them to
abide by the teaching that he had given them in the short time that he was with
them. He begins with these words,
1 Thessalonians 4:1-2 Finally, brothers and sisters, we ask and urge you in the
Lord Jesus that, as you learned from us how you ought to live and to please God
(as, in fact, you are doing), you should do so more and more. 2 For you know what instructions
we gave you through the Lord Jesus.
We see, then, that Paul had
incorporated moral instruction in his evangelistic ministry in the city. Moreover, the following verses give us clues
as to what the content of that teaching was:
·
Sexual
ethics (4.2-8)
·
Community
ethics (love, 4.9-10)
·
Social
ethics (how to live as believers in the larger society, 4.11-12)
In a post-Christian culture in
particular, the Church’s evangelistic mission needs to be followed by ethical
teaching. Elsewhere Paul states that
Christians should not judge the non-Christian world for its ethics but should
judge those who claim to be fellow-Christians.
He says,
1 Corinthians 5:12-13 For what have I to
do with judging those outside? Is it not those who are inside that you are to
judge? 13 God will judge
those outside. "Drive out the wicked person from among you.
Binding oneself to a Christian
Church is not merely a matter of beliefs and community. It is also a matter of following a Christian
way of life, of pursuing a life of righteousness and walking in the ways of the
Lord. Mission does not end with
proclamation of Good News but with transformed lives.
To be sure, Paul found that he
could, to some extent, find agreement with non-Christians. One example is the issue of homosexuality,
which Paul saw as a fundamental disregard of God’s intentions in creation. This view, that there was natural sex between
a man and a woman and unnatural sex between two persons of the same sex, could
also be found in Stoicism (see Musonius Rufus and Epictetus). Paul’s agreement with Stoicism extends to the
view that what is natural is so precisely because God made it that way. Thus his comments on homosexuality in Rom.
1.24-28 have a strongly creational focus that began in v. 18 with reference to
unnatural worship (idolatry). A second example is in Paul’s speech in Athens
(Acts 17.22-31). In this speech, Paul is
able to find connections to the beliefs of Athenians, to Epicurean and Stoic
philosophers in particular. However, any
agreement found in the overlap of general teaching is soon lost when he
introduces particular teaching about Jesus Christ—specifically his resurrection
from the dead. The Church did not and
will not find itself opposed to all non-Christian teaching and moral behaviour,
but such overlap is limited. Christian
teaching about God’s righteousness begins from an entirely different basis, for
it is a teaching of what Scripture says about living in a way that pleases
God. It is not a reasoning from general
principles but a very particular teaching about how we should live.
Witnessing of the Gospel to a Postmodern
Culture
Peter famously directed believers
‘Always [to] be ready to make your defense to anyone who
demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you’ (1 Peter
3.15). He continues with a word about
how to do this: ‘yet do it with gentleness and reverence. Keep your conscience
clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who abuse you for your good conduct
in Christ may be put to shame’ (1 Peter 3.16).
The disciplinary and confrontational approach to sin within the Church
noted above in Paul’s words in 1 Cor. 5 is not to be the approach to outsiders. The difference is one of dealing with
hypocrites (people claiming to be Christians and wanting to associate with the
Christian community but living contrary to Christian teaching) versus dealing with people living consistently according
to their non-Christian beliefs. In the
latter case, says Peter, gentle and reverential discourse is appropriate. This is no matter of tolerance of
non-Christian views in the postmodern sense—that is, an acceptance of all views
as equally valid and acceptable, of seeing truth as constructed and therefore
diverse and localized (different groups having their own ‘truth’). It is, rather, a matter of appreciating that
people behave certain ways because they have certain beliefs. Christian mission entails an invitation (not
coercion) to change one’s core beliefs and, consequently, one’s ethics.
When Christians attempt to gain control of society’s
beliefs and behaviours, they operate from a Modernist understanding that
expects to obtain uniformity through the use of power (such as laws passed by
the legislature or interpreted by the courts).
Christians can witness to others through sharing their beliefs and living
a different life, but this witnessing approach to evangelism is not a
controlling approach. The early Church
teaches us how to live as a minority in society—through witness, not
entitlement or coercive power. This is
not to say we should not exercise our vote for what we believe is right. If democracy invites us to vote, then we
should vote our consciences. Yet the
early Church was able to change society in radical ways through its witness and
without any voting rights. It was able
to do so in the context of persecution.
The quotations from Peter given above continue in the next verse with
his expectation that Christians will suffer as they put forward an explanation
of their faith: ‘For it is better to suffer for doing good, if suffering should
be God's will, than to suffer for doing evil’ (1 Peter 3.17).
One of the great ironies of contemporary, Western society
is its schizophrenic affirmation of both a tolerance for diversity and an intolerance
of Christianity. This makes some sense,
since Christians are rightly seen to affirm ‘There is one body and one Spirit,
just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, 5 one Lord, one faith, one
baptism, 6 one God and Father
of all, who is above all and through all and in all’ (Ephesians 4.4-6). This, from a postmodern perspective, amounts
to a ‘totalizing narrative’ that excludes the conflicting diversity that it
wants to celebrate. Of course, by
ejecting Christian faith from the public square, postmodernity also reduces its
claim of diversity to absurdity. Its
attempt to affirm diversity simply dissolves into an ultra-Modernist,
totalizing agenda, a political correctness that leads to persecution of
Christians—as we already see.
How, then, do Christians explain the hope they have in such
a context? This great missional
challenge to Western Christians has been answered in a variety of ways, to be
sure. Increasingly, old mainline
denominations have sought to do so by adopting the agenda of the culture
itself. Jettisoning Biblical authority
and the Church’s teaching through the centuries, they have taken on the causes
of liberal culture. They become
communities that can advocate for and practice a script handed them by the
culture. Another approach has been for
some conservative Christians, as has been said already, to try to regain the reins
of power. This explains a blanket
support of any military action that the government takes, seeing the best way
to bring about change as through the legislature, trying to get prayer back in
schools when most students do not pray, and so forth. This power approach to social transformation
will not work, but it should not in any case.
What we can learn from the early Church is a better way to engage our
postmodern culture: through witness. We
do need to learn to express the faith clearly and unreservedly in a hostile
context, even in the context of persecution.
And we need to learn how to live in such a way—personally and communally—that
our lives are a gentle and respectful challenge to the world. Ultimately, of course, Christianity is not
successful because of its growth in numbers and control of culture but because
of the integrity of its witness.
Conclusion
Contemporary mission to the West has
similarities to the early Christian mission.
For a long time, Christians used the term ‘mission’ to refer mostly to
foreign missions. That was because
believers saw themselves as a ‘Christian’ society that sent missionaries to
non-Christian lands. Now, however, the
West is post-Christian. It finds itself in the situation of the early Church, with its mission to a
pre-Christian world. This essay has
explored the mission to the West in broad strokes with some comparison to the
early Church—so much more could be said.
It has done so by looking at proclamation of the Gospel in a hostile
context, teaching righteousness in an amoral or immoral context, and witnessing
the Gospel rather than using power and coercion.