Christian
missions, if Jesus’ ministry is any indication (!), is not about offering a
‘soft’ message in order to be winsome. His mission was, rather, a
prophetic ministry. Prophecy, if the Old Testament prophets offer us
any indication (!), is justice-seeking according to God's Law. If
you wish to find missions in the Old Testament, you will find it primarily in
the prophets. The prophets were covenant enforcement officers,
calling people back to obedience to God’s commandments, pointing out where they
had gone wrong, and delivering harsh warnings of judgement to those who
continued in their disobedience of God’s commandments—and even harsher warnings
of judgement to those leaders who were leading people astray. The essence of false prophecy is affirmation
of people as they are, having no need of repentance and no need of God.
The prophetic
character of missions sits so shockingly at variance with the expectations of
our world today, with the popularity of seeker sensitive services, porous
boundaries to welcome people without calling them to repentance, syncretistic versions
of Christianity thought to affirm all cultures, and the like—to say nothing of
the more extreme messages on tap in liberal and now progressive contexts. ‘God Lite’ was not on John the Baptist’s or
Jesus’ agenda. Jesus told his disciples
to present the message of the Kingdom and, if not accepted, to move on (Matthew
10.11-15). There was no suggestion to
repackage things in palatable ways to affirm cultures or spoon feed people
with soft and tasty foods. Proclaiming the Kingdom of God was a prophetic call to a higher commitment to life under God's rule, with the consequence of narrowing, not widening, the gate of entry. It was not the Kingdom of Kumbaya.
This may all sound
‘out there’ to anyone living in a Westernized society in our day, but try to
think of a Biblical example of coddling sinners in their sins, working within a
flawed, institutional religion, folding the Gospel into an existing culture to
give it a dignity not its own, etc. On
the contrary, Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians illustrates a direct challenge
to a church soaking in the culture and distorting the truth. Colossians is a letter undermining any
syncretistic theology. The book of
Revelation begins with letters to seven churches to refuse enculturation where
it undermined truth. Galatians is Paul’s
letter to insist that Judaizers seeking safety in the Law understand that
Christ alone is their hope for salvation.
The New Testament is a prophetic mission making Christ Jesus the beginning,
middle, and end to the exclusion of all else, calling all to drop what they
thought to bring to God of their own and receive instead all that He offers by
grace. Only once one sees this and
grants it can one then have the conversation about how evangelists can be positive, the church can be winsome, and the Gospel is good news. It is all this to those who repent. The problem is, for Western society, that
tolerance and affirmation and acceptance and other nice sounding words are so
dominant in the culture that the prophetic aspect of missions is treated like
an old, outspoken family member who needs to be shunted away to the corner of
the room with a spray can at family gatherings.
What can be said, and needs to be said, at the beginning of any such discussion is that
Jesus’ Kingdom message was a message
of welcome to sinners. His culture,
unlike that of Western society in our day, was a highly self-righteous society
that excluded sinners. He extended good
news to those who were outcasts of every sort—Samaritans, Gentiles,
demon-possessed, lepers, women, children, and sinners. His inclusion of the various groups was not a
preference for the marginalized but a statement that the Kingdom was for
everyone. His inclusion of sinners was
not a softening of sin but a call to repentance. The good news that the Kingdom of God was
near meant that people should repent and believe (Mark 1.15). Jesus did not respond to Pharisaic self-righteousness by saying, 'Lighten up!' He responded by saying that they were hypocrites, limiting sin to laws and acts, not including the heart. He pointed out the sin of every man and woman such that even Peter had to ask, 'Who then can be saved?,' and then He offered His own life as a substitutionary sacrifice for sin on the cross.
Jesus’ public
proclamation contrasted with John’s in a significant way: he reserved his harshest words warning of judgement not for sinners
but for religious leaders. For sinners, Jesus had welcoming words; not
that they were welcomed in their sins, but they were invited into God’s Kingdom
once they repented of their sins. Jesus
did not ignore sin but made it possible through his own death for sinners to
receive forgiveness. His harsh words,
though, were directed to the Pharisees, scribes, elders, chief priests, and
Sadducees. Why?
First, the
religious leaders wished to exclude sinners rather than invite them to
repent. Jesus’ entire ministry was
predicated on the narrative of Israel’s sin, exile, and restoration by
God. His ministry was a calling of people
out of their exile in sin and into new life under God’s rule.
The religious leaders were trying to exclude these sinners from
entry. Jesus was angry at their
exclusion of repentant sinners.
Second, the
religious leaders recognized others as sinners but not themselves. They thought that they were righteous. The problem was that all needed to repent,
not just the obvious sinners. The
religious leaders themselves needed to repent and to receive the sacrifice for
sins that Jesus had come to make. Jesus
grew angry at their self-righteousness.
Third, the religious leaders spent
their days reinterpreting the Scriptures so that what they were doing and
teaching would not be considered sinful.
They were masters at this by drawing thin lines between the letter and
the spirit of the commandments (cf. the antitheses, Mt. 5.21-48). They came from an ancient tradition of false
teaching: as Isaiah says, ‘Woe
to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light
for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!’ (5.20). They squabbled over
words (like ‘Corban’, Mk. 7.11), denied Biblical texts (Sadducees accepted only
Genesis through Deuteronomy as Scripture/God’s Word), majored on the minors and
minored on the majors (Mt. 23.15ff), called things acceptable that were sinful
(Mt. 19.1-12), and were, after all this, hypocrites (Mt. 23.13, 15, 23, 27,
29). Jesus let loose a tidal wave of
words, as prophets do, to chastise these false teachers of God’s Word. He was angry because they were dangerous and
needed to be challenged.
Jesus’ mission and ministry involved welcoming words to repentant sinners, but harsh words to the religious false teachers of his day. His harsh words were for those who remained unrepentant. Being a sinner did not mean exclusion if one repented. The coming of the Kingdom and God’s people’s mission to the world, as Ezekiel 37.9 and Genesis 2.7 (John 20.21-23), and Exodus 19.5-6 (1 Peter 2.9-10; Revelation 5.9-10) understand, mean the preparation of a pure people for God by God’s grace. The coming of the Kingdom, as Isaiah 66.18-23 (Matthew 28.18-20) and Isaiah 49.6 (Luke 2.32; 24.47; Acts 1.8; and 28.28) understand, means salvation for a repentant remnant of Israel and repentant Gentile idolaters and sinners who receive Christ as their Lord and Saviour. Jesus thereby moves the dividing line from Israel/Gentiles or religious/sinners to repentant sinners/unrepentant sinners.
Missions is not ‘intercultural
studies’. It is not religious
ecumenism. It is not dialogue. It does not chase after an endorsement from
the culture in order to be deemed acceptable in the pantheon of deities or the
marketplace of ideas. It is only good
news when it has something of its own to contribute that nothing else does:
singular devotion to the one true God and acknowledgement of Jesus as Lord and Saviour. It is, therefore, challenging and
confrontational; it is prophetic. Only
then is it good news to those who want and desperately need something other
than all the failed remedies on offer in the pharmacies of falsehood.
Comments