Posted by: nathanfinn | November 5, 2007

Two Different Views of Mission

Ajith Fernando, longtime Youth for Christ leader in Sri Lanka, has penned a must-read article for Christianity Today this month. The title is “Getting Back on Course.” Fernando commends evangelicals for broadening their missiological agenda and embracing social justice issues, but he warns conservatives not to become crypto-liberals by deemphasizing personal evangelism. And to be clear, when Fernando talks about evangelism, he does not mean modeling Christ for the watching world, as important as that is. Godly living, though crucial, is not enough.

Fernando argues we need to recapture our zeal for pressing the claims of Christ on lost people, in hopes that they will repent of their sins and trust Christ as their Lord and Savior. Furthermore, we should do this out of our love for non-Christians and our desire to see them trust Christ and escape the eternal punishment that is Hell. Simply put, if we are not preaching Christ crucified we are not doing biblically balanced mission work. We cannot divorce social justice from the proclamation of the gospel. You can read an online version of Fernando’s article here.

What struck me about this article is how starkly different it is from another recent article, penned by a respected Baptist historian and educator:

I hope Baptists will remain a missionary people who believe it their duty to tell the people of the world of the love of God as manifested in Jesus of Nazareth. I hope that we can find new motives for missions, since hell has just about burned out for many.  I hope that we will conceptualize anew what it means to be “lost.” The “lost” are not those who do not believe doctrinal formulations but those who have no idea what a gracious God can do with their lives, those who need to be “saved” from wasted, useless, and meaningless living (Gehenna!), from self-condemnation and shame, and those who yearn for the Transcendent Presence in life.

You can read the whole thing here.

One author argues that lost people are in imminent spiritual danger lest they cast themselves upon the mercies of Christ. The other argues that we need to rethink the orthodox Protestant/evangelical understanding of what it means to be “lost” and ”saved.” Ladies and gentlemen, these two men represent two different views of mission. One is biblical. The other is just tragic.

In this case, I hope Southern Baptists will heed the advice of our non-Baptist brother, because to listen to our Baptist friend will surely take us in a direction that neither honors Christ nor “rescues the perishing.” And at that point, no matter how many good deeds we may perform under the rubric of “mission,” we will not be doing biblical justice, loving true mercy, or walking humbly with our God.

Responses

Thanks for this post. I agree completely with your insights.

Also, did you notice how much Buddy Shurden’s account of mission neglects the Trinity? I cannot stand it when people talk about God as “the Transcendent Presence” or “Providence” or whatever. It is essentially a deist move that tries to make God a kind of Being that everyone can agree about. No. We serve the Triune God as revealed in Jesus Christ. This is not some “Transcendent Presence” that people are yearning for.

Matt, I agree about the lack of Trinitarian language. I suspect that the omission is not deliberate on his part, but like many Southern-like Baptists on all “sides” of aisle, he is not in the habit of being overtly Trinitarian in his theology/piety. I believe the director of your masters program has reflected on this omission in some of his writings. As for Shurden’s use of vague terminology, it makes my skin crawl.

NAF

Nathan,

A couple of observations. I think you mean to say that one authors says folks are in imminent spiritual danger “unless” they cast themselves upon the mercies of Christ. “Lest” they do so implies the opposite I think.

My second take is that I think you’re being a bit hard on Dr. Shurden. I hear him saying in this piece that salvation is more than just intellectual assent to propositional truth–it is a life-changing encounter with a gracious God who brings meaning to their otherwise meaningless lives. While the language of God as Transcendent Presence isn’t customary among Southern Baptists perhaps, he’s clearly not utilizing “deist” language as Matt charges either. He clearly stated in the outset that Baptists have the missionary task of communicating the love of God as manifested in Jesus of Nazareth. That sounds pretty orthodox to me.

I enjoy your blog and as a fellow church historian I generally appreciate your insights and the balance for which you appear to strive in dealing with controversial issues. I wouldn’t expect you to do less than vigorously defend your own positions. That too seems consistent with the Baptist way.

Nathan,

Oops! I didn’t proofread my comment too closely–that should have been “one author” rather than “one authors” says ….

Gary, thanks for your comment and the grammatical correction. I generally try not to be publicly critical of those with whom I disagree–its just not my style. So I hesitated to call him on it, though I was really uncomfortable with what he wrote. All that said, I definitely have a different read on Shurden than you do. I am much more concerned with his desire to reconceptualize what it means to be lost than his assertion that salvation is more than mental assent to doctrine–no one believes that, and he is trotting out the same old tired criticism of conservatives by insinuating that some adhere to such a position. Preposterous. Note that Shurden also implies that this world is the real hell, and becoming saved has to do with bettering your perspective on this hellish world. Maybe Shurden doesn’t mean this, but it sure sounds like he does. And from my perspective, this is Godsey-talk rather than God-talk. I admit that I may be totally misunderstanding Shurden, but if I am, it is because he is communicating something very different from what he intends. Because what he is communicating is a missional dead end and is not evangelical Christianity.

NAF

Leave a response

Your response:

Categories