I just finished the second week of my summer class entitled "World Missions and the Local Church." So far the class discussion has primarily been a big let's-bash-the-way-missions-is-currently-done fest. The big complaint that seems to be driving most of this is something along the lines of: "Just look how the church at Antioch and the apostle Paul 'did missions' in the book of Acts. Modern missions is nothing like that!"
Even ignoring the clear overstatement of "nothing like that," I think this is an unwise way to approach the subject of missions (or any other aspect of theology or methodology for that matter). The book of Acts is presented primarily as an account of the history of the early church (see Acts 1:1-2). It is primarily descriptive: it recounts what happened in the early years of Christianity in a narrative manner.
The book of Acts is
not presented as a prescriptive book. That is, it is not presented as a manual on how a church should be run (you'll find a lot of that in the epistles) or missions should be conducted. It describes what did happen, not what should/must/will happen in every time and culture.
This does not mean that we cannot learn from this book things about God or about the general kind of actions and attitudes that should be going on in the church. However, it does mean that we should be very careful about pointing to any one part of the book and declaring that it is the
only methodology/result/whatever that we should be doing/seeing/whatever in Christianity today! We must remember that life in the first century Roman Empire was significantly different than life in the 21st century world. Additionally, this was a transitional period in history as it relates to God's plan (from Law to Grace/Church if you care to look at it from a dispensational point of view): The Holy Spirit now began indwelling Believers in a new way, Gentiles were being brought into God's family without having to follow the OT Law, authenticating signs and wonders accompanied the new message of the Gospel, etc.
"Cherry picking" individual examples from the book of Acts that support your own personal view of how church should be run (or missions conducted) and denouncing any ministry we dislike as "not being found in the book of Acts"/"not the practice of the early church" and therefore making it invalid does not seem to be accurate, honest treatment of God's Word. If this kind of argument were consistently applied I'm not sure too many people would agree with the results. We would have no church buildings, no Sunday school, no VBS, no mission agencies, no church camps, no faith based drug rehab programs, no Bible colleges, no seminaries, etc. and we should be speaking in tongues, healing the sick, raising the dead, receiving visions and prophecies, holding all property in common, etc. ...and while some people might agree with some of the things on that list I think few people would really want to go that far.
Are there some aspects of modern missions that should be "tweaked" (or even undergo major change)? Probably. Do we need to ditch the whole current system because "it's not how the early church and the apostle Paul did it?" I really don't think so.
Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? .
Comments (5)
My first thought is that Acts 1:1-2 actually doesn't tell us that Acts is about the early history of the Church, not even at all. It provides to whom the letter is written, and tells us it is about the teachings of Jesus being carried out.
Next my thoughts wandered on over to how right the statement first cited is; missions today look nothing (even in concept) like they did when the Church first started-- as a generalization. The exceptions are few and far between. IF we began to take the concepts given to us in Acts, perhaps not prescriptively (use whatever word you wish) and apply them accurately to today, we would not see Cities full of sin without a single Christian trying to witness.
You'll notice one of the most popular things in todays mission field is completely absent in Pauls time; official organizations. You didn't "organize". You prayed, waited for the Spirit, and went. Some of the most effective missions today are exactly that-- a group of Christian brothers that pray, wait, and go when the Spirit says go.
Anyway, my thoughts on this are that the first statement is right. You can get technical with any satement ever made and prove it wrong; yes, Acts is not prescriptive, if it were, we wouldn't have Church buildings, pews, projectors, ties, suits, socks, ear-rings, belt buckles, BIBLES, or anything else we have today-- but if you take it for what it is (Gods Word) and use what it says to enhance your missions, then you become very effective.
I think mission is a lot more simple that we often make it.
In John 11 we read the story of Lazarus. He was ill and Jesus stayed 2 more nights in the town where he was even though he loved Lazarus like a a brother.
Lazarus died and Jesus eventually went and raised him back to life.
Why did he wait?
Because he hadn't been told to GO by his Father.
If we spent more time doing what God wanted us to do (when we seek his will) as individuals and families, and less time doing all the good ideas and strategies that we can come up with I think we would find a more authentic move of the Holy Spirit and spread of the gospel.
Good ideas are not necessarily God ideas.
@deepestrecesses - amen, I have only just read your response.
In the book of Acts, a story is told about Simon the sorcerer who wanted to pay The Apostles money so that he could receive the power to give the gift of God's Holy Spirit to people. Peter told him that his heart was not right with God, and for Simon's money to perish with him.
What is the difference between that story and the ones who pay money to those at a seminary or a bible college to get a degree written on a piece of paper that makes them eligible to give the gift of God to people. Doesn't it seem to be the same thing, only in different clothing? Isn't that where the organized, religious, institutional priest-hood comes from?
I wonder what would have happened to the Apostles if they would have accepted Simon's money?
Think about it?
Isn't the priest-hood sort of the reproductive organ of "organized" religion? Maybe circumcision is a picture of the removing the "hood" from "priest-hood"
Maybe that's where "the love of money is the root of all evil" has it's foundation.
Maybe that is why Solomon said "I was almost in all evil in the midst of the congregation and assembly".
Maybe that is where the "uncircumcised wolves" who come in sheep's clothing come from.
+
It's something to consider. It's something to seek God about in prayer.
Misleading title.
As times change and knowledge increases, methods change accordingly. We should share the Gospel in a way that is supported by scriptural principles yet is relevant to the culture we are dealing with. I'm not talking about marketing the Gospel message, but even Jesus and the apostles considered the crowd they were dealing with and dealt with each accordingly, in ways appropriate to the time and culture they were in.
We must also keep in mind that since Acts recorded the earliest days of the Church, not all of what happened there needs to happen today. These are not the earliest days of the Church. Jesus did not just ascend to heaven last week. And as far as America and the western world are concerned, the Gospel of Jesus isn't a new, groundbreaking message. I think all of this makes a big difference in how the Church and missions are to be approached.