# Theology of Mission



## Amazing Grace (Apr 28, 2008)

Our church is moving from a humanitarian focus of mission(Man centered) to a God centered(biblical) focus on mission. It is causing all to be stretched beyond their comfort zone. Any help will be appreciated.

1) When did humanitarianism become imported under the definition of mission?


2)Using Paul as our example, how can I teach people that there is not one example of Paul opening up a soup kitchen or building hospitals instead he preached the Gospel to convert unbelievers.

3) I personally believe it is a faulty understanding of the Gospel in those who are fighting against evangelism, which I see as being pauls actual mission. They may not confess that works save, but they believe that orthopraxy(humanism) trumps orthodoxy. 


These are 3 major concerns I have within the congregation. I believe we have a 'certain few who came from James' within our ranks who are rather influential within the congregation. They have been indoctrinated with a flavor of liberation theology/social gospel teachings for years and years and years and are not unified on the Gospel being mission.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 28, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> Our church is moving from a humanitarian focus of mission(Man centered) to a God centered(biblical) focus on mission. It is causing all to be stretched beyond their comfort zone. Any help will be appreciated.
> 
> 1) When did humanitarianism become imported under the definition of mission?
> 
> ...




Hello brother;

Don't let the pendelum swing too far the other way. The early disciples were all humanitarians and did many things for the poor in the service of the Lord. The early church was one that fed the hungry, sheltered the homeless and cared for the dying.

We need not split apart mission into "preaching" and "caring" - we proclaim the truth by Word and by Deed. We take time out for preaching and teaching, but we certainly cannot ignore real human needs.








What do you do for folks in your ministry area that look like this?


Also, doesn't James say something about people sending the needy away hungry and cold and say be ye warned and be ye filled?


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 28, 2008)

go to www dot tandtfamily dot blogspot dot come and you will see the nasty image of the guys foot. Can someone stick that into my text?


----------



## Amazing Grace (Apr 28, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > Our church is moving from a humanitarian focus of mission(Man centered) to a God centered(biblical) focus on mission. It is causing all to be stretched beyond their comfort zone. Any help will be appreciated.
> ...




Pergy, thank you for responding. The probem I have with this understanding is I cannot find any examples in the bible supporting what you say. IF they exist, I cannot find them. Using the life of Paul as an example, where did his mission focus on the humanitarian needs that the govt or secular organization could provide? I am not saying we do not concern ourselves with this, but I see no biblical evidence to support 'making the world a better place' by providing temporal things for unbelievers. They provded for the covenant community, but never had humanitarian focus for the unbelieving gentiles. 

James SPECIFICALLY says if a brother is in need, ie a fellow believer. Now if you say early church and mean post apostles, then perhaps it is true, but then again, it did not take long for the gospel to becomed plagued with orthopraxy. Too many use Francis Assisi's words of "Preach the Gospel, and if you must, use words' as a war-cry. Yet, this is unbiblical.


----------



## jambo (Apr 28, 2008)

There are three stages (all downward) in the developement of mission and social interaction. These take place over a period of time and churches slip from one stage to the next almost unnoticed.

1. Mission is essential and social action unimportant.
2. Mission is important and social action is important.
3. Mission is unimportant and social action essential.

Each church is at one of these stages or even between stages.

There are all sorts of reasons for this subtle change. The fact that people find social action easier than direct evangelism probably goes a long way to this but one should also consider discouragement, a lack of "results" or else a church follows something new that seems to be "working" for the church up the road. 

One needs to be concerned for the whole person but I have seen time and time again where social activity with the aim of being a step towards evangelism never seems to take the second step.

I believe evangelism is evangelism and social activity is social activity. The church should do both but never at the same time. Just as the early church appointed deacons to serve at the tables to allow the apostles to preach.

I think it is only right that people that people get out their comfort zones. Jesus certainly got the disciples out their comfort zones often enough.


----------



## py3ak (Apr 28, 2008)

Obviously we cannot imitate Paul in the manner in which he did this, but is a Biblical fact that he engaged in healing non-believers. See [KJV]Acts 28:8,9[/KJV].


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 28, 2008)

I don't see what is so unbiblical about what I said:


As you preach the Gospel and cases of malnutrition and disease come to you, what are you going to do? 

If a man with oozing pus on his foot is on your path, are you going to igmore him or use a display of love to explain the Gospel.

These two things are not mutually excluvie - either you help people or you preach. You do both and your whole life is ministry, not just on a Sunday morning....especially cross-culturally when you are the foreigner and your speech is ackward. People will strain to listen and respond joyfully as they see real love expressed in sacrifice and action.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 28, 2008)

Jambo:

You wrote that the church should do both (preaching and social action) but never at the same time.

Huh?


If you are then helping the sick, this is the perfect time to speak of Jesus. If you are planting fruit trees in a malnoursihed areas or giving vaccinations, why not use the oppotunity to speak of Jesus? 

It seems that we ought to bring these two things closer together rather than drive a further wedge between them.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Apr 29, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> I don't see what is so unbiblical about what I said:
> 
> 
> As you preach the Gospel and cases of malnutrition and disease come to you, what are you going to do?
> ...





Of course we help Pergy!!!!!!! Yet I am talking about a long term effort supported by the church of Christ as strictly humanitarian aid for unbelievers. The main focus of mission is evangelism. Salvation to the ends of the Earth is what drives us, or should, not making the world a better place. 

Let me give you an example. Currently our church is supporting to people in Niger. One is a doctor, one is an agrinomist. We found out that our support was only going for humanitarian efforts on their part. We insisted that unless there was evidence of the Gospel being taught in the area, we would no longer support their endeavors as a church. Individually people can send money, but not as a whole body. I would much rather give unbelievers the bread of Heaven than earthly manna.


----------



## BJClark (Apr 29, 2008)

Amazing Grace;





> Let me give you an example. Currently our church is supporting to people in Niger. One is a doctor, one is an agrinomist. We found out that our support was only going for humanitarian efforts on their part. We insisted that unless there was evidence of the Gospel being taught in the area, we would no longer support their endeavors as a church. Individually people can send money, but not as a whole body. I would much rather give unbelievers the bread of Heaven than earthly manna.



I like the teach them to fish so they can have many meals, and not just keep giving to them where they become dependent. 

However, giving them a few meals while they are learning to fish is the time to be sharing not just the gospel but Biblical truths such as:

He who does not work does not eat.

So a question, is the doctor your church has been supporting, been teaching others the trade of medicine so they can learn to provide medical assistance for themselves? 

And is the agronomist teaching them to plant their own food? 


Jesus fed with both spiritual food and earthly manna, we also know that churches supported Paul, what he did with what was sent to him we don't know, scripture is silent...was it only for himself or did he share it with others? We don't even know what was sent, all we know is they sent what he needed to meet the needs..

If the need of the doctor is to provide medical care for those in the community while sharing the Gospel, why not continue to support him?

If the need is to provide hoes, shovels or seed so they can learn to feed themselves as the Bible teaches then why not send it? You never know, the way things are going with the price of food and such they may be the ones who provide others with earthly manna in the future.


----------



## jambo (Apr 29, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Jambo:
> 
> You wrote that the church should do both (preaching and social action) but never at the same time.
> 
> ...



What I meant was that when the church is planning outreach activities that are based on social action, it is only a matter of time before the social action becomes the dominant partner. One can use any opportunity to speak of Christ be that in the work place, the golf course, the train, the hospital ward, the classroom etc. In certain countries of the world the only way in is to be a doctor, or part of some humanitarien relief agency but in the western world when a church embarks on a social outreach those whom this is aimed at may appreciate the church's efforts and sometimes the church contents itself with that by saying something to the effect of "we might not have caught any fish but at least the fish have a positive view of the fishermen"

Although the church needs to see the whole person and should not be guilty of thinking of people as just souls it is nevertheless under the commission to make disciples of the nations which is a unique charge to the church and the church alone.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Apr 29, 2008)

BJClark said:


> Amazing Grace;
> 
> 
> 
> ...





The problem I had was they were not proclaiming the Gospel at all. Nor anyone else from our denomination in that area. It was strictly a humanism red cross type project. Please do not hear what i am not saying, I am not saying we let them starve while hearing the Gospel, but the belly is not the main aim of mission as far as I can see from the writ. Helping an unbeliever with temporal things was never the focus of the apostolic witness. Acts 2:

42They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. 44*All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.* 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

This is more than the perverbial arguement from silence. Paul is very explicit in what he did when he went to the area of unbelievers. He preached Christ and Him crucified, set up a local assembly, appointed elders and moved on. The support he received was mainly for the household of faith. (Gal 6:10), if any humanitarian help was given, it would never have been in deed alone. For how are we to tell the difference between the believer and unbeliever? What makes one differ? It has to be the Gospel.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 29, 2008)

AMZING GRACE:


I hear what you are saying. 

If it is pure humanitarianism and no Gospel witness is going forth, then this is a good donation but not really missions.

If, however, the humanitarian work is done by those who evangelize and these things go hand in hand then this is very God-honoring missions work.

Or, if these people are a small part of a larger effort (a group comes in, some work on evangelism others on humanitarian aid) then this too is a feasible strategy and because some folks are totally humanitarian focused, the effort as a whole is evangelistic.

Is this doctor and agrarian evangelizing at all? 

If not, then I agree with you that a church should not figure them into their missions budget because missions involves evangelism.

However, I know of a veterinarian in Country X who also explains the Gospel as he works in a closed area. His outward work is all humanitarian but in private moments he is a very effective Gospel witness.



As far as planning outreach based on social action: Shouldn't we go to where the needs are? But we should go with the Gospel too. Example: church based AIDS efforts are a major need throughout the whole world, AIDS patients clinics, etc. This is humanitarian AID, but done in the name of Christ and with evangelistic intent and....sadly, is not being done as much as needed in Africa and others parts of the world where AIDS is destroying local families.


----------

