|
Monday March 15, 2010 ~ 27 Comments
There is some really great discussion happening around the role of salvation in the missional conversation. Last week we began to look at the connection between missiology and soteriology and briefly talked about how salvation was viewed in missions history during the modern paradigm, beginning with the Enlightenment. Here are some others who have weighed in on that question:
Today, I would like to continue to look at the role of salvation in the missional conversation by revisiting one of the most influential and controversial figures in 20th century missions history (someone I have written about before in this series here and here) and talking about a major shift in the discussion in the 1970s. His ideas on salvation will become key... J.C. Hoekendijk With the rise of fundamentalism in the 1920s, the Social Gospel's counteraction began with painting salvation, not just as transformation in individuals, but increasingly as the annihilation of distorted and prejudiced structures. This trend was evident until a new era of confidence was birthed in the 1960s, ushered in particularly via J.C. Hoekendijk. For Hoekendijk, the concept of shalom (a Hebrew word meaning peace, completeness, and welfare) was a more all-inclusive notion than salvation and if one had to choose, it wasn't necessarily obvious that one should choose salvation. Salvation was broadened and, in some ways, redefined. At the Geneva Conference on Church and Society in 1966 (World Council of Churches), Emmanuel Mesthene and Richard Shaull introduced new Hoekendijkian categories of salvation: technological development (for Mesthene) and liberation (for Shaull). The Uppsala Assembly of the World Council of Churches in 1968 attempted to merge these two categories in their reports on the "Structures for Missionary Congregations." This language of "missionary congregations" would become popular then and reflected in much of the missional discourse today. "This-Worldly" Salvation The conference of the Commission for World Mission and Evangelism of the WCC in Bangkok in 1973, whose theme was "Salvation Today," was an interesting attempt to ascertain, once and for all, what salvation was. In the end, the WCC defined salvation primarily (some would say exclusively) in "this-worldly" terms. Section II of their report outlined salvation in four dimensions: 1) economic justice against exploitation Further, they said that in the process of salvation, we must relate these four dimensions to each other: There is no economic justice without political freedom, no political freedom without economic justice. There is no social justice without solidarity, no solidarity without social justice. There is no justice, no human dignity, no solidarity without hope, no hope without justice, dignity and solidarity. But there are historical priorities according to which salvation is anticipated in one dimension first, be it the personal, the political or the economic dimension. These points of entry differ from situation to situation in which we work and suffer. We should know that such anticipations are not the whole of salvation, and must keep in mind the other dimensions while we work. Forgetting this denies the wholeness of salvation. Nobody can do in any particular situation everything at the same time. There are various gifts and tasks, but there is one spirit and one goal.
At and after Bangkok, many wondered whether the tendency to allow theology and mission to be submerged in social ethics actually revitalized devotion to the person of Jesus Christ. The unavoidable consequence of much of the modern paradigm is that the world's needs and solutions were being depicted in salvific terms detached from the saving person and work of Jesus Christ. Evangelicals (long absent from this conversation) would find little in common with the "salvation" they proclaimed and that which was discussed at Bangkok. This is an important development and, to most, a regrettable endgame of the missio dei movement. By the time of Bangkok meeting, evangelicals were long gone from the conversation and would reject much of what was articulated there. However, even the World Council of Churches mission thinkers would later reconsider much of the salvation themes that were so important in the 70 and 80s. Yet, it is important to note that salvation was then defined as more than individuals being redeemed. As such, it does not always require the church's involvement. God is saving in many ways-- not just from sin, death and hell-- but also economic, etc. And, soon that theological view led some to believe that God was at work outside of the church-- something most would agree. But, others took the message further, teaching that God is working in saving ways outside of the proclamation of the gospel and belief in Christ. When I spoke of this in an earlier post, Tim Keller dropped by and commented: I agree with you that the concept of the Missio Dei is crucial and right, but it depends on what people mean by it... I've heard missiologists cite the Eastern view of the Spirit in order say 'God is at work in major ways out in the world, liberating people and it's the church's job to get involved with what God is doing"... I think, however, many people who cite the 'Missio Dei' concept are going beyond the teaching about common grace/natural law to say that the Spirit is working in people's lives in a major, virtually saving way apart from belief in Christ.
So, let me ask you: How is God at work outside the church? Is God working savingly or salvifically outside the church? In other words, are believers (or "the church") the only instrument for proclaiming the Gospel and bringing individuals, through the finished work of Jesus on the cross and the power of the Holy Spirit, into the Kingdom of God or are there other means? Or perhaps more broadly, how, then, is God at work outside the church? I'll give my thoughts in a future post, but for now I'd love to hear from all of you! Posted on March 15, 2010 at 9:00 AM ~ 27 Comments Tagged with: Subscribe via RSS or Follow us on Twitter
Share This Post            27 CommentsComment PolicyComments are welcome on discussion posts. Comments are not moderated but do require a keyword to avoid spam. If this is your first time commenting, please review the comment policy. Leave a comment |
  
  |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
He's not. The upshot of Ephesians 2 and 3 is that the church is the *only* instrument through which he is expanding his kingdom.
As a long tenured pastor in the Northwest- a highly secularized culture- I recognize that God's vehicle for displaying Himself is the church. However, in the land where landmark Baptists still roam we are typically defining the church too narrowly. For example: in my community there is a Christian motorcyle ministry that is aggressively witnessing to the power and presence of God in Jesus Christ. Men (really hard people) and women are coming into a saving relationship with God through Jesus Christ. Though the leaders of this ministry are engaged in local churches, the motorcycle group acts as a 'church'- they meet together regularly for fellowship and prayer and Bible study. So are they a 'church?'
If they are not a church, then God is at work bringing lost people to Himself through their ministry- and we see evidence of transformed lives. In recent days one of the leaders of this group has approached me with the thought of staring a 'biker church' specifically aimed at reaching this segment of people.
So again I come back to a question I still struggle with (particularly as I pastor an aging congregation surrounded by 40 yr old adults and their dysfunctional families)- do I have - do we as Southern Baptists have an adequet ecclesiology?
That's my two cents...and at my advanced age (i.e. over 50) I can't afford to give any more on Monday morning:)
Steve
I agree that God uses us (the church) as the means for communication of the gospel and for discipleship.
I'm reminded, though, of anecdotal claims by some of our missionary colleagues. Upon making the first known missionary contact with an unreached people group, found that the group had been prepared for the arrival of the good news by visions and dreams. The missionary had only to communicate the gospel message, the people group was ready to follow Jesus.
I believe that every culture has some truth (or memory of truth, Romans 1), and that all truth is God's. In that sense, it seems that God is "at work" among all peoples (outside the church) through a sort of non-saving general revelation that works as de facto prevenient grace when God's people arrive to point to Jesus in a personal way.
Chad,
Do you hold Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus-- that outside the church there is no salvation? ;-)
Of course, I am having a little fun with the Catholic doctrine, so you can answer however you want. But, I'd like to know if God saves people outside the church, in your view.
And, assume you don't believe He is saving anyONE outside of the church, do you believe that God is saving anyTHING outside of the church (see the view articulated in the post)?
Caleb,
I noticed that you indicated they were "prepared" for a witness from a believer/missionary. What about the stories we hear from missionaries among Muslims where people become believers?
Steve,
Would those people not be a part of a/the church? Or, is the work of believers different than the work of the church?
Ed
Chad: Amen.
Steve: aren't these bikers a part of the Church Universal? Didn't their converts still need to hear the message of the cross? Didn't they still need to repent and believe the gospel?
Chad: You make my point to Steve.
All that being said, I think God is at work in a variety of ways outside the church, just not salvifically. Where cancer and AIDS and and drought and oppression and crime and abuse are being beaten back into submission and removed from our midst, the prayers of the saints down through the centuries "that God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven" are being answered.
But that, good as it is, is a far cry from the salvation of those who believe in the Risen One.
Yeah, I think of Saul/Paul's experience- Jesus appeared to him, he believed, and was sent to be discipled. Of course, Saul had previous encounters with the gospel...
Also, I don't believe that the disobedience of some (failure to be on mission) means that God's redemptive plan for a people is necessarily thwarted.
Yeah, I think of Saul/Paul's experience- Jesus appeared to him, he believed, and was sent to be discipled. Of course, Saul had previous encounters with the gospel...
Also, I don't believe that the disobedience of some (failure to be on mission) means that God's redemptive plan for a people is necessarily thwarted.
Ed,
Hate to use this as an opportunity to push my own blog, but I think my post today at sbcIMPACT speaks to a lot of the issues you bring up here:
http://www.sbcimpact.net/2010/03/15/christ-the-faithful-suffering-servant-in-the-midst-of-culture/
One example of How God worked outside of the church: I heard the testimony of a former Muslim I met in Northern India. He advised that he had dreams about Isa (Jesus) and became convinced that he needed to learn more about Him. Therefore, he traveled south, because he heard there were Christians to the south. He met a lady reading the Bible and asked her to teach him about Jesus. As an interesting side note, the lady refused to teach him because she was afraid of him, due to his name and dress. The former Muslim told her, that if she didn't tell him about Jesus, she would pay for it at the end of her days. At this, she connected him with some other believers that had a more overt presence in the city. So, God worked outside of the Church, to glorify himself, but even then, God did this through his church.
I have had the privilege in my young leadership journey to give my life to the local church. Three years ago, I found my self in a personal crisis as I noticed the ineffectiveness of the local church in both statistics and personal observation. As I am learning more about the concept of the missional church, it is causing hope to rise in the future of the church. I pray Christ's salvation will manifest itself within and without the church walls.
Looking at multiple salvations can be helpful in considering missional. Are churches solely responsible for assisting with individual personal salvation? Or do believers have a larger role in society? When do we stand up as prophets of our day? When do we plead the case for the oppressed and abused? When do we care for widows and orphans in their distress? When do we take in the stranger? Often this work happens outside of the church and at times in direct opposition to certain churches' agendas--agendas that do not always look kindly to the needs of the poor, women or immigrants.
The Bible contains more than 300 verses that address justice towards the poor. People are starving, desperate for asylum, isolated and oppressed. They need more than Good News and a church pew.
You can read more about the Bible and the Poor here.
Looking at multiple salvations can be helpful in considering missional. Are churches solely responsible for assisting with individual personal salvation? Or do believers have a larger role in society? When do we stand up as prophets of our day? When do we plead the case for the oppressed and abused? When do we care for widows and orphans in their distress? When do we take in the stranger? Often this work happens outside of the church and at times in direct opposition to certain churches' agendas--agendas that do not always look kindly to the needs of the poor, women or immigrants.
The Bible contains more than 300 verses that address justice towards the poor. People are starving, desperate for asylum, isolated and oppressed. They need more than Good News and a church pew.
You can read more about the Bible and the Poor here.
Good work Ed. You have covered the ground pretty well here. Lesslie Newbigin was an insider through all of these discussions and felt the pain of the "Secular Sixties" in the WCC acutely. In the introduction to The Open Secret he rehearses these events and also details them in his autobiography Unfinished Agenda. Open Secret could be might be seen directly as a response to the questions you ask here. Keep up the good work.
P. Toscano: I don't think looking at "multiple salvations" is helpful or consistent with a solid hermeneutic of Scripture.
The savior came to seek and save the lost and he sends us to go on the same mission in much the same way. We are to sacrifice for others. We are to preach that the kingdom of God is at hand, and call everyone (rich and poor) to repent and believe.
The effects of this message will be total transformation of lives. We will no longer live for ourselves but for others. The effects will be a renewed desire to reach and serve the poor, to alleviate suffering where ever it is found. The church has largely failed in preaching the full implications of the gospel but the load stone of its message is still in need for all men and women to repent and believe.
"Do believers have larger role in society?" Yes. But it is never less than the preaching of the data points Christ--dead, buried, and risen, repentance from sin (cosmic rebellion against God), and belief in Christ as sin-bearer and redeemer.
We stand up to oppression every day. We care for widows every day. We defend the lives of the abused everyday because Christ, our redeemer has called us to a new life. We are learning to live passionately for and like our savior which means we are learning each day to pursue him rather than the American dream.
You're right of course, "The Bible contains more than 300 verses that address justice towards the poor. People are starving, desperate for asylum, isolated and oppressed."
They may need more than Good News and a church pew, but they don't need less. If we love Jesus, we will love the poor and work to bring justice to their lives but if we fail to proclaim the need for repentance and belief in Christ we will have failed to heed Jesus' warning:
"What does it profit a man, if he gains the whole world but loses his soul."
I've laid myself open for all kinds of blow back in this post, so let me give a brief bio.
For 17 years I pastored a church that started a 1800 square foot health clinic, gave away 23 tons of food a year, housed a 900 sq. ft. clothing pantry, negotiated for a county housing coordinator's office to be put in our church building, provided free counseling, and financial assistance to the poor.
But if we had failed to proclaim the need for personal faith in Christ it would all be a waste because it would be less than the mission of Christ.
The four dimensions outlined by the 1973 conference sum up what is called of those who bring good news - the original definition of an evangelist. Jesus is very clear in Matthew 25:34-40 that it is taking care of basic needs that comes first. Not sitting down and going through the sinner's prayer. St. Francis said it best with, "Preach the gospel always, and if necessary, use words." Koreans were Christian before the first missionaries arrived on their soil; they read the Bible. Our job as a missional church is to put skin on the love of God which means going into the streets and getting dirty. I do not understand how a church, wanting to missional, can be more concerned with one type of salvation at the cost of the others. To bring God's wonderful world to light, we must think like God, we must love like God, we must be God with skin on. The minor prophets and Matthew 25 sum it up.
I'm convinced that the gospel is more than just information. It must be translated into culture. Talking about it as "data" or "information" seems to make light of the actual mission– which is not only to "inform," but to make disciples and teach obedience.
Clearly, God uses those "Philip sand the Ethiopian" moments– where He has prepared the person in advance to receive the good news– but I don't think we should make "chariot escort services" our strategy for mission.
More often than not, incarnation requires meeting physical/social needs so that 1) our audience is in a place to actually hear the Good News as good news, and 2) we set the context for the communication of the message by demonstrating what life in Christ would look like if they came to faith.
Don't we often speak of wanting people to look at us and see that something is different, and then ask what that is? To me, that doesn't involve proselytizing. It involves meeting the very physical needs of the people of this world.
Abraham Maslow's pyramid hierarchy of needs is clear: physiological needs must be met first (i.e. food, water, housing, clothing), next are safety needs, followed by social needs - it seems to me this is where believers start "hanging" with the people and showing that difference about themselves. I won't go through the entire pyramid, I think my point is clear -- the missional church is where the people are meeting the needs of the people.
As the musician Charlie Peacock wrote in his song "Drowning Man,"
"you don't ask a drowning man if he wants to be saved, when you know he's sinking down down beneath the crashing waves."
If you know they're hungry feed them - don't preach at them. You can show more of the love of God by providing for their needs than by telling them that Jesus loves them and that they should be warm and filled.
@Jane - Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a poor choice for visualizing the needs of man. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it is completely inverted. I have worked with too many children who have everything on that pyramid except for the very peak (Maslow calls it self actualization, I call it love and understanding) yet still die strictly from that single lack. In medical terminology we call it Failure to Thrive (FTT). This one unexplainable (per Maslow) problem completely turns the hierarchy on it's head. And what is the ultimate expression of love but the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ? Feeding the poor and taking care of the needy is nothing more than a connection point. They allow us the means to become a part of people's lives so that we might share with them King Jesus and his love. And that love transforms lives, when it leads to repentance and faith. The Gospel is to always be foremost, meeting the needs of the poor/sick/widow/orphan is the vessel by which we gain access and trust to bring the Gospel to them.
Was God working on Lydia down at the river before Paul got there and shared the gospel? God works in the world preparing the world for the message of the gospel from the church. How can they hear without a preacher (the preacher/missionary is part of the church.)
@Kirby - I find that Maslow's hierarchy is not a stepping stone, but rather a model of daily needs. While I agree that for me the top portion represents love, I do not agree with tossing the paradigm out the window. Food, clothing and shelter are more than connecting points - they are necessary to life. In a world where so few have access to clean water, I believe that we will answer for not working to provide clean water to the thirsty. Meeting needs is not a means to an end, but an end in itself. In Matthew 25:34-40 we are not told that we preached the gospel to the unsaved and so preached to Jesus. We are told that as we care for the needs of the least of these, we care for Jesus. Why do we need words? Is God not bigger than our puny attempts to explain grace and love? Can God not become manifest in a meal, hot shower, and safe bed? As well, the prophets in the Hebrew Scriptures do not tell us to tend to the widow and orphan so that we can then proclaim good news to them. Our coming with water and food is the good news. Their needs are being met by God through us. It really isn't difficult.
@Jane. How then is a person saved? Does one become righteous in the site of God by caring for the least?
Fortunately I have food, water, and shelter, but none of these things can solve my ultimate need - a savior - namely the person of Jesus Christ.
We SHOULD feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and care for the widow and orphan, but they also need to hear that Jesus lived, died, and rose again for the salvation of the world because this is THE greatest expression of God's love.
@Michael, I don't think anyone is saying replace one thing for another. My original point is that there is spiritual salvation but other types of salvation that we as the church need to consider, in fact, have a mandate to take on.
We are not all called to preach the Gospel with words. Some are for sure, and all should be prepared to give an answer, but our leading from God will differ one to another. It is not all about getting people "saved." It may be what some church planters want us to think, but we need to follow the leading of the Spirit and some of us are led to feed the hungry in Jesus name, to visit the sick and those in prison. We bear Good News, in fact, we can be Good News with the end in itself to be obedient to the call on our lives.
Kirby: I think you went a little bit overboard with the "taking care of the needy is nothing more than a connection point" comment but I think you are on the right track. At the same time, I think Jane goes to far with her response to you.
"Meeting needs is not a means to an end, but an end in itself." –Jane
I don't think meeting needs is a means to an end or an a final end in itself. I think we all have a tendency to confuse means, ends and results. The result of my new relationship with the Savior of the universe who came to seek and save the lost is go on mission with him to seek and save the lost. But it is also true that having seen and experienced the grace that reached me when I was not looking, I can't help but seek to reach and care and love others who also may not be seeking.
I don't feed the hungry, and clothe the naked, and heal the broken, and rescue the perishing as a means to preach the gospel. But I do all these things because I have been brought near to the greatest lover in the world. He has redeemed me and now I must, I cannot not love others. But that love will always, must always be accompanied with words.
Jane asks, "Why do we need words?"
Simply, because we want to live and emulate our Lord. Jesus came preaching the gospel of God "and saying, 'The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe int he gospel.'"
Jane asks, "Is God not bigger than our puny attempts to explain grace and love?" Most definitely yes, my sister. But that doesn't negate the need for the word of the gospel to be preached.
I can't remember who it was who quoted the oft repeated, 'Preach the gospel, if necessary use words" usually attributed to St. Francis. But the reality is that this quotes is theologically wrong and historically inaccurate. There is zero evidence that St. Francis actually said the quote attributed to him and it is inconsistent with the model of how his order proclaimed the gospel.
Now I'm really in hot water!
I think there are lots of good examples where God is at work in a "preparatory" fashion-- and there are several good examples cited here both from scripture (Jim cited Lydia) and from missions (Muslims having dreams).
It is my perception that everyone(?) is comfortable with the idea that the Holy Spirit would be at work preparing the unbeliever for the witness of the believer (and, thus, a witness through a believer who is part of the church).
Peterson actually gets at the point of the conciliar (World Council) mission movement -- that God is "saving" in other ways than personal forgiveness and redemption. He is "saving" through change in society.
To put it in a pithy way, mainliners tended to focus more on the societal "saving" while evangelicals tend to focus on the personal "saving." To be fair, most mainliners would regret where the above-mentioned movement went and would pull back from a complete "worldly" salvation.
But, many would say that God is "saving" the world when we do acts of mercy, etc. I would prefer that we say we're following Jesus on His mission to serve a hurting world in His name, but I get the point. Marty's comments help articulate an approach that wants to express it more as I would.
So, I believe that God is doing MORE than redeeming individual people in the world and we are called join Him in that. (Caveat: I think we need to talk MORE about sharing Christ, not less, but that is for another post-- for today, I think we can all agree that we need to share AND show the good news.)
But, all this talk about how God is working outside the church leads to the question of how it relates to the individual person-- which is what Tim Keller cited in the post.
It is more than personal (and I believe that many evangelicals have made it all about "me and Jesus"), but it must still involve individuals. As such, does anyone here believe that God is working outside the gospel proclamation of believers (who "are" the church) to redeem and forgive individual women and men?
If so, I'd love to hear the view (and any responses to it) framed within the missional idea of "God working outside the church." Needless to say, I don't share that view, but as Tim Keller said above, it is being presented as how God is at work in the world.
Thanks,
Ed
As I understand it, God is at work outside the church 1. in common grace, allowing people to live and Christians to work together with unbelievers for the common good. 2. in showing his majesty in nature, to make unbelief inexcusable. 3. in miraculous ways to prepare people to receive the gospel.
-And I got my Ph.D. from Hoekendijk's successor :-)
Marten, That is a great summary outline and very un-Hoekendijken of you ;-) (If I understand Hoekendiijk view.
I like @Marten's simple impression (2 above) of how God is working "outside the church" - especially in the majesty of nature (Rom1, etc.). This impression is well aligned with roughly 70% of Christendom today which holds that God can reveal "grace that saves" to those seeking truth outside of the Jesus story.
To the other 30%, I would ask: what manner of god myopically "saves" a few people in limited temporal-historical pockets? While I understand how a certain reading of the NT can arrive at this kind of highly exclusionary soteriology, it doesn't sound like the Jesus I love. It sounds more like the myriad local-tribal gods throughout history (think Indiana Jones) than the omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent God of pure love and perfect justice that permeates the NT. Such spotty, localized gods seem but a projection of our own cultural, anthropomorphic, exclusionary religious biases.
Ed, a missional posture towards "redemption and forgiveness" might acknowledge and respect the various interpretive communities built around different soteriology (penal, ransom, satisfaction, moral-example, etc.). I believe the Baptist position is penal, so the "missional baptist" would welcome sustained dialogue with those who understand the cross differently. In doing so, we move yet another "non-negotiable" door slam to a place of open, thoughtful tension.
If we can sustain this well-intentioned dialogue long enough, we might eventually find a way to rise above our interpretive differences and meet on a new plateau of mutual ("missional") empathy and understanding. For instance, while we may not agree on the "salvational mechanics" of the cross, we may both find ourselves in speechless AWE of the cross, that the cross story remains eminently personal yet profoundly un-graspable to each of us, that the cross is the purist exhibition of love precisely because it cannot be effectively reduced to some propositional understanding, that the cross points beyond itself and asks us both to fix our eyes on that felt-but-unspeakable place of forgiveness and asks us to live our lives with the same self-abandonment, dying daily. Etc..
Which is better? Finding a shared, recklessly abandoned, speechless awe of the cross? or finding air-tight propositional-theological agreement? :-)