Word, Spirit, Gospel and Mission (Part 9)

Election is a controversial concept for many Christians because, in the way that it is often presented, it appears to contradict human freedom. The Bible upholds both election and freedom without attempting to fully explain or resolve the tensions between them.

The word elect simply means “chosen.” In the Old Testament, God chose the people of Israel and made a special relationship with them. If we examine how this choice is portrayed, two aspects are emphasized. First, the Israelites were not chosen because of their inherent goodness; election came to them by grace alone. Second, election did not confer on them any claim of superior status before God. On the contrary, their election placed them in a position of responsibility and servantship toward other nations. Their failure to live up to God’s covenant led to captivity and humiliation, and that should have further prepared them to receive the gospel of salvation by grace.

Election is also a powerful theme throughout the New Testament. We see it in the interaction between Jesus and his disciples. First-century Jewish society had a well developed culture of discipleship. Young men would gather around popular rabbis to learn the Torah with hopes of becoming rabbis themselves. It was always the disciple who chose the rabbi and initiated the relationship. But Jesus turned the tables completely around. He approached young men of his own choosing and commanded them to follow him. Of course, the disciples had to willingly respond. But they were not the initiators. Jesus called, they followed.

When Jesus appointed the Twelve apostles, he chose the ones he wanted (Mark 3:13). Jesus said to the Twelve, “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit…” (John 15:16). When others tried to follow Jesus as the apostles did, Jesus sometimes discouraged them from doing so (Mark 5:19).

Why did Jesus choose these particular men? They had no special education, pedigree or obvious qualifications that set them apart from the rest. They were just regular people from Galilee. It seems that they were chosen specifically because of their ordinariness, to show the world that their election was by grace alone. Even after they were chosen, they did not demonstrate great virtue or faithfulness. Throughout the gospel accounts, their weaknesses are continually laid bare. They abandoned and betrayed Jesus in his hour of need. Their status as apostles was truly undeserved. From start to finish, it was Jesus who bore with them, forgave them and upheld them by grace.

Jesus chose them to be with him and to observe him, and to ultimately become the witnesses of his death and resurrection (Mark 1:14, Acts 1:8). They were to preach the gospel to the whole world (Mark 16:15). Yet Peter, despite his interaction with Cornelius in Acts chapter 10, continued to minister almost exclusively to the Jews (Gal 2:7-8). Peter and the other apostles had great difficulty associating with Gentiles. They had been taught from childhood that Gentile ways were inherently unclean. The idea of preaching a Torah-free gospel seemed alien to them; they just couldn’t envision an authentic Gentile Christian lifestyle.

When the gospel finally broke through to the Gentiles, it happened through the most unlikely person. Saul of Tarsus had distinguished himself among the Pharisees for his ultra-strict keeping of the law (Philippians 3:4-6). He had zealously persecuted the Church because he considered the Christians to be a threat to Jewish religious supremacy. But the risen Christ personally appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus. Jesus chose him to be his instrument to carry his name to the Gentiles, a mission that Saul would never have chosen for himself (Acts 9:15). The calling of Saul, and his transformation into the Apostle Paul, is another powerful picture of God’s election. Once again, it appears that God chose Paul for this task to demonstrate that his gospel comes to all purely by grace.

Examining the flow of God’s salvation history throughout the Old and New Testaments, it becomes unmistakably clear that his salvation comes to individuals and nations not because of the efforts and virtues of God’s human accomplices but despite them. From start to finish, the mission belongs to God, not to people.

The early Christians knew this principle. The Latin word missio, from which we derive mission, was a theological term for the Father sending the Son into the world, and for the Father and Son sending the Holy Spirit. Mission is an intrinsic part of God’s character. In modern times, however, mission has come to be understood as activity that individuals and churches undertake by their own choosing and initiative. All too often, mission is now seen as a human effort to carry the gospel to the lost people of the world.

In the highly acclaimed book Transforming Mission, David Bosch described how Protestant missionary efforts over the last two centuries have been characterized by a spirit of “voluntarism.” This is exactly what one would expect in a historical period marked by industrialization, free enterprise and scientific positivism. Christians spoke of “the evangelization of the world in this generation!” That phrase became the motto of the Student Volunteer Movement (SVM) of the late 19th century. SVM leaders appeared to be self-confident, singleminded, and triumphant. With great enthusiasm, they recruited and sent out thousands of missionaries throughout the world. This era of missionary activity peaked around the year 1900, when a huge missions conference was held in New York City with over two hundred thousand participants. Speakers at that conference included several Presidents of the United States. Church leaders spoke of mission in militaristic terms. They confidently predicted that within their lifetimes the forces of darkness would be vanquished and the whole world conquered with the gospel, paving the way for Jesus to return.

In the early decades of the 20th century, however, SVM and other missionary agencies rapidly declined. A proper analysis of why this happened is beyond the scope of this article. To characterize SVM as a failure would be an overstatement. But the organization was not able to fulfill its ambitious goals, and clearly it was not for lack of effort. The heroism, vision and hard work of SVM and similar organizations masked a great deal of organizational weakness. Bosch wrote (p. 333):

People were challenged to go without any financial guarantees, simply trusting that the Lord of mission would provide… No time was left for timorous or carefully prepared advances into pagan territory, nor for the laborious building up of ‘autonomous’ churches on the ‘mission field.’ The gospel had to be proclaimed to all with the greatest speed, and for this there could never be enough missionaries. It also meant that there was neither time nor need for drawn-out preparation for missionary service. Many who went out had very little education or training…

The movement also suffered from theological deficiencies that were not recognized or corrected. Bosch continues:

The weaknesses of the faith mission movement are obvious: the romantic notion of the freedom of the individual to make his or her own choices. And almost convulsive preoccupation with saving people’s souls before Judgment Day, a limited knowledge of the cultures and religions of the people to whom the missionaries went, virtually no interest in the societal dimension of the Christian gospel, almost exclusive dependence on the charismatic personality of the founder, a very low view of the church, etc.

When mission is seen to flow from the personal choice of the missionary who, of his own volition and charitable nature, decides to carry the gospel to lost people, it places the missionary on a moral high ground relative to those he is trying to evangelize. Bosch concludes:

It spawned an enterprise in which the one party would do all the giving and the other all the receiving. This was so because one group was, in its own eyes, evidently privileged and the other, equally evidently, disadvantaged.

The biblical principle of election, however, declares that the one who carries the gospel is in no way superior to the one who receives it. Arrogance, hubris, overconfidence, and a sense of entitlement before God have no place in mission because they are incompatible with the gospel of grace.

In a voluntaristic missionary movement, participation in the mission is regarded as obedience. Of course, the Great Commission was given to the apostles in Matthew 28:18-20 in the form of a command. Shouldn’t we be obeying that command? This reasoning of obedience to Matthew 28:18-20 was applied by William Carey in his famous 1792 tract An Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathen. Since that time, Matthew 28:18-20 has maintained a prominent place in the Protestant missionary thinking. It is difficult to argue with this kind of logic. Jesus bids us, “Go,” therefore we must go! If we are not going as missionaries to make disciples of all nations, then aren’t we clearly disobeying Christ?

Bosch points out, however, that the command “go and make disciples” can be properly understood only within the greater context of Matthew’s gospel (Chap. 2). The meaning and requirements of discipleship are laid out by Jesus throughout the book, beginning with the Sermon on the Mount, progressing through many parables about the kingdom of heaven, and so on. If the Great Commission is lifted out of this context and made the sole motivation for missions, the movement that ensues becomes a reduction and distortion of what Jesus intended. Indeed, until the early part of the 19th century, Protestant missionary literature never relied on obedience to Matthew 28:18-20 as the sole motivator; it was always connected to other biblical motifs. But movements of the SVM era applied the Great Commission with greater frequency and vigor, and by the 20th century it was often presented as sufficient justification for everything that the movements were doing. “It became a kind of last line of defense, as if the protagonists of mission were saying, ‘How can you oppose mission to the heathen if Christ himself has commanded it?'” (pp. 340-341)

In addition to removing these verses from their proper context, Bosch (p. 341) notes two other problems with the Great Commission as the primary motivator for Christian missions. First, it is almost always used as a polemic. Individuals and churches who do not vigorously proselytize are denounced as watered-down, compromised and disobedient. Second, it takes mission out of the realm of gospel and places it in the realm of law. The Great Commission becomes a rule that must be obeyed if one is to be considered a faithful Christian. But mission in the New Testament did not begin with the apostles sitting down together and discussing how to obey the world mission command. Evangelism began with the “explosion of joy” (Newbigin’s term) emanating from the empty tomb. The apostles’ mission was sealed by their encounters with the risen Christ and empowered by the coming of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Mission arrived as a gift, not a law. It came to the apostles by divine election through the grace of God alone.

16 comments

  1. Amen. I think I’m going to forward this to a few people.

  2. Darren Gruett

    This is an excellent article, Joe. Many of the examples you brought up about election I have often cited to people to backup some of the more typical passage on the topic, e.g., Eph 1:4,5.

    I especially like the example of Paul, because it demonstrates so tangibly what he would later say in Romans that, “while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son” (Ro 5:10). If only we could see that we were just like Paul, opposed to God and in rebellion to him, and that it was He who chose us, how much we would praise God for His grace in our lives! And out of the overflow of our joy for what He has done for us, we preach the gospel.

  3. Thanks, Joe, for a simple and practical explanation of election (based on grace, not merit) and mission (stemming and originating from God, not man).

    Without realizing it, might we may be following the footsteps of SVM by over-emphasizing mission (Matt 28:19), almost isolated from the context of missio dei?

    All prior Christian movements eventually failed because of placing the emphasis on man’s response/obedience, rather than on God’s initiative. Might we be dangerously close to doing likewise?

  4. Oscar and Darren, thank you for your kind words. I deeply appreciate them.

    Ben, thanks for your comment. Perhaps it is fair to say that “All prior Christian movements eventually failed,” if you define a movement as the work of human individuals and organizations. Yes, every organization eventually fails in one way or another, and those that do not reform eventually die out. But the gospel never fails. The gospel, in terms of missio Dei, is doing just fine.

    I intentionally did not mention UBF in this article. This is not a veiled attempt to critique  UBF or any other  organization. It is part of my personal attempt to understand election and to construct  a coherent theology of mission. I am deeply grateful to everyone who reads UBFriends and partcipates in the discussion, because I am learning a great deal from all of you. And I appreciate your willingness to read my articles and give feedback. I feel weird, and somewhat selfish, posting so many articles on this topic, as if I am using UBFriends as my personal journal space. But at least a few people seem to appreciate it, so I won’t stop just yet.

    As a historical note, I would like to point out that UBF does stand rather squarely in  the theological  tradition of SVM and the late 19th century American missionary movements. Sarah Barry, cofounder of UBF, participated in at least one  SVM event and signed the SVM pledge to become a missionary. Samuel Lee, our other cofounder, was discipled by the Navigators, which shares many similarities with  the early SVM. Many leaders of the Navigators were military men, and their philosophy of discipleship drew heavily on military models (and I do not mean that as a pejorative). The Navigators  were and are very singleminded in their  objective: raise disciples through one-to-one relationships and train them to raise more disciples in order to fulfill the Great Commission. God uses organizations like SVM and Navs to carry out his purpose. But I think that purpose is limited, because raising self-reproducing disciples is  only one aspect of building the church, and building the church is only one aspect of missio Dei. UBF has gone beyond SVM and Navigators to an extent; it has  morphed into  a de facto church. In my opinion, we are now experiencing a kind of identity crisis because our missions model (raise disciples on campus to raise more disciples on campus) doesn’t describe  what we have actually become. I don’t mean this as a criticism. God’s actual work in UBF has gotten ahead of our theology, which is a good thing. But now I think  we need to step back, re-evaluate, humble ourselves, understand what the Holy Spirit is doing among us, and formulate our mission theology in a more coherent and realistic way.

    • Joshua Yoon

      Thanks Joe again for this “long” series of WSGM. Is this the last one or should we expect more? Praise the Lord for giving you ability to articulates what many of us are thinking and questioning. Your words, “We are now experiencing a kind of identity crisis because our missions model doesn’t describe what we have actually become.” This is exactly what is happening to me, the ministry I serve and some people I know. When missions model does not match with what God is actually doing, sticking to outdated missions model is like keeping an old wineskin. I totally agree to your statement that we need to step back, re-evaluate….understanding what the Holy Spirit is doing among us and formulate our mission theology in a more coherent and realistic way. My question is “How can we do this? Where should we start? Who should initiate? To whom should we turn in time of identity crisis and questions arising? Individual effort to find answers may lead only to more questions and confusion. Thankfully the Holy Spirit has already begun his own good work here and there globally and is using this virtual meeting place. As we discussed, I again acknowledge the importance of Jerusalem Council, a more official meeting place where emerging issues are addressed and openly discussed. The roles of those in senior leadership positions are extremely important at this time of transition and celebration of 50th anniversary. May the Holy Spirit guide this ministry to be rooted in a sound, Biblical, coherent mission theology.

    • david bychkov

      Hi Joe!
      When I read this comment I felt some peace and hope came into my heart. It made me see good and kind God’s hand which is keeping and leading us and our ministry. I realize that really how we started, what we was and what we is and what we to be- this is everything in God’s good plan. I again was filled with desire and willingness to follow Spirit which leads us and humbly love and serve our brothers and sisters.
      It could be offtopic, but I want to share here that after publishing my article here in English and on my livejournal in russian produced few positive feedbacks from our CIS leaders. It was totally unexpected and encouraging.

    • David, I’m glad that this brings you peace and comfort. Regardless of what happens to UBF, mission Dei always goes on, and for that I praise God. That is where our true hope lies, now and always.

      Could you please clarify the response of CIS leaders? When you say “few positive feedbacks”, does that mean that the response was mostly negative, mostly positive, or mixed? Because of the language barrier, I don’t know what is being discussed in the Russian language forum, but I would love to know. UBFriends  articles are now being read  by some in Latin America and  Korea too, but I have no idea how much it is being discussed or what kinds of opinions, if any, are being voiced.

    • david bychkov

      We almost have no the space like this for free discussing. There are antiubf forums, and Korean missionaries forum. I don’t know what they discussing there. We have a official google group for our cis disciples and missionaries. Some time ago Timothy Ha tried to initiate some discussions there, sent a lot of different stuff and shared some thoughts which wrote for his blog. There were quit few reaction. Once we tried to discuss necessity of education and this seems make some people interested. Then he send there your article about UBFisms. I responded and few others as well that the stuff has sense. However one of most senior ministry leaders reacted quite hard and negative. Since then we are not   doing public discussions and the group is almost frozen.
      As for me I came here, on UBFriends and was very excited to become part of this community. Timothy also reads faithfully what is published here. We shared some articles with google buzz, facebook, hopefully that someone will read from here. I’m discussing some articles with my most trusted friends inside ministry and recommending most interesting for reading. I know that some of them read some stuff, though I don’t know anyone besides us and American missionaries (Peaces) who is really interesting in reading here. And to be honest I’m not sure that I really would be so actively involved if I was not a pioneer in a small ministry.
      My friends mostly, I think, are not against it, just not really interested and English is still a some problem, b/c reading requires more time and attention then in Russian. And they are not interested, I think, b/c they do not really tested it.
      When I mentioned some positive reaction on my article, I was surprised b/c I didn’t wait any reaction. No positive no negative. I just decided to start blogging, and posted article in Russian, and shared link with google buzz. And at least some of native leaders read, one friend wrote me and told that he will continue reading, one former UBF leader wrote and mentioned that he enjoyed article, and my closest coworkers also mentioned that they read it. That was encouraging.
       

  5. James Kim

    Hi Joe, it was a great article. Thank you for your hard work. I believe UBF is an extension of American mission, because SVM and UBF has many common grounds. SVM was formally organized in 1888 with 100 key members throughout American campuses with a catch phrase, “evangelize the world in our generation”. By 1945, at least 20,000 Student Volunteers had reached the mission fields around the world. It merged with other organization by 1959. Mother Sarah Barry came to the war torn country Korea in 1955, almost at the end of this movement. The reasons of decline of SVM, I think, are the rise of Communism in China, financial difficulty of American churches to support so many full time missionaries around the world, and gradual spiritual decline of American churches that began around 1960.
    American missionaries came to Korea around 120 years ago. So many great missionaries came to plant churches, build schools and hospitals in the obedience of the Holy Spirit. God blessed them abundantly. Korea was transformed from a heathen nation to a Christian nation within a very short time (comparing with other countries like Japan). It was God’s miracle and the undeniable work of the Holy Spirit. The impact and influences of these missionaries were great. Majority of them came back to the States, but many of them remained in Korea and the second and third generation missionaries died and were buried in the Korean soil.( I have visited American missionaries’ cemetery few years ago and I was so thankful for their sacrifice) Now Korea became a missionary sending nation (second most missionaries after America). Scholars say that in the future Asian and Latin American countries would send out majority of missionaries to the whole world when the Christianity in the West is gradually in decline.
    Historically American Evangelicals are in a hurry to preach the gospel and concerned about numerical conversion through tent revival meetings. UBF is in similar situation. Koreans (and missionaries included) are well known to have “hurry, hurry” mentality, and in UBF we are also concerned about numerical growth than character building. In this way we are in danger of anti-intellectualism. We should not ignore the infinite value of studying great minds of the past even before the Reformation. I hope and pray that God may raise many influential Christian scholars among us. This year is the 50th anniversary of UBF. If God is pleased with us, God is going to use us (professional self-supporting missionaries) continuously in his redemptive history. Missio Dei.

    • Joshua Yoon

      Thanks, Dr. James for sharing about sacrificial American missionaries and for your prayer for UBF ministry. I am very glad to see you come to this website and write your comments. I am greatly encouraged and comforted by your participation. I hope more missionaries and seniors will join us.

    • James,

      I hope (and think) you are correct:

      “SVM and UBF has many common grounds.”

      If so, then UBF should be ending soon. SVM was a movement that rose and fell into obscurity. UBF should do the same.

  6. Just tagging this excellent series. Love this paragraph:

    “When the gospel finally broke through to the Gentiles, it happened through the most unlikely person. Saul of Tarsus had distinguished himself among the Pharisees for his ultra-strict keeping of the law (Philippians 3:4-6). He had zealously persecuted the Church because he considered the Christians to be a threat to Jewish religious supremacy. But the risen Christ personally appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus. Jesus chose him to be his instrument to carry his name to the Gentiles, a mission that Saul would never have chosen for himself (Acts 9:15). The calling of Saul, and his transformation into the Apostle Paul, is another powerful picture of God’s election. Once again, it appears that God chose Paul for this task to demonstrate that his gospel comes to all purely by grace.”

    • Mark Mederich

      paul’s story illustrates how religious self-effort leads to pride/defense-mode in all of us, while Spirit-assist leads to humility/assist-mode (anyone remember turning a steering wheel before power-fluid systems?)

    • Yea Mark, I remember trying to turn the wheel without power steering….

  7. Misuse of Mt 28:19 excellently stated!: “Bosch (p. 341) notes two other problems with the Great Commission (Mt 28:19) as the primary motivator for Christian missions.

    First, it is almost always used as a polemic. Individuals and churches who do not vigorously proselytize are denounced as watered-down, compromised and disobedient.

    Second, it takes mission out of the realm of gospel and places it in the realm of law. The Great Commission becomes a rule that must be obeyed if one is to be considered a faithful Christian.

    But mission in the New Testament did not begin with the apostles sitting down together and discussing how to obey the world mission command. Evangelism began with the “explosion of joy” (Newbigin’s term) emanating from the empty tomb.” Amen and amen!

    • Mark Mederich

      that’s what’s killing the Christian church, unintentional burden of humanly insurmountable task (bad news)which is man’s conditional grace/earned award of acclaim to few..
      vs Spirit fruit of joy & hope thru Jesus’ resurrection/intercession (good news) which is God’s unconditional grace/free gift of forgiveness to all…HALLELUJAH!