***** (continued)
Perhaps the Lausanne movement is relevant here. I respect the Lausanne movement and to a certain extent have been involved in it. I was one of the delegates from among evangelicals in Japan for the 2010 Cape Town Congress. As President of the Japan Evangelical Missionary Association, I represented the missionary community in Japan. It seems the Lausanne movement has influenced the Japanese evangelical world toward a kind of missiology that highlights social work (1). A theology of mission that does not equally emphasize social work and gospel proclamation is said to have lost its balance. The influence of Christopher Wright—and prior to him, John Stott—seems evident (2). One caricature here is that evangelical missions has not been as loving as Jesus was and so has not emphasized social work. A correction is seen as necessary. So a new broader agenda is proposed. Perhaps David Hesselgrave provides a counter-balance (3).

Certain segments of the evangelical world in Japan seem attracted to this broader approach to mission. Maybe this is because less than 1% of Japanese people follow Christ, thus slowing evangelism to the speed of a snail and awkwardly making most Christians break the harmony that lies at the root of their culture. In this scenario social work might be less offensive than gospel proclamation. Probably this attraction of making social work as important as gospel proclamation is not unique to Japan because I see the same widening trend in evangelical churches located in religiously pluralistic Canada and America.

I suggest that Pauline missional emphasis lies in proclaiming the gospel of Jesus with the result that new churches are launched and established. This was Paul’s ambition because he understood that he was fulfilling the biblical injunction to help others know and believe on Jesus Christ. Rom. 15:20-25 show that he had already done all this in Asia Minor, and now, with the partnership of the believers in Rome, he wanted to do the same in Spain. Paul seemed to embrace three primary foundation stones for missional ministry. He was committed to proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ (evangelism), founding churches (church planting), and establishing churches (church strengthening). My 2009 published article, “Mission Confusion,” provides more details: https://itheology.net/missionarytheo/03.html.

This Pauline missional emphasis does not preclude the missional mandates given by our Risen Lord (4). For example, can we not understand the adverb “as” in Jn. 20:21—“as the Father has sent me…”—to be an adverb of manner by which Jesus means that his disciples are to go forth in humility and love in the same manner that he himself was sent by the Father? (5) If so, then the disciples sent out as witnesses of Jesus to proclaim his gospel are to do so lovingly by trying to meet the social needs of people they are sent to serve. Paul and Christ cannot be juxtaposed without doing damage to the Great Commission or the Great Commandment or both.

As another example, perhaps it would be beneficial to understand Paul as obeying Jesus’ command to “make disciples” and fulfilling Jesus’ prophecy that “you will be my witnesses.” Paul ended up obeying this command and fulfilling this prophecy by proclaiming the gospel, founding churches, and then nurturing those churches.

This is descriptive of Paul. But is there not a valid way to consider his emphasis to also be prescriptive for us? Should we not be able to connect our mission work to these major mission themes found in Paul, themes that also are central to the missional teaching of Jesus? This kind of prioritized way of understanding mission as making disciples of Jesus and witnessing for Jesus aligns with the biblical way of doing mission. This links our missional focus to what seem to be New Testament foundations for mission. It could help reduce some of the confusion caused by a broadening understanding of evangelical mission.

Where there might be a desire to place equal missiological weight upon gospel proclamation, making disciples, or witnessing on the one hand, and social action on the other, we would do well to ask whether these two emphases are given equal weight in the New Testament. If our conclusion is that gospel proclamation, with its accompanying church planting and strengthening, receives the highest priority in the New Testament reflecting both the practice of Paul and the teaching of Jesus, then the appropriate question to ask is this: “How does social action connect with the major missional theme of gospel proclamation found in the New Testament?” We could reply that social action is the result of gospel proclamation. We could say that social action is the context for gospel proclamation. We could suggest that social action brings credibility to our gospel proclamation. But I am hard pressed to find a sound basis in the New Testament for claiming that social action and gospel proclamation should be equally weighted in our understanding of the purpose of mission. That would marginalize the missional emphasis we find in Jesus and Paul.

The broadening of evangelical mission to include social action has produced confusion both on the mission field as well as in our sending churches and mission agencies. May our vision for doing mission in the way of Jesus and Paul be restored.

NOTES:
(1) Satoru Kanemoto, “Future of Japan Lausanne and the Evangelical Movement in Japan” (Feb 6, 2009).
(2) Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2006). And The Mission of God’s People: A Biblical Theology of the Church’s Mission (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2010).
(3) David J. Hesselgrave, Paradigms in Conflict: 10 Key Questions in Christian Missions Today (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel, 2005). See especially Chapter 5, “Incarnationalism and Representationalism: Who is Our Missionary Model—Jesus or Paul?” (pp. 141-65).
(4) Mt. 28:18-20; (Mk. 16:15-18); Lk. 24:46-49; Jn. 20:21-23, 29; Acts 1:7-8.
(5) Andreas J. Kostenberger, The Missions of Jesus and the Disciples According to the Fourth Gospel (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1998).