A Suggested Philosophy of Missions

Dr. Hesselgrave begins his book Paradigms in Conflict: 10 Key Questions in Christian Missions Today by examining God's sovereignty versus man's free will. He details varying views from deterministic Calvinism to Open Theism and arguably everything in between. I found it very interesting as Hesselgrave detailed Ralph Winter's praise of Gregory Boyd's argument that "all disease is the work of the Devil and not the will of God (33)." I agree in a sense and disagree in another sense. The obvious reason why humans are susceptible to illness and disease is because we are not in the Garden of Eden anymore. Sin is thus the cause of sickness, for we are all under the curse. However, one cannot say this is not part of God's will without diminishing His sovereignty. God could heal everyone right now at this moment; but, at the end of the day, the only truth we are left with is that God is in control of all things. He knows what He is doing and why He indirectly allows evil to exist. So, in missions, I agree that Christians should seek to eradicate all disease and seek to help all men, women, and children temporarily conquer the results of the Fall. This however is not the ultimate purpose of missions. Just as Andreas Rosenberger argues in the foreword in agreement with Hesselgrave, the Great Commission is ultimately a spiritual commission. So, though I will seek the physical well-being of sinners, my ultimate goal is to give them the saving gospel of Christ. I want them to experience the abundant life on earth, not because Christ died to give them a celebrity-like lifestyle, but because Christ died to reconcile them to His Father. In this, though they may be ugly, poor, unhealthy, persecuted, etc. they are beautiful, rich, healthy, and safe in Christ; and being with Him forever, fully realizing the abundant life in heaven is just around the corner.

Hesselgrave then moves to examine varying views on what eternally happens to those who never hear the gospel. Some argue that they are automatically saved, while others believe the gospel is their only hope, and some argue that everyone will be saved. This is a difficult subject, but based on the fact that salvation is by God's grace through faith in Christ alone there 1) cannot be another way of salvation and 2) there cannot be salvation without faith. So, concerning missions, this means that as a believer I must get the gospel to the ends of the earth. Without this saving gospel, the sinners who have not come to Christ cannot get to Him. Now, if an unbeliever will respond to creation and conscience, then I believe God will send them the gospel through another believer. I however don't believe He will send an angel to do this, but He could freely do this. We simply have no biblical reason to believe He will, for He has commissioned His church to reach the world, empowering them with His Holy Spirit and Word.

Hesselgrave then argues in favor of the exclusivity of Christianity according to the Scriptures. In a pluralistic world where "tolerance" is the new transcending "gospel," Hesselgrave argues in favor of Christ still being the only Way of salvation. Due to all humans believing something about God, in missions, I will face many unbiblical views. There are literally billions of "good" people by my standards that will go to hell. Telling people the good news will not be difficult, the difficulty will be in detailing the bad news. Because they are sinners that are rejecting Christ in favor of untruth, they must first realize that they are at enmity with God before they can be reconciled to Him. To the ultra-religious, the self-righteous, to tell them God is angry at them because their righteousness is as filthy rags is an ultimate insult. Though I will be tempted to "soften the blow" as they are torn down by the bad news, I still must love them enough to tell them the truth, so they can run to the saving gospel of Christ. In order to run to the gospel however they must run from whatever false gospel(s) they had previously trusted in.

Hesselgrave then details radical liberation theology, holism, and traditional prioritism (119-122). I hold to traditional prioritism. The whole gospel must be given to the whole person, but the whole gospel is only spiritual, not physical, at least in this life. The other ministries are supporting to the gospel and are secondary to the spiritual emphasis of the gospel. Now, I do not believe that the goal should be to meet people's needs as many have argued. Even with a cursory glance, one cannot deny that Christ did not meet the needs of all those who possessed needs near Him. At the pool of Bethesda, Christ healed one man who did not even possess faith, while leaving a "multitude" behind without their needs met. Also, a physical emphasis makes some of the gospel attainable apart from Christ. If temporal provision is part of the gospel, the reality is that it does not last. This follows that the benefit of the gospel does not last; and it actually cannot last because our temporal bodies cannot last. The spiritual aspect however does not end for a moment, from the moment of salvation onward; but the temporal physical aspect of the gospel argued by liberators does not last for sinners must pass through a stingless death to get to Christ. I understand and agree that eternally, the result of the gospel is both spiritual and physical, but in these temporal bodies, the spiritual is more here and now than the physical. We must receive new physical bodies in order to go to heaven, but there is nothing new spiritually added to Christians before they go to heaven. So, I will seek to meet the physical needs of sinners when able, but my primary goal and the primary goal of Christianity is to meet the spiritual needs of sinners; for sinners need to be reconciled to God through the sinless righteousness of Christ credited to their accounts by grace alone through faith alone.

Hesselgrave then moves to detail and distinguish the differences between incarnationalism and representationalism. Incarnationalists argue that the church is to duplicate Christ's work on earth, both physically and spiritually; while representationalists seek to follow Paul's example both spiritually and physically. I consider myself an incarnationalist, but I understand the work of Christ differently than Stott. My view is closest to Ron Rogers' view. Christ's physical healings and miracles were secondarily for the people, while existing primarily to communicate truth about Himself. Christ did not always feed the hungry, heal the sick, raise the dead, etc. There are many clear examples in Scripture where Christ picked one out of a multitude to heal, leaving the others in physical misery. His primary motivation therefore must be something other than liberating society, providing for the poor, etc. Christ is conquering these things, but they will not be conquered fully until the end. So, Christ's miraculous works primarily communicated the truth that the results of the Fall had no hold on Him. Though He was born under the curse, and crushed under the curse, the curse could not hold Him; this is the emphasis of His physical resurrection. So, incarnationally, if I am viewing Christ as a model for missions, then I must point to the fact that in Him sinners have conquered the results of the Fall spiritually, and they will physically as well when He returns to get us. Therefore, whether I follow Christ or Paul, the emphasis is the same in my mind: 1) Sinners receive the abundant life spiritually in Christ the moment they first believe, 2) Sinners receive the abundant life in Christ physically the moment they first believe as well, but this is not fully realized until they receive a new body. So whether I follow Christ's or Paul's example, the spiritual redemption of man is still the primary emphasis; for, I do believe the church is to continue the ministry of Christ on earth, for we are called "the body of Christ"; but, this ministry is primarily spiritual and secondarily physical. Because of these truths, my primary goal in missions is the salvation of souls; with the secondary goal being to meet the temporary physical needs of sinners.

Hesselgrave continues by examining power encounters and truth encounters. He also briefly details various encounters in between. His ultimate conclusion is that truth encounters trump power encounters. Hesselgrave is correct in his understanding. The truth of God is the most-important reality, for the power encounters in the Scripture serve the purpose of producing truth encounters. Even with the contemporary definition of a power encounter, the adherents argue that it communicates the victory of the true God over various false gods. So, even if their incorrect definition is given merit, their power encounter is subservient to truth encounters. On the mission field, therefore, I will encourage people with the objective truth. It has been validated by the prophets, apostles, and Christ Himself. They worked many signs and wonders revealing and detailing their words as the transcendent Word of God. My goal therefore is to encourage all sinners to respond correctly to the Word of God in repentance and faith.

Hesselgrave then details his concerns with professionalism in missions, being both too much and too little. He emphasizes the fact that pastors are set apart for a pastoral task under the sovereignty of God instead of being set apart as professionals in the world's eyes. This chapter really hit home with me, for this is something I have struggled with throughout my ministry. I know that today I could polish my preaching and personality to the point that I could win many, many people to myself; but, I would not win them to Christ. I can kiss babies, carry groceries, and laugh at anyone's jokes, but will this encourage sinners to repentance and faith in Christ Jesus? I could easily build a crowd, and host seminars teaching others how to accomplish what I have, but I am incapable of building Christ's church. So, as a result of this reality, though I long to carry out ministry excellently, the only praise that matters is the silent praise that echoes from the Word of God as I carry out the pastoral role God has set me apart to accomplish. Pragmatism or tangible results will not govern my personality or my preaching, but the text must and will dominate my ministerial endeavors. The silent "amens" of Christ are enough for me as I type this; I know it will be enough in the future as well. I just hope I continue for His glory alone instead of the praise of men.

Hesselgrave then tackles the proper contextualization of the biblical message. His concern is with losing the essentials of the Scriptures in order to communicate the Scriptures. The struggle is with how much to contextualize the text for the culture; and how much we should expect the culture to understand the text in its original context. This is a difficult balance indeed for God the Holy Spirit is involved in the process as well, taking ignorant sinners and giving them understanding; however, the missionary does not want to make this process more difficult. After all, God the Holy Spirit takes the Word and births new lives; but, if the Word is lost in the contextualization process, how will God the Holy Spirit birth new lives without the Word? Based on the textual evidence, the answer is that He will not. My goal therefore is to understand the culture I am seeking enough to detail the gospel where they can understand it; however, I will not change the Israel, Jewish, or Middle Eastern context in the name of contextualization. Just because my hearer may have no concept of sacrificing a lamb does not mean I will translate his scripture to detail the sacrificing of a pig instead. This is difficult, but pragmatism does not trump a clear understanding of the Scriptures; and the hearers may have to be taught exhaustively about Jewish culture in order to fully understand. I will go the long route before the short one any day, for genuine salvations are always better than quick prayers prayed without understanding.

Hesselgrave then proceeds to examine how eschatology affects missional efforts. He believes that the various prophetic warnings Christ points His church to, should keep them on constant alert, for He could return at any moment. Second, due to eschatological fact, all ethnicities will be reached before Christ returns; so, the church should seek the world regardless if Christ's return is today or a hundred years from now. Third, Hesselgrave argues that the church can hasten the Lord's coming through obedience. All of these arguments are compelling. I agree the church should be anxiously anticipating the return of Christ by seeking the salvation of all ethnicities and living holy lives, separated from the world. Hesselgrave's reference to Peter detailing that the church can speed up the return of Christ is very interesting (310-311). God is 100% sovereign and man is 100% responsible. Because of the responsibility of man, there is indeed a sense where the church can speed up the return of Christ. Due to these aforementioned truths, the time is now to reach the world with the gospel. I hope to seek the lost while anxiously awaiting the return of Christ, seeking all ethnicities for God's glory alone in holy obedience. I hope to have a holy urgency for the salvation of the world throughout my entire ministry.

Hesselgrave concludes his book encouraging his readers to fulfill Christ's Great Commission. With such an emphasis in contemporary evangelism on "showing the love of Christ," "being the gospel," and "showing" people sermons instead of preaching them, there is a great temptation to give sinners "their best life now." Once again, just as Christ's Great Commission was spiritual, my goal therefore is primarily spiritual. I hope to not be sidetracked in carrying out the Great Commission. In order to combat being sidetracked, I hope to yearly read books and articles by missiologists, whether home or abroad. The goal will not be to be open-minded to opinions, but to simply be open-minded to the Scriptures. After all, it is the Scriptures that carry our authority for missions. Any person therefore who points me to the Scriptures will be thoroughly examined, for I need constant correction.