MissionShift: 1.3 - On Enoch Wan's Response

At the outset of his reaction to Dr. Charles Van Engen’s essay: “Mission” Defined and Described, Dr. Enoch Wan explained the format he would utilize. I appreciated the manner in which he clarified his intent. He utilized his brief rehearsal of Engen’s essay as a means to compliment the author’s essay as well as the credentials that give weight to his writings. As I read Wan, I was impressed that his major contribution to this dialogue might be his indirect but fervent acknowledgement that could be verbalized; “How we view mission influences how we do mission.”

Wan discusses two major objections or corrections which he suggests need to be addressed in Engen’s essay:

1. reduction of Trinitarian implication of mission to a merely Christocentric approach
2. focus on the institutional dimension of mission at the expense of the individual dimension.

Finally, he provides an alternate definition of mission which corrects deficiencies he perceives in that provided by Engen.

With reference to the Trinitarian/Chistocentric issue, Wan affirms Engen for his citation of “key trinitarian texts” but finds him not “true to the texts.” Wan states, “Thus the richness of the theological foundation of mission being Trinitarian has been reduced merely to being Christocentric.” He also indicates Van Engen “cites trinitarian texts but unnecessarily reduces missio Dei to being Christocentric only.”

I agree that the language used by Van Engen is predominantly Christocentric, but I also perceive that he clearly identifies the import of the triune Godhead. This is evidenced in his statements, “Biblical mission is God’s mission. Mission is participation in the mission of Jesus Christ, the Lord of the church, in the power of the Holy Spirit.” (p.12) And “God’s mission works through sending the people of God…by the work of the Holy Spirit…as a sign of the coming of the kingdom in Jesus Christ.” (p.27)

In Wan’s suggestion toward enhancing the trinitarian nature of mission, he offers a diagram of “The Interactive Relationship within the Trinity and Beyond” which he suggests, “clearly portrays the complexity of the divine and human realms converging, plus the dynamic interaction of the triune God with personal human beings and the institutional church.” After reviewing the figure and reading Wan’s description, I find that what he states explicitly provides little additional clarity. Perhaps my perspective is too trinitarian to perceive the distinctions, but when I read of the work of Christ, I automatically envision the Father and the Spirit engaged in that same work. I cannot divide His essential unity.

With reference to Wan’s second objection, institutional verses individual emphasis, I deeply appreciate the author’s concern. Too often our discussion of mission almost totally revolves around the church gathered engaging people the Gospel through ministries of declaration or demonstration. Too seldom does our dialogue reflect the individual sentness of every follower of Christ in mission within his or her own sphere of influence. In addressing this issue which is a component in his diagram mentioned above, Wan states, “There is no dichotomy between the individual and institutional dimensions of the Christian mission… It is therefore not correct to leave out the individual aspect and focus exclusively on the institutional missional church as Van Engen does.” Yet Van Engen’s final section includes his working definition of mission which states “God’s mission works primarily through…sending the people of God…[for] participation in God’s mission of reconciling people to God, to themselves, to one another, and to the world and gathering them into the church.” (Emphasis added) While I totally agree with Wan’s desire to emphasize the individual role in mission, the micro level, I cannot agree with his assessment that Van Engen is “anti-individualistic.”

Regarding the “better alternative” definition of mission offered by Wan, I must object to his creation of a dichotomy between spiritual (saving souls) and social (ushering in shalom) elements in mission. Postures of dualism challenge every concept of mission with the assumption that some ministry actions are sacred while others are secular (or in Wan’s case, spiritual and social). If this is true, during His incarnation our Lord spent massive amounts of time in unspiritual activities. When our actions are compelled by the Spirit of God, those are spiritual activities, even if it appears as only a “cup of water given.” In no way am I equating the value of a cup of water with the value of a soul, but I am sure that a better choice of words is possible than the dichotomy posited by Wan.

MissionShift Week 1

Today at the invitation of Ed Stetzer, I join a host of others in a dialogue built upon essays from the book MissionShift: Global Missions in the Third Millenium, by David Hesselgrave and Ed Stetzer (B&H Academic, 2010).

This week we were asked to react to Charles Van Engen’s contribution“Mission” Defined and Described. Each day this week, I intend to provide brief comments about his article (today) and responses to that article by various authors which are presented as subsequent chapters in the book.

RESPONSE TO VAN ENGEN ESSAY:

The task which Van Engen accepted is certainly ambitious, a rehearsal of the historic use of the term “mission” by the Christian church; to be capsuled in twenty-three pages. I found it somewhat humorous that other writers responding to his essay identified numerous omissions from his history. Clearly, space confines history. I regarded his treatment as effective within the limitations of an essay rather than a tome.

In fact, I question the value of attempting to define mission. While it can be described, in fact indefinitely so, it cannot be confined to a single definition. I do not propose that there are no clear characteristics for mission, but the totality of assigned characteristics or descriptors still do not define the term. There will always be more facets to be illuminated than any definition can portray. It is like defining love; virtually impossible.

Van Engen quotes Sidney Rooy, “There does not exist, nor has there ever existed, only one definition of the mission of the church. … Each definition and all understandings of the biblical bases of that mission are tentative and are subject to new evaluation and change. Truly, each generation must define mission anew.” While acknowledging these words, Van Engen positions any construct of mission as requiring a foundation in Scripture. Biblical authority is paramount. While some may cite the limited number of biblical references cited in his essay, I perceive the author to have clarified this foundational assumption so that an extensive reference to particular Biblical passages is not required.

Further, the author identifies mission as originating in God rather than the church, but advocates the centrality of the church as God’s agent sent to “invite all peoples to become Jesus’ disciples and responsible members of Christ’s church.” While he addresses the dialogue between ecumenical and evangelical concepts of mission, Van Engen is clear, “This basic understanding of the word mission is most basic and should never be lost or eclipsed by subsequent discussions and refinements.” And “Mission is not merely church extension, not is it merely doing good works of compassion.” He concludes with a ringing Christological statement, “The Sender is Jesus Christ, whose authority defines, circumscribes, limits, and propels Christian mission.” One senses that through His use of compounding synonyms, the author is evidencing the depth of personal emotion with which he views this matter.

After describing the Constantinian era, actually quoting an extensive section on this subject from Sidney Rooy, Van Engen reflects on colonization as not being inherent only to that era. He cautions, “In today’s mission activities, when denominations, mission organizations, or mega-churches set out to “plant” new churches that are essentially identical branch offices of the sending organization, the parallels to the medieval view of missions are quite troubling.”

When giving attention to the development of indigenous churches built upon the “three-self” formula, stressed by some as the goal of mission, Van Engen provides personal commentary on that which has also been adopted as the administrative philosophy for church planting by many within the US. In that commentary, Van Engen returns to his familiarity with Latin America, stating that many “three self” churches started there by Western European and North American mission endeavors now tend to reflect a forth “self” component, “self-centered and selfish.” He includes a footnote comment stating strong personal opinion, “I believe the “three self-formula” is one of the major reason for [the National Presbyterian Church of Mexico’s] lack of missionary vision and practice.”

The author deals with the tension that has long existed between Gospel proclamation and demonstration in mission. He reflects historic rhetoric that has surfaced around this issue, “when everything is mission, nothing is mission.” Some of the various verbal framings of this ongoing debate are woven throughout the essay. In this matter I continue to opt for the breadth of meaning in the scriptural term “evangelization” rather than the reduced form “evangelism.” The latter tends to be overseen by the guardians of evangelicalism who understand the term as the verbal proclamation of the Gospel about Christ. The broader word has room for both proclamation and demonstration, the message about Jesus and the message of Jesus.

I respect Van Engen’s conservative word of caution, not that of an alarmist, but of an informed authentic mission practitioner, “In the twenty-first century Evangelical mission agencies are becoming increasingly committed and involved in humanitarian and compassion ministries, children-at-risk movements, and so on. Given these new emphases in Evangelical mission activism, it behooves us to consider carefully how Evangelical views of mission today may be tempted to repeat the same errors made when mission was redefined…” in a previous era. Let us hear the caution and continue with feet solidly grounded in both components of the Gospel of the Kingdom.