A searchable, downloadable PDF of the original article appears below. John A. Vissers is Professor of Theology at Ontario Theological Seminary, Toronto.
The challenge of religious pluralism is forcing us to rethink our understanding of Christian mission in the world today. Indeed, recent statements by missionaries and church leaders within The Presbyterian Church in Canada have created a good deal of controversy within the church.
In light of this, the Board of World Mission recommended the adoption of a theology of mission statement prepared by its Theology of Mission Committee to the 116th General Assembly of The Presbyterian Church in Canada. At its March 1989 meeting the Board of World Mission had commissioned this committee “to come up with a theology of mission to help define the mission of the church.” At the 115th General Assembly the Board of World Mission was directed “to prepare an updated statement on the theological rationale for our mission work and policy.” At the 1990 General Assembly the report “was referred to the Committee on church doctrine, as well as to synods, presbyteries, sessions and congregations for study and reply to the Church Doctrine Committee by February 28, 1991.”
It is obvious from the statement that the theology of mission committee has struggled with a number of important issues concerning the mission of the church in the context of world religious pluralism. However, the statement suffers from a vagueness which betrays an unwillingness to be clear about important biblical and theological issues at this critical period in our church’s history. Furthermore, the things left unsaid seem to demonstrate a lack of confidence in the Gospel, which is the power of God. In short, the statement represents at best a softening of our confessional position and at worst an outright denial of the uniqueness and glory of Jesus Christ and his saving grace.
The report begins by stating that the committee decided that it should not try to produce a single, definitive theology of mission for the church. Its rationale for this is that mission is contextual in nature and therefore a variety of “theologies of mission” should be encouraged within our church. This fundamental presupposition that mission is contextual shapes the theology set forth throughout the report. It ought to be noted that by making contextualization the starting-point and ordering principle for a theology of mission the committee is indeed giving us a single, definitive statement on mission. Further, this principle reorders our understanding of the Gospel and mission. Whenever the church takes its primary task as the explication of the context in which it finds itself rather than the explication of the identity of Jesus Christ the church’s confession of the Gospel is reshaped accordingly.
The report goes on to state that the incarnation of Christ is the “model for mission and theology.” Just as Jesus Christ was sent into the world and related to a particular concrete context, so we in the church are all sent by God to concretize the Gospel in our own context. This statement is helpful insofar as it goes. The church’s mission is to be patterned after the ministry of our Lord. But the ministry of Jesus is more than a model for mission. The ministry and message of Jesus is the content of the church’s mission. It is particularly disturbing that the report appeals to an incarnational model of mission without any reference to the atonement. The heart of the church’s confession is the salvation mediated by God in Jesus Christ. The church stands or falls by whether it proclaims and lives by the saving grace of God, or whether its life degenerates into some form of self-salvation. Also omitted is any reference to the Holy Spirit in the ministry of Jesus, who having himself been sent into the world in the power of the Spirit by the Father now sends the church forth in mission in that same power (John 20:21,22.).
The report declares that the motivation for mission is the love of God that compels us. Mission is therefore to be done with repentance, humility, joy and integrity. It is difficult to disagree with such a general statement concerning the love of God and indeed our attitude in doing mission must be shaped by such dialogical imperatives. But in the Reformed tradition the motivation for mission is surely not just an anthropocentric compassion but also a theocentric passion. To put it more simply, while it is true to say that the love of God compels us to do mission, our primary concern is the glory of Jesus. In reading this report one does not get the sense that we are concerned, as are the New Testament writers, for the glory of our Lord — that Jesus Christ should be honoured as sovereign Lord of creation and redemption.
The focus of mission according to the report is the reign (kingdom) of God. This section has the potential to be very helpful but it is far too abbreviated. What does the report mean by the kingdom of God? What is the Gospel of the kingdom and how does it relate to the person and ministry of Jesus? This lack of clarity concerning the nature of the kingdom obfuscates the next section which deals with the implication of a kingdom focus in mission.
The church stands or falls by whether it proclaims and lives by the saving grace of God, or whether its life degenerates into some form of self-salvation.
The report declares the centrality of Jesus Christ to mission but again Jesus is set forth as exemplar for mission and not as Saviour and Lord. The report contains no biblical anthropology and thus nothing is said about the human crisis in sin and the need for salvation by the grace of God.
The report helpfully identifies the biblical link between righteousness and justice and therefore between personal justification and righteousness and the reign of God over all creation. But the very thing which would empower this section — a christocentric understanding of salvation — is lacking and we are left with vague notions about justice and the kingdom of God.
The third implication for mission of a focus on the kingdom of God has to do with other faiths and unbelief. The challenge of religious pluralism is what has given rise to the need for this report in the first place. Generally, three approaches to this challenge have been set forth within the Christian community. Those who advocate pluralism argue that all religions are equal and valid paths to the one divine reality. Inclusivists see Christ as the normative revelation of God but also believe that salvation is possible through religions other than Christianity. The exclusivist position is held by those who affirm that only those who hear the gospel proclaimed and explicitly confess Christ as Lord and Saviour are saved (see Gavin D’Costa, “Theology of Religions,” The Modem Theologians. Volume II, edited by David Ford). The historic position of the Reformed tradition is the last one and this is what is being rethought in the context of contemporary pluralism. The report suggests that we be both inclusive and christocentric in doing mission. But what is the statement saying at this point? Do we believe that while Christ is the normative revelation of God salvation is possible through other religions rather than through faith in Jesus Christ? Unfortunately, these two paragraphs of the report are not consonant with each other. There is no mention whatsoever of Jesus Christ in the paragraph which urges us to be inclusive. And christocentricity is again understood primarily in an exemplary rather than a salvific manner.
The fourth implication is the caring for creation. In light of present environmental concerns this has the potential to be a powerful statement and should be developed in terms of the Lordship of Jesus over all creation.
Finally, the report concludes with a very helpful and positive statement on the eschatological dimension of the reign of God. Unfortunately, it omits the important note that Christian hope is grounded in the parousia of Jesus. Mission movements throughout the history of the church have been motivated by the belief that history is moving toward a point in which Jesus, the Son of Man, will come in glory and bring the Kingdom in all its fullness.
In sum, while the report of the Theology of Mission Committee contains some helpful insights, in the end it does very little to clarify and empower the mission of our church at a time when our supreme concern ought to be the glory of Jesus. It is quite clear that there are numerous underlying biblical and theological issues which are going to have to be addressed by our church if it intends to develop a theology of mission faithful to Jesus and relevant to postmodern Canada and the global community in which we now exist. Perhaps a good place for us to begin our thinking about mission is simply to answer the question put by our Lord Jesus to his disciples: “Who do you say that I am?” Perhaps in answering this question our church will be able to develop a theology and policy of mission which glorifies its only King and Head.