This is the final post of a three part series discussion around the book MissionShift hosted by Ed Stetzer on his blog.  Several bloggers are chiming in so head over to Ed’s blog for part 1, part 2 and part 3.  My responses can be found here and here.

Ralph Winters was tasked to write about the future of missions in the essay of MissionShift.  I found his essay and those that followed to be mostly centered on the issue of social justice vs. evangelism in missions.  It was less of a look into the future and more of a discussion of what is happening now in missions.  The missional church movement of today and the surrounding debate is very much a discussion of how to balance social justice and evangelism.  Now to my thoughts.

First, Ralph Winters may have been a missiologist, but after reading his essay I think he’s a good preacher too.  I was inspired by his grandiose vision for mission and the call to action for the church to both proclaim the good news of Jesus and demonstrate that good news through our deeds.  On my first read through, I found myself getting lost in his big vision and not until I read through a second time was I able to think critically.  We need more of this from our missiologists.  The ability to inspire with vision is a rare gift among scholars.

I appreciated Winters historical analysis, largely because my education is lacking in that area.  He spoke of two big movements in American history.  The first-inheritance evangelicalism (FIE) ran roughly from 1721 (The Great Awakening) to 1875 (the onset of D.L. Moody’s influence).  Winters argues that during this period there were multiple foci on both social justice and evangelism.  He also points out that during this period many Christians were wealthy and in positions of social influence.  The second-inheritance evangelicalism (SIE) was marked by a lower class (economically) of Christians who were not in positions of social influence.  This was marked by massive immigration and D. L. Moody’s ministry that won millions of non-college people to Christ.  Winters points out that with the SIE there was a diminishing focus on social transformation that was replaced with a focus on the second coming of Christ.  Social reform doesn’t make much sense if the world is ending.  What I found most interesting was that Christians and the Church were the primary influence of culture during these periods.  For example, Winters points out that “the Second Great Awakening provided the moral outrage that underlay the events leading to the Civil War.”  p. 172

Winters then argues for the recovery of FIE.  He makes the following points:

• The gospel is a message of hope, the poorest must see some concrete reason for hope before they can understand the gospel. p.182
• Evangelism without works is dead. p.182  Works are necessary to authenticate and demonstrate the true character of God. p.183
• We need to focus on defeating the works of the Devil.  p.184f.  Winter would include disease, slavery, poverty, etc. as works of the Devil.

Winter then discusses the crescendo of attention given to social justice today.  He mentions the work of Jimmy Carter, Oprah and Bill Gates as examples.  What was sad to me is that during his historical analysis, he was able to point to the church and Christian leaders as the catalyst for social transformation.  But today, that isn’t the case.  It seems that in the vacuum left by SIE, the secularist has picked up God’s mission of restoration.  While these philanthropic efforts are impactful, without a focus on preaching Christ, they will only solve temporal problems and will not address eternal ones.  Winter’s doesn’t argue for a pendulum shift to social justice based missions, but rather a correction of the SIE period that focused solely on proclamation.

I think the social justice vs. evangelism debate centers largely on our understanding of the gospel.  The United States is a very independent and individualistic culture.  As such, it isn’t surprising that the church for decades has largely seen the gospel from a personal salvation angle.  When that is the case, naturally social justice will play a backseat role.  So is the gospel individual or corporate?  Or both?

If we look back to Genesis and the Fall we are provided with a good hint.  When Adam and Eve sinned, there were both individual and corporate consequences.  They were expelled from the Garden (individual).  However, nature itself also suffered consequences (corporate).  If we look forward to Revelation, we see a restoration of creation (corporate) and also salvation of the individual.  So, Winters is correct in arguing for a both and approach to missions.  J. Mark Terry is correct when he asserts that the dichotomy between social justice and evangelism is a false one.

Where we have to be careful in the future of missions is that we don’t let the pendulum shift to far.  The missional movement is providing a needed correction to missions.  But, my fear is that the pendulum will shift too far and the future of missions will be singularly focused on social justice and lose the importance of proclamation and evangelism.  If so, the movement will die quickly and leave behind a barren wasteland.  Hesslegrave’s warning in his second thoughts essay is imperative.  Good deeds don’t constitute missions.  I’ve worked with a couple of church planters that were very socially active.  You can serve your heart out, but without a focus on evangelism, the movement dies before it starts.  These planters loved God and loved people.  I admired their sacrifice and their commitment to serve even when it hurt, but in the end without new followers of Christ joining the fray social justice is not sustainable.  I see many church planters today with a concern for social justice.  It’s inspiring.  But I also see many church planters who have lost the art of evangelism and lean to much on good deeds proclaiming truth and not enough on words.

Here’s my question that I can’t quite fully answer yet.  I believe that God’s mission is both/and.  God is restoring creation and God is also pursuing individuals.  But is God’s mission identical to ours?  Winters seemed to argue yes. He cited the Great Commission as a both/and.  The evangelism piece is easy to see.  He argued the social justice piece through the command to teach them “to obey.”  This obedience would include caring for the poor, sick, etc.  But does it include the eradication of poverty, the cure of disease and sickness?  Is it our job as Christians to cure cancer?  It seems to me that in a fallen world there is always going to be disease, poverty and sickness.  I’m not sure how to answer that.  My gut says that our job is to proclaim the good news including both a personal salvation and a God who wants to redeem creation.  Certainly we have a calling from God to take care of the poor but I’m not sure I can stretch that as far as Winters does.

Christopher Little says on p. 217:

And if societal transformation is not forthcoming as a result of pursuing proclamation as a priority, the problem is not with this priority but with a circumvention of the discipling process itself.

I like this focus.  Societal transformation is a result of reproducing disciples.  I know that if Christians are being discipled that they will serve and transform the societies they are in.  I’m not as confident that if we transform society disciples will be reproduced.

Mike Barnett asks a great question on p.227, “Do we first proclaim and then serve?”  His answer might seem like a non-answer, but I think it’s brilliant.  He says,

Maybe, maybe not.  It depends on the situation, the relationship, the leadership of God’s Spirit in the life of the witness and the sought one.

In other words, it’s about contextualization.  The question of contextualization that was handled so brilliantly in the second part of the book was largely ignored in the third part.  There are situations where the best strategy is to come in to a community and serve first, to earn the right to proclaim.  Where deeds must first tell demonstrate the gospel and provide environments to proclaim.  There are other contexts where proclamation must happen first and as a response to hearing the gospel social justice will overflow.  We can’t forget our context.

Scott Moreau provides some helpful insight as well.  On p. 196 he mentions research that suggests that humans are hardwired to focus on helping one or two people.  He says we tend to be more generous with the one who needs help rather than the 100.  I would agree and add that this is because we are hardwired for relationship.  It’s those very relationships with the one or two that will determine whether social justice or proclamation or blending thereof is most appropriate.  Where Winters misses the mark is that his vision leaves out the micro.  For mission to truly succeed to the level of movement, it must filter down to the smallest level, the disciple.  It can’t simply be in the hands of the elite and influential.

Finally I’d like to echo the critique provided by Mike Barnett.  He points out that Winters is too focused on the parachurch as the key for the future of missions.  Barnett rightly states, that the church is God’s chosen instrument.  On p. 229 he states, “for God, the key is the church.”  This is why I’m proud to serve as a part of Stadia.  While Stadia is a parachurch missions agency, Stadia focuses on planting churches through the local church.  We partner with networks of local church to reproduce more churches.  We want the church to be the sending agency and we will help equip them to succeed.  I get to hear stories on a regular basis about how through the local church lives are being transformed as well as communities.  I share the enthusiasm of each of the contributors that the future of missions is bright.