Latest / Reformed Thinking / The Cost of Compromising the Great Commission

Transcript

The Cost of Compromising the Great Commission · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Hello and welcome back to Reformed Thinking.
0:01
It's really good to be with you again.
0:03
As you know, we we have a particular way of operating
0:06
here. We grab a stack of sources,
0:09
usually things that are heavy on theology, messiology, or, you
0:13
know, church history, and we try to wring out the truth.
0:17
We want to understand not just what's happening in the church,
0:19
but why it's happening and frankly, how we got here.
0:22
We're always looking for that line that that thread that runs
0:26
from the past right into our present reality.
0:28
And it's always there if you look for.
0:29
It it is, and today we have a topic that I honestly believe
0:33
sits at the absolute center of so much of the confusion we see
0:36
in the Western church today. Oh, absolutely.
0:38
It's one of those subjects that once you get it, it's it kind of
0:41
explains everything else. You know, once you see the
0:43
mechanism that's described in these sources, you start to
0:46
understand why your church's budget looks the way it does,
0:50
right? Or or why the mission statement
0:52
changed three years ago, and why the sermons might feel a little
0:54
different than they used. To right, So we're doing a deep
0:57
dive today into a chapter from the book Biblical Missions,
1:01
Principles, Priorities, and Practices.
1:03
And the specific chapter we're analyzing is titled The
1:06
Consequences of a Compromise Commission, A Historical
1:09
Analysis of 20th Century Mission Theory.
1:12
It's written by Mark Tatlock and Chris Burnett, and these guys,
1:15
they're not pulling any punches. These are Reformed thinkers, and
1:19
they're writing for people who take the Bible seriously.
1:21
Yeah, you can feel that, the urgency in the writing.
1:24
You really can. This is not a dry history
1:26
lesson. Tatlock and Burnett are making a
1:28
very specific, very sharp argument.
1:30
They're claiming that the Great Commission in the command Christ
1:34
gave to go baptize and teach has been hijacked.
1:37
Hijacked. That's a strong word.
1:39
It is, they argue. It has been totally,
1:42
methodically replaced by something else entirely.
1:46
They trace this shift from proclaiming the gospel of
1:49
salvation to what they call cultural accommodation and
1:53
social action. OK, I want to pause right there
1:56
because that sounds like a massive accusation.
1:58
I mean, if you went to your average evangelical church
2:01
member and asked them what are missions, they'd probably give
2:05
you a whole list of things and say, well, it's preaching, of
2:07
course, but it's also digging wells in Africa.
2:10
It's it's running orphanages in Southeast Asia.
2:13
It's lobbying for human rights. And we generally think of all
2:16
those as good things. We write checks for those
2:19
things, right? They're all good things.
2:21
But the authors seem to be saying that something
2:23
fundamental has broken in that logic.
2:25
Yeah, and that's the key distinction.
2:27
They are not arguing that digging wells is bad.
2:30
That's not the point. They're arguing that digging
2:32
wells is not the Great Commission.
2:34
The thesis here is that a disease of acumenism has
2:38
infected the mission of the Church.
2:40
A disease of acumenism. That's their phrase.
2:43
And the argument is that in our sort of desperation to be
2:48
unified with other groups, and in our desperation to be seen as
2:52
relevant to the culture, we've decided that getting along and
2:55
fixing social structures is more important than the distinct,
2:59
sharp and frankly offensive truth of the gospel.
3:02
That is aggressive language. When I hear the word acumenism,
3:05
I usually think of something nice, you know?
3:07
I think of different denominations holding hands,
3:10
maybe a joint Thanksgiving service with the Methodists and
3:13
the Presbyterians down the street.
3:15
It feels warm and fuzzy. It does.
3:17
But in this text, acumenism is the villain of the piece.
3:20
It really is the antagonist of the story they're telling.
3:22
And to understand why, we have to define it the way the authors
3:25
do. They're not talking about you
3:27
having lunch with a Baptist friend if you're a Presbyterian.
3:29
They're defining humanism as these formal institutional
3:33
alliances between very distinct traditions, Protestants,
3:36
Catholics, Orthodox, specifically for the purpose of
3:39
political or social engagement. And the problem isn't the lunch.
3:42
The problem is the cost of the ticket to get into the lunch.
3:45
OK, so. What is the cost?
3:46
The cost is your doctor. The authors argue that this kind
3:50
of what's called the ecumenical movement with a capital E,
3:53
capital M, it requires you to set aside your theological
3:57
convictions if you want to partner with a group that has a
4:00
fundamentally different view of salvation.
4:03
To do, say, a social project, you have to agree not to talk
4:07
about what divides you. You have to find the lowest
4:09
common denominator. OK.
4:11
But I want to play devil's advocate here for a second
4:13
because if I'm a pastor listening to this or just a
4:15
layperson reading their Bible, I am immediately thinking of John
4:19
17. Jesus prays that they may be 1.
4:22
The great prayer. We preach on that text.
4:24
We long for that unity. So the call the pursuit of unity
4:27
a disease feels, well, it feels like we're being the divisive
4:30
ones. Are Tatlock and Burnett saying
4:33
we should all just stay in our silos and never talk to anyone
4:35
else? And that is the crucial
4:37
question. It really is.
4:39
And it's where we have to be extremely precise.
4:41
The authors are not arguing for isolationism.
4:43
They're arguing for definition. Think of it like this.
4:46
What's the difference between a marriage and a truce?
4:48
OK, I'm listening. You have unity with your wife
4:51
because you share a life, a home, vows, A worldview.
4:56
It's organic, it's structural, it's deep.
4:59
That's biblical unity based on shared truth.
5:02
But imagine a unity where you and a random neighbor who hates
5:06
where your fence line is agree to just not argue so you can
5:09
both mow the little strip of grass between your houses.
5:12
That's not a marriage. That is a truce.
5:15
A truce is fragile. A truce is fragile, and it's
5:18
shallow by definition. The authors argue that the
5:21
modern ecumenical movement is not seeking the unity of a
5:24
shared belief in the person and work of Christ.
5:26
It's seeking a political truce to achieve a social outcome.
5:29
And what do they call that? There was a term for it, Yeah.
5:31
They call it joint action and evangelization.
5:33
And it sounds good, but the logic is this.
5:36
If my belief in the virgin birth, or more critically,
5:39
justification by faith alone offends you, my partner, we'll
5:42
have to put it in a drawer so we can work in the soup kitchen
5:44
together. And the problem is that
5:45
eventually the door is just full of all your core doctrines and
5:48
the table is empty. Precisely.
5:51
The partnership itself becomes the thing that censors the
5:54
message. If you have to compromise to
5:57
maintain the partnership, then no missionary can guarantee that
6:00
the true gospel is actually being proclaimed.
6:02
So if I can't say justification is by faith alone because my
6:06
partner in this project believes in justification by works, then
6:10
I'm not preaching the gospel. You're not.
6:12
You're preaching a generic religious moralism.
6:15
You're telling people to be good rather than telling them they
6:19
are dead in their sin and in desperate need of a Savior,
6:22
Jesus Christ. That's a sobering thought.
6:24
It means the very act of partnering, which feels like a
6:27
good thing, can become the thing that silence is, the message
6:30
it's supposed to be supporting. It's a huge danger.
6:32
No, the authors don't just, you know, complain about the
6:34
present. They take us back.
6:36
They want to show us the genealogy of this idea and being
6:39
reformed thinkers, we love history.
6:41
We love to see where the roots are.
6:43
They set up the stark contrast between the Reformation standard
6:47
and what happened later. Yeah, we have to start with the
6:49
Reformation. This is our home turf, so to
6:51
speak. The legacy of the Reformers was,
6:53
of course, sola scriptura scripture alone.
6:56
The goal of Protestant missions history stemming from that core
7:00
principle was very, very specific.
7:02
What was it? It was about putting the Bible
7:04
into indigenous hands and raising up local elders.
7:07
That's it. It wasn't about exporting
7:09
western culture or building institutions that look like
7:12
Europe. It was about planting the seed
7:15
of the Word and letting it grow a local, self-sustaining church.
7:19
The source mentioned the specific example from 1557 that
7:22
I had never heard of before, the French Huguenots in Brazil.
7:25
It's a fascinating and often overlooked story.
7:28
We usually think of modern missions starting much later
7:30
with people like William Carey or Adoniram Hudson, but here in
7:34
1557 you have Calvinistic French Huguenots sailing to Brazil.
7:38
And what was their goal? Their goal was not to colonize
7:40
in the political sense, you know, expanding the French
7:43
Empire for glory. Their express purpose was to
7:46
establish self propagating, gospel centered communities.
7:50
They wanted to create a foothold for the true gospel in the new
7:53
world, a place where the Word could be preached freely.
7:56
So the benchmark from the very beginning was plant the word,
7:59
raise up elders, preach the gospel.
8:01
Simple, clear, doctrinally robust.
8:04
Exactly. But then we hit the 18th
8:06
century, the Enlightenment, and this is where the ground starts
8:08
to shift under everyone's feet. The authors identify this is the
8:12
major turning point. You have the rise of liberal
8:14
Protestant theologians and alongside them the Romantic
8:17
movement, and they introduce a new idea, cultural relativism.
8:21
Relativism is a word we hear every single day now.
8:24
It's the air we breathe. You have your truth.
8:27
I have my truth. But what did it look like back
8:29
in the 1700s? How did it first enter the
8:32
church's thinking? It started with a sense of
8:35
embarrassment, really. the Enlightenment intellectuals, the
8:37
philosophers, were looking at Christianity and mocking it, he
8:40
said. It was barbaric, exclusive,
8:42
superstitious, uncultured. The same arguments you hear
8:44
today. The very same and the liberal
8:46
theologians were desperate to save the faith's reputation in
8:50
the Academy. So they started making arguments
8:52
that foreigners, that is missionaries, should empathize
8:56
with Pagan worldviews rather than confronting them.
8:59
They started to view the act of asserting scripture against a
9:02
local sin or a false belief as committing violence against the
9:07
local culture. Committing violence?
9:10
That sounds incredibly modern. You hear that on university
9:12
campuses today, that certain speeches, violence or that
9:15
telling someone they're wrong is an act of aggression.
9:17
It is the exact same rude idea. It implies that culture is
9:21
sacred and the truth is relative.
9:24
So if you as a missionary come in and say this practice in your
9:27
culture is sinful according to God's word, the liberal
9:30
theologian of that era would say you are being culturally
9:33
imperialist. You are committing violence.
9:36
Now, there's a connection here that really surprised me, and I
9:38
want you to walk me through it because it seems completely
9:40
counterintuitive at first. The source connects these
9:43
liberal Protestants to the Jesuits.
9:45
Historically, Protestants and Jesuits are oil and water.
9:49
I mean, the Jesuits were the counter reformation.
9:51
They were the special forces created to stop the Reformation.
9:54
So why on earth would liberal Protestants adopt their
9:57
playbook? This is a critical insight from
10:00
Tatlock and Burnett, and you're right, it does seem strange
10:03
until you follow the methodology, not the stated
10:05
theology. The others argue that liberal
10:08
Protestants adopted the scholastic methods of the
10:11
Counter Reformation Jesuits specifically regarding
10:14
accommodation. OK, break that down for us.
10:16
What is accommodation in this context?
10:19
So since the 16th century, Jesuit missionaries, famous ones
10:23
like Francis Xavier or Mateo Ricci in China, had been
10:26
promoting syncretism. Syncretism is the mixing of
10:29
different, often contradictory beliefs.
10:32
The Jesuits would go into a culture like China or India, and
10:35
they would mix Catholic dogma with local Pagan beliefs.
10:38
They would adopt contradictory local traditions, use local
10:41
religious terms and fold them into Christian worship to make
10:43
it more palatable, more familiar to the locals.
10:46
So they would dress like the local priests, use the local
10:49
philosophical terms for God, and essentially say, see, we're
10:52
basically the same thing. What you've been doing is just
10:54
an incomplete version of what we have.
10:56
Correct, and they did it for a very clear purpose, to convert
11:01
pagans to Catholicism. But here's the twist.
11:04
The liberal Protestants in the Enlightenment adopted this tool
11:08
for a completely different reason.
11:10
They didn't do it to convert pagans.
11:12
They did it to survive the criticism of the Enlightenment
11:15
philosophers. So it was a defensive move.
11:17
Entirely. They move from cultural
11:19
relativism to full blown religious pluralism.
11:22
They thought, if we can show that Christianity is just one
11:24
valid expression of a universal divine truth, just like these
11:27
other noble religions, then the intellectuals won't mock us
11:30
anymore. So it was about fitting in, it
11:32
was about being respectable, it was about being political at the
11:35
dinner parties of the intelligentsia, it was about
11:38
survival in the ivory tower. And the result was that theology
11:42
got locked away in academia. It created a huge separation
11:45
between theology and practical ministry.
11:48
You had the academics in the universities theorizing about
11:50
how all religions are basically the same, while the guys on the
11:53
ground, the actual missionaries, were trying to figure out what
11:56
on earth they were supposed to preach anymore.
11:58
And that brings us into the late modern era, you know, the turn
12:01
of the 20th century. We have names mentioned in the
12:04
source like Horace Bushnell. Horace Bushnell and the
12:07
Transcendentalist, they took it a step further.
12:09
They rejected doctrinal absolutes entirely.
12:12
The goal was no longer proclamation, it was dialogue.
12:15
And this is where the real split happens in missions.
12:18
You had many, many missionaries who remain conservative, who
12:21
held to the Bible. But a new influential generation
12:24
began uniting with these culturally relativistic
12:27
strategies. It led to what the authors call
12:29
a multi confessional understanding of missions.
12:32
So let's just make sure I understand that term.
12:34
It's a move away from we have the truth and we need to share
12:37
it to something more like we have a perspective and we'd like
12:40
to share it with your equally valid perspective.
12:43
That is it precisely. And that philosophical shift
12:46
leads directly to the institutionalization of this
12:49
whole problem, which I think is our third section here.
12:52
This is where it stops being just an idea and a book, and it
12:55
becomes organizations with budgets and buildings and
12:58
letterhead and secretaries. The institutional phase.
13:01
The author's focus on the period from roughly 1910 to 1970.
13:05
What was the driving goal here? What were they trying to build?
13:09
The goal of modern ecumenism during this period was to
13:11
demonstrate a unified global church.
13:15
They wanted to present a united front to the world through
13:17
spiritual fellowship and more and more through a unified
13:20
social presence. And the shift here is critical.
13:23
They move the Great Commission consciousness away from
13:26
evangelism and squarely onto social action.
13:29
And the big event here, the one everyone points to, is the
13:31
Edinburgh Conference of 1910. I've heard this called the birth
13:35
of the modern missionary movement.
13:36
It's usually celebrated as a high point, but the authors seem
13:39
to view it as the beginning of the end.
13:41
It is without a doubt the most influential assembly of its
13:44
time, but the source identifies A fatal flaw in its very
13:47
foundation. Edinburgh brought leaders
13:49
together from all over the world to strategize, but they did so
13:53
without establishing A doctrinal basis for their partnership.
13:56
In fact, they intentionally avoided theological discussion.
13:59
Wait, why would a missionary conference avoid theology?
14:02
That seems like a chef's conference avoiding any
14:04
discussion of food. They did it to keep the peace.
14:06
That was the explicit reason. If you start talking about the
14:09
nature of the atonement, or the authority of scripture or the
14:12
nature of the sacraments, the group fractures instantly.
14:16
The Anglicans get mad at the Baptist's, The Lutheran's get
14:19
mad at the Presbyterians. So they decided to focus on
14:22
pragmatism. Pure pragmatism.
14:24
Let's just talk about how to get the job done more efficiently.
14:27
But the result was a vacuum. And as the authors point out,
14:30
avoiding theological discussion left a vacuum that was
14:33
immediately filled by the pragmatism and the agenda of the
14:37
liberal theologians who were the most organized and vocal group
14:40
there. So if you don't define what you
14:42
believe, the people who believe in nothing specific or in
14:45
something very different end up driving the bus.
14:47
That is the rule of history. Time and again this conference
14:51
directly led to the formation of the International Missionary
14:53
Council where the IM in 1921 and then a few decades later the
14:57
World Council of Churches, the WCC in 1948.
15:01
And the WCC is a major player in the story.
15:03
A huge player, Their stated goal was to consolidate separated
15:07
Christians for social action. But again, look at their
15:10
founding documents. There were no explicit biblical
15:14
or doctrinal guidelines for their work.
15:16
It was a unity of activity, not a unity of truth.
15:18
Right. And then the big move happens in
15:21
1961, these two organizations merge, the IMC merges with the
15:26
WCC, and this act unified the focus across mainline
15:31
Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox lines.
15:33
The text says this movement developed into a platform of
15:36
social representation. And this is the key quote.
15:39
Worldwide missionary outreach could only be achieved at the
15:42
cost of ignoring the fundamental question of what doctrines are
15:45
central to the missionary task. Quote Now we have to talk about
15:48
the Roman Catholic Church's role here because while all this is
15:51
happening on the Protestant side, things were changing in a
15:53
big way with Rome 2, Vatican 2 in the 60s.
15:56
I know a lot of Protestants look at Vatican 2 and think, oh,
15:58
good, that's when they started speaking English in the Mass and
16:00
reading the Bible a little more. That's the surface reading for
16:03
sure. But there was a strategic shift
16:05
happening. Pope John the 23rd declared the
16:08
Second Ecumenical Council in 1961, and the key term that
16:12
everyone needs to know from that council is adjournamento.
16:15
Adjournamento. What does that mean?
16:17
It literally means updating or modernizing.
16:20
The Catholic Church decided it needed to update its approach to
16:23
cross cultural ministry to be more effective.
16:26
Later, Pope John Paul the Second would define this new cultural
16:30
accommodation as a dialogue between faith and culture, he
16:34
said. The Church takes the good
16:35
elements from any given culture and renews them from within.
16:39
That sounds, well, it sounds very nice.
16:40
It sounds friendly, open, like they're opening the windows and
16:44
letting in some fresh air. It sounds very friendly, and it
16:46
was a brilliant strategic move, but the authors include a
16:50
massive caveat that we cannot miss.
16:52
Despite all the friendly, ecumenical language, the
16:55
Catholic Church maintained the expectation of primacy.
16:57
What? Does that mean primacy?
16:59
It means that while they were happy to dialogue, they still
17:01
held and hold today that salvation is only possible
17:05
through Catholic dogma and the Catholic sacraments.
17:08
They never gave an inch on their core claim that Rome is the one
17:12
true Church founded by Christ. So it was a strategic bait and
17:16
switch. The language softened, but the
17:18
goal remained the same. From the perspective of the
17:20
authors, yes, the ecumenism was a one way St.
17:24
Protestants were invited to dialogue their way back to Rome.
17:28
Essentially, the strategy of engagement changed, but the
17:32
exclusive dogma of the Roman Catholic Church did not budget
17:35
one inch. So this is the landscape.
17:37
The WCC is going full speed into liberal social action.
17:41
The Catholics are modernizing their strategy but keeping their
17:43
core dogma. So the question is, where were
17:47
the evangelicals? Because this is where the story
17:49
gets really personal for a lot of our listeners.
17:51
We usually think of someone like Billy Graham as the hero who
17:53
stood against all this liberalism.
17:55
But section four of our deep dive suggests it's it's a lot
17:58
more complicated than that. This is, I think, the most
18:01
uncomfortable part of the analysis for many conservative
18:04
evangelicals. I suspect some listeners might
18:07
bristle here, and that's understandable.
18:08
Yeah. I'm looking at the notes here
18:10
and I actually winced a little. We're moving into Section 4 and
18:14
look, there are sacred cows and evangelicalism, and then there's
18:17
Billy Graham. The Protestant Pope, as he was
18:20
sometimes called. Basically, I mean my grandmother
18:22
was saved at a crusade. Most of our listeners probably
18:25
have a Graham story or a book of his on their shelf.
18:28
Are the authors really putting him in the crosshairs of this
18:31
compromise? That feels risky.
18:33
It is delicate and to be very fair, Catlock and Brunette are
18:37
not questioning Graham's heart. They're not questioning his
18:39
personal salvation. They're not saying he wasn't a
18:42
great evangelist who God used, but they are asking us to take
18:47
the Rose colored glasses off when it comes to his strategy
18:50
and its long term effects on missions.
18:52
So separate the man from the method.
18:54
We must to analyze this historically, we have to, and
18:58
they point to the Berlin Congress of 1966.
19:01
It was a massive, important moment.
19:03
But the source argues this is where the slide really begins
19:06
for evangelicals. Not a Cliff you know about a
19:09
sudden drop, but a slow, subtle incline away from doctrinal
19:13
precision. How so?
19:15
What happened? There, well historians of the
19:17
event note that Graham was seeking a more expansive
19:19
approach. He began to accept the
19:21
ecumenical idea that a shared experience of salvation makes
19:25
doctrinal differences secondary. OK, that phrase, shared
19:28
experience, that is a key phrase, isn't it?
19:30
It moves the basis of unity away from what is written in the Word
19:33
and towards what I feel in my heart.
19:35
That's the pivot. If you and I both feel saved,
19:38
then we can work together. Even if you think salvation
19:41
comes through the sacraments, and I think it comes by grace
19:43
alone, through faith alone, that subjectivity opens the door to
19:47
doctrinal indifference. And that leads directly to
19:50
Lausanne 1974. Laws now this was supposed to be
19:53
the conservative answer to the WCC, right?
19:55
This was the good guys getting together.
19:57
That was the intent. The intent of the Lausanne
19:59
movement, which was spearheaded by Graham and the great British
20:02
evangelical John Stott, was to be a robust conservative
20:06
alternative to the liberal WCC. They looked at the WCC and said
20:10
they've lost the gospel, they're just doing social work.
20:13
We need to rally the troops for truth and proclamation.
20:15
But there's always a but a but. The participation at the first
20:19
Lausanne Conference included many WCC members, Roman
20:22
Catholics and Orthodox leaders, and John Stott's influence was
20:26
absolutely massive. Here Stott argued very
20:30
persuasively for many that social action was an implicit
20:33
component of the Great Commission.
20:34
He called it a partner to evangelism.
20:37
I remember reading about this. Stott used the analogy of two
20:40
blades of a pair of scissors. Right?
20:42
Evangelism and social action. You tried to keep a distinction.
20:44
He did try. He was brilliant and he argued
20:46
for nuance. He didn't want them to be
20:48
totally enmeshed, as he put it. But the authors argue that the
20:51
door was opened. Once you say Central Action is a
20:54
partner to the Great Commission, you have fundamentally changed
20:57
the definition of the mission. You have redefined the job
20:59
description of a missionary. And this idea didn't just stay
21:03
as an idea, it evolved. It did.
21:05
We see the evolution of this in the later Lausanne conferences
21:08
in Manila in 1989 and then critically in Cape Town in 2010.
21:12
Cape Town in 2010, that is where we get the popular term Integral
21:16
mission. Integral mission, yes, was
21:18
formally defined there, and the definition was that social
21:21
consequences and evangelistic consequences are both equally
21:24
results of the gospel. And the slogan that came out of
21:27
it became ubiquitous. The whole church taking the
21:30
whole gospel to the whole world. That slogan is everywhere.
21:33
It's on T-shirts. It's on the About Us page of
21:35
mission agency websites. It sounds perfect.
21:38
What could possibly be the critique of it?
21:40
The critique is that integral mission, while sounding
21:43
wonderful, risks becoming full blown holism, where the
21:47
political and social activities inevitably consume the making of
21:50
disciples. OK, explain that.
21:52
How does helping people consume the gospel?
21:54
That seems backwards. Think of it this way.
21:56
It's a stark analogy, but I think it works.
21:59
Imagine you have a house that is on fire.
22:01
Inside that house there are people trapped and they are
22:03
going to die. But also in the kitchen, the
22:06
plumbing under the sink is leaking and spraying water all
22:09
over the floor. OK.
22:11
I think I see where you're going with us.
22:13
Integral mission in its most extreme and the authors would
22:16
say logical form says a good fireman cares about the whole
22:20
house. Therefore, while we are putting
22:23
out the fire that will kill the inhabitants, we must also fix
22:26
the leaky sink or we are not truly saving the house.
22:30
But if you spend 10 minutes under the sink trying to fix the
22:32
plumbing. The people burned to death.
22:34
That is the brutal logic that the authors are applying here.
22:37
They're saying that social justice projects, digging wells,
22:41
fighting human trafficking, feeding the poor, these are the
22:43
plumbing. They're good works.
22:45
They are necessary works for a Christian to do in their life is
22:47
an out working of their faith. But if they replace or are put
22:51
on equal footing with the act of pulling people out of the
22:53
eternal fire that is the clear proclamation of the gospel to
22:57
save souls from hell, then you've lost the primary mission.
23:01
And the authors argue that integral mission as a concept
23:04
makes the plumbing and the fire equal priorities.
23:07
Worse, they argue that because fixing plumbing is popular with
23:12
the world and talking about fire and judgement is deeply
23:15
offensive, the plumbing eventually consumes the budget.
23:18
It consumes the time. It is much, much easier to get
23:22
funding from secular and government sources for a well
23:24
than it is for a preacher, so the mission naturally drifts
23:27
towards the more acceptable, less offensive task.
23:30
That's a powerful point. I mean, if digging a well is
23:32
considered just as much missions as preaching the gospel, then
23:36
why would you ever face the awkwardness and persecution that
23:39
comes with preaching the gospel? Just dig the well and call it a
23:41
day and you'll be praised for it by everyone.
23:44
Which brings us to the real world mythological consequences.
23:47
This is Section 5. We've opened the door and now we
23:50
see what is walk through it. The social gospel and critical
23:53
theory. The social gospel.
23:55
This goes back a ways. The source points to the Hocking
23:57
Report in 1932. Yes, the Hocking report was a
24:00
major study of missions in Asia, and it advocated for a radical
24:05
change. It's said that because there was
24:07
so much resistance to evangelism, we should change the
24:11
focus of missions from proclamation to social welfare
24:14
and education. So basically the argument was
24:17
stop telling them things they don't want to hear and start
24:19
giving them things they do want. That was the pragmatic
24:22
conclusion. Then, in the 1950s, you see the
24:25
rise of cultural anthropology as a required field of study for
24:28
missionaries. You know, that doesn't sound bad
24:30
on the surface. Understanding culture seems
24:32
helpful. It is helpful.
24:34
You need to know the language and the customs.
24:36
But what happened was that the connection to the secular social
24:38
sciences grew stronger than the connection to systematic
24:42
theology. Missionary started listening to
24:44
sociologists and the anthropologists more than the
24:46
theologians. The standard for what was right
24:49
and wrong began to shift from the Bible to cultural
24:52
sensitivity. And this eventually leads to
24:54
liberation theology. I think a lot of people hear
24:56
that term and they immediately think of South America in the
24:58
1970s. It did originate there in the
25:01
late 60s. It was a potent mix of Roman
25:03
Catholic and ecumenical political theology, and it
25:07
focused almost exclusively on socioeconomic inequality.
25:11
The core message was that God is on the side of the poor and
25:13
oppressed and that salvation is primarily about liberation from
25:17
political oppression in this life.
25:19
By the mid 70s it evolved, didn't it?
25:21
It did. It became a front for explicitly
25:24
Marxist ideologies. The categories of sin and
25:27
righteousness were replaced with the categories of oppressor and
25:30
oppressed. And it did not stay in Latin
25:31
America, went global. It adapted itself into what the
25:35
authors call contextual theologies.
25:37
And the source is not shy about naming specific examples.
25:40
Feminist theology, queer theology and critical race
25:43
theory. Wait a minute.
25:44
So the source is drawing a Direct Line from this history of
25:46
missional compromise to things like critical race theory today.
25:49
That is a very hot button issue right now.
25:51
It is, but the lineage they trace in the text is clear.
25:55
The argument is that these are all branches of the same tree, a
25:59
tree that seeks to make Christianity exist with than the
26:02
bounds of a pre-existing secular framework.
26:05
Whether it's a Marxist framework, a feminist framework,
26:08
or a critical theory framework, the goal is for the theology to
26:11
fit inside the box of the culture rather than the other
26:15
way around. So instead of the Bible
26:17
critiquing the culture, the culture is given the authority
26:20
to critique the Bible. Precisely if the Bible says
26:23
something that contradicts the feminist framework, then the
26:26
Bible must be reinterpreted or contextualized until it fits.
26:30
The authors argue that these theologies of culture have
26:33
ultimately failed. They say no proposal for
26:36
contextualization has satisfied everyone, and frankly, there are
26:39
very few evangelical proposals on how to make the Bible
26:42
culturally relevant that are both practical and faithful to
26:45
the text itself. This brings us to Section 6, and
26:48
this is a big one, pragmatism over truth.
26:50
We've talked about the liberals, we've talked about the social
26:52
justice advocates. Now we need to talk about the
26:55
business managers, the church growth movement.
26:58
Yes, the church growth movement of the 1970s and beyond.
27:01
This was methodology, pure and simple.
27:04
They used strategic formulas borrowed directly from secular
27:07
organizational management and marketing to increase numbers in
27:10
churches. The famous line for the movie.
27:12
If you build it, they will come. And if they don't come change
27:16
the product until they do, that was the underlying logic.
27:19
The flaw, according to the source, is that it had a
27:21
doctrinally incomplete or just non specific theological core.
27:25
It was all about the how, not the what.
27:27
It really does feel like a franchise model for church.
27:31
It is a franchise model and the result, the authors argue,
27:34
producing very little spiritual fruit.
27:36
You get big crowds, you get mega churches.
27:38
But do you have disciples? Do you have people who know
27:40
their Bible, who can defend their faith, who are willing to
27:43
suffer for it? Or do you just have customers
27:45
who like the show? And this pragmatic Dr. leads to
27:48
some really controversial strategies that are still being
27:50
debated today. The source mentions insider
27:53
movements. I've heard this term floating
27:56
around, but I don't think I fully grasped what it entails.
27:59
This is one of the most heated debates in missiology today.
28:02
Insider movements encourage converts to remain within their
28:05
original community and often their original religion, to
28:08
practice their new faith inwardly in secret.
28:11
OK, let's make that concrete. So we all understand a Muslim
28:15
who comes to believe in Christ. A Muslim comes to believe that
28:18
Jesus is the son of God who died for his sins.
28:22
But instead of getting baptized, changing his public identity,
28:25
and joining a visible church, the insider movement strategy
28:28
tells him, stay in the mosque, keep calling yourself a Muslim,
28:32
keep saying the daily prayers to Allah.
28:34
But in your heart, when you say prophet, just think of Jesus.
28:37
That sounds, I mean, that sounds fundamentally dishonest.
28:40
The authors would agree. They argue it creates a dual
28:42
identity that is theologically and psychologically
28:45
unsustainable, and it directly denies the public nature of
28:49
baptism and confession that Jesus commands.
28:51
And there are other movements like this, right?
28:53
Yes, the disciple making movement or DMM and the church
28:56
planting movement CPM. These are strategies designed
28:59
for unreached contexts and they focus on rapid reproduction,
29:03
getting Sol groups to start other small groups very very
29:07
quickly. What's?
29:07
The problem with rapid reproduction?
29:09
Don't we want the church to grow?
29:10
Fast we do, but healthy things grow at a certain speed.
29:13
Cancer also grows fast. The critique from the source is
29:16
that these movements are highly developed in a non
29:19
proclamational direction. They often rely on Discovery
29:23
Bible studies where an untrained group just asks, what does this
29:26
tax say to me? Without a qualified teacher to
29:28
guide them in the truth, the authors claim they lack any
29:31
serious exegetical or theological basis.
29:34
You end up with a movement that's a mile wide and an inch
29:36
deep. So we have traced this disease,
29:39
as they call it, from the Enlightenment to the present
29:42
day. We have seen it, in fact, the
29:43
liberal theologians, the ecumenical councils, the
29:46
evangelical compromises and these pragmatic business
29:49
strategies. What is the grand summary of the
29:52
consequences? Where has this left us?
29:54
The author stated very clearly at the end, the ecumenical
29:57
movement has left indelible consequences.
30:00
They say that missionaries are now shrouding the light of the
30:02
Gospel, and they're referencing Second Corinthians 4 there.
30:06
Rather than boldly holding it out.
30:08
We have abandoned the ancient activities of confronting false
30:10
faith. We have traded the prophet's
30:12
mantle for the diplomat suit. We are so afraid of offending
30:16
anyone that we have in many cases, stop saving anyone.
30:20
This brings us to the conclusion, Section 7, and it's
30:23
a hard one, the call to separate.
30:26
The authors talk about the spiritual toll this takes on
30:28
everyone involved. They do.
30:30
They mention the shallow message.
30:32
Ecumenism, by its nature, offers a message of love and faith that
30:35
is shallow. It has to be to keep everyone at
30:38
the table. It's a Hallmark card instead of
30:40
a death warrant to sin and a promise of new life.
30:43
And here's the danger they highlight.
30:45
Even passive cooperation leads to consequences.
30:48
You might think, well, I know what I believe.
30:50
I'm just working with him on this project.
30:52
But the impact on new converts is devastating.
30:55
How so? What does that look like?
30:56
First, spiritual stagnation, a failure to transition into true
31:02
deep discipleship, but worst of all, apostasy.
31:06
Apostasy. Falling away from the faith
31:08
completely. Exactly.
31:09
If a convert from another religion is never clearly told
31:12
that their old religion was false and LED to damnation, they
31:15
eventually return to it when times get tough.
31:18
If the new faith was never clearly defined against the old
31:20
one, why stick with the new one when persecution comes from your
31:23
family and friends? The authors argue that this
31:26
doctrinal confusion leads to a struggle to overcome sin.
31:30
If the preaching is insufficient, the convert has no
31:33
weapons to fight the flesh, the world, and the devil.
31:36
So what is the solution? It does not sound like there is
31:38
an easy fix. We can't just flip a switch and
31:40
go back to 1557. No, there is no easy fix.
31:43
The damage is deep. The authors call for
31:45
disentangling. Disentangling that sounds messy.
31:48
It sounds painful. It is the word itself implies
31:52
that we are currently knotted up and tangled with things we
31:54
shouldn't be. It requires specific, costly
31:57
actions, means rejecting these cultural accommodation
32:00
strategies. But more than that, it calls for
32:03
institutional responsibility. Missions agencies, seminaries,
32:07
denominations, local churches. They must end partnerships that
32:11
compromise the gospel. They must dissociate from the
32:14
mainstream evangelical flow if that flow is going towards
32:17
compromise. That is a radical call.
32:19
I mean, for an organization, that means losing funding.
32:22
It means losing prestige. It means being uninvited to the
32:25
big conferences. For a pastor, it means being
32:27
called the bad guy, the one who won't play nice with the other
32:30
churches in town. It does.
32:31
It is a lonely, difficult path, but the author suggests that in
32:35
place of the old prayer for unity, we should pray a better
32:39
prayer. I love this part, it's a great
32:41
way to reframe the goal. Instead of praying for that
32:43
broad, shallow, political, ecumenical unity of the WCC, we
32:47
should be praying for the highest, most excellent form of
32:50
unity, which is from Ephesians 4.13.
32:53
Yes, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the
32:57
knowledge of the Son of God. True, lasting God honoring unity
33:01
is found in shared truth, not in shared projects.
33:04
The authors would say it is better to be truly united with
33:07
five people in the truth of the gospel than to be superficially
33:11
united with 5 million people in a lie or a half truth.
33:14
Wow, that puts a very fine point on it.
33:17
So as we wrap this up, let's just reflect for a moment on the
33:19
gravity of what this text is calling for.
33:21
It's a call to prioritize truth over numbers, truth over social
33:24
approval. It's a call to go back to the
33:26
source, literally the Bible, and spiritually the gospel itself.
33:29
It is. It challenges every single one
33:31
of us to ask what we are actually doing when we say we're
33:33
doing missions. Are we exporting the gospel of
33:36
Jesus Christ crucified and risen?
33:38
Or are we exporting Western social work with a Jesus sticker
33:41
on it? And here is a provocative
33:43
thought I want to leave with our listeners to take with them.
33:45
This week we talked about the analogy of the burning house and
33:49
the leaky plumbing. If the primary goal of our
33:52
missions becomes making the world a better place socially,
33:56
have we inadvertently agreed with the world's assessment of
33:59
its own problem? Have we agreed that the world
34:02
just needs fixing more than it needs saving?
34:05
That's the ultimate question, isn't it?
34:07
Are we acting like doctors trying to cure a fatal disease,
34:10
which is sin? Are we just acting like Hospice
34:13
nurses, making the patient comfortable on their way to
34:15
death? So I want to challenge you, the
34:17
listener, this week. Go look at the mission
34:19
statements of the organizations you support, maybe even your own
34:22
church. Read the fine print.
34:24
Are they focused on the Great Commission making disciples who
34:27
obey everything Christ commanded?
34:29
Or are they focused on the Great Cooperation at any cost?
34:33
Look for the definitions. Look for the doctrine.
34:36
Don't be dazzled by the impressive statistics or the
34:38
photos of happy children. Look for the clear teaching of
34:41
the Word of God. Thank you for joining us on this
34:44
deep dive into Reformed thinking.
34:46
We really encourage you to pick up the book Biblical Missions
34:49
and read this chapter the source material for yourself.
34:53
Don't just take our word for. It absolutely adfontis go to the
34:56
sources. Until next time, keep thinking
34:58
and keep digging. Goodbye.