Global Changes in the Missiology

Global Changes in the Missiology of the 20th Century

Item

A Paradigm Shift

The Early Church

The Modern Church

Correcting Edinburgh Explored

Formation of International Missionary Council (IMC)

Confusion Abounds

Response of Fundamentalist & Evangelical Movements

Problems Between and Among Evangelicals & Ecumenists

The Present View

GLOBAL CHANGES in the MISSIOLOGY of the 20TH CENTURY

The aim of this study is to examine the influential ideas that shaped mission thinking over the last century. This work will seek to point out to some theological differences and emphases represented by the various confessional groups such as evangelicals, ecumenical and Eastern Orthodox Church. At the same time it will seek to identify points of convergence in missionary thinking developed in the course of 20th Century that go across national and confessional boundaries. Not all missiological shifts are defined, described or included here. The main focus is on discernable changes, shifting in emphasis on the role and understanding of Church in mission, particularly in Pentecostal missiology vis -- a -vis ecumenical missiology.

This Chapter will be comprised of two closely related sections with the first section tracing the shape the Church has taken throughout its missionary worldwide expansion, particularly in the light of dominating three-self formula of the 19th century and the gradual theological shift of emphasis from Church-centered mission to a mission-centered Church. The second section will examine the relationship that exists between the kingdom, the Church and the world in the mission of God (Missio Dei) the search for a holistic missiology that dominated much of the missiological discourse in the second half of the 20th century. It will start to explore the new focus on the Trinitarian character of mission that had been evidenced after the Willingen meeting of 1952. While this study will not be one that is exhaustive in nature it will be a study that aims to identify some of the main outlines and directions of Church in mission by the end of 20th Century.

PART ONE

I. A PARADIGM SHIFT

The work of Petros Vassiliadis (2010) entitled: "Reconciliation as a Pneunatological Mission Paradigm: Some Preliminary Reflections by an Orthodox" that Pneumatology's reinforcement into the missiological reflections "has clearly marked a new era in the history and theology of mission, thus creating a new 'paradigms shift' in our understanding of our calling in Christ in the power of the life-giving Spirit." (Vassiliadis, 2010) Vassiliadis states that this began "with the Trinitarian extension of the article-base of the WCC in its 3rd Assembly in 1961 in New Delhi. With regard to the theology of mission the decisive turning point was the 1963 World Mission Conference in Mexico, after which the mission agenda was enriched by a new understanding of mission, mostly represented by a variety of terms like witness or martyria, dialogue, liberation, etc. This is not to say that Churches no longer organize evangelical campaigns or revival meetings; in fact, many Christians are still asked to take up conversion as their top priority mission. What I mean is that all Churches on the institutional level are coping in one way or the other with the questions of many contexts, many religions, many cultures and systems of values. Rather than proclamation alone, all Churches are exploring in their own ways a different understanding of "Christian witness." (Vassiliadis, 2010)

Furthermore, the church has in addition to the traditional models of evangelizing the entire world combined with mission as "proclamation and conversion in their literal sense, i.e. besides preaching Jesus Christ as "the way, the truth, and the life" as the sole savior of human sin (Acts 4:12) the Church began to address human sin in the structural complexities of our world, and started ministering the socially poor and marginalized in our societies in their contexts and above all entering into a constructive dialogue with people of other faiths." (Vassiliadis, 2010) According to Vassiliadis it was at that time that the Church "rediscovered in the Christianity her mission in a broad variety of ways." (2010)

II. The EARLY CHURCH

The early Church had its beginnings in a charismatic movement and had nothing in the way of property or buildings, certainly had no program or centers but the first Christians desired to make an affirmation of their identity with Jesus Christ in what was a hostile world as they anticipated the last days therefore the mission of these individuals was simple indeed in that their focus was gathering other believers into the body of Christ and preparing for the ending of the present age.

As Christianity spread rapidly throughout the Greek speaking world the ideas of Christians concerning missiology were influenced by the philosophy of the Greek and as they had nothing in the way of a preoccupation with Jesus returning immediately the Church became more settled and developed a mission that was concrete in nature and that was focused on saving the world through "lifting human nature to into the Divine." (Vassiliadis, 2010) According to Vassiliadis, the original mission of the church was based on John 3:16 and was specifically to love and worship God because of his love for mankind and the gift of his Son to mankind.

III. The MODERN CHURCH

Entrance into Western Europe resulted in Christianity making certain legalistic adaptations that were linked to the Roman civilization legacy as the Medieval European Church had as its focus the sinfulness of humans and an insistence on the promise of salvation obtained through a belief in Christ. This resulted in the mission of the Church being obligatory in nature instead of a form of love and devotion. The biblical foundation for the missiology of the Medieval Latin Church would, according to Vassiliadis (2010) come from Luke 14:23 which states as follows:

"The master said to the servant, Go out into the roads and the lanes, and compel the people to come to my house, so that it may be filled." (the Holy Bible cited in Vassiliadis, 2010)

Vassiliadis states that with the passing of centuries many individuals along with religious leaders "became critical of the imperial assumptions of Western Christianity. Protestant reformers (Martin Luther, John Calvin and others), challenging such a legalistic understanding of Christian mission, emphasized a theology, which stated that God offers a gift of salvation in Jesus Christ. They insisted that human nature was sinful and fallen, totally dependent upon Divine grace. There were many biblical texts used by them to support a variety of understandings of mission." (2010) the emphasis of faith was based upon Romans 1:16 which states:

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel; it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." (Vassiliadis, 2010)

The urgency of the early Church and its belief and anticipation in God's coming rule was based upon Matthew 24: 14 which states:

"And this good news of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the world, as a testimony to all the nations; and then the end will come." (Vassiliadis, 2010)

The universal understanding of missiology during the 19th and 20th centuries is stated to have prevailed throughout Christianity on the basis of the text found in Matthew 28:18-20 which states:

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always to the close of this age." (Vassiliadis, 2010)

Understood in this manner, Mission was based on the instructions of Jesus to 'go forth' however, Vassiliadis states that "...no effort was undertaken to discover the Trinitarian nuance of this verse. With a theology reminiscent of the Medieval Church, Christians have been engaged in mission out of "obedience." Mission, thus, was taken as an order, rather than as an invitation. That is why this "Great Commission" was usually understood as a "holy burden." God saved humankind and demanded all peoples; the argument goes on, to believe." (Vassiliadis, 2010)

While the 'Great Commission' is stated to have most certainly mobilized Christian Missionaries by the hundreds, in their efforts to "...found schools and hospitals and do many good works in the name of God, it also created problems. It often generated an exclusiveness, which refused all other expressions of Christian witness. Thus, the "Great Commission," became the most quoted biblical text in the modern ecumenical movement. It is not a case for mission based on the Gospel as "good news," but of mission out of obedience to God's command." (Vassiliadis, 2010) I

In addition, the Great Commission is stated to have "...borrowed heavily from the 18th century Western Enlightenment. As David Bosch noted, modern missionaries accepted most of the modern intellectual/scientific agenda: the separation between subject and object, the confidence that every problem and puzzle could be solved, and the idea of the autonomous individual. Enlightenment thinking nurtured a lofty view of human nature as "reasonable" leading Westerners to develop superior attitudes towards "primitive peoples." It caused missionaries to deal with peoples of other cultures and even Christian traditions -- including the Orthodox -- as inferior. God's mission was understood to have depended upon human efforts, and this is why we came to hold unrealistic universalistic assumptions. Christians became so optimistic that they believed to be able to correct all the ills of the world." (Vassiliadis, 2010)

Missiology has been undergoing changes in recent years and after much serious consideration Christians in the ecumenical era "are not only questioning all the above assumptions of the Enlightenment; they have also started developing a more profound theology of mission. One can count the following significant transitions:

(a) From the missio christianorum to the missio ecclesiae;

(b) the recognition later that subject of mission is not even the Church, either as an institution or through its members, but God, thus moving further from the missio ecclesiae to the missio Dei, which, however, Western Christianity limited for some period to Christ alone (missio Christi). (Vassiliadis, 2010)

Vassiliadis (2010) states in conclusion that there are those who would believe that the biblical foundation for the new Christian missiology can be based on 1 peter 3:15-16 which states:

"Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and reverence," or 2 Cor 5:18b: "God has reconciled us to Himself through Christ, and has given us this ministry of reconciliation." (the Holy Bible, as cited in: Vassiliadis, 2010)

The work of Gelder (2007) entitled: "The Missional Church in Context: Helping Congregations Develop Contextual Ministry" states that the church growth movement arose from the Luasanne Covenant at the International Congress on World Evangelization held in 1974 which had deeply embedded within this resurgence of evangelical emphasis on missions...a nineteenth-century understanding of the priority of evangelism that was now largely reframed within the theology and methodology..." (Gelder, 2007, p. 23) it is reported that missiology went through several shifts of major proportion during this period including those as follows:

(1) a new missiology society formed in 1973: the American Society of Missiology comprised of people from ecumenical, Roman Catholic, and evangelical streams, and serving for a time as an arena for the reconception of missiology;

(2) Many of the former mainline and flagship seminaries that had first established chairs of missiology either terminated those chairs or changed their focus substantially to things as interreligious studies or ecumenism

(3) Some mainline schools sought for revisement of the conception of missiology consistent with the mission Dei understanding by turning it into a conversation with the whole of their curriculum;

(4) Many evangelical seminaries and educational institutions expanded their departments of missiology and the various programs offered by these tended to reflect the more classical understanding of missiology rooted in a high Christology and the fulfillment of the great commission. (Gelder, 2007)

During the period between 1975 and 1995 it is related that some interesting developments took place within the discipline of missiology and that the church community at large experiences "an amazing convergence of thinking regarding the basic understanding of mission around the concepts of the mission Dei and the kingdom of God. On the other hand, especially in the United States, the distance between ecumenicals and evangelicals continued to grown even in the midst of an increasing convergence of thinking in the understanding of mission." (Gelder, 2007, p.26)

Beginning in 1995 a new conversation began to emerge and it is identified as the "missional church conversation" which is stated to stem largely "from the work of Leslie Newbigin, who brought a missiological perspective to bear on thinking about the West when he raised the question 'Can the West be converted?'. This conversation is finally making a clear connection between missiology and ecclesiology in developing what has become known as 'missional church' or what might be identified as a missional ecclesiology or missiological ecclesiology" and is a movement "more explicit about bringing the connection of the mission Dei with the kingdom of God into conversation with particular congregations with respect to the emerging postmodern context." (Gelder, 2007, p.27)

The work of John Roxborogh (2000) entitled: "Is Mission Our Only Mission? Revisiting the Missionary Nature of the Church" states that if the mission in question is the Church's mission "then it does not quite go without saying that thinking about the Church (ecclesiology) and thinking about mission (missiology) automatically go together. Theologies of the Church often fail to get as far as mission. Doctrinal concern characteristically concentrated on questions of ministry, unity, and the demarcation between church and state." (p.1)

Ecclesiology is stated by Roxborogh to be concerned with "defending the legitimacy of one's own tradition and using the classic marks of "one, holy, catholic and apostolic and in the Reformed tradition 'where the Word is preached, sacraments administered, and discipline exercised' to cast doubt on others." (2010, p.1) Simultaneously, theologies of mission may very well neglect the church as the "passion for mission or a desire to correct the lack of interest of others can claim 'mission' as the sole legitimate concern of the whole Christian enterprise." (Roxborogh, 2000, p.1)

The argument and desire to get on with mission may be of the nature that results in the church actually getting in the way of mission. Furthermore, missiologies may also be so concerned with a perceived threat from other religions and concern about potentially compromising the unique nature of Christ and tied up with strategies geared toward effectiveness and the missionary's call to the task that "linkage with the actual life of the people of god is effectively overlooked." (Roxborogh, 2000, p.2)

Roxborogh states that oftentimes the discussion surrounding mission is impacted by "confusion about the scope of the world." (p.2) This is because total mission refers to three elements in the life and work of the church including those of:

(1) society;

(2) God; and (3) Church. (Roxborogh, 2000, p.2)

Roxborogh states that Andrew Kirk has stated "drawing on John Stott" as follows:

"The church's mission...encompasses everything that Jesus sends his people into the world to do. It does not include everything the church does or everything God does in the world." (Roxborogh, 2000, p.3)

According to Roxborogh this approach is one that "...allows church life and worship its space and the word mission can then be used in an unencumbered way to explore elements of mission in the familiar schemas of social and evangelistic mandates, Bosch's thirteen 'Elements of an Emerging Ecumenical Missionary Paradigm' and other dimensions such as overcoming violence, care for the environment, women in mission, reconciliation and globalization." (2000, p.3)

It is related that the two major World Council of Church's journals:

(1) International Review of Mission; and (2) Ecumenical Review,

Each reflect "...a use of language that attaches mission to the roles of the church in the world rather than to the many other concerns about church life which the WCC is involved." (Roxborogh, 2000, p.3)

Bosch writes in the work entitled: "Transforming Mission" drawing on Karth Barth, Vatican II and Peter 2:9 states of the church that it is "...not the sender but the one sent. Its' mission (its 'being sent') is not secondary to its being; the church exists in being sent and in building up itself for the sake of its mission...Ecclesiology does not precede missiology." (ref. 9) Bosch as well as others inform that "theology has to be missionary or it is not real theology at all, indeed that mission is the mother of theology. While we are not told that worship, ethics, church polity, perhaps even spirituality, require a mission dimension to have any worth that is a fair implication of taking this view of the place of mission in the life of the church." (Roxborogh, 2000, p.4) Roxborogh states that mission makes a requirement of some theology "before the process can start, and neither mission nor theologizing can be sustained apart from worship." (2000, p.4)

Wilbert Shenk writes in the work entitled "Changing Frontiers of Mission" as follows:

"To be authentic mission must be thoroughly theocentric. It begins in God's redemptive purpose and will be completed when that purpose is fulfilled. The God-given identity of the church thus arises from its mission. This order of priority is foundational. Yet for sixteen centuries Christians have been taught to think of church as the prior category and mission as one among several functions of the church. This view is based on a deformed understanding of the nature and purpose of the church...Mission must precede the church. Jesus the Messiah formed his disciple community for the express purpose of continuing his mission...The renewal of the church is linked to recovery of the priority of mission." (Roxborogh, 2000, p.5)

Darrell Guder writes in his work entitled: "Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America" as follows:

"The church of Jesus Christ is not the purpose or goal of the gospel, but rather its instruments and witness. It has taken us decades to realize that mission is not just a program of the church. It defines the church as God's sent people. Either we are defined by mission or we reduce the scope of the gospel and the mandate of the church. Thus our challenge today is to move form church with mission to missional church." (Roxborogh, 2000, p.6)

Roxborogh states that he does not disagree that to neglect mission effectively reduces the "scope of the gospel and the mandate of the church' but states that he finds it difficult to share the sense of Guder that there is "...something wrong about the church having a purpose for its existence in its own right or in its having mission as a program." (2000, p.6) Roxborogh states that there may very well be "characteristic failings that go with those ideas, but correction does not demand the rejection of the idea of the church as a righteous community. The church has a mission to its own society it needs to reappropriate, but it does not necessarily follow from these or other premises that it must therefore be defined by its external mission." (Roxborogh, 2000, p.6)

When the conceptual view of missiology is restricted to the church's responsibility to the world, it becomes easy for the implication to arise that other areas of the church's life only possess validity in serving the church's role as an instrument of mission and "defining mission this way can be emphasized to the point where the totality of the life of the church is collapse into this one aspect of its legitimate life. This is further compounded when the mission of the church to the world is itself defined in restrictive exclusive terms, such as social or evangelistic." (Roxborogh, 2000, p.7)

This difficulty is avoided by Vatican II and other Roman Catholic documents through insertion of statements concerning the church's missionary nature combined with those relating other aspects of the life of the church whereby these two are not at any point disconnected completely from the church as a whole. Protestant documents however, fail to relate formally these statements which balance the church life and missiology explicitly.

It is possible to maintain a sense of the importance of mission without making mission all exclusive and to promote mission vigorously in relation to the other aspects of the church life without making mission the dominant player. (Roxborogh, 2000, paraphrased) Roxborogh states specifically that a commitment to mission and missiology that is sustainable "...may also be one that is more theologically sound than statements better suited to shocking the moribund out of their sleep than defining how mission and church are actually meant to relate. One effect of affirming all the dimensions of the total mission of the church (worship, inner life, external mission) may be that the question of holism will apply more to the relationship between the dimensions of the total mission than to the balance between the elements of missionary paradigms." (2000, p.7)

Renewal of mission cannot make itself secure through attempting to "take over the entire enterprise of the Christian life. A firm and lasting commitment to mission requires a credible and sustainable engagement rooted in the actual nature of the church more than a desire for motivation for its own sake. The riposte to the idea of mission as the mother of theology might yet turn out to be that worship is the mother of mission." (Roxborogh, 2000, p. 8)

PART TWO

I. CORRECTING EDINBURGH

The work of Hesselgrave (2007) entitled: "Will We Correct the Edinburgh Error? Future Mission in Historical Perspective" states that there is not another gathering of missionaries that affected the missions of the 20th century as much as the World Missionary Conference held in Edinburgh, Scotland 1910. In fact, Hesselgrave states that "no single error was as significant" as that specific conference. Hesselgrave states that it was observed by James Scherer stated that Edinburgh "launched a movement for missionary cooperation and consultation without prior doctrinal consensus...Corporate prayers revealed that this consensus had behind it a genuine spiritual substance. It did not need to be put to the test of doctrinal definition. Delegates were ready to accept one another in good faith....There was no precedent for it in the annals of Christian assembly. From the time of Edinburgh, it became an accepted method of doing together the business of the kingdom." (Hesselgrave, 2007, p.121)

II. FORMATION of INTERNATIONAL MISSIONARY COUNCIL (IMC)

Culminating from the Edinburgh Conference in 1910 was the formation of the International Missionary Council (IMC) at Lake Mohonk, New York. A missionary bishop in the Philippines and one of those accredited of planning Edinburgh, Charles Brent, came to the realization that "ecclesiastical and theological issues could not be postponed forever and therefore took a leading role in organizing the Committee on Faith and Order." (Hesselgrave, 2007, p.123) it is realized that arising from Edinburg was also the Committee on Life and Work and that these two streams "ultimately united to form the World Council of Churches (WCC) in 1949 however, it was not until 1961 that the IMC joined together with the WCC by becoming its division of world Mission and Evangelism. It is not certain that Matt, Oldham and the other collaborators in 1910 would have been gratified in seeing the mission agencies give up the independence to the WCC it is stated that however, "at the time of the formation of the IMC in 1921 they themselves had allowed for the involvement of some churches as is apparent in an official IMC document that states 'the only bodies entitled to determine missionary policy are the missionary societies and boards, or the churches which they represent and the churches in the mission field'." (Hesselgrave, 2007, p. 123)

There were eight specific functions established for the organization rather than doctrine or a statement of faith and as well laid out within these functions something akin to a purpose statement. Hesselgrave states that plans were laid out for a meeting of the IMC in Jerusalem in 1928 and that these functions were in mind when those plans were laid. Those plans "not only made provision for more church representatives but also for a larger agenda including such topics as religious education, secularism, industrialization, racism and rural problems." (p. 123) the German leaders had received assurance at Lake Mohonk that they would attend and therefore they eagerly anticipated the "projected conference in Jerusalem. The Germans however are stated to have taken exception "to the emphasis being given to social redemption as over against individual conversion in the preparation stage" and ultimately are stated to have "boycotted the conference altogether." (Hesselgrave, 2007, p. 123)

III. CONFUSION ABOUNDS

The ecumenical movement is stated to have been "characterized more by organizational togetherness than by theological consensus." (p.123) the WCC, inaugurated in 1948 described itself as "a fellowship of churches which confess the Lord Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior." (Hesselgrave, 2007, p. 123) This statement however, failed in defining Christian beliefs and "proved to be notoriously deficient when it came to defining Christian beliefs and even more deficient when it came to dispelling unchristian heresies." (Hesselgrave, 2007, p. 123) in 1961 it is stated that the vague phrase "according to the Scriptures was added to the confessional statement in 1961" a change stated to have "little, if any practical significance." (Hesselgrave, 2007, p. 124

The mistakes of these great men in history and specifically, Mott, Oldham and colleagues resulted in great consequences according to Hesselgrave. (paraphrased) Not all among these were in agreement with what was done although positive results also arose from the conference in the practical assistance being provided to missions in the way of missions being able to demonstrate "the value of mutual consultation and cooperation." (Hesselgrave, 2007, 124) Hessel grave does however, while critically analyzing the conference state the following in way of explanation:

"It is easy to understand why, at certain times and under certain cir-cumstances, missions people might find it expedient and even necessary to meet together among themselves in order to take up a very limited agenda. Certainly, it is not my intention to impugn the motives of Ed-inburgh's illustrious planners, nor is it my intention to blame Edinburgh for subsequent failings of the ecumenical movement that emerged from its deliberations and actions. Nevertheless, speaking generally, only on very rare occasions and with more precautions than were evident in 1910 should representatives of mission agencies assume the prerogative of rul-ing consideration of divine revelation out of order with a view to pursuing their own objectives, however noble. And Edinburgh 1910 was not one of those occasions. If anything, given the circumstances of that time both within and without the church, planners should not only have refused to rule out doctrinal discussion, they should have insisted on including doc-trinal discussion both when planning the conference and when guiding conference proceedings." (Hesselgrave, 2007, p. 124)

The reason that the conference was so critical is due to its being the beginning of the ecumenical movement and its establishing "of those precedents that were to characterize that movement for many years to come. Hesselgrave states that there are four deleterious outcomes that have been of special consequence to Christian missions. Those four are stated to be the following:

(1) When coupled with a narrow focus on the nonchristian world, the decision to rule out doctrinal matters was deleterious in two ways. First, it bypassed serious issues faced by Protestant missions in Latin America. The subsequent record of severe persecution of Protestant believers and pastors -- and missionaries as well -- at the hands of Catholic authorities shows that omission to have been unwarranted and unwise. Second, in spite of the focus on what we would call unreached peoples, the plight of vast numbers of aboriginals in Latin America, most of whom lived outside the sphere of any kind of Christian influence, was overlooked. Through succeeding years the ecumenical record, in its dealings with the Catholic Church on the one hand, and in its outreach among the unevangelized on the other, has not been exemplary to say the least.

(2) Indecisiveness as to the nature and meaning of the Christian mission was to be reflected later in continuing vacillation and confusion in the IMC and WCC as to what the church's mission really is as well as to the precise relationship between church and mission. At one point it was proposed that "mission is church;" at another point that "church is mission." In 1968, delegates at Uppsala proposed to "let the world establish the agenda," while at the same time turning a deaf ear to the question, "What about the two billion?" (Those whom, it was reckoned by advocates of Church Growth, had not yet heard the gospel). Themes of still other conferences often had a hopeful ring but attendant discussions and understandings were much less hopeful. The theme at Bangkok in 1973 was "Salvation Today," but in the end "salvation" turned out to mean "humanization." Ten years later the theme at Vancouver was, "Jesus Christ -- the Life of the World," but not one major speaker even made reference to it. Speakers focused, rather, on "world affairs in ecumenical perspective." If the "ecumenical perspective" on mission were to be boiled down to a single sentence it might well be, "Mission is everything the church does in the world," or the more nuanced, "Mission is everything the church is sent to do in the world." But both definitions run afoul of Stephen Neill's oft-quoted dictum, "When mission is everything, mission is nothing."

(3) When it comes to the matter of training future leaders, the theological precedents set by Edinburgh proved to be anything but helpful. In the late 1950s, for example, the International Missionary Council established the Theo-logical Education Fund (TEF), with a view to raising the level of theological education in the Third World. Among other endeavors, the TEF brought some of the younger churches' brightest scholars to Western institutions of higher learning so they could pursue graduate studies. In the 1970s especially, those scholars were encouraged to evolve theologies and programs designed specifically for their respective constituencies and cultures. As a result, a number of "contextualized theologies" were either added to the list of existing sub-orthodox theologies or somehow combined with them, including Liberation Theology (in various forms such as Minjung Theology in Korea), Black Theology, Theology of Ontology and Time, Third Eye the-ology, Theology of the Pain of God, Water-Buffalo Theol-ogy, and Yin-Yang Theology, to name a few. Careful analy-sis of these theologies in the light of Scripture will show that any gains in cultural sensitivity were overshadowed by a loss of biblical authenticity; and (4) Often repeated in twentieth century mission enclaves, the Edinburgh error was ultimately reflected in the virtual abandonment of missions on the part of mainline Protes-tant denominations in America. At the beginning of the century mainline denominations supplied eighty percent of the North American missionary force. At its end, they supplied no more than six percent of it!10 if good news was to be found, it was in the fact that the more conserva-tive leaders of younger churches on former mission fields often resisted the defections of their clerical counterparts in Europe and America when it came to such matters as consecrating. (Hesselgrave, 2007, p. 126)

IV. RESPONSE of FUNDAMENTALIST & EVANGELICAL MOVEMENTS

The first two movements to respond to the error of Edinburgh were the fundamentalists and then later on the evangelical. Hesselgrave reports that there were several factors both internally and externally that resulted in the church and its missions to "elicit a fundamentalist response that was at once theological, missiological and organizations in the early 1900s. Furthermore, "scholars from both Europe and America produced the well-known twelve-volume work 'The Fundamentals'." (Hesselgrave, 2007, p. 126)

Hesselgrave states that scholars were very likely reacting "to the larger incursion of a theological liberalism and modernism that denied the authenticity and complete authority of the Bible as well as various historic doctrines of the Christian faith -- doctrines that were given substance to the Christian gospel and direction to the Christian mission." (Hesselgrave, 2007, p. 126) Fundamentals were that which fed the "mills of those Bible schools and seminaries that produced the bulk of missionaries throughout the early decades of the twentieth century." (Hesselgrave, 2007, p. 127)

The bible was denied as authentic and the reaction of the scholars of that time is stated to have been to "the larger incursion of a theological liberalism and modernism. Also denied were doctrines of substance to the Christian gospel and faith. In 1917 it is reported that a reaction that was fundamentalist in nature and that further was "distinctly missionary took organized from..." (Hesselgrave, 2007, p. 127) This was due to a considerable number of "independent 'faith mission' leaders" which included such as Henry W. Frost and Orson palmer, as well as Frank W. Lange from the China Inland Mission, African Inland Mission and Central America Mission respectively, formed the Interdenominational Foreign Mission Association of North America known now as IFMA CrossGlobal Link. There are two reasons that this was of importance:

(1) This was the very first association of such mission to be formed in North American and the prominence accorded mainline denominational mission agencies at Edinburgh was a factor in precipitating it;

(2) in the view of its organizers, they were defending the Christian faith in the face of defections from it." (Hesselgrave, 2007, p. 128)

Stated as an example is that in one prepatory meeting it was acknowledged that the mission boards represented differed from other agencies: 'particularly in the uncompromising adherence of those present to five specific beliefs: the deity of Christ, the vicarious atone-ment of Christ, man's fallen condition, the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, and the premillennial return of Christ." (Edwin L. Frizen Jr., 75 Years of IFMA, 1917 -- 1992: The Nondenominational Missions Movement (Pasadena: William Carey Library, 1992), 108 cited in: Hesselgrave, 2007, p. 128)

Other than fundamentalism's presence in the IFMA and the Pentecostal groups that were fundamentalist, the voice of fundamentalism "tended to be muted, owing to a variety of factors, but especially its dividedness. It is ironic that while the term "fundamentalist" is often used pejoratively, Scripture makes it abundantly clear that the future of church and mission belongs to those who hold to the "fundamentals of the faith" whatever their organizational and ecclesiastical ties might be!" (Hesselgrave, 2007, p. 129)

It is reported that in the 1940s that Harold John Ockenga leading a group of conservative leaders "carved out a niche in church and mission for 'evangelicals,' who encouraged theological reform, social responsibility and ecclesiasti-cal openness while eschewing the defensive posture of fundamentalism." (p. 130) it is reported that these leaders formed the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) in 1942 "...with a seven-point Statement of Faith very similar to that of the IFMA in its affirmation of the authority of Scripture and orthodox doctrines." (Hesselgrave, 2007, p. 130) in 1945 the Evangelican Foreign Missions Association (EFMA) was formed "under the aegis of the NAE in order to facilitate missionary concerns. Though these two associations were, and are, open to organizations and/or individuals on the basis of a faith commitment, both tend to appeal primarily to evangelical denominations and their mission-ary agencies." (Hesselgrave, 2007, p. 130)

V. PROBLEMS BETWEEN and AMONG EVANGELICALS & ECUMENISTS

During the 1950s onward it is reported that there was abrasion in the interactions in three primary areas between evangelicals and ecumenists (on the left) and fundamentalism and evangelicals (on the right) and as well "between evangelicals themselves." (Hesselgrave, 2007, p. 130) Each of these three resulted in serious implications for Christian missions and are stated as follows:

(1) First, for long years cooperative evangelism was a most decisive issue at home and overseas. The question was a simple one: Does the preach-ing of a biblical gospel justify cooperation with liberal clerics, who do not subscribe to the historic creeds of the church? Some said, "Yes." Some said, "No." Due largely to the popularity and reputation of Billy Graham and the passage of time, the controversy gradually receded into the background and the inclusive position came to prevail. However, it cannot be said that the controversy has been resolved to the satisfaction of either all evangeli-cals or most fundamentalists.

(2) Second, other questions that divided evangelicals early on had to do with the nature of biblical authority and the importance of "evangelical theology." Some conservatives held to the inerrancy of the autographs of Scripture; others, to infallibility and the idea that the Bible is inerrant, not necessarily in its full extent, but only in that which it affirms. In line with the former view, the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) subscribed to a single, simple statement on biblical inerrancy that, in effect, placed all agendas and deliberations under the authority of the written Word of God and fostered a body of literature of incalculable benefit both to church and mission. Later on, however, ETS found it necessary to add a Trinitar-ian plank to its faith statement in order to differentiate its position from that of certain cults. More recently, ETS leaders have found that enlarged statement itself to be inadequate when dealing with the challenge of open theism.

(3) as for evangelical missions themselves, writing concerning a Con-gress on the Church's Worldwide Mission, which convened in Wheaton in April 1966, Norman Horner writes, the appearance of false doctrines has again "evoked a confes-sional act from the Christian community in witness to the true faith" (Hughes). Something had to be done to affirm what evangelicals truly believe the Bible teaches, providing an-tidote to "ecumenical theology" and creating a true focus for missionary service. The Wheaton enclave was followed by a much larger and more interna-tionally representative World Congress on Evangelism held in Berlin in October of the same year. Its theme, "One Race, One Gospel, One Task," gave indication of a conservative understanding of both the Christian mis-sion and the Christian message, but its importance is better measured in terms of the Lausanne Movement to which it gave rise. Berlin 1966 was followed almost a decade later by a watershed event that brought into clear focus a third area of significant division among evan-gelicals, namely, that of social (or socio-political) concerns as they relate to the mission of the church. I make reference here to the First International Congress on World Evangelization held in Lausanne, Switzerland in 1974 (most often referred to as Lausanne I). It was attended by 2430 invited participants (not delegates) and 570 observers, including some Roman Catholic and WCC representatives. The plenary program featured seven papers on "biblical foundations" and five on "strategy issues." But of special importance to our present discussion were challenges by Ralph a. Winter and John R.W. Stott. Winter presaged "The Gospel for Every Person and a Church for Every People by a.D. 2000 and Beyond" movement for world evangelization. Stott presaged a pronounced shift in the direction of increased socio-political concern on the part of a sizeable segment of evangelicals. Before the Congress ended, some 2200 participants had signed "The Lausanne Covenant" -- a 3000-word declaration that affirmed the infallibility (but not inerrancy) of Scripture and the primacy of evangelism. But it left the precise relationship between evangelism/mission on the one hand, and social action on the other hand, as an issue to be resolved later. Subsequently, the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization (LCWE), which grew out of Lausanne I, has sponsored a variety of conferences and meetings. Some have considered this issue but none has brought closure to it." (Hesselgrave, 2007, p.130-132)

VI. The PRESENT VIEW

Hesselgrave writes that presently the status of the conservative response overall to the Edinburgh error is still unclear and while the fundamentalist movement still lives on it oftentimes appears "altogether too divided, apparently keeping it isolated and insulated from playing a major role." (Hesselgrave, 2007, p. 132) Weaknesses in the evangelical movement include four areas specifically related to Roman Catholicism:

(1) the authority of Scripture;

(2) Doctrinal orthodoxy; and (3) the nature and meaning of mission. (Hesselgrave, 2007, p. 132)

The Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) is stated to have subscribed to a "single, simple statement on biblical inerrancy that, in effect, placed all agendas and deliberations under the authority of the written Word of God and fostered a body of literature of the incalculable benefit both to church and mission." (Hesselgrave, 2007, p. 132 ) ETS discovered later on that it was necessary to add "a Trinitarian plank to its faith statement in order to differentiate its position from that of certain cults." (Hesselgrave, 2007, p. 132) Hesselgrave reports that more recently leaders of ETS have discovered that the enlarged statement is not adequate in dealing with the challenge presented by open theism. Norman Horner is stated to write as follows in relation to a Congress on the Worldwide Mission convening in Wheaton in April 1966:

"The appearance of false doctrines has again "evoked a confes-sional act from the Christian community in witness to the true faith" (Hughes). Something had to be done to affirm what evangelicals truly believe the Bible teaches, providing an-tidote to "ecumenical theology" and creating a true focus for missionary service." (cited in Hesselgrave, 2007, p. 130)

Later in 1966 a larger World Congress on Evangelism and one that was represented more internationally followed the Wheaton enclave and was held in Berlin titled "One Race, One Gospel, One Task" which provided an understanding that was conservative of the Christian mission and message however, it is stated that its importance "...is better measured in terms of the Lausanne Movement to which it gave rise." (Hesselgrave, 2007, p. 131)

A year later an event that resulted in gaining a clear focus of a third area that resulted in division among evangelicals of a significant nature or that of socio-political concerns in regards to the church mission and specifically that of Lausanne I attended by approximately 2430 participants who were invited and 570 observers some of whom were Roman Catholics and WCC representatives. It is related that the "plenary program featured seven papers on "biblical foundations" and five on "strategy issues." (p.132)

Stated to be of great important were challenges of Ralph a. Winter and John R.W. Scott "The Gospel for Every Person and a Church for Every People by a.D. 2000 and Beyond" which was a movement for world evangelization. (Hesselgrave, 2007, p.132) by the ending of the Congress 2200 individuals had signed the Lausanne Covenant which was a "...a 3000-word declaration that affirmed the infallibility (but not inerrancy) of Scripture and the primacy of evangelism." (Hesselgrave, 2007, p.133)

The Lausanne Covenant however, "...left the precise relationship between evangelism/mission on the one hand, and social action on the other hand, as an issue to be resolved later. Subsequently, the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization (LCWE), which grew out of Lausanne I, has sponsored a variety of conferences and meetings. Some have considered this issue but none has brought closure to it." (Hesselgrave, 2007, p.133)

Hesselgrave states that in consideration of the information stated missionary leaders from the conservative movement "...should take special care that the participants, programs and procedures of future mis-sion conferences be more concerned with delineating and expediting bibli-cal mission than with simply demonstrating collegiality, mutual acceptance and good will." (Hesselgrave, 2007, p. 143)

It is related that steps to take in this direction are practical in nature and likely to include some or all of those as follows:

(1) Review and reaffirm the "faith once delivered to the saints." Mission books, study series, consultations and conferenc-es -- many of them best-selling, award-winning, celebrity-led and promising world change -- now flood the market. Included propositions and proposals are usually Bible-related but often extra-biblical and sometimes unbiblical. Not all merit, but all demand, Scriptural evaluation. Of course, all of them cannot be dealt with at once, so what are we to do? I suggest that we periodically remember, re-consider and renew those teachings that necessitated and nurtured mission in the first place, and that we do so not just by reiterating them but also by showing how they're-late to mission in our twenty-first century pagan and post-modern cultures. In his insightful analysis of the Emergent Church Movement, for example, D.A. Carson summarizes our responsibility in this regard by citing 1 Peter 1:12 -- 21. He enjoins continued confidence in revealed truth on the part of all true Christians by noting that truth is:

"Stabilized by constant review (1:12 -- 15),"

"Established on historical witness (1:16 -- 18)," and "Grounded in biblical revelation (1:19 -- 21)."39 (Hesselgrave, 2007, p.134)

Luke spoke and described the church of Pentecost stating that "they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellow-ship" (Acts 2:42)." (Hesselgrave, 2007, p.38) in addition, Hesselgrave notes that Paul's last admonition to Timothy was to be "a good minister of Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ, nourished in the words of faith and of good doctrine" (1 Tim 4:6). " (Hesselgrave, 2007, p.139) Hesselgrave states of the apostles' doctrine that it is a "...sound doctrine" and that while it is "...unchangeable" that it still is not static in nature. While the doctrine of the apostles "had to be encoded in words...it must not be entombed in them." (p.;139)

(2) Distinguish carefully between theological/doctrinal and practical/strategic issues. There is an inter-relationship between all aspects of Christian mission, of course. No aspect exists in isolation. But some missionary proposals are primarily theological with practical implications. Others are primarily practical with theological ramifications. Priority should ordinarily be given to the former, but both types must be considered.

The critical nature of this is stated by Hesselgrave to be that which can "hardly be over-estimated" and for example is stated is the fact that most theological conservatives will agree that ." In an ultimate sense, the battle in which we are engaged is a battle for the soul, not the stomach of humankind." (p.140) Indeed the stomach is important as a person who is hungry cannot be expected to hear the gospel and others believe that there can be no separation of the stomach and soul. Hesselgrave states that the considerations are "theological and practical, doctrinal and strategic."(2007)

(3) Encourage group discussion and group evaluation of the theological/doctrinal validity of proposals having to do with missionary practice and strategy. This suggestion flows logically from the previous one. We cannot but be appreciative of the creativity, ingenuity and energy that contribute to the thinking and doing of Christian mission these days. But that is not the end of the matter. It is obvious that some of the products of that creativity are superior to others. Some are biblically valid. Some are not. and, one way or the other, that determination should be made by groups of qualified evaluators, not just by interested individuals.