|
How are ‘evangelism’
and ‘mission’ related?
‘The Church's commission, which is the foundation
of its freedom, consists in this: in Christ's stead, and so in the
service of his own Word and work, to deliver to all people, through
preaching and sacrament, the message of the free grace of God.’
In these words it is
clearly stated that the Church’s mission is Gospel proclamation. Yet, considering the source and the
context of these words, one cannot regard them as betraying a ‘one-eyed’
fundamentalism divorced from social and political realities. Nor could anyone suggest this as a
cowardly retreat from the pressing issues of the day. Rather, the Barmen Declaration is an
extremely provocative political challenge precisely because it
refuses to engage with the world on its own terms. The Nazis are confronted because the
Confessing Church occupies itself with its one true Fuhrer (Christ), its
one true Reich (God’s Kingdom) and its one true commission: delivering
‘the message of the free grace of God’.
Far from creating an ‘ecclesiastical ghetto’ for the Confessing
Christians, this single-minded determination to let the Gospel set the
agenda for the Church brings it into its most significant contact with
the surrounding culture.
Here we see Robert
Speer’s dictum played out:
‘Missions are powerful to transform the face of
society, because they ignore the face of society, and deal with it at its
heart. They yield such powerful
political and social results, because they do not concern themselves with
them.’
We will argue in this essay that the mission of the Church is
exclusively a Gospel mission and therefore a mission of
proclamation. Mission is evangelism. It is imperative though that we first
define our terms.
Mission – God’s and ours
Continuity
Two years before authoring the Barmen Declaration, Karl Barth addressed
the Brandenburg Missionary Conference.
There he introduced a missiological perspective which has
determined the shape of mission theology in every part of the
Church.
“Must not even the most faithful missionary, the
most convinced friend of missions, have reason to reflect that the term missio
was in the ancient Church an expression of the doctrine of the
Trinity—namely the expression of the divine sending forth of self, the
sending of the Son and Holy Spirit to the world? Can we indeed claim that
we do it any other way?”
Through linking the sending of the Son by the Father, to
the sending of the Church by the Triune God, Barth finds an origin for
mission not in ecclesiology or soteriology, but in the doctrine of
God. There are missions because
of the missio Dei. David
Bosch has memorably put it like this:
‘To participate in mission is to participate in
the movement of God’s love toward people, since God is a fountain of
sending love.
This insight has been picked up by all wings of the Church, from
the conciliar to the
Anabaptist, from
the Roman Catholic
to the evangelical. Such consensus must be rejoiced in
since this understanding is clearly Biblical. However, to agree that our
doctrine of God determines our missiology does not guarantee agreement on
what that doctrine of God should be. Divergences at the source of this
‘fountain’ will multiply greatly as the flow reaches the practicalities
of modern missions.
Thus, as we consider the relationship between evangelism and
mission, we must ask whether the missio Dei is itself an
exclusively evangelistic mission?
Our answer must be an unequivocal ‘yes’. The purposes of the Father from all ages have been
exclusively focussed on His Son. In the power of the Spirit, His word
has been the agent for all divine activity in creation and redemption. In the Incarnation of the Word, the
Father gives to Jesus His word,
which accomplished all that Jesus does,
and it is this word that Jesus entrusts to his followers. The Church has inherited a Gospel
mission for the world, i.e. the Father’s mission to the exalt His Son in
His Spirit-empowered word.
In this context, Christ’s introduction to the Great Commission is
crucial: “All things in heaven and on earth have been given to me. Therefore go…” (Matthew 28:18ff) Here, at the resurrection of Jesus, we have seen the
consummation of the missio Dei declared decisively in history: the
risen Christ is the cosmic Consummator and Heir. And with the word ‘therefore’ Christ
emphasizes a profound continuity between God’s mission and ours. The Gospel-mission of God is handed to
the Church. Yet there is also
discontinuity.
Discontinuity
Because the Church’s mission
has taken shape from Christ’s completed work, our mission must not be
confused with His. The Church has not received its mission from a needy
Christ, looking for the Church to finish the job. In the most profound sense, the job is
finished: all authority is His.
The Church betrays its mission the moment it attempts to bring the
Kingdom itself. Rather, to be
faithful to its risen Lord, the Church is constituted as a ‘witness’ to
Him. We are not the do-ers – we are
witnesses to His ultimate and all-encompassing Doing.
Christ’s command in the Great Commission is simply to ‘go’ in a baptizing
and teaching ministry that aims, with His resurrection power and
presence, to realize in advance of His return, that obedience in the
nations which He has already won on Easter morning.
Our part in the missio Dei is, therefore, very different to
Christ’s, yet, by the grace of our Lord, it is the same mission in which
He has called us to participate. Because of the continuity point
we see that any reticence to equate mission with evangelism will
correspond to a reticence to see God’s ways as exhaustively revealed and
expressed in his Gospel. Because
of the discontinuity point, we see that faithfulness to the
completed missio Dei in the resurrection of Christ requires a witnessing
community rather than a reforming task-force.
A definition of Mission
The Church is not sender but sent
– it is constituted by this higher calling, ‘that
you may declare the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into
His wonderful light.’
This mission to exalt Christ is
the work of the whole Church,
in proclaiming the whole Gospel,
for the sake of the whole world
until His coming again.
Evangelism
Our definition of mission
above bears a deliberate similarity to the definition of ‘world
evangelization’ given by the Lausanne International Congress on World Evangelization (1974):
‘The whole Church
[taking] the whole gospel to the whole world.’
We are happy with Lausanne’s
definition of the Gospel and note
its emphasis on the good news.
Evangelism is announcement and summons – calling the world to the
obedience of faith which Christ deserves.
Thus in ‘Lausanne’
terms – we are suggesting that the mission of the Church is ‘world
evangelization’. This summons to
Christ is our one and only mission. What then is the point in speaking of a relationship
between mission and evangelism?
Just this, that the substance
of mission be properly understood as evangelism and the context of
evangelism be properly understood as the Church’s mission. The two can be stated as equivalents
only when understood in terms of each other. Mission cut loose from evangelism becomes worldly
kingdom-building. Evangelism cut loose from mission becomes ‘a fine idea’ but not that for which the
community exists. The two must be
held together – then it will be seen that they perfectly explain
one another.
Is there more to mission?
There have been some
gross efforts in the 20th century to distract the Church from
its evangelistic mission. Walter
Rauschenbusch’s first championed a “Social Gospel”in the early part of the century. For him the Kingdom of God is ‘a
reconstruction of society on a Christian basis’. Rauschenbusch contrasted the ‘old
evangel of the saved soul’ with the ‘new evangel of the Kingdom of
God’. This was not about
populating heaven with souls but ‘transforming life on earth into the
harmony of heaven’. Besides the misplaced utopian optimism
which would be decimated by two world wars, such a theology replaces
Christ with the Church and His finished work with our human striving.
After World War II came
the ecumenical movement of the World Council of Churches. Their efforts to define the goal of
mission have been, at times, disastrous:
“We have lifted up humanization as the goal of mission because we
believe that more than other [positions] it communicates in our period of
history the meaning of the messianic goal. In another time the goal of God’s redemptive work might
best have been described in terms of man turning towards God… The
fundamental question was that of the true God, and the Church responded
to that question by pointing to Him.
It was assuming that the purpose of mission was Christianization,
bringing man to God through Christ and His Church. Today the fundamental question is much
more that of true man, and the dominant concern of the missionary
congregation must therefore be to point to the humanity in Christ as the
goal of mission.”
Drafts
for Sections, The Upsalla Report 1968
Or take the conference at Bankok in 1973:
“Salvation is the peace of the
people of Vietnam, independence in Angola, justice and reconciliation in
Northern Ireland.”
All such missiologies usurp God and enthrone man. They confuse the kingdom with the
world and consider the Church to be, at best, a kind of signpost
to all that God is doing in the world (i.e. peace in Vietnam,
independence in Angola, etc, etc).
They will not be seriously considered by anyone who values the
theology of mission as set out in the first section of this paper. Far more dangerous are the subtler
shift effected under an evangelical banner.
In 1974, the Lausanne
International Congress on World
Evangelization met and produced the Lausanne Covenant from which we have
quoted above. Strangely, the main
thrust of the conference ‘for World Evangelization’, and its resultant
Covenant, was not to spotlight world evangelization but to make room for
another agenda in the Church’s mission.
Mission, flowing from the missio dei, became ‘everything the church is sent into the world to do”. That ‘everything’ was not exclusively
a mission of proclamation but was, more broadly, “to identify with others
as [Christ] identified with us” and to serve as “He gave himself in
selfless service for others.”
Thus, the carefully worded article 5 of the covenant, acknowledges
socio-political involvement as a part of the Church’s mission of
‘service’:
Although reconciliation with other people
is not reconciliation with God, nor is social action evangelism, nor is
political liberation salvation, nevertheless we affirm that evangelism
and socio-political involvement are both part of our Christian duty.
Article
5 of the Lausanne Covenant
Here ‘service’ is the
over-arching value which co-ordinates both evangelism and socio-political
involvement. What is more, the
one served seems not to be the same One as for the Barmen Declaration
cited at the outset!
Yet in 1982 the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization put it
starkly:
In addition to worldwide
evangelization, the people of God should become deeply involved in
relief, aid, development and the quest for justice and peace.
The
1982 paper attempts to co-ordinate evangelism and social action in three
ways. Firstly, it claims
that that social action is the consequence of the Gospel. This is well and good and something
championed by all ‘evangelism-only’ protagonists. The positive
impact of the proclaimed Gospel and conversions to Christ on a society at
large are regularly held up by the ‘evangelism only’ fraternity (e.g
Billy Graham, George Whitfield, ‘Wheaton 1966’, Robert Speer, Peter
Beyerhaus, Karl Barth, Arthur Johnston, Peter Back etc).
Yet
the report goes on to say that ‘social responsibility is more than a consequence of evangelism;
it is one of its principal aims’.
In explaining this it says, secondly, that ‘social activity
is a bridge to evangelism’. And thirdly, ‘social activity
accompanies [evangelism] as its partner. They are like the two
blades of a pair of scissors or the two wings of a bird, as they were in
the public ministry of Jesus.’
One must ask
the question, ‘where does the Bible ever hold out social action as an aim
– even a ‘principal’ aim – of Gospel proclamation?’ As Melvin Tinker points out, “if social
responsibility is put forward as a principle aim in evangelism, it is a
small and logical step to conceiving social change as part of the evangel
itself. To take that step is to produce ‘another Gospel’.”
In
addition to this danger we see a number of others:
Ø ‘Service’
stands over ‘evangelism’ rather than the other way around
The
logic of making ‘service’ the mission into which evangelism fits is
denied by Scripture. It is a reversal of 2 Corinthians 4:1-6. There it is ‘setting forth the
truth plainly’ (v2) which is the umbrella activity under which service
(v5) fits. Undoubtedly the Church
should serve as did its Lord, yet our service is 1) to bring the word of
life and 2) to bear the loads of those who will sit under it. Thus evangelism stands over ‘service’
and co-ordinates it – not the other way around.
Ø Social
work becomes the ‘point of contact’ rather than the Gospel
All
talk of ‘making bridges’ and ‘points of contact’ through social work
(divorced from proclamation) denies the Gospel itself as the one bridge –
the LORD Jesus as the One point of contact. (See The God who is revealed in Jesus)
Yet
this is regularly done. C. Rene
Padilla, the author of ‘Holistic Mission’ a paper written in 2004 for the
Lausanne Committee says this:
The first
condition for the church to break down the barriers with its
neighbourhood is to engage with it, without ulterior motives, in the
search for solutions to felt needs. Such an engagement
requires a humble recognition that the reality that counts for the large
majority of people is not the reality of the Kingdom of God but the
reality of daily-life problems that make them feel powerless, helpless,
and terribly vulnerable. If that is the case, a top priority for the
church that cares is to enable people to articulate their needs, to
analyze them, and to reflect on them.
Do we
honestly address a person’s or a community’s true needs by accepting their
assessment of ‘reality’?
Surely, given the spiritual blindness of the unregenerate, the
reality that seems to count for them is dwarfed into near-falsehood by
the actual reality of their plight before God. If we co-operate in their assessment of need we are
effectively shutting our eyes with them to the eternal needs we know to
be true. This is not at all to
say that we ought not to offer material assistance to those in our
neighbourhood – of course we should.
Yet should we ever divorce it from ‘the reality of the Kingdom of
God’? Should we make it ‘the first
condition’ of our engagement with the world? Surely not. That which is ‘of first importance’ is that which must be
first ‘passed on’ – that is, the Apostolic Gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-8).
Yet even
the excellent Tim Keller – who is usually so good at setting forth
service as co-ordinated by Gospel proclamation – sees a role for social
action in advance of evangelism.
He
sees ministries of mercy as a bridge to evangelism in this way:
‘How do we reach the ‘unwebbed’? [Those
with no Christian contacts who are never likely to set foot in a
Church]. We reach them through felt
needs ministries. There is no other point of contact for them.’
No other point of
contact? Is Jesus Christ, the
God-Man, not enough? We recognize
how radical it is to embark on relationships with people and communities
on the primary footing of Gospel proclamation yet we maintain that this
is precisely what our Lord desires.
We reach the unwebbed by telling them of Jesus.
Ø
God as Creator becomes divorced from God as
Redeemer
We
anticipated this issue above when we discussed the missio Dei and
differing views of the doctrine of God.
As we turn to the literature we see this continual reticence in
missiologists to identify the one Creation-Redemption goal of the Living
God effected in the Gospel of His Son.
[There are two freedoms and two
unities for which Jesus Christ is
concerned] On the one hand there is socio-political liberation and the unity
of all mankind, for these things are the good will of God the Creator,
while on the other there is the redemptive work of Christ who sets his
people free from sin and guilt, and unites them in his new
community. To muddle these two
things (creation and redemption, common grace and saving grace,
liberation and salvation, justice and justification) is to plunge oneself
into all kinds of confusion.
Unfortunately,
the confusion lies in demarcating these concerns as ones separately
addressed by the Living God. Of
course He is interested in the whole spectrum of these activities – yet
He accomplishes them through the one Gospel! (See Creation and Redemption
in Athanasius and Irenaeus).
Yet,
time and again we see ‘evangelism plus social action’ proponents putting
asunder what God has joined together.
Ron Sider, for instance, speaks of the necessity of
properly distinguishing the doctrines of creation and redemption. He
approvingly introduces a quotation from Vinay Samuel and Chris Sudgen:
If the
redemptive work of Christ is limited to where there is conscious
confession of Christ, then, according to Vinay Samuel and Chris Sudgen,
“this means that any true change toward God’s purpose for man in society,
arising out of the death and resurrection of Christ, can take place only
within the confines of the church.”
[Sider goes on to say…] This is the source of evangelical
confusion about the relationship between evangelism and social concern: “Since
the acknowledgement of Christ is always required for any true social
change, evangelism always has a priority.”
Here we have it in black and
white. Evangelism-only advocates
have it wrong because they do not properly distinguish between creation
and salvation! Apparently it is
an unfortunate thing to insist that re-creation of the fallen world
occurs only in salvation – thus it must occur only in Christ, only in the
Church.
Yet at this point, we would
like to turn the tables. God is
exclusively concerned for the exaltation of His Son. All other interests (in justice,
liberation, common grace etc) find their place under this one
agenda. And the Father has
committed all His omnipotent power to Christ (Matt 28:18) who in turn
grants it to the Church (Matt 28:19-20; Eph 1:22-23). The Living God has unreservedly
committed Himself to the Gospel mission of the Church. His work is conducted through
her. So Samuel, Sudgen (and one
assumes Sider) find themselves bemoaning a truth that is held in
Scripture to be one of the most precious divine promises!
All
of this highlights the crucial question of what must be united and what
must be distinguished in our mission theology. The next two sections address this point.
Correcting
False Dichotomies
The
Lausanne Paper of 1982 identifies some false dichotomies in the
‘evangelism only’ camp.
“Another cause of the divorce of evangelism
and social responsibility is the dichotomy which has often developed in
our thinking. We tend to set over against one another in an unhealthy way
soul and body, the individual and society, redemption and creation, grace
and nature, heaven and earth, justification and justice, faith and
works. The
Bible certainly distinguishes between these, but it also relates them to
each other, and it instructs us to hold each pair in a dynamic and
creative tension. It is as wrong to disengage them, as in
"dualism", as it is to confuse them, as in "monism".
It was for this reason that the Lausanne
Covenant, speaking of evangelism and socio-political
involvement, affirmed that they "are both part of our Christian
duty"
Paragraph 5, Lausanne Occasional Paper – Evangelism
and Social Responsibility (1982)
It is right to
react against false distinctions. Above we have reacted against
Lausanne’s own
false distinction between God’s creation and redemption purposes. And, as against some proponents of
‘evangelism only’ we must say that to divorce body and soul, time and eternity,
earth and heaven, is closer to Plato than Scripture. Christ is the One in Whom these hold
together – they are therefore united at the most basic level. In view of this, the Gospel must never
be considered as an other-worldly message delivering souls from
the world and into timeless bliss.
It must be admitted that many who have proclaimed an ‘evangelism
only’ mandate have, at times, fallen for such thinking. Yet the LORD’s Gospel-agenda is to
see all creation renewed under Christ.
Our evangelism ought to be only as ‘narrow’ as this glorious
evangel.
Yet there
are distinctions to be maintained also.
True
Distinctions
Firstly, we must make
the strongest distinction between those in Adam and those in Christ. To make a person (or a culture) which
is ‘in Adam’ more moral or socially aware has not brought them a
millimeter closer to Christ. The
Apostle Paul’s experience of ‘faultless’, even Biblical,
legalistic righteousness was not a ‘stepping stone’ to faith: quite the
opposite in fact.
Furthermore, we must be aware that the ability of those ‘in Adam’ to
correctly interpret Christian philanthropy as an ‘adornment’ of the
Gospel
rather than the Gospel itself is, without illumination by the Spirit,
nil. We ought to remember that
the way the LORD has ordained for faith to come is by ‘hearing’. (Romans 10:14-17).
Secondly, we must
distinguish the Church from the world.
Though the Church is sent out into the world, and though we are to
penetrate it at all levels and in all ways with the Gospel, we are not
‘of the world.’ Our responsibilities to our brothers
and sisters in Christ are not the same as our responsibilities to our
neighbour.
To our neighbour,
we are called to show
mercy when they cross our path (Luke 10:25-37) and to repay the evil of
our oppressors with good (Romans 12:14-21). Yet this is hardly a ‘mission strategy’ for the
Church. These expressions of our
character, being transformed after Christ’s likeness, are not the things
you can plan for! They are,
rather, to be borne in mind as we concentrate on the true mission –
evangelization.
Towards one another we
are to display counter-cultural, life-sharing love. This love ought to be transparent to
the watching world and in this way even our Church fellowship is a missionary
fellowship (Matt 5:16; John 13:35; 17:21).
In this we see the
breadth of the evangel as it works through in our Christian
communities. Under the Headship
of the true Lord, under the authority of the divine word, in the power of
the Holy Spirit, there is a power to transform social structures and
bring healing to every aspect of life – even in advance of Christ’s
return. Yet all this is to happen
within the Church – ‘the pilot plant of the Kingdom.’ To attempt to bring this healing into
a sphere which explicitly rejects this Head, this word, this Spirit, is
to deny that the Gospel is the power to transform. It is, therefore to betray the evangel
– it is to be anti-evangelistic.
A third distinction to
maintain is that already mentioned above between the finished work of
Christ and the on-going work of the Church. In order for the latter not to betray the former, our
on-going work must be as witnesses to His finished work. We do not bring redemption to the
world, we bring Christ to the world as One who has already accomplished
our redemption.
Conclusion
There is one Gospel
agenda for the Living God.
The LORD does not have one sphere of operations regarding creation and
another regarding salvation. The LORD does not have one desire
for justice and another for justification. Not one motive in common grace and another in saving. Rather, His one agenda is brought
about by His mighty word proclaimed in the power of the Spirit, setting
forth His Only Son. When the word is received in faith, there (and
there only) the old creation is brought under the Lordship of
Christ. This is a present reality
(in that the King and therefore the kingdom has come). And it is a present witness to a
future reality (when Christ will apply His resurrection power in full to
the Church and to the whole cosmos).
As the body of Christ, we are witnesses to the world of where this
redemption is possible (in Christ alone!).
Ministries of mercy
come in alongside proclamation in two ways. Firstly the life of the kingdom is a life of bearing
one another’s loads. Thus the Church will model a
sacrificially loving community before a watching world. This bears witness to the Gospel. Secondly, as with Jesus’
ministry, deeds of service will accompany the proclamation of the word,
but they will do so in the context of people sitting under the word.
In Jesus’ own ministry
we see for instance in Mark 6 and parallels that those who would sit
under the teaching of Christ were shown tremendous kindness – the feeding
of the 5000! Yet even this deed
was a sign proclaiming Christ (and Jesus used words to explain it
as such). Note too that Jesus
does not put on an evangelistic supper and then give a talk (our
well-worn evangelical model).
Jesus sees their primary need: Mk 6:34 – teaching. First He preaches, then He feeds those
who sit under His word.
Thus our desire for a
powerful social ministry should not be: ‘let’s have a soup kitchen with a
5 minute gospel talk’. Rather, we
should be saying ‘let’s move into a deprived area and proclaim the word
of the LORD. And let’s provide
food, shelter, clothing and every material need for all those who will
hear.’
In all this, we must
remember that clothing the poor and feeding the hungry does not bring in
the kingdom in any way, shape or form.
The most these deeds can do is act as signs of the kingdom. Yet these signs must be
interpreted. The unregenerate
have no capacity for understanding ministries of mercy in Gospel terms –
they will most likely see the mission of the Church as trying to repair
the old creation. Thus their
impression will be that the Church’s mission is to invest in the kingdom
of the world. This is the
opposite of a Gospel witness!
Having said this, in
the LORD’s sovereignty He may open up a situation where mercy is to be
shown first – before any opportunity for Gospel proclamation. Think
for instance of the opportunities for Christian organisations to get into
Banda Ache for the first time after the Tsunami in December 2004. In the sovereignty of God we have an
entrance into a virtually ‘unreached’ area. Of course it is right to offer aid. Those who go must be wise as serpents
and innocent as doves, yet they must seek ways of communicating the
Gospel or else it is not Christian aid they give.
These emergency
situations will confront us from time to time where proclamation is not
immediately possible (think of the good Samaritan). Of course a Christian response
involves loving service, yet it will be service which is desperately
prayerful for Gospel opportunities.
After all, the LORD is a Gospel God and His intention, even in the
most complex situations, is for His Gospel to go out. Yet, simply because the LORD dishes up
‘service-first’ opportunities from time to time does not give
justification for ‘service-first’ or even ‘service-only’ mission
strategies. That’s a bit like
saying ‘since the LORD has sovereignly brought people off the streets and
into our Church on Sundays, our mission strategy ought to be to wait
within the Church building, praying that more would be sovereignly
sent!’ The Gospel opportunities
He brings unexpectedly are to be seized upon and rejoiced in. They are not to be extrapolated out
into an unbiblical methodology.
As we have argued throughout – it is the proclaimed Gospel taken
out to the world which defines and constitutes the mission of the Church.
We finish with the rousing words of Robert Speer, calling us back
to the historic mission of the Church:
‘I had rather plant one seed of the life of Christ
under the crust of heathen life, than cover that whole crust over with
the veneer of our social habits, or the vestiture of Western
civilization.’
Bibliography
The Lausanne Covenant, http://www.lausanne.org/Brix?pageID=12891
last
checked 3/10/05
John Stott,
Commentary on the Lausanne Covenant, http://www.lausanne.org/Brix?pageID=14323#5
last checked 3/10/05
Evangelism and
Social Responsibility,
Occasional Paper from the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization and
the World Evangelical Fellowship (1982), http://www.lausanne.org/Brix?pageID=14749
last checked 3/10/05
John Stott, Mission
in the Modern World, Falcon, 1977
John Stott, New
Issues facing Christians Today, Harper Collins, 1999
Timothy Dudley Smith, John
Stott: A Global Ministry, IVP, 2001
Peter Beyerhaus, Missions:
Which way? Humanization or redemption, Zondervan, 1971
C. Rene Padilla, Holistic Mission, Occasional Paper No. 33
at the 2004 Forum for World Evangelization hosted by
the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization, Pattaya, Thailand,
September 29 to October 5, 2004
David Bosch, Transforming Mission, Orbis, 1992
Peter Back, Church and Mission – A response to
Engel and Dryness, Peter Back, 2001
Engel and Dryness, Changing
the mind of missions, IVP, 2000
Timothy J. Keller, Ministries of Mercy, P&R Publishing
Company, 1997
Ronald Sider, Evangelism
and Social Action, Hodder and Stoughton, 1993
Robert Speer, Missionary
Principles and Practice, Fleming H. Revell Co., 1902
Paul Hertig, ‘The Great Commission Revisited: The Role of God’s
Reign in Disciple Making’, in Missiology: An international Review,
Vol. XXIX, No. 3, July 2001
Donald McGavran, Eye
of the Storm, Word, 1972
Vinoth Ramachandra, The
Redisocvery of Mission, Paternoster, 1996
Tim Chester, Good
News to the Poor, IVP 2004
Karl Barth, Church
Dogmatics, Vol. IV.3, T&T Clark, 1962
Eckhard J. Schnabel, Early
Christian Mission Vol. 2, Apollos, 2004
Norman E. Thomas (Ed.),
Classic Texts in Mission and World Christianity, Orbis, 1995
Lesslie Newbigin, Trinitarian Doctrine for
Today’s Mission, Paternoster, 1998
Melvin Tinker, Reversal or Betrayal? Evangelicals and Socio–political
Involvement in the Twentieth Century, Churchman 113/3, 1999
The Barmen Declaration, http://www.ucc.org/faith/barmen.htm
last checked 11/10/2005
John Drury, Karl
Barth’s Theology of Mission for Today,
http://www.drurywriting.com/john/Mission%202%20Barth.htm#_ednref1
last checked
11/10/2005
Dae Ryeong Kim, Karl Barth and a
Missiology of Preaching
http://www.theology21.org/Barth/barth_preaching.htm
last
checked 13/10/2005
Art McPhee, The missio Dei and the transformation
of the church,
http://www.mennovision.org/Vol%202%20No%202/Vision2.2.pdf
last
checked 11/10/2005
Church of England official website, Mission and Evangelism
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/faith/mission/missionevangelism.html
last checked 12/10/2005
WCC Conference On World Mission And Evangelism, Come, Holy Spirit- Heal And Reconcile - Preparatory Paper No 1
http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/mission/m-e-in-unity.pdf
last checked 12/10/2005
http://www.efca.org/health/media/leading_edge_6_1__mission_and_evangelism.pdf
last checked 12/10/2005
Jim Fann, “Mission and
Evangelism” from Leading Edge, A Resource for Leaders of Healthy Churches, Volume 6,
Number 1, January 2005
http://www.efca.org/health/media/leading_edge_6_1__mission_and_evangelism.pdf
last checked 12/10/2005
Back to other papers
|
