A Biblical Theology of Missions

Alliance

Preface

MISSIONARY THEOLOGY IN PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE

THIS PRESENTATION of Biblical Theology of Missions is the outgrowth of years of studies and teaching in theology and missions. It is my impression that the Bible is not a book about theology as such, but rather, a record of theology in mission — God in action in behalf of the salvation of mankind. I believe Georg F. Vicedom comes very near to biblical thinking when he says, The Bible in its totality ascribes only one intention to God: to save mankind.¹

It is understood throughout the Scriptures that the end result of such Missio Dei will be the glorification of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In the presentation of the subject I have taken Christ as the center and starting point. It is my conviction that the Bible must be interpreted Christocentrically, as Christ Himself interpreted the Scriptures to His disciples (Lk 24:25-27, 44-49). Christ is the center of revelation and also the key to its understanding.

I make no apology for accepting the Bible uncritically and authoritatively. The Bible is the basis and source of faith and not the result of faith. I am much concerned to bring everything under the judgment of the Word. Without hesitation I accept the inerrancy of the biblical record, the historicity of the foreword of the Bible — Genesis 1 — 11, the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and the historic, conservative and evangelical position of all the books of the Bible. I do not take such a position blindly, nor because I am not acquainted with the modern and higher criticism, the debate about the revelation and inspiration, and authenticity and integrity of the Book. For several years I listened carefully and studiously to the philosophical and critical approaches to the Bible. I found the theories wanting, for they presented themselves to me as neither revelational, historical nor rational. They lacked historical evidences and authoritative criteria. They built neither my faith nor my life. They were subjective, uncritical speculations. They did not nurture missions’ motivation or create missionary dynamic. The theories failed to captivate my heart or dynamize my volition. Thus I abide with the Bible as my guide, directive and authority.

I also want to say that I am well acquainted with the writings of modern councils and men. I have read and digested the reports of the great and historic councils sponsored by the International Missionary Council, and The International Review of Missions has been on my reading list for many years. Such recent books as edited by Gerald Anderson and the writings of Max Warren, Douglas Webster, John V. Taylor, Stephen Neill, Lesslie Newbigin, Johannes Blauw, Hendrik Kraemer, Wilhelm Andersen, R. K. Orchard, Daniel T. Niles and many others have not gone unnoticed.

If the thinking of these men is not reflected in my book it is because I have consciously and deliberately avoided all conflict. My book is not a polemic; it is an exposition of the missionary intent of God as I see it in the progressive unfolding of the Bible, regardless of what other men have said or are saying. I write neither to refute nor to correct but to expound, thus controversy has been avoided at all cost. It is my hope that this will contribute rather than subtract from the value of the writing.

I owe much to some of my professors who molded my thinking. I am grateful to Dr. David Strathy Dix, late principal of St. Andrew’s College, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, who introduced me more fully to the glory of the kingdom of God concept which spans the revelation of God in the Bible like a rainbow and overarches the chasm between time and eternity, earth and heaven, man and God; to the Reverend William Bestvater, who first made the Bible dear to me and introduced me to the principle of progressive revelation in the Bible and who opened my eyes to the glory of the church of Jesus Christ, to the total program and plan of God through the ages and future glory and mission of Israel; to the Reverend Abram Unruh who taught me many deeper truths of the Word and who unfolded the concept of Heilsgeschichte to me in a remarkable way. The concepts received contributed positively to the development of my missionary theology.

It is impossible to enumerate all men who made special contribution to my thinking through their writings. However, the Theologie des Alten Testaments by Edward Koenig of Bonn, and Das Lebendige Wort by Jakob Kroeker of Wernigerode am Harz, Germany (some 14 volumes on the Old Testament) have greatly enriched my understanding of the Old Testament. They taught me much of the religious significance of the books of the Old Testament in the religious literature of the world. I owe more to these writers than I am able to express.

In addition to the above, I must mention the writings of Dr. Robert E. Speer, whose books have done much in shaping my thinking in missions. Many thoughts of these men I have absorbed to the degree that they have become a part of my thinking. Consequently, I am not always aware when I use their thoughts and words.

USAGE OF MISSIONARY TERMS

The usage of certain words needs to be explained. Much is being said today of mission and missions. The reader will find both words used in these pages. They are not synonyms. Mission, in my usage, refers to the total biblical assignment of the church of Jesus Christ. It is a comprehensive term including the upward, inward and outward ministries of the church. It is the church as sent (a pilgrim, stranger, witness, prophet, servant, as salt, as light, etc.) in this world. This book does not delineate or describe the mission of the church.

Missions is a specialized term. By it I mean the sending forth of authorized persons beyond the borders of the New Testament church and her immediate gospel influence to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ in gospel-destitute areas, to win converts from other faiths or non-faiths to Jesus Christ, and to establish functioning, multiplying local congregations who will bear the fruit of Christianity in that community and to that country.

Similarly, the terms evangelization, Christianization, socialization and civilization need clarification. They do not express the same idea.

Evangelization refers to the initial phase of Christian ministry. It is the authoritative proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as revealed in the Bible in relevant and intelligible terms, in a persuasive manner with the definite purpose of making Christian converts. It is a presentation-penetration-permeation-confrontation that not only elicits but demands a decision. It is preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ for a verdict. It is the effective presentation of the gospel for the conversion of the unbeliever or nonbeliever, making him a believer in Jesus Christ.

Christianization is organically related to evangelization and logically follows the latter. It is the indoctrination and enculturation of the believer in the gospel and Christian ethics. It is the transformation of the believer of Jesus Christ into a disciple of Christ. His whole life is to be permeated with the mind and principles of Christ in order to make him conformable to the image of Jesus Christ and an effective witness and useful servant of the Lord. He is to be made into a conscious, committed follower of the Master and is to commit his whole life to Christ and accept the lordship of Jesus Christ. In the full sense of the word, this will be a lifelong process.

Socialization is not a biblical term, but it expresses a biblical idea. While Christianization deals more with the conformity of the individual believer to Christ, socialization refers to the process by which the individual believer is led to conform to Christian ideals, standards, institutions, and a way of life as perceived by a group of believers, a church or a Christian institution. It is a molding process and, ideally, it is a postconversion process.

Civilization, a secular term which refers to the level of cultural development, is little used today in relation to Christian ministries. Insofar as it is used, it betrays a remnant from Albrecht Ritschl’s idea of Kultur-Christentum which he practically identified with Western civilization.

Today it is freely admitted that no truly Christian civilization exists anywhere. The West is dying in secularism — the divorce of culture from God and religion — and the East is drowning in a pantheistic osmosis and religio-socio-cultural symbiosis — the total merging to the degree of identification of culture and religion.

I hope Biblical Theology of Missions will meet a need in mission thinking. Too long America has propagated missions on the basis of philanthropy, Christian duty and responsibility, gospel necessity and church expansion. These are not altogether unworthy motives but they are not the deepest motives nor do they generate the highest degree of spiritual dynamism. We need theological thinking in missions. What are the deepest foundations of missions? What are the most legitimate goals and means of missions? What is the nature of Christian missions? How is missions related to the church? Is missions an abiding or terminal phenomenon, What are the real dynamics of missions? What is the relation of the gospel to eschatology? Such are some of the basic questions which theology must answer. I hope that the reader will find answers to some of these questions through his studies in this volume.

Introduction

MISSIONARY THEOLOGY IN BIBLICO-HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

CHRISTIAN MISSIONS makes sense only in the light of an existing abnormality or emergency and in the conviction that an answer to and remedy for such a malady is available. Therefore I address myself first of all to the malady or emergency which exists and which, from the historical and eternal perspective, demands action. The emergency is the fact of sin in the world which has overpowered and infected the human race and which threatens the very existence of mankind. There would be no need for Christian missions if sin were not a serious reality. Neither would the doctrine of soteriology make sense without the presence and awfulness of sin. Sin made salvation necessary and sin makes Christian missions necessary.

Numerous and well-written treatises on the doctrine of sin (hamartiology) are available, therefore it is not necessary to enter upon an exhaustive exegetical and historical exposition of this doctrine. Only some basic facts need to be emphasized.

THE FACT OF SIN

Sin is written in bold letters upon the pages of the Bible. Only four chapters are exempt from this evil. According to Genesis 1 — 2, sin was not a part of original human history. Neither is it found in Revelation 21 — 22. There is thus a brief pre-sin history (Gen 1 — 2) and a post-sin history (Rev 21 — 22). The rest of the Bible (Gen 3 — Rev 20) is a record of human sin and divine intervention, preparation, accomplishment and actualization of salvation.

The Bible does not spell out in unequivocal terms the origin of sin as such. But, it leaves no doubt that Satan is the supranatural agent by whom sin and evil enter into God’s creation, man included. However, the Bible is unequivocal about certain facts of sin in relation to mankind:

Man is a uniquely created being.

Man is a peculiar being, apart from all other creation, a creature in the image of God, an intelligent, volitional, emotional personality, perfectly related to God and endowed with capacities and authorities which defy our present comprehension, definition and realization.

Man was created sinless and for a divinely designated purpose, mission and destiny.

Such is man according to Genesis 1 — 2. The realization of this ideal is recorded or forecast in Revelation 21 — 22.

THE ENTRANCE OF SIN INTO HUMAN HISTORY

Genesis 3 radically changes man in his being, divine relationship, history, mission and destiny. Sin in all its reality, satanic impact and consequences encounters man, and man consciously and deliberately sides with sin against God and the command of God. At the same time sin penetrates, permeates and overpowers man. Thus man becomes a willful sinner, entering into a state of rebellion against God and into a life of disobedience to the command of God. He also becomes an enslaved sinner who is guilty before God, defiled in his being, depraved in his personality constitution, separated from God, and destitute of divine purpose, mission and destiny. Man is lost, and life is rendered meaningless and empty. Man is at enmity with God. At the same time, man is fallen prey to the horribleness of death as a process and destiny. This is the tragic story of Genesis 3. History is but a duplication, multiplication, expansion and intensification of man’s experience in that chapter.

THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF SIN

The Bible knows nothing of the superficial views of sin floating about today which are advocated by theologians who listen more to humanistic psychology and sociology than they listen to the Bible.

According to revelation, sin is sinful not only because of its inherent evil and awful consequences in time and eternity, in man and the universe, in the natural, social, moral and spiritual realms, but supremely because it is committed against God. God is the measure of all sin. Sin derives its seriousness from the character and being of God against whom it is committed. Here lies its gravity, its heinousness, its depth, its fatality.

Sin is not merely error, or weakness, or natural imperfection, or the absence of good. Sin is moral perversity, social evil, a false direction of mind, affection, relationship and life. It has moral and experiential existence, even though it has no separate, metaphysical existence. It is a living, dynamic principle of a degenerate spiritual life. Sin is not an original law of the human will; for it is the striving, desiring and acting against God.¹ Sin is man confronting God in rational (or irrational) disbelief, in volitional disobedience, in brazen self-love, self-rule, self-redemption, self-worship. Therefore, rationalism and its present corollary of scientism, rebellion and religious philosophy and systems of worship have constituted man’s supreme bulwark of self-defense against God.

John B. Champion depicts sin in realistic and vivid terms when he writes,

Sin is preeminently a wrong to God. It is the terrible treason that tries to wrest the throne from Perfect Goodness and Illimitable Love. It is one long, incessant attempt to dethrone the Deity. The Apostle John well describes it as lawlessness, anarchy. It turns the heart into a dark chamber of treacherous plotting against the government of God. It is the ceaseless attempt to undermine the dominion of the Divine.

One sin is incipient war with God and all good, a league with the devil and all evil, a potential hell replacing heaven. It is not merely assault upon the throne of God; it is the blow struck full at the face of the Father. Sin is the unsheathed sword and the straight thrust at the heart of God. It is the crucifixion of the good, the slaying of the Son-of-God-nature, the murder of life divine. Sin never rests till it has crowned innocence with thorns, and made its spear-thrust into the heart of unsullied righteousness.²

Certainly the diabolic nature of sin cannot be overstated. Indeed, the prince of fools is he who stands smiling at that which has destroyed his sanity, or continues to deny that which threatens him with destruction and leads to his eternal doom.

A word study of the scriptural designations of sin will substantiate all that has been said above about sin. I also refer the reader to such passages as Genesis 6:5; Jeremiah 17:9; Romans 1:18-32; 5:6, 8, 10; 6:21; 2 Corinthians 4:4; Ephesians 2:1-3.

The unity of the human race and the universality of sin are assumed and asserted in the Scriptures. The Bible in proposition, biography and history testifies to the universality and perpetuity of sin, and human history is its fullest exposition and most convincing demonstration (Ro 3:23; 5:12 ff.; 1:18 — 3:20).

The consequences of sin are stated in no uncertain terms. Sin is inherent evil and therefore disruptive, corruptive, defiling, degrading, and bears destruction and death in its very nature. In addition, it brings the wrath of God upon man and leads to eternal separation from God, which is the second death (Ac 28:27; Eph 2:2; 4:18; Mt 13:15; Ro 8:7; 5:12; 6:21; Lk 16:19-31; Rev 20:11-15).

THE REMEDY FOR SIN

However, man is still human. As such, he is left with the capacity and an awareness for the need of salvation, but not with the wisdom to design salvation nor with the power and capacity to procure or achieve it. In salvation, man is as dependent upon God as he was in his original creation. In himself, he is helpless and hopeless. The turning point and beam of light lie in the words But God!

In infinite wisdom God designed salvation; in infinite grace and at infinite cost God procured salvation in Christ Jesus, His only begotten Son; in infinite power God sent forth the Holy Spirit to actualize salvation in the individual and in history; in infinite compassion God instituted mission and missions — first through Israel and now through His church — in order that helpless and hopeless mankind might hear, know and believe the good news of the infinite salvation of God for mankind. This, too, is the story of Genesis 3 through Revelation 20.

Thus we have a parallelism in the sin-and-salvation portion of the Bible (Gen 3 — Rev 20). On the one hand this portion is the record of the fact and horribleness of sin operating in mankind and of man’s sinfulness and depravity in consciously and volitionally yielding to sin. On the other hand this portion shows the grace, faithfulness, long-suffering and loving-kindness of God toward mankind in providing salvation, though the seriousness of the holiness and justice of God in judgment and sufferings inflicted is not absent.

The divine aspect in this parallelism is constituted in the provision of salvation in Christ Jesus and in the proclamation and actualization of the salvation of God provided for mankind. The first is exclusively divine intervention. The latter is committed to the church of Jesus Christ (relatively so, as we shall see later) indwelt and endowed by the Holy Spirit.

All this was made necessary because of the awfulness of sin as present evil and continued consequences in time and eternity.

MISSIONARY THEOLOGY AND BIBLICAL UNIVERSALITY

Before tracing the underlying universality of missionary intent in the Bible, the meaning of terms must be clarified.

THE MEANING OF UNIVERSALITY

I have chosen to use the term universality rather than universalism. This should help to avoid a common misunderstanding. The word universalism in itself is not a bad word. Its usage, however, has been greatly limited and distorted in much of recent literature. Because of this, Webster defines universalism as the theological doctrine that all souls will eventually find salvation in the grace of God. This, of course, is but one definition which need not be necessarily normative.

In recent philosophical theology and interreligious dialogue the word has most often signified the recognition that God has revealed Himself in all human history and particularly in all living religions. This is thought of as revelational universalism. This position denies the Christian theological concept of Heilsgeschichte as recorded in the Old Testament in contrast to general or secular world history. Neither does this position admit an essential distinction between general and special revelation. Because of the presence of such revelation we are told that all religions witness to the same God and eventually lead to the same destination. It is believed that all religions offer salvation in God here and heaven hereafter.

It is readily admitted by liberal theologians and philosophical religionists that some religions have a fuller revelation and therefore offer a way more easily discernible. However, they contend that no religion is completely devoid of the way. This type of universalism of revelation and salvation holds wide acceptance today and strongly bids for official approval and popular acceptance. It is undergirded by an ancient Logos theology and by the misapplication of certain Bible passages.

I have postponed dealing with the false concepts as expressed in the above types of universalism. They appear in chapter 7 on the gospel and missions. Here I merely state that the Bible constrains me categorically to reject both theories.

Because of such usages of the word universalism, I have avoided the word and chosen to use such words as universality, comprehensiveness and inclusiveness, all-embracing intent and similar descriptive words.

In the biblical sense, universality connotes that God’s purpose is comprehensive rather than particularistic, including the total human race rather than being national or merely individual. It holds that God’s promise and provision of salvation include all mankind and not just an elect remnant. According to this usage, it teaches that God’s provision of salvation is for all mankind and that His offer of salvation is sincerely made to every man. It is in this sense that I use the word universality. It is a convenient and technical term to express the missionary intent and provision of the Bible which addresses itself to the whole race, whether directly or indirectly — first through Israel and now through the church. Theologically we may make the following distinctions:

Ideal universality speaks of God’s gracious provision of salvation in Christ for all men. It is implied in the fact that "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself (2 Co 5:19), that Christ is the propitiation … for the sins of the whole world (1 Jn 2:2), that God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved (Jn 3:17), that Christ is the Lamb of God who took away the sin of the world" (Jn 1:29). God’s provision is for all mankind. It is racial rather than particularistic.

Practical universality implies that it is the will of God that the gospel should be proclaimed universally, that all mankind and each individual should have the opportunity to hear the good news of redemption.

Ideal and practical universality constitute the basic thesis of this book and will be fully established. Both are emphatically expressed in the Great Commission.

Realized universality expresses the idea that all people have already been saved in Christ and therefore are assured of eternal salvation. It teaches that all people in history, in death or after death, will come to the knowledge and experience of salvation. It must be emphatically stated that such a theory is extrabiblical. In vain students will search the pages of Holy Writ to find any substantiation for such teaching. In fact, the Bible teaches in no uncertain terms that not all people will be saved. Unbelievers will perish from the presence of the Lord and will be condemned to eternal punishment (2 Th 1:8-10).

THE METHODOLOGY OF UNIVERSALITY

Universality must not be confused with missions as it is thought of at present. Missions literally means sending. Universality, especially as presented in the Old Testament, does not necessarily imply sending. In fact, nowhere in the Old Testament was Israel sent to the nations. It was not commissioned to go to the nations to proclaim the revelational truth committed to God’s people. Universality is a biblical principle expressing the purpose and provision of God. The actualization of this principle and purpose is a matter of methodology and of time. In regard to methodology, the Scriptures prescribe a twofold way — the centrifugal and the centripetal. It must be recognized that the Old Testament is wholly built around the latter method, whereas the New Testament enjoins the former method (see fig. 1).

The Old Testament upholds the centripetal method which may be thought of as sacred magnetism that draws to itself. Israel, by living a life in the presence and fear of the Lord, was to experience the fullness of the blessings of God. In this way they were to startle the nations to attention, arouse their inquiry, and draw them like a magnet to Jerusalem and to the Lord. Universality was to be actualized by drawing the people to the Lord rather than by sending out messengers with a message. The principle is illustrated in the queen of Sheba coming to Jerusalem to see and to hear. So also did the eunuch of Ethiopia come to Jerusalem in search for the truth.

It is in the light of this methodology, as well as in his narrow nationalism, that Jonah in his unwillingness to go to Nineveh must be judged. Also because of Old Testament methodology, the disciples found it difficult to understand their Master in His commission to go into all the world. According to the Old Testament, the world of nations is to come to Jerusalem. There the nations are to learn the way of the Lord and to worship. It will be remembered that the disciples were the last to leave Jerusalem during the early years of persecution and go farther and preach the gospel (Ac 8:1). No doubt they found it easy to preach on the day of Pentecost to the people who had come to Jerusalem. But why must they go from Jerusalem? It constituted a turnabout in methodology but not in principle and purpose.

THE ACTUALIZATION OF UNIVERSALITY

In regard to the time of the actualization of universality, caution must be exercised in the interpretation of the Old Testament. A careful study established the thesis that the Bible makes a fourfold presentation of universality which finds its culmination and full expression in the second coming of Christ.

First, there is a universality of revelation and actualization which relates to the total human race. This is recorded in Genesis 1 — 11, where God reveals Himself to and deals with the entire race. All nations share alike in the knowledge of God, for His approach is to all mankind. There is no special or mediating people. Shem is such only in prophecy.

Second, in the Old Testament there is a universality in which Israel becomes the mediator between God and the nations. This in no way interrupts the original comprehensive purpose and intent. Rather, it is God’s method of mediating Himself to the world. God is still the God of mankind; He is the God of all nations. Israel, however, is to be the priesthood of God among the nations to mediate God’s revelation, salvation and purpose. This inclusive intent is maintained throughout Old Testament history, as we shall see more fully in the coming pages. Never was there a time when the nations did not have access to God, although God mediated His revelation through Israel. It was the responsibility of the nations to inquire and to seek God. In the light of this principle, Paul’s strong indictment of the nations in Romans 1:18-32 must be read. Instead, entering upon the search of truth, they rather suppressed the truth they possessed. Thus the nations as well as Israel failed in the Old Testament dispensation.

Third, because of failure on the part of Israel to be the light of the world and the salt of the earth to the degree of her enabling and the need of the world, God has temporarily set aside Israel as His chosen servant. He has called the church of Jesus Christ to be a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people, to show forth the praises of Him who hath called believers out of darkness into His marvelous light (1 Pe 2:9). The function of Israel has been transferred temporarily to the church of Jesus Christ which has become the witness, the priesthood, the servant, the light, the salt. Thus in the present dispensation the church is God’s mediating agency not of salvation but of the message of God’s salvation in Christ Jesus. She is under the solemn responsibility to make known the unsearchable riches of Christ among the nations. The gospel must be preached to every creature. Her calling is unique and specific, her equipment in and through the Holy Spirit adequate. There is no uncertainty about the purpose and program of God, and there ought to be no hesitancy in obedience, commitment and action.

Fourth, the Scriptures emphatically forecast a prophetic, Messianic universality of the gospel in the millennium when the comprehensive intent of God in Christ will be more fully realized and the knowledge of the Lord and His salvation will become universal (Hab 2:14; Ps 22:27; Is 11:9). The nation of Israel will be raised up by the Lord and will turn to the Lord and become the servant of Jehovah. This national miracle, which is foretold in numerous passages in the Old Testament, is most vividly presented by Isaiah in the second part of his great prophecies (chaps. 40-66) under the image of a servant. Ezekiel portrayed it in a symbolic manner in his last great chapters under the visions of the dry bones being revived and the temple and worship being restored to serve the nation and the nations (chaps. 37-48).

Having been restored nationally and spiritually, Israel will then lead the nations to the knowledge of the Lord and the nations will worship and serve the Lord (Zec 14:9, 16-19; Is 60 — 66). This will be in contrast to the present age when God is calling to Himself a people — the church — from among the nations of the world.

I realize that it is difficult for us to think in terms of national conversions, but such are anticipated by the Scriptures. They will surely come, and the cause of Christ will triumph in an unprecedented manner.

Upon the new earth, either in the millennium or after the millennium, nations will be found surrounding New Jerusalem, walking in the true light of the Lord, finding healing in the fruit of the tree of life, serving the Lord and worshiping the triune God. The triumph of the Lamb become racial.

God has a marvelous plan and program. History has purpose and meaning. There is a Heilsgeschichte Gottes which cannot be frustrated nor can it be defeated. God is in it and He moves triumphantly from stage to stage; in this all writers and seers of the Bible agree. The Bible is a book of hope and triumph.

Many faithful and true servants of God do not see the latter point this way. They spiritualize the numerous passages of the Old Testament and apply them to the New Testament. I cannot accept such spiritualizations, no matter how well and how zealously preached and defended. I see little difference in the application of a hermeneutical principle which spiritualizes prophecy and which demythologizes history only insomuch that the one is positive and the other negative. It seems to me that there is a close affinity of principle although not of motive and intent. Yet, as the latter destroys the fact of history, the former destroys the meaning of history. The one undermines the historicity (Geschichte) of the Scriptures; the other undercuts the philosophy of the Scriptures. The Holy Spirit would preserve both.

Universality, thus, is a broad concept. It expresses the missionary program of God in the world of mankind, rooted in the racial purpose of God and the all-sufficient provision of salvation in Christ Jesus.

MISSIONARY THEOLOGY AS A THEOLOGICAL DISCIPLINE

The study of Christian missions has been for centuries a separate and distinct discipline not usually considered to be material for the theologian or for the pastor. In fact, most theologians and pastors passed by the courses in missions and ignored mission literature and matters of mission organization. The church, the pastor and the theologian often remained detached if not aloof from mission studies and mission movements. In most countries of Europe and England separate schools of missions functioned to train missionary candidates in missiology.

In the last decades an alignment of church and missions has come about, but the practical outworking of this is difficult to predict. The identification of church with mission may become as abnormal and detrimental to the cause as was the earlier divorce of church and missions. However this may develop, missions has been joined to ecclesiology, and mission studies have become a part of the departments of the church either in its practicum or in its history. Theoretically, this is a step forward.

I maintain, however, that this token alignment is inadequate from a biblical perspective. Allowing for a theoretical distinction between missionary theology and practicum, missionary theology must move up until it finds its place in theology itself. Ideally, it should be integrated with the very theology of the triune God.

In his little booklet, Unchanging Missions — Biblical and Contemporary, Douglas Webster opens his lecture series with these words: We begin, then, where mission begins, with God.³ Only such an approach does justice to the well-sustained claim of Georg F. Vicedom that mission is Missio Dei.⁴

Only as mission has its source in and derives its nature and authority from the triune God can it truly generate lasting and enduring motivation and become really Christian, really meaningful. On any other level it remains humanism, no matter how religionized or Christianized such humanism may be.

The failure of Reformation Protestantism to generate the dynamic of missions and later to sustain this dynamic in its world outreach can be blamed principally on its incomplete and unbalanced theology. Protestant theology concerned itself almost exclusively with the being and character of God as manifested by His attributes. To this it added an extensive study of the works of God. These are two tremendously important aspects which are of fundamental consequence to all theology.

However, this only established the otherness, greatness, majesty and glory of God and made all His works dependent upon Him. Strangely and silently this theology has bypassed the biblical concept of the living God, the God of purpose, the God of history, action and existential relationships, the God of here and now, the God who presently is working out His plan and program, the God who is an outgoing God, a God of mission. Thus theology has occupied itself more with the God of heaven and the God of creation than with the God of the eternal presence in salvation and missions. Such inadequacy naturally leads to a divorce of theology and missions.

A similar charge must be registered concerning the doctrine of Christology as taught in theology. It usually is presented in two sections: the person of Christ and the work of Christ. This is good. But is it complete? Is it doing justice to the biblical presentation of Christ? Did He not also have a plan and a program to accomplish that for which He came, lived and died? Was He not sent authoritatively and purposively by the Father? Are we not to proclaim the gospel and gather out the church according to the eternal purpose which he [God] purposed in Jesus Christ our Lord (Eph 3:11)? Is a study of His work complete without a study of His purpose for the historic effectuation of the work?

Well does W. O. Carver define missions as the extensive realization of God’s redemptive purpose in Christ Jesus by means of human messengers.⁵ Are we doing justice to the doctrine of Christ without fully expounding the missionary purpose and program for which He came, lived and died? The missionary purpose and outreach of God are essential factors in the work of Christ, and their disassociation is unnatural. Its negative outworking is felt at home and around the world.

No less crucial is a truly biblical exposition of the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete of the triune God in this world. His pre- and extra-Pentecostal and suprahuman movements and ministries within culture and society are little understood and expounded. While we debate such vital doctrines as the indwelling, sealing, baptism and empowering of the Holy Spirit, we practically ignore the broader and deeper ministry of the Holy Spirit who in wise providence is creating high-potential areas around the world where the gospel may triumph to the glory of God and the blessing of mankind. Theology is neglecting a most vital doctrine of the Bible and thereby is missing a most crucial opportunity to become what it ought to be — a missionary theology of dynamic proportions rather than simply an exposition of dogma or a defense of the faith. While the latter is necessary, the former is imperative.

Missions is the progressive objectification of the eternal and benevolent purpose of God which roots in His very being and character and which embraces all ages, races and generations.

Missions is the historic effectuation of God’s salvation procured on behalf of all mankind in Christ Jesus because of His incarnation, death and resurrection. It offers forgiveness of sins and new life and dynamic to all who believe in Him as eternal Son of God and Saviour of mankind.

Missions is the practical realization of the Holy Spirit operating in this world on behalf of the eternal purpose of God and the actualization of salvation procured through Christ Jesus in the lives of countless individuals, families, tribes and people. Thus missions relates to the triune God.

Missionary theology is not an appendix to biblical theology; it belongs at its very core. No doctrine of God, Christ or the Holy Spirit has been expounded completely according to the Bible until it has established the triune God as the outgoing God of mission, the God of saving purpose and relationship to mankind who undertakes a program for the progressive realization of His purpose.

We agree with W. O. Carver when he says, No thought of God is true to His revelation of Himself that does not rest on the fact that He ’so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son’ that by believing in Him the world should be saved through Him."⁶

It must be confessed that the evangelical and nonecumenical part of Christianity in America has concerned itself very little with a theology of missions. While the Bible has been believed and taught, missions has been related very little to theology and to the purpose of God through the ages. Thus our bookshelves are bare of literature on this subject. The closest we have come to it in America is a volume written by Harold Lindsell originally published under the title, A Philosophy of Christian Missions. More recently it has been reprinted as An Evangelical Theology of Missions.⁷

The 1966 Wheaton Congress on The Church’s Worldwide Mission wrestled seriously with certain phases relating to the theology of missions, but failed to come to grips with the subject as such. It must be admitted that no formulated theology of missions exists from the evangelical, nonecumenical perspective. It is time to wake up, lest the foundations erode completely.

Such a dearth does not exist in the ecumenical world. Considerable material on the subject is included in the official reports of the International Missionary Council at the 1910 Edinburgh Conference on Missions. In more recent years numerous volumes have appeared on the subject. It must be stated that the result of these conferences and after sessions has been as much debate as it has been dialogue, as much interreligious compromise as Christian confrontation, as much evasion as formulation, as much confusion as illumination, as much hindrance as help. In part, human reason rather than revelation, aesthetics rather than truth, and religion rather than the Christ of God and of history dominated the sentiment of large segments of spokesmen. Thus relativism rather than absolutism gained preeminence. Well does Gerald H. Anderson state the present situation: The major issues, despite a renewal of interest and discussion, have not been resolved. If anything they have become more crucial.⁸

Nevertheless, a tremendous volume of literature has poured off the