The Presence of Mission in Both the Old and New Testaments

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER TWO: THE THEOLOGICAL BASIS FOR MISSION

Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to provide a theological framework for the understanding of mission as the creation of a God-ward culture – a mandate that God has given to his people. Using the Bible as the primary source, this chapter looks at the Old and the New Testament and considers the presence of mission in both books. The chapter also investigates the questions “what does the Bible as a whole tell us about why the people of God exist?” and “what is it that they are supposed to be and do in the world?” The chapter then introduces a definition of mission that is not influenced by the concepts of redemption or salvation. The chapter is divided into five parts. The first part deals with the question “what is mission?” It looks at the definition of the term mission, the distinction between mission (singular) and missions (plural), the division of the biblical narrative into four main sections, and how the definition of the term has influenced scholars in the way they use the term and apply the concept in their understanding of the different mission models. It then looks at the central theme for the thesis – the kingdom of God – and defines the concept. The second part investigates the presence of mission both in the Old and New Testaments using the concept of the kingdom of God and locates the concept in each of the four divisions of the biblical narrative. The third part examines God’s purpose for mission and looks at God’s purpose in the call of Adam, Abraham and Jesus. It introduces the concept of the “three Adams” (meaning Adam, Abraham and Jesus). The fourth part of the chapter looks at some of the models of mission in the Bible and the last part draws some conclusions in the form of a reflection.

What is Mission?

When the term mission is used, it is still understood in many circles primarily as the geographical expansion of the Christian faith through Church planting and the conversion of non-Christians to the Christian faith. In some circles it still has the traditional understanding of the geographical movement of the faith and the crossing of seas from the Western world to the non-Western world. Thus, it involves the concept of the “mother Church” and “daughter Churches”. This misunderstanding is to be found in the two camps: the “mothers” as well as the“daughters”. Many Christians see the Church in the West as the mother Church and members of the Church in the West are happy and proud to be the “mother Church” that exercises its dominance and paternalistic tendencies on the Church in the non-Western world. Some members of the Church in the non-Western world want to remain babies, always looking to the “mother” to meet all their needs, whether these be financial, spiritual or pastoral. For instance, in the Anglican Church, many Anglicans see the Church of England as the “mother Church” of the Anglican communion, and the Archbishop of Canterbury as the pastoral and spiritual leader of the communion, much like the Pope in the Roman Catholic Church. The Archbishop of Canterbury is seen as the final authority in resolving conflicts in dioceses. If conflicts arise in a particular diocese, letters from self-appointed “concerned parishioners” (as the discounted parishioners usually call themselves) are written to the Archbishop of Canterbury (some even go to the extent of sending copies of their letters of complaints to the Queen of England) and the archbishop is asked to come and help resolve the conflict. Such Church members do not see the need to contribute to the well-being of their local
Church because to them all is provided by the Church in the West. All they need to do, according to them, is to appeal and the mother Church will respond and meet all their needs.Those who have moved on and stopped seeing the Church in the West as the “mother Church” still have the “mother Church” concept lingering in their thoughts and experiences. The concept has been shifted from the Church in the West to the local bigger Church, especial those from which people who initiate the planting of Churches come from. Even in this case, some of these local missionary sending Churches are proud to be considered as the “mother Church”.These, like their Western Church sisters, exercise their motherhood and paternalistic tendencies on their “daughter Church” and the daughters are content with their position in this false image of who they are.

Definition

Bevan and Schroeder argue that “mission is notoriously difficult to define”(2004:25). The term mission has not been an easy one to define and has been used with ambiguity. It is perhaps with this in mind that Ferdinando in his article“Mission a Problem of Definition” observes that the ambiguity in meaning of the term may not matter so much. What is important is not the precise definition but rather the informed and biblical reflections of the activities and ministry that are referred to. Therefore, the substance and not the word is important. Ferdinand makes the above observation and acknowledges the difficulty in coming up with one concrete definition and then explains the need for each scholar or individual calling for mission to be clear about what type of mission one is talking about. He argues that It does still matter in that confusion over meaning of the word is likely to produce uncertainty about such questions of substance as well. In this case there is agreement about the central importance of mission. Whatever it is and the obligation under which it places Churches and individual Christians to quote Brunner’s well-known observation “The Church exists for mission as a fire exists for burning.” Where there is no mission there is no Church. However, it is problematic to call people to engage in mission when the meaning of engagement remains elusive. (Ferdinando 2008:46)
Kosternberger (1998:1) comments on the definition of the term “mission” in the opening words of the introduction of his book, The Missions of Jesus and the Disciples according to the Fourth Gospel. Kösternberger says that the term“mission” like the term “discipleship” has a commonplace in the contemporary Church. It is spoken of young people as going on short-term mission or prospective missionaries as joining a mission agency. Moreover, in theological writings the word mission is ubiquitously used. Numerous studies on mission have been made on various portions of the Bible. In these writings reference is made to the “mission of Jesus”, the “mission of Paul” or the “mission of the people of God”. But in all these the term does not carry the same meaning; the meaning ranges from proclaiming the gospel on a cross-cultural dimension to ministry that is a person’s sense of call or purpose. Thus, in the midst of such terminological diversity and differences, it is difficult to know how the word is tied to the biblical concepts. It is therefore important to be specific rather than trying to bring various strands of biblical teaching on mission together.

READ PAUL TILLICH’S CHRONOLOGY AND AUTOBIOGRAPHY

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
DEDICATION
DECLARATION
ABSTRACT
TABLE OF CONTENT
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
1.2 Problem Statement
1.3 Aim of the Study
1.4 Motivation
1.5 Scope
1.6 Theoretical Framework
1.7 Literature Review
1.8 Methodology
1.9 Key Concepts
1.10 Structure of the Thesis
CHAPTER TWO: THE THEOLOGICAL BASIS FOR MISSION
2.1 Introduction
2.2 What is Mission?
2.2.1 Definition
2.2.2 Distinction between mission and missions
2.2.3 The basic structure of the biblical narrative
2.2.4 How the definition influences the usage of the term
2.2.4.1 George W. Peters
2.2.4.2 Jean-Paul Heldt
2.2.4.3 Christopher J.H. Wright
2.2.4.4 Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert
2.2.4.5 John Piper
2.2.4.6 David G. Burnett
2.3 The Presence of Mission in Both the Old and New Testaments
2.3.1 Liberating mission from the salvation connotation
2.3.2 The kingdom of God
2.3.3 Fitting the definition into the biblical story
2.4. God’s Purpose for Mission
2.4.1 God’s purpose for mission in the Old Testament
2.4.1.1 Adam in God’s purpose for mission
2.4.1.2 Abraham in God’s purpose for mission
2.4.2 God’s purpose for mission in the New Testament
2.4.2.1 The relationship between the Old Testament and the New
Testament
2.4.2.2 Jesus in God’s purpose for mission
2.4.2.3 The Church in God’s purpose for mission
2.5 Models of Mission in the Bible
2.5.1 The centripetal model of mission
2.5.2 The centrifugal model of mission
2.5.3 The Abrahamic model
2.5.4 The Exodus model of mission
2.6 Reflection
CHAPTER THREE: MISSION IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Creation
3.2.1 Adam’s mission
3.3 The Fall
3.4 The Redemption
3.4.1 The divine offices
3.4. 2 Abraham’s mission
3.4.3 Israel’s mission
3.4.4 The kingdom of Israel
3.4.5 The division of the kingdom and the exile
3.4.6 The concept of the remnant
3.5 Reflection
CHAPTER FOUR: MISSION IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
4.1 Introduction
4.2 God’s Plan for Mission
4.2.1 The concept of the Messiah
4.3 The Mission of Jesus
4.3.1 The ministry of Jesus
4.3.2 The call to discipleship
4.3.3 The Great Commission
4.4 Mission of the Church
4.5 New Creation (Consummation: Revelation 21-22)
4.6 Reflection
CHAPTER FIVE: A GOD-WARD CULTURED COMMUNITY
5.1 Introduction
5.2 The Difference between the God-Ward Cultured Community and Christendom
5.2.1 Christendom
5.2.2 God-ward culture
5.3 Relationship between the Cultural Mandate and the Gospel Mandate
5.3.1 Cultural mandate
5.3.2 Gospel mandate
5.4. Relationship between Evangelism and Social Action
5.4.1 Evangelism
5.4.2 Social action
5.5 Reflection
CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION
6.1 Observations
6.2 Recommendation
BIBLIOGRAPHY