Short Term Missions

I want to write what I think about short term missions and then I want to know what others think.  Whatever it is you think. Please comment.

I think that presenting the gospel of Jesus Christ to the world is the most important thing that Christians do.  Mission work is vitally important.  It is the most important thing that we can do.

How we do it, though, is also very important.  And I think that we can do better.  Especially in the area of short term missions.

One missionary organisation that I know of is called Mercy Ships.  Mercy Ships own a boat that is a floating hospital.  On board of that boat are trained medical staff who volunteer their time and services to do two things:
1. They provide medcal treatment to the poorest people in the world (currently West African nations) who couldn't otherwise afford or fnd people to do it.  They bring skills and opportnities to the countries that they otherwise wouldn't have had.
2. They tell the people that they treat about Jesus and his eternal healing.  They offer the gospel to everyone who becomes their patient and many more besides.
I think that Mercy Ships does great work and that, for the most part, short term missions with them are valuable and worthwhile.  This is because they fill a material/social/medicinal need in the world that otherwise wouldn't be filled and with that they also bring the gospel of Jesus Christ.  This is, I think, how it should be.

There is a type of short term mission, though, that I do not approve of.  It usually involves a group of young people going together to a very poor part of the world and seeing what is going on there.  It might be called a mission awareness trip or somethig of the sort.  The group would visit a few different places, see some churches in action, perhaps visit a missionary or two.  They might give a few talks to a congregation that doesn't see many white people and perhaps work with some children.  This is the kind of mission trip that I have a problem with.

My problem is that there seems to be no value to the people that they see, or if there is, it is disproportionate to the costs and possible benefits if they did not go.  In fact, a mission trip that is seen as a 'go and see' experience, seems to me to be a little perverted.  It doesn't seem that much different to going to the zoo. 

I also have a problem with the way that these trips are marketed.  Such as:

• These trips are not mission trips.  A missionary brings the gospel to people who have not heard it before.  Going on one of these trips does not make you a missionary.
• People often marvel that they have seen the world's poverty in its starkness, but they haven't.  Very rarely do these mission trips encounter the world's 1 billion hugry people.  Instead they pass them by from a moving vehicle.  The people that they spend time with are usually people living in what we would call poverty, and are certainly living from day to day, but are not the world's desperate.
• Too often the result of such missions sounds like this: "I can't believe that the people were so happy even though they have nothing.  I am going to try to be more grateful for what I have and let stuff control my life less."  When it should be: "I have seen the world's poor and destitute and there is not enough help for them.  I will live a life that allows me to help these people as much as I can, rather than continuing to help myself to whatever I want at their expense.  I will do this because I love Jesus and I love my brothers and sisters."

Lastly, I propose that we should not need an experience that costs so much to see that we have responsibilities to the world's poor.  I think that we seriously need to reconsider our ideas of Christian faithfulness when it comes to overseas travel and short term missions, as it seems to me that for the most part we are only serving ourselves.

Neocolonialism

I recently learned a new term: Neocolonialism.

We're all sold that colonialism was bad. The only thing worse than the colonialism that most of the rest of the world did, was the non-colonialism that happened in Australia. I cannot believe that I learnt the words Terra Nullius at school but don't remember it being taught as a bad thing. It was a thoroughly evil thing.

Anyway, going into some chunk of land, 'settling' there, and then encouraging the indigenous population to assimilate into your culture (encourage being a euphemism in most cases of course), enforcing your economy on them but often with lesser rights offered, etc etc, is all really bad. And so we have this lovely term post-colonialism which encapsulates the way of thinking and the approach to life and whatever else that rejects colonialism and attempts to right wrongs.

Enter neo-colonialism. This is, as the name suggests, a new form of colonialism. Taking the sweat shops in China as an example, when I buy some cheap gadget that was made in China by someone who is being poorly paid, appallingly treated, and generally oppressed, I'm participating in one form of neo-colonialism. By partaking in that marketplace, I'm forcing my economy on that person, and essentially keeping them enslaved to a system designed to maintain my prosperity and their poverty.

All these concepts we're well aware of, if not from Graham's previous posts. But I just wanted to share that nice word with you!

Faith and Deeds 2

After my last post on faith and deeds I have been thinking about what I should think about the relationship between faith, works and salvation.

Here is where I think we get unstuck in the reformed tradition becase we are so afraid of saying that we are saved by works that we say nothing of works and never address teir importance (if indeed they are important).

Let me begin by saying that it is made excessively clear in scripture that we are saved by grace alone.  There is nothing that I can do to earn my salvation.  I am incapable of good works and as such I cannot earn a place in glory.  On the final day when I am declared to be one of God's covenant people and it is shown that my name is in the book of life and that there is a place reserved for me in heaven, it will be only because I am clothed in the righteousness of Christ and washed in his blood.  Works will play no part in my declaration of inclusion in God's Kingdom (thank goodness).

So then the question is: Do works play a role in this area?  I think that the answer is yes.  Although works play no part in the inclusion in the covenant, they are an essential part of the life of the person who is included in the covenant.  Here I think that Matthew 25 is very helpful.

Jesus says:
 ³¹"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. ³²All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. ³³He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
 ³⁴"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. ³⁵For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, ³⁶I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
 ³⁷"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? ³⁸When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? ³⁹When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
 ⁴⁰"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
 ⁴¹"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. ⁴²For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, ⁴³I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
 ⁴⁴"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
 ⁴⁵"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
 ⁴⁶"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Here we are not seeing someone included in the covenant people because of their actions, but we are, I think, seeing someone judged as to whether or not they ever were one of the covenant people by their actions.  

Matthew 7 adds more to this idea for us:
¹⁵"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. ¹⁶By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? ¹⁷Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. ¹⁸A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. ¹⁹Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. ²⁰Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
 ²¹"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. ²²Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' ²³Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

Here we see that the people who are included in the covenant have shown that they are included by the way that they behave.  I don't think that this is an earning salvation type of thing, but rather it is a case of those who are saved by Christ begin to be transformed by Christ in this life and they inevitably show that in the way that they behave toward others.

Too often we hear of the man on the cross beside Jesus who had faith but o works.  I think that this is rubbish.  Although his hands and feet were suspended on the cross so that he couldn't go anywhere, he demonstrated his regenerate heart by what he spoke.  Here was a criminal, a selfish man, condemned by society who demonstrated compassion and empathy to his Lord whom he saw suffering.  What is amazing about the thef on the cross is ot that he was saved without any deeds, but that the deeds that came about as a result of his salvation came so quickly.  It is amazing that his capacityto love and show compassion came about so quickly as the man beside him demonstrated his capacity only to hate and revile.

Works are important.  They are essential.  Not in order to to attain something, but for the Christian they are something that will become necessary just because of who they are becoming and what is happening as they become regenerate servants of Christ Jesus.

Faith without deeds is dead.

Too Harsh? Oh Dear...

I was reading another of my favourite blogs the other day. The title of the blog was "Poverty is an affront to God's glory".  There was this quote from someone's abstract in a paper they were giving at some conference:

In the realm of theology, I argue that justice is a necessary but insufficient foundation for concern about poverty, proposing that St. Irenaeus of Lyons’ contentions regarding the nature of ‘glory’ be further explored. I develop a theology of glory based on three scriptural understandings, namely grandeur, grace, and gratitude, and argue that we are most “fully alive” when we are in right relationship with ourselves, each other, and God. Poverty is an affront to God’s glory, then, because it is both a cause and consequence of broken relationships.

To which the blogger said they were really looking forward to the talk. Anyway, someone commented on the post with this

That seems a rather essentializing analysis. Once upon a time, the poor were noble and a spiritual witness to the self-satisfied rich. On the basis of this quotation, it seems that Woolcock would rather have us all be in the latter category. Couldn't one equally argue that monetary wealth is both a cause and consequence of broken relationships?

To which I commented:

Of course one could, that doesn't mean that wealth is bad. The Bible is emphatic over and over that wealth is good, but that sinful people can't handle it. Nevertheless the Bible never wishes poverty on people, never.

What sort of middle class nonsense is that? I'm sorry for the force, but it's comments like that that make Christians look like the worst people on earth, and is such dangerous theology to convince people to adopt. 

The poor in this world are not impoverished in comparison to the rich, they're impoverished in comparison to those who have food, or those who have clean water. People dying of malnutrition and diseases which were eradicated for us self-satisfied rich people 100 years ago, are not something we should aim to keep so that the self satisfied rich have a mirror to look in to see their own spiritual frailty.

Why not keep a homeless person in the courtyard of your house so that every time you walk by, you're reminded of your own spiritual poverty. Don't feed him too much or educate him too well, lest your mirror be shattered and your own short-comings be more difficult to discern.

This is disgraceful theology indeed.

When Jesus speaks of the poor he speaks of future relief. Sure they may act as a mirror in some circumstances, but that does not mean he intends to keep them that way. Never does the Bible condone the existence of the poor, but it repeatedly condemns those who do not give to them. God's plan for the fullness of time is immeasurable wealth.

But what's more, who is any self satisfied rich person to claim that the status quo (ie the existence of the poor) is a good thing? How dare anyone who has much claim that it's good that there are those who have little. Give everything you have away, impoverish yourself, and then make that claim. Sit on a pole for the next 20 years if you truly feel this way. Of course you don't. Armchair theologising about such weighty matters is a disgrace. 

Sorry [blogger] - feel free to remove this comment. As usual, thanks for the great blogs. 

I have been feeling a little anxious about it ever since. I got a little worked up, perhaps sinfully so, but boy did the comment annoy me... Was I too harsh?

 

Four-and-a-half point Calvinism

The five points of Calvinism, are

1. Total Depravity
2. Unconditional Election
3. Limited Atonement
4. Irresistable Grace
5. Perseverance of the Saints

Writing them down now I realise that my theology differs in some minor ways, and so maybe I'll blog about them all in time. One interesting thing to do is read the relevant bits of Calvin's Institutes and try to decide in what particular ways he agrees with each.

Anyway, as the title demands, I want to say something very brief on four and a half point Calvinism. I know Mark Driscoll considers himself one. The point he and other four and a half point Calvinists take issue with is the third point, Limited Atonement.

Limited Atonement goes something like Jesus only died for the sins of those who he would save. The argument for this, I believe, has to do with unnecessary punishment. Did Jesus suffer for a non-Christian's sin? If he did, then those sins will be punished twice.

So, Unlimited Limited Atonement, or whatever you want to call it, according to Driscoll is (from Wiki)

[Jesus], by dying for everyone, purchased everyone as His possession and He then applies His forgiveness to the elect by grace and applies His wrath to the non-elect. Objectively, Jesus' death was sufficient to save anyone, and, subjectively, only efficient to save those who repent of their sin and trust in Him

 I think we get hung up on the wrong language with this one. I think that four and a half point and five point and even four point versions of Calvinism can potentially be the same if we think in different terms.

I don't think Jesus suffered for the sin of three billion people, I think he suffered for sin. And I think the terms should be relational not quantitative. How many friends can I have? There is no limit (time and space limitations ignores). I think this is the right language. The advantage of having a positive relationship with Jesus is his advocacy, which is available to everyone.

In this language though, I'm not comfortable using words like "sufficient for all, effective for some", because sufficient doesn't make sense. Jesus is able, but there's no quantity that justifies the use of the word sufficient.

Anyone who knows more than me here feel free to come back at me.

Generosity and Thoughtfulness

(No, this isn't Graham's second post on works, this is Tony writing one in the middle)

I'm in France right now, in the area of Burgundy. We're staying in a little stone cottage in the town of Champagny Sous Uxelles which has a population of 60. This is the most beautiful countryside I've ever seen and I've been trying to figure out a way to move here. Since I cannot and will not be a farmer, I've decided I could be an editor for a physics journal - with some journals they're allowed to work remotely - or a novelist - not too likely I'm afraid.

Anyway, we are living in the cottage 50m from 'the big house' - think, To the Manor Born, but not nearly so big - where the couple who own this place reside on weekends and for longer periods in summer. They are delightful people who have taken us wine tasting, given us two cooking lessons, and right now have taken the others to the markets.

On Wednesday we went to Paris. We took the fast train at 8am and returned home at 10pm. It was a horrifically long day, especially since we'd pushed Rose so far. Good, but horrific.

When we returned, Christine (one of the couple) had left dinner on our outside table. There was a beautiful red wine, some Camembert (which in France is overflowing with flavour), some delicious vegies, and crepes with three small jars of (homemade?) jams. All this together with a note saying words to the effect of "you must be hungry".

It was a truly wonderful act of Generosity and Thoughtfulness.

My in-laws were gob-smacked. They couldn't believe it. It was the nicest thing anyone has ever done for them, they said.

I was not particularly blown away though. It was a really nice thing to do, sure. But it wasn't ground-breaking. I don't want to take away from her generosity by any means, it's just that, people have done things like this for us before. Many times. There was an apparent need (we'd been on a long trip), and so someone who we have very little connection to, did something generous and thoughtful for us.

This made me realise some of the ways that God's people really are transformed by the spirit through community. In Wollongong there were, as I said, many occasions when someone would leave a meal, or a meal voucher, or a travel voucher, or something else thoughtful and out of the blue on our doorstep and we'd come home to find it there.

And it turns out that in the real world of nice, but un-transformed people, this is a pretty rare thing.

The first thing I thought when I saw it there was "I wonder if these guys are Christians?" I don't think they are - and in France it's very unlikely that they are - but it's such a tidy explanation. This little thought process made me realise how little I expect from the rest of the world. Isn't that sad too?

Anyway, just saying.

Faith and Deeds

In my Christian heritage and circles there is a great emphasis placed on grace.  This is ot a bad thing.  It is just that from the reformed tradition we still see that the greatest threat to Biblical Christianity is the preaching of salvation by works. 

I think that the problem now, though, is that reformed evangelical Cristianity (as I know and define it) is so focused on grace that they exclude the necessity of works in the Christian life.  I think that this has so pervaded our thinking that we misread and misinterpret important biblical passages.

Take for example the passage in Matthew 7 of the wise and foolish builder.  Often the interpretation of this is that building your life on the rock (Jesus) is good and building your life on the sand (anything other than Jesus) is bad.  So trust Jesus for your salvation and you have built your life on the rock.  We make this passage a passage about grace and faith, but it is not about that.

The passage actually says:
24    "Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock.
25    And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock.
26    And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand.
27    And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it."

Jesus has just given the sermon on the mount.  This sermon is not passive.  It is not about the grace of God and our faith in his salvific work as are passages in Romans and Galatians.  It is all about doing things.  Love your enemies.  Do good to those who persecte you.  Fast.  Pray. Look content.  Don't be a hypocrite. 

Then Jesus finishes by telling his listeners that you are like the man who builds his house on the rock if you do what he says.  Not if you trust him, but if you hear his words and then obey them. 

It is the same in Matthew 25 where Jesus talks about the sheep and the goats.  The only distinction between the sheep and the goats is how they have behaved in this world.

Just before Jesus speaks of the wise and foolish men in Matthew 7, he says this:
21    "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
22    On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?'
23    And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'

I think that we seriously need to reevaluate our position on works.  I don't think that we have it right.

In my next post I will clarify what I think about faith and deeds and their relationship to salvation, but I am interested to hear what others think as well.