November 2009   

The Great de-Commission

As a boy growing up in south Jersey, I can recall crossing the Delaware River into Pennsylvania numerous times over the Walt Whitman Bridge. While still on the bridge I could make out in the naval yard below the shapes of mighty warships that once prowled the high seas. There were battleships, cruisers and destroyers and even an aircraft carrier or two. Some had served in WWII, others in the Korean War and some new arrivals had come from the Vietnam conflict. At one time or another, all had proudly served our country. 

What does this have to do with missions? Throughout this decade concerted attempts have been made to “mothball” the Great Commission mission statements given by Jesus. Could it be that this will be the decade that, looking back, will be called the decade of the “de-commissioning of the Great Commission?”

A recent trend in missions has been to gravitate away from the Great Commission passages (Mt. 28:18-20, Mk. 16:15, Lk. 24:44-49, Jn. 20:21, Acts 1:8) that Jesus purposefully gave to us as the theological and missiological underpinning for carrying out his mission. Some have searched the Gospels for more tolerable or appealing passages as the basis for doing mission. After all, Jesus sure didn’t mention much in his Great Commission statements about things we’d like to see as priorities in our mission efforts - things like social concern, humanitarian acts of kindness, disease abatement, or eco-justice. So it would be good, some have reasoned, to find other more attractive passages in the Gospels where he did.

In so doing, one of the best places to start would be by substituting Jesus’ Great Commission words with his great compassionate works as the model for mission. The premier passage that stands out among the others is what Jesus said about his own mission in Luke 4:18-19.  Ever since an influential book was written at the dawn of this decade, with the view of changing the mind of those engaged in missions based on this passage, the missional mindset of many has been altered. They have not only changed their minds, they have changed their priorities as well. The outcome has caused the clouding of the strategy, substance and scope of mission work today. As a consequence, much of what Jesus said we should be doing has become derailed.

Advocates of this trend continue to coax the North American Church to venerate the Luke 4 passage above Jesus’ five post-resurrection Great Commission statements. Thus, many have unwittingly drifted away from the instructions found in the Great Commission, favoring this passage in its stead. Luke 4:18-19, more commonly known now as the “Nazareth Manifesto,” is regarded as Jesus’ personal mission statement. If this was his personal statement then it should be ours as well, so the proponents reason.

Jesus’ Mission and Ours

The words spoken by Jesus in Luke 4:18-19, which he quotes from Isaiah 61:1-2, are powerful. They beautifully defined and described his ministry:

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me

to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty

to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those

who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor.

Fulfilling his role as Messiah, Jesus did those very things. But, while we grant that Jesus was genuinely concerned about those with physical disabilities, living in poverty, and experiencing injustice, we know that he was even more grieved with man’s spiritual plight. Therefore, as the Redeemer of mankind, he prioritized evangelistic outreach in mission when three years later he gave his post-resurrection mission statements to the disciples.

For those who would embrace the Nazareth Manifesto, a word of caution is important if one is determined to perfectly duplicate the ministry of Jesus. Although some say it is incumbent on Jesus’ messengers to impeccably define their ministry by his example, this can never be achieved. Jesus is an impossible model to flawlessly replicate! No person today can declare or define their ministry as Jesus did his at the synagogue in Nazareth in Luke 4. Only the Divine could genuinely fulfill the details of the Isaiah prophesy. 

Therefore, because of Jesus’ unique personhood and specific mission, the disciples were incapable of impeccably modeling their ministries after his, and neither can we. Stop and think for a moment about Jesus’ unique salvific mission: 1) he was born to die for the sins of the world (Lk. 19:10), 2) he confined his mission to the Jewish people (Mt.10:6), and 3) he performed unique miraculous “signs” and “wonders” that were meant to authenticate and separate his mission from all others (Jn. 2:11; 4:54; 7:31).1

How then could one begin to think that he or she should or could match that mission? There is a huge distinction between the unique mission of Jesus and ours. If we do not recognize this, we are doomed to deviate from what Jesus would really have us do. Some go so far as to say that those who do not distinguish the work of Jesus from that which he gave to his disciples cannot be credible.2

Take a Second Look

There are good reasons why the “Nazareth Manifesto” is difficult, if not impossible to apply today:

1 This quote by Jesus is descriptive of his mission and was not intended to be prescriptive. It describes the fulfilling of a Messianic prophecy, which can only be applied to Jesus, the true Messiah. Jesus never commanded others to do likewise because the details were for him alone to fulfill. We dishonor his personhood when we attempt to equate our works with his.

2 The passage is impossible to be carried out by every (if any) believer. It contains miraculous elements that only God can do, such as giving sight to the blind. In contrast, the Great Commission is capable of being engaged in by every Christ-follower.

3 A reading of the entire Isaiah 61 text reveals that this passage could only be applied locally – performed in and for Israel. It speaks of Zion and foreigners serving a restored Israel. These verses were not intended for universal application in all nations of the world. The geographical context does not allow it.

4 All the Great Commission passages are commands of responsibility to believers. Luke 4:18-19 is a quote and statement of fact, not a command.  There are no imperatives in this text for us to obey.  

5 Although this passage has been labeled a “manifesto” (i.e.: a public written declaration of principles, policies, and objectives, especially one issued by a political movement or candidate),3 it cannot be equated with a commission. To equate them only confuses their distinctions. A manifesto makes a statement; a commission makes a demand.

Thus Luke 4:18-19 cannot be a legitimate substitute for the Great Commission. For that matter, any passage that draws us away from Jesus’ Great Commission statements for any reason whatsoever should be suspect.

Social Responsibility and the Great Commission

For those concerned with the absence of the social mandate supposedly excluded from the Great Commission passages, they need not be. Social responsibility is found throughout and becomes evident if one digs deep enough:

1 The example of Jesus: “As the Father has sent me, so send I you.” (John 20:21)

Jesus is the prototype missionary whose humanity all missionaries should emulate. During the time he was evangelistically active, Jesus was socially active as well. Out of compassion for people’s physical plight (Mat.9:36) and as a means of drawing attention to his salvific message, he engaged in holistic works. Following Jesus implicitly means following his example in regards to engaging human need.

2 The implication of Jesus: “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.” (Mark 16:15) Why did Jesus use the word “creation” instead of “mankind?” Because not only is mankind affected by the fall, but so also is all of creation. It too is in need of redemption (Romans 8:18-23) and reconciliation (Colossians 1:19-20). Herein lies the beauty of man gaining salvation: the effects of human redemption spill over into all of the created order. When people align themselves with the Creator, a natural benefit to cultures and the environment is that people become better stewards of his creation. Eco-justice becomes a subset of the church’s mission through the change of hearts of those living out a new worldview. However, this reality needs to be distinguished from what the church’s mission is by explicit command – that of evangelization.

3 The teaching of Jesus: “…teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” (Matthew 28: 19) The “all” includes Jesus’ teachings on being compassionate and performing humanitarian acts of kindness. Though many life settings and teachings of Jesus can be cited, probably the best known is his teaching in the Parable of the Good Samaritan. Certainly those specific philanthropic teaching settings must have come to mind when the disciples heard in this commission statement what they in turn were to teach.

Summing Up

To downgrade the obvious and clear-cut five Great Commission passages, substituting them with one non-related, limited application passage, is neither necessary nor hermeneutically proper. The danger of continuing down this path will divert many from what Jesus commanded us to do. Instead of “restoring” and “recovering a sharpened vision” of the church’s mission, the elevation of the Nazareth Manifesto higher than the Great Commission blurs its vision and deflates its evangelistic vitality and fervor. In effect the Great Commission itself becomes de-Commissioned.

Member Spotlight

CrossGlobal Link Honors

Dr. Jack Frizen 

With Lifetime Service Award

At the September 2009 CrossGlobal Link Annual Conference, Dr. Edwin L. (Jack) Frizen was honored with the Lifetime Service Award by our association. Recognizing the significant contribution of Dr. Frizen to the world of missions for nearly 60 years of service, the Board of CrossGlobal Link publicly bestowed this honor on him. 

After serving in the U.S. Navy during World War II, Jack returned to the Philippines to help found Far Eastern Gospel Crusade (now SEND International). Following five years on the board of the mission, including several years as home secretary, he and his wife Grace, served eight years in the Philippines.

In 1963, Jack became the Executive Director of the Interdenominational Foreign Mission Association (now known as CrossGlobal Link). During his 28 years with IFMA he developed it into the strong association of missions that it is today. He moved the headquarters from New Jersey to Illinois, overseeing the building of our office where it continues to effectively serve the broader mission community. Jack also wrote 75 Years of IFMA, an excellent book that tells the story of the beginning of IFMA and its growth through 1992. In the Foreword, Dr. Ralph Winter wrote that “… this book is much more than the story of (IFMA). It is the story of a highly crucial movement within the larger cause of global missions.”

At age 84 Jack is still involved in missions, serving as mission consultant with Pioneers, where he is affectionately known as “Uncle Jack.”

Becoming Globally Friendly

While we expect change and even plan for it, we might not always anticipate the impact it will have on us. A friend of mine was the director of a well-respected and internationally known ministry. A couple of years ago he shared with me, “I’ve successfully developed this ministry into irrelevance.” He went on to explain how the context had changed and left them with difficult decisions on how best to adapt “their successful ministry” to current reality. This reminds me of a bridge I came across in Bolivia; the bridge is sturdy and well constructed, but the river changed its course and now it spans a beautiful stretch of dry land!  

Perhaps the most significant change impacting missions today is the growth of the majority world missions’ movement (MWMM). Initially some thought this would not appreciably impact traditional mission organizations (TMOs). However, we now recognize that whether you intentionally integrate MWMM missionaries into your organization or simply partner with aspects of the MWMM, the reality has changed and your effectiveness in engaging with the MWMM will determine to a large degree your mission’s future relevance.       

In the past, a mission was considered to be “international” if it was able to “send” missionaries from more than one country. In the future a mission will be considered to be international by its capacity to “receive” missionaries from around the world. This paradigm shift from “sending” to “receiving” is challenging TMOs particularly in what they consider to be their “sending role.” Some TMOs are engaging the MWMM by restructuring to receive their missionaries directly into their ministry teams. Others struggle with receiving these new missionaries into their traditional sending structures and procedures. Interestingly, the relevance of the traditional and costly sending structures is being questioned today by both the MWMM and the very churches which sent out missionaries over the last 100 years through those same structures.   

Two words characterize the future of missions: flexibility and partnership. It isn’t easy for a 100-year old organization to be flexible. One director recently observed: “We are seeking to change the wineskin without spilling the wine.” Missions are wrestling with changing their organizational governance and structure as well as policies on finance, membership, team language, pastoral care, multi-cultural team training, etc., while maintaining their core identity. Those that are addressing these issues are being perceived by the MWMM as “globally friendly,” or missions with whom they would love to send their missionaries.  

Mission organizations are accustomed to developing and managing ministry partnerships but few have developed their capacity to partner with those entities sending out missionaries from the MWMM. Suddenly “being” an organization that is globally friendly, flexible and effective in their management of partnerships takes on new significance. We have witnessed cooperation between TMOs in developing solutions to common challenges in personnel and financial management. We now need to recast these platforms of cooperation to include as equal contributors many of the outstanding leaders in the MWMM and their agendas. Global challenges require global solutions that only result from global cooperation.   

May we enthusiastically embrace the changes God is orchestrating and seek His leading on how best to respond. 

Upcoming Events