Sunday, November 08, 2009
Reaching the Resistant or Reaping the Receptive?
Which approach should get more priority? Or should it even be prioritized in the first place? My 2 cents worth...
Firstly, any approach towards missions must be guided and reflected upon under the authority of Holy Spirit and the Bible. “The Spirit-inspired missionary acts of Jesus, Paul and the apostles, as well as their Spirit-inspired reflection on their practice, are authoritative for us...”[1] Our approach towards missions must have a biblical basis to it, any approach should be examined in the light of the Bible. The ministry of the Spirit is also important. We cannot direct where the Spirit will work, but instead we must be sensitive and obey where the Spirit is leading because the Spirit knows the thoughts of God. “In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.”(1 Cor 2:11b NIV) Throughout the book of Acts, we can clearly see the the partnership of the Holy Spirit in the decision making of Paul’s missionary journey. Rollin Grams clearly explains our role then with the Spirit. “This does not minimize our planning and efforts, but it puts such into a spiritual perspective. Before, during, and after our planning, we must submit our understanding and calling and actions to the Spirit.”[2]
If ‘reaching the resistant’ is making sure that the people who are resisting Christ have heard of the gospel or received some form of Christian literature and that is it, while ‘reaping the receptive’ is to teach those willing to follow Christ, to obey Christ’s commandments through discipleship, then I would say the priority should be given to the second approach. On the other hand, if ‘reaching the resistant’ is to show love and concern to the people who are resisting Christ by living amongst them and learning their culture and language, while ‘reaping the receptive’ is to make sure that those willing to follow Christ have said the sinners prayer and that is it, then I would say the priority should be given to the first approach. But because both approaches are subjective in accordance to one’s definition and view on how reaching and reaping differs, or the distinction between the resistant and the receptive, I would then do away with prioritising, but suggest two emphasis for our consideration to any approach towards missions.
Firstly, any approach towards missions must be guided and reflected upon under the authority of Holy Spirit and the Bible. “The Spirit-inspired missionary acts of Jesus, Paul and the apostles, as well as their Spirit-inspired reflection on their practice, are authoritative for us...”[1] Our approach towards missions must have a biblical basis to it, any approach should be examined in the light of the Bible. The ministry of the Spirit is also important. We cannot direct where the Spirit will work, but instead we must be sensitive and obey where the Spirit is leading because the Spirit knows the thoughts of God. “In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.”(1 Cor 2:11b NIV) Throughout the book of Acts, we can clearly see the the partnership of the Holy Spirit in the decision making of Paul’s missionary journey. Rollin Grams clearly explains our role then with the Spirit. “This does not minimize our planning and efforts, but it puts such into a spiritual perspective. Before, during, and after our planning, we must submit our understanding and calling and actions to the Spirit.”[2]
The second emphasis for any approach towards missions is faithfulness. How faithful are we to the work God has called us to do? Be it in an area resistant to the Gospel, or in an area receptive to the Gospel, are we willing to see beyond human circumstances and realise that the growth of any seed is the work of God, and our job is to faithfully sow the seeds. “A man scatters seed on the ground. Night and day, whether he sleeps or gets up, the seed sprouts and grows, though he does no know how.” (Mark 4:26b-27 NIV) Looking back into the history of missions, we can see many great examples of men who were faithful to the call of God, and how God used them to bring about His harvest.
Therefore the importance is not in prioritising any one approach above the other, but instead, it is our faithfulness in the process of any approach that has been guided and reflected upon under the authority of the Spirit and God’s Word, that holds the most important consideration.
----------
[1] Samuel Escoba, A Time For Mission: The Challenge For Global Christianity, (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 2003), 20.
[2] Rollin G. Grams, “Expanding the Argument” in response to “Some Thoughts on the Meaning of “All Nations”” by Frank M. Severn, Evangelical Missions Quarterly, (October, 1997), 423.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]