OK, here it is...the official kick-off to our Missions Month blog! Welome along and thanks for checking this out. Hopefully this will be an interesting way to keep the conversation about mission going throughout the month and get some dialogue going about the themes we're covering.
So in our first week, we've been looking at how mission is creational. That is, the scope of God's mission is the whole earth. We talked about how sin is a cosmic problem that has affected every sphere of life - society, creation, as well as our personal relationship with God. It therefore required a cosmic solution, which God provided on the cross. Through the cross God intends to redeem everything sin has touched, including creation. Part of God's mission on earth is therefore reconciling creation to himself.
Because this is a different way of thinking about mission for a lot of people, I'm interested in any thoughts you have about how this changes the way we understand "mission." How easy or difficult is it for you to broaden out your thinking on mission this far? Any comments are welcome...
5 comments:
Ooh first comment...should I be so brave?
Well I love the idea of God's mission being the whole earth, and also holistic mission as I'm keen on social justice. However, my challenge is that I'm tempted to allow that view to let me off the hook from personal evangelism...by pretending that all I need to do is recycle and give to World Vision to spread God's Word. In fact I wish it was that easy! But holistic means encompassing all of our lives, so God's mission should encompass ours.
One of my favourite words at the moment: decompartmentalisation. I'm trying to live up to it...
We live in an age where Christians are coming under a lot more scrutiny than before. The most powerfull witness to unbelievers is behaviour. People take more notice of what you do over what you say.
I'm pretty keen on social justice and caring for the environment.
But it must flow out of a love for what God has already done in your heart, otherwise you're just blowing hot air.
Mother Teresa was a great advocate of social justice and helping the poor. But she refused to acknowledge that Jesus was the only way to be saved. What good is that then?
Preach the gospel and if neccesary use words. Some share the gospel with sermons, others over a coffee, others by simply being there for those who are suffering.
We had a lively discussion at Life Group last week before the Sunday sermon. One thought - If we have limited time and money where would we put our resources - mission based on people was prefered over mission based on creation.
Another thought - many of the technological advances in someway have impacted negatively on creation e.g. planes but have also been very positive. What is the balance between caring for creation and impacting with techno advances?
To reduce our carbon footprint should we be going to the closest church to us rather than traveling for miles?
I love the fact the term holistic was raised. While we should be more environmentally friendly etc, we should not do it in a fashion that creates an unacceptable trade off.
Hybrid cars are great, but the impact on the environment in the creation of them can be even greater than eco footprint it saves.
Bio Fuels are a great idea until the cost of food is driven above the average wage in a third world country.
the list goes on.. I'm all for the concept as long as its weighed and measured on all levels.
I think the focus on environment is a useful perspective on mission - but I also think it can be overdone.
We agree that God's aim is to reconcile all of creation to himself, through the death and resurrection of Jesus as per Colossians 1 and then, finally, in a new creation, which is I think the message of Romans 8. If this is God's aim or mission then we want to be part of it. But there is also a question of God's priorities and ours.
2 Cor 5 says that God has given us this ministry of reconciliation but I think that chapter's clearly about relationships with people. If we look at Jesus as our model, it seems to me that his focus is also on people. Would he be angry today about environmental damage? Yes. But I think he'd be much more angry about injustice, poverty, marginalisation of people, the same things that he concentrated so much attention on during his life on earth. Of course, sometimes there's a definite causal connection between greed, injustice and environmental destruction.
It seems to me that the gospel incorporates a call to stewardship. A focus on recycling, undoing global warming, renewable energy and so forth is worthwhile application of the call to stewardship and participation in God's mission. But I'd be uncomfortable about a priority in this area versus the demonstration of God's love for people through sharing his word and through social justice.
Post a Comment