Missions and Wholism
Posted: Sun May 06, 2018 5:48 pm
I'm not sure if this has been around for a long time. It's new to me, but perhaps I just haven't been listening or reading the right stuff. There seems to be a push, or emphasis, within Christian missions to want to integrate the whole person into their missionary efforts. Whole person being: physical, mental, social, and spiritual. I'm still trying to wrestle through this, so I thought I'd post my thoughts and questions here.
I can see biblically, especially in Acts, where care for the needs within the body were a burden that the whole body should carry. But it seems to me this was within a local congregation. It seems to me missionary efforts should be primarily concerned with taking the gospel into non-Christian areas and then planting churches in those areas with believers that respond. It would then be the burden of those local bodies, and whatever connections to other congregations that may exist, to care for one another.
But I just came across this from a global missions organization:
Integration and Wholism: We are personally committed to complete obedience to all that Jesus commanded including compassion for the physical needs of people as well as their emotional, mental and spiritual needs. We recognize an integral relationship between the physical, mental, social, and spiritual. Our programs seek the total development of the whole person and community.
Commitment to the Poor and Marginalized: Jesus came to preach good news to the poor. As his Ambassadors, we are committed to the poor and marginalized. We affirm their worth, call them to be children of God and seek to release them from brokenness and despair. While we might want them to follow Jesus, our call is to love and walk with them as they are and let them respond as called.
Long Term Solutions: We concentrate our efforts on long term solutions that break the cycle of poverty and disease. We train, equip, and empower people to do for themselves. We focus on development rather than relief, and disease prevention rather than cure.
It kind of caught me off guard, especially the part about, "while we might want them to follow Jesus..." Well, I should hope so, but if they reject Him how much time and effort should a global missionary organization continue to put into the physical, mental, and social aspects of a non-believer? What good is it to "break the cycle of poverty and disease" if that can even be broken, when they've rejected Christ. It almost seems like a barter/gospel system. If they could break that cycle, and some come to Christ on account of that, what happens if/when poverty and disease returns? Seems to me we come to Him on His terms. It reminds me of Digory in The Magicians Nephew. Heal my mother and I'll do whatever you ask of me Aslan. Or heal me physically and I'll follow you? This almost seems like a missionary prosperity gospel. I may be wrong in all of this which is why any of your thoughts and feedback would be most welcomed.
I can see biblically, especially in Acts, where care for the needs within the body were a burden that the whole body should carry. But it seems to me this was within a local congregation. It seems to me missionary efforts should be primarily concerned with taking the gospel into non-Christian areas and then planting churches in those areas with believers that respond. It would then be the burden of those local bodies, and whatever connections to other congregations that may exist, to care for one another.
But I just came across this from a global missions organization:
Integration and Wholism: We are personally committed to complete obedience to all that Jesus commanded including compassion for the physical needs of people as well as their emotional, mental and spiritual needs. We recognize an integral relationship between the physical, mental, social, and spiritual. Our programs seek the total development of the whole person and community.
Commitment to the Poor and Marginalized: Jesus came to preach good news to the poor. As his Ambassadors, we are committed to the poor and marginalized. We affirm their worth, call them to be children of God and seek to release them from brokenness and despair. While we might want them to follow Jesus, our call is to love and walk with them as they are and let them respond as called.
Long Term Solutions: We concentrate our efforts on long term solutions that break the cycle of poverty and disease. We train, equip, and empower people to do for themselves. We focus on development rather than relief, and disease prevention rather than cure.
It kind of caught me off guard, especially the part about, "while we might want them to follow Jesus..." Well, I should hope so, but if they reject Him how much time and effort should a global missionary organization continue to put into the physical, mental, and social aspects of a non-believer? What good is it to "break the cycle of poverty and disease" if that can even be broken, when they've rejected Christ. It almost seems like a barter/gospel system. If they could break that cycle, and some come to Christ on account of that, what happens if/when poverty and disease returns? Seems to me we come to Him on His terms. It reminds me of Digory in The Magicians Nephew. Heal my mother and I'll do whatever you ask of me Aslan. Or heal me physically and I'll follow you? This almost seems like a missionary prosperity gospel. I may be wrong in all of this which is why any of your thoughts and feedback would be most welcomed.