Frontier Missiology Goes POP

Back in the summer I wrote a response to the May-June 2019 issue of Mission Frontiers, which was titled “India: The Greatest Challenge to World Evangelization.” That didn't go anywhere so I thought it would be good to post it here in the hope that a few people at least would read it.

I rejoice that in recent decades many in India, especially from lower status groups, have come to be followers of Jesus. It is also moving to read of the persecution that many are experiencing (“Enduring Persecution in India”) and the disappointments and challenges with which Andy Walker and his co-workers are attempting to deal (“A Church Planting Movement Advancing through Barriers”). 

I hope, with the editor and authors, that this issue, along with the other work of Frontier Ventures, leads to concerted prayer and engagement in making Christ known in the country.

The arguments presented in the issue are compromised, however, by two major weaknesses, which I would like to address.

Before doing so, however, I would like to point out a glaring error in “Enduring Persecution in India,” in which the ‘Leader of a Church Planting Movement in India’ asserts that when the bamboo curtain came down in China there were 70 million churches! Operation World reports that in 2010 there were 75 million evangelicals in the country, so it is highly unlikely that there were so many churches decades before. How important it is that we check and recheck our figures for accuracy before we go to print. My main concerns, however, are theological and sociological.

In this post I will deal with the first: Frontier Missiology Goes POP.

The frontier mission movement is plagued by pragmatism. This is especially apparent in Anderson's, “Embracing an Audacious God-Sized Dream,” and Walker's “A Church Planting Movement Advancing through Barriers.”

While it is good to discuss practical methods of engaging people with the gospel, pragmatism is unbecoming of God’s people. Our approach must not be to borrow strategies and frameworks from the marketing world; our philosophy of ministry must be founded on much more solid ground than expediency. 

A number of the authors do indeed refer to Scripture. But there is a difference between an approach that references a few proof texts and a theologically robust missiology that takes the grand sweep of the storyline of the Bible seriously.

Pragmatism is not a new problem in missiology. Indeed, it has plagued much missiology for decades. Take the notion of the “Persons of Peace”: How is it that one element of one narrative from one Gospel (Matt 10:11— in Luke 9:4 Jesus talks about a ‘house’—) has been so over-extended to become the centre of a whole methodology? One text is having to do an awesome amount of work.

A balanced approach would surely be to establish a sounder theological base for the great task by deriving principles from a careful exegesis of all the key New Testament passages. That is not in evidence in this issue. Which brings me to John Ridgway’s article.

In “Key Insights in Enabling Movements among the Hindu and Muslim Peoples” Ridgway interprets the “way in the wilderness” (Isa 43:19) as “new pathways in the Scriptures.” On this basis he argues that, “…from a kingdom perspective, we view everything from a spiritual framework, not a physical framework.” Why does Ridgway contrast spiritual with physical? It certainly doesn’t emerge out of the verses quoted: In Romans 12:1-2, Paul explicitly urges the Romans to offer their bodies as living sacrifices. A few verses pulled out of context don’t make a good basis for building a missiology. 

The Lord Jesus himself taught his disciples not to set up a false dichotomy between the spiritual and the physical: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength” (Mark 12:30). Jesus’ own incarnation is the glorious sign of the worth of the physical – a reality that continues with his resurrection and ascension in the body to the right hand of the Father. We can also be confident of the continuity not only of our personal physicality (1 Cor 15) but also that of the cosmos (Rom 8:22-25).

Though I appreciate Ridgway’s attempts to overcome the obstacles that many Hindus and Muslims find in their way, his “new pathways” seem to have led him right out of the Scriptures and down the garden path of the old gnostic heresy that dogged the early church. This will have far-reaching implications that are apparently not appreciated.

Later I will post my second concern.