An Encounter with "Feel Good" Theology

While on vacation this week, My wife and I are visiting friends in another state. We were blessed to be able to worship with them and meet their pastor. Despite our denominational differences, the pastor and I hit it off as we were like-minded in our passion for the gospel. A couple of comments during the Bible study, however, (we were in Romans 3) caused a moment of concern. It had nothing to do with eternal security, the gift of tongues, or ecclesiology (though we likely differ on all of those). It wasn’t that he said something that bothered my Baptist sensibilities. In fact, I have heard the same thing said in Baptist churches. The belief he expressed has become widespread among evangelicals even though it has no real biblical support. It is an attractive belief -- real "feel good" theology. The pastor introduced the idea with the phrase “the Bible teaches that . . . .” At the end of the Bible study, when the floor was open for questions, a young woman (also a visitor) asked eagerly where she could find that in the Bible. She was not challenging the pastor as I would have been doing had I asked the question. Rather, she had never heard this idea before but really liked it and wanted the “proof text” to confirm it. The pastor could not come up with a verse on the spot (I whispered to my wife, “that’s because it’s not in there”) but he assured her that this was the Bible’s teaching.

This belief to which I am referring is the belief that all people in the world will have an equal chance to accept Christ. That is, because God is loving and fair, God will give everyone a chance to become a Christian. I understand the desire to have such a belief. For one, it helps resolve the tension in the question “What happens to those who have never heard.?” I helps us solve the dilemma of the fairness of God given the present situation in the world. There are several problems with this reasoning, however. Below are a few of those problems as I see it in the early morning before anyone else in the house is awake an functioning:

1. This is not the Bible’s teaching. There is no suggestion in the Bible that salvation is available to any without the preaching, hearing and responding to the gospel of Jesus Christ. In fact the book of Romans expresses this in chapter 10:

¹³ For "whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved." ¹⁴ How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? ¹⁵ And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!" ¹⁶ But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?" ¹⁷ So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:13-17 (NKJV) cf. 1 Cor 1:21. There is no other biblical way. People must hear and believe the gospel to be saved.

Some try to explain away this lack of biblical support by saying that the Bible is silent about the fate of the unevangelized and claim that God is free to do whatever he wants. We don’t have to know HOW he will give everyone an equal chance, we don’t even have biblical precedence, we only have to know that God is loving and fair and fairness demands that everyone have a chance to believe. The problem here is two-fold. a. We are on dangerous ground when we say that go beyond what God has revealed in his word. We have enough statements about salvation and evangelism to rule out such a scenario. b. God already addresses the question of those who have not heard the gospel. God has already given revelation through creation, and even this light has been rejected. No one can say at the judgment “We never heard the message.” They are without excuse (Rom 1:18-20). Others approach the problem a different way by saying that is someone truly seeks God, God in his faithfulness will send a messenger. This scenario is also ruled out in Romans since “no one seeks God”(Rom 3:11).

2. In effect, this view undermines mission and evangelism. No longer burdened by the fate of those who do not hear the gospel, we lose our urgency for evangelism and missions. We may feel some guilt for lack of involvement in missions and evangelism, but the guilt is now only from not obeying a command of Scripture. Add that to the list of things I need to work on in my own personal spiritual development. Since God is fair, my lack of involvement puts no one’s ultimate destiny at stake. The urgency for missions and evangelism is lost.

3. Finally, such a view does not take our own depravity seriously. I say this because the idea of God’s fairness really reflects our own doubts about the seriousness of sin. The reality is that I deserve death and hell as does every person in the world. I am no better than the person who has never heard the gospel Without the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for my sins, I too would be condemned. When people die of a disease, it is not the lack of a cure that kills them, it is the disease itself. When God condemns sinners, whether or not they hear the gospel, they are condemned for their sin and nothing else. We have the cure, we must take it to them. Without the gospel, we too would be condemned.

I could take up much more space discussing this subject and really have not done it justice here. I bring it up because it is becoming such a popular view among otherwise bible-believing Christians. In any case, that’s all I can do while on vacation. My family is getting up and soon will be ready to get going on fun vacation stuff. There is much more to say on this subject. Feel free to add your comments.

Is the focus on Unreached People Groups mandated by Scripture?

This week, Wade Burleson has provided his readers with another summary of the IMB trustee meetings. One part was of particular interest to me. Burleson reports concerning Jerry Rankin’s report to the board: “[A particular trustee asked Dr. Jerry Rankin after his address to the trustees], ‘Dr. Rankin, I only ask because I'm curious and have heard this said before. Is your focus on the unreached people groups driven by an eschatalogical motive?’ Dr. Rankin answered by quoting Matthew 24:16 [sic], 'The gospel of the kingdom shall be preached to the whole world, and then the end shall come' and said that eschatology does not compel the IMB's mission (or his), but obedience does. Dr. Rankin said the timing of the coming of the Son is up to the Father and nothing we do will define when He comes. It is up to God. We are simply to obey His commission."

This trustee’s question is pertinent because if a particular policy of the mission board is in place because of theological reasons, and those theological views prove erroneous (or at least questionable), then the board is on shaky ground. Indeed, one of the perennial problems of missions and evangelism methodologies is that the supporters of those policies often attempt to justify their chosen model as mandated by Scripture – often using less that sound hermeneutical principles.

The Unreached People Group (UPG) strategy has been a topic of continued discussion among my missions buddies. Of particular concern has been the theological justification made for such a strategy. There are those who do in fact find theological support if not a mandate for a UPG strategy. For some, an interpretation of Matt 24:14 which suggests that the Lord will not (or can not) return until the Great Commission is fulfilled; i.e., the last people group is reached. This is based also on an understanding of the Greek phrase panta ta ethne in the Great Commission as referring to ethnolinguistic groups. (I personally hold neither of these views, though a number of my colleagues do).

There are good reasons to question this view:

Assuming that Matt 24:14 is speaking of the second coming of Christ (which is not universally accepted, as some scholars believe this is a reference to the destruction of the temple in 70AD -- see Matt 24:2), note the following:

1. Even if the spread of the gospel is a prerequisite to the return of Christ, but this does not mean that we can in any way hasten the return of Christ. God may be waiting for those who have already heard the gospel to respond, for yet unborn future believers, or waiting until his own appointed time and good pleasure. (cf. 2 Pet 3.9)
2. What does it mean that the gospel will be preached in all the world.. to all nations? – every region? Every geo-political entity? Every people group? Every individual? – How will we know when we have completed the task?
3. Jesus told us that it is not for us to be concerned about the timing of the second coming but to be his witnesses throughout the world (Acts 1:6-8).

All this is to say, that in my opinion, (echoing the answer given by Dr. Rankin) it is much more important to obey the command of Christ and be about the business of taking the gospel to all than it is to focus on the timing of the second coming and how we might hurry it along.

As far as panta ta ethne in the Great Commission, despite my respect for men like Donald McGavran and John Piper, I think it is in error to translate this as "people group." I am more inclined to agree with those exegetes who see the phrase as a general reference to the whole world -- i.e. all of humanity. A better case for people group strategy might be made from passages like Rev. 5:9. In any case, it is difficult to make a real case that the UPG strategy is Scripturally mandated.

While I believe the UPG strategy is a good one, I don't believe it is necessarily mandated by Scripture. What IS commanded is that we take the gospel to the world. The real reason to adopt the UPG strategy is on pragmatic grounds. That is, we should focus on UPGs because this strategy is the best way to be obedient to the Great Commission in this period of Christian Missions. This focus is the best way today to bring the gospel to as many people as possible in a way that they can hear, understand, and respond. In this era of missions, a focus on UPGs makes sense. Of course, things may be different in the future. In the wake of globalization and the seemingly constant (if gradual) change in the number and makeup of ethnolinguistic people groups, there may be a need in the future for a change in strategy. For now, I personally believe a focus on UPGs is the best way to be obedient to the Great Commission.

Finally, regardless of how one views the particulars of the UPG strategy or the reasons behind it, it is important for missionaries, practitioners, and their supporters to continually be in dialog about how we can be obedient to God's command to reach the nations.

Thinking Biblically about Missional Christianity

The Purpose of My Blog, Part 1: A Theological Conversation

As I seek to be a missional Christian in obedience to Christ, I want to be sure I am thinking and acting biblically. If the Bible is indeed God’s word, I must make every effort to conform my thought and practice to Scripture. Whether speaking of church planting models, ecclesiology, contextualization, evangelism, or theology, I must be faithful to the revelation of God revealed in the Old and New Testaments. If the error of the past generation was a lack of commitment to the inerrancy of Scripture, the error of the present one is a lack of commitment to sound biblical exegesis. In the preface to his recent two volume work, Early Christian Mission, Erkhard Schnabel acknowledges this problem. He states,

Missiologists, missionaries and representatives of missionary societies seek to promote interest in crosscultural dialogue and witness and to encourage and develop the involvement of Christians, young and old, in active outreach to non-Christians. As laudable as these endeavors are, their proponents have not always sought to provide exegetical explanations or to engage in theological discussion when presenting models for missionary work and paradigms for effective evangelism.[1]

The Scripture is the basis of our Christian faith. When acting missionally, then, my practice must be biblically sound. Where the Bible commands I must be obedient. Where it gives examples I must learn from them. Where my methodology appeals to biblical precedent, it must do so on the basis of sound exegesis rather than a hermeneutic of convenience. In no case may the methods I use violate the Scriptures.

Current questions in for missional Christianity will need to be resolved with biblically appropriate answers. Application of biblical principles to missional practice must be done through a sound hermeneutic. We must discover the original meaning of the text, bridge between the biblical context and the present one, and make application in line with the intent of Scripture. I must not go to the Scripture to validate my preconceived ideas or preferences whatever they may be. I must allow my ministry and method to be shaped by Scripture itself. Köstenberger contends,

The descriptive nature of New Testament theology entails that we set aside for the time being our concern for the contemporary application of the biblical message. At the proper time, this will, of course, be very important, and, truth be told, this is also what fuels our interest in the present subject in the first place. But unless we are willing to let the New Testament speak to us on its own terms, we only deceive ourselves. We will merely find in the pages of the Bible what we have already determined to find there on other grounds. If we thus domesticate Scripture, we deprive ourselves of an opportunity to be instructed by, and even transformed by, Scripture, and we rob Scripture of its authority and preeminence.[2]

I must then take this approach to Scripture when dealing with the “hot button” issues of our day. Not only must I be “critical” in my contextualization,[3] but also in my church planting models, ecclesiology, soteriology, evangelism, worship, discipleship, and every other thing I do.

One of the purposes of this blog will be to seek biblical solutions to the problems faced by those who wish to be missional Christians. My purpose is not to criticize others or examine how everyone else is doing it wrong. Rather, I am striving in my own life and ministry to do things in ways that are consistent with the teaching of Scripture. I hope through conversations with others committed to the same ends to be able to think biblically about fulfilling our mission.

---

[1] Eckhard J. Schnabel, Early Christian Mission, 2 vols. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press; Leicester, England: Apollos, 2004), xxiii.

[2] Andreas J. Köstenberger, "The Place of Mission in New Testament Theology: An Attempt to Determine the Significance of Mission Within the Scope of the New Testament's Message as a Whole," Missiology 27 (1999): 349.

[3] See Paul G. Hiebert, "Critical Contextualization," Missiology 12 (1984): 287-96.