Eschatology and Christian Missions. Is it a Healthy Relationship? Part 1

I feel like I should dust off one of my Missiology books before writing this one… but I won’t. The thing is that Christian Missions as it is commonly identified today (at least the Evangelical Protestant flavor that predominates) sees Christian missions driven by Eschatology.

Estchatology is the study of future or last things. In the Christian theological context, it is the study of the “end times” as revealed in the Holy Bible. Sometimes, I hear Eschatology broadened out a bit to include the “Grand Narrative” of Scripture, or its ‘Salvific History.”

But I was wonderin— Suppose Scripture was very open-ended as far as the future, so the Bible looks quite different. Perhaps the Bible has Jesus saying, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man cometh until the Father but by Me.” And suppose it has the Great Commandment and the Great Commission and the Golden Rule and the essentials of Christian ethics. Perhaps it still has the “Two Ways” metaphor. But also suppose the Bible leaves the future a mystery (or MORE of a mystery). “Que Sera Sera. Whatever will be will be. The future’s not ours to see.” Would such a lack of data have a major effect on Christian missions?

I don’t really know. No shock there, but consider a couple of ways that Eschatology has seemed to negatively affect missions.

#1. Time-limiting Urgency. Back in the 1960s, mission leaders were talking about focusing on rapid methods of evangelism while devaluing forms of missions ministry that are slower— education, community development, holistic missions, and even church planting. The argument was “Christ can return any day, so we need to get as many people saved in as short of a time as possible— we don’t need to worry about the long-term repercussions of our actions, since Christ can return any day.” (I think I just wrote an ‘inclusio’— neat!)

A concern with this that revealed itself as I was reading “Make Disciples of All Nations: A History of Southern Baptist International Missions.” That book quoted a mission movement from the late 1800s that argued the exact same thing. The problem is that the methods they were advocating 130+ years ago make more sense if there was not 130+ years of future for Christians to work with. The arguments in the 1960s don’t make as much sense when we realize that there has been 60+ years of ministry time available. Perhaps focusing on sustainable programs of discipling, church development, theological training, community transformation, and more would have given better long-term results than saturation strategies (as an example) for evangelization.

Now to be fair… this is not the fault of Eschatology. GOOD Eschatology does not set dates. Good Eschatology might, perhaps, say Christ may return tomorrow… OR… may return in 1000 years. The urgency thing does not really come from Eschatology. Rather, Eschatology is used as an excuse for urgency.

I should note that urgency is not a bad thing of itself. Good urgency says, We must seize today and every day. We must plan, organize, speak, and act to proclaim Christ’s Kingdom and Divine Hope for the world. Bad urgency says, we must “throw gospel tracts from the blimp” (a reference to the great novella, “The Gospel Blimp” by Joseph Bayly) rather than building relationships with our unsaved neighbors.

#2. Speeding up God. I have seen it in more than one place— Matthew 24:14 tells us that we are in control of when Christ returns. The ESV version of the verse says (Yes… I know I am not a big fan of the ESV… work with me here):

“And the gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.”

This little verse has created a whole set of doctrines. The “to all nations” (pasin tois ethnesin) has been refigured into “every single people group” and then goes on and creates a concept called a “people group” so that other organizations can then list how many people groups there are today based on the criteria of the moment, and how many have been proclaimed to as a testimony (based on other made-up criteria). From a Biblical studies standpoint (I am hopefully justified in trusting the expertise of others on this one) a more Biblically consistent understanding of the phrase “to all nations” is “to the Gentiles.” The Bible does not really have people groups as it is defined and used today. The bigger issue in some ways is the latter part, “and then the end will come.” This has been interpreted by some to be causative. In other words, “Once every people group (as we define the concept) is reached, the door preventing Jesus to return will be unlocked, and He and the heavenly hosts will suddenly, immediately, return.”

I hope you can see that the wording simply does not say that. It does not say that the first causes the other (again… I must rely on experts in Koine Greek for this since it is among my many non-specialities). It also does not say that Jesus will return immediately after. Again this seems to be an attempt at urgency by misusing a Scriptural passage.

For me, I feel like there are a number of problems with embracing this sort of missiology. First and obviously, it appears to be built on a lie, or at lease a completely unjustified interpretation. That is not ideal. Second, it can lead to weird and problematic strategies. One might think of the case of (presumably a wonderful person) John Allen Chau, who illegally charged into North Sentinel Island to proclaim the Gospel to an “unreached people group.” I am not necessarily against doing something illegal, but a strategy that does not make one appear like an invader probably would be a better option.

Third, and here is a weird thought for you, if our job is to speed up the return of Christ (something I do doubt), then it would be much faster to destroy unreached people groups then proclaim the gospel to them (especially in the age of “weapons of mass destruction.”). Fourth, another weird thought… sorry, but suppose there is NO Biblical mandate to “speed up” Christ’s return and yet we have control over when Jesus returns, then it seems reasonable that we should actually slow down the return of Christ. After all, suppose there is a group of 2000 people who make up the last people group that has not had the gospel proclaimed to them. If they were reached tomorrow— perhaps 3 people from that group responded positively to the Gospel message— then Christ returns immediately. Because Christ returned that day rather than 10 years from then (for example) literally thousands/millions will be lost, presumably. Three were saved versus countless lost. The argument could be made… that for good missions… seeking to share the Gospel with everyone and expand Christ’s kingdom would be more effectively done, if one people group, a small one hopefully, is identified and sheltered from the gospel message, so that more can enter the Kingdom.

A final point, sixth if I am counting right, suggests the focus on people groups can create more problems than it solves. For example, years ago Ralph Winter advocated strenuously for people group missions and even encouraged using the term missionary only for those who are reaching unreached people groups. He was very influential in Evangelical missions but was not able to sell this idea. But suppose he had? Would there by more missionaries going to unreached people groups. Maybe, maybe not. But what would happen to all of missionaries who work in support roles, or other ministries that are not pioneering. Most (?) evangelical churches have Missions funds and committees, but don’t have “Cross-cultural Ministry” or “International Ministry Support” funds and committees. I have seen missionaries who were doing great ministry work here in the Philippines who had their funding slashed from 100% to 0% because their work did not appear to be people group and evangelism focused.

Of course, such odd thoughts become pointless if we are to simply be faithful in our missions work to the end, and we do not control God, and “people group’ is a human construct, not a divinely instituted category.

Part 2 I will suggest a different way to look at missions from the standpoint of the Bible that, arguably, could be described as eschatological.