Reading Revelation Differently and It’s Impact on Missiology— Part 2.

So in the previous post I gave reasons for why I moved from a position of Dispensational Premillennialism (DP) to something else. Now I want to speak about how such a change may have a positive role in missiology.

But first, you may ask what my view is. If I sort of reject DP, then what do I accept? The truth is that I accept “Mystery.” Technically, I don’t reject DP. Rather, I reject the idea that the Bible teaches it. It is possible that there is a Pre-tribulational “Rapture” of the Church. I just don’t think that the Bible teaches it— or at least does not teach it in an unambiguous way. It is possible that the 1000 year Reign of Christ is a literal 1000 years that fulfills a promise to the national of Israel, I simply find the support for this view very open to challenge.

Instead, at least when looking at Revelation, I want to look at the overall message. It seems pretty clear that the overall message is “PERSEVERE.” The writer is letting Christians know that the world is a hostile, dangerous place for those who are faithful to God. However, faithfulness is worth it. God will reward those who persevere, and those who reject Him or fall away will, in the end, be the ones who truly suffer. Jesus will one day return. The strange world we live in where evil seems to be winning will be thrown out and replaced with one where justice and righteousness will reign (forever).

How might this affect missiology? Drawing from the previous post:

#1. If one cannot interpret Revelation 2 and 3 as a roadmap to church history where we realize that we are in the final hours before Christ’s return, then our emphases should be driven by a profound “ignorance” as to when the return of Christ should be. Jesus gave many bits of guidance, often in parables as to how we are to live with mystery regarding the future. The Parable of the Faithful (and Unfaithful) Steward, or the The Parable of the Ten Virgins suggest that behaving as is we can figure out when Jesus (the Master, the Bridegroom) will return is a mistake. Adjusting our mission work and strategy based on a presumption that we got God’s timing figured out is a mistake. We should minister as if God might return tomorrow OR in 1000 years.

#2. Our mission work should focus on creating Resilient or Persevering Christians and Christian communities. Trying to get people to respond as quickly and as minimally as possible to the Gospel message (as if we know how minimal the response has to be to count as “saving faith”) is an unworthy goal. We should seek to develop resilient disciples in transformed persevering communities.

#3. Taking these things together, Christian Missions should identified, primarily, as… SLOW. It should be seen primarily as a mustard plant that slowly grows from a small seed to a great plant, as invisible yeast slowly rising the dough, as scattered seeds that slowly sprout and produce an abundant harvest rather than seedllings that sprout up and quickly die.

One of the hallmarks of modern Christian missiology is its dependence on eschatology (Christian study of last things). And I agree. I do, however, think that Christian missions has picked up the wrong lessons from eschatology… and that comes from, ultimately, bad eschatology, or at least a failure to embrace doubt and mystery into one’s theology of last things.