2 of 3

If all ministry were done by Christians of the same ethnic groups as their non-Christian neighbors, some 4,000 sociolinguistic people groups without any Christian witness would remain unreached forever. The fact is, cross-cultural, Western missionaries will be needed for the foreseeable future.

Not only will career missionaries from North America be needed for the foreseeable future, they will be indispensable. Both Western-based missionaries and missionaries from the developing world must work together to complete the task, but assuming that church-to-church ministry models will overcome the thorny problems inherent in the missionary task is naïve at best.

Beyond these practical concerns, we come to a shifting theological emphasis among some North American evangelicals—though not Rick Warren—that has an even greater potential for undermining missions. Why do people support the missions enterprise? One reason, of course, is to express their love for the Lord, who told us to make disciples.

Another, surely, has been to express their love for the unsaved, who face God's condemnation. In recent years, however, there has been a subtle shift in the discussion. ct executive editor J. I. packer notes in the foreword to Ajith Fernando's book Crucial Questions About Hell, "Emphasis on the lostness of the lost has come to be almost taboo. The shift is startling."

Now we emphasize the glory of the God whom we love, almost to the exclusion of the uncomfortable truths about the lostness of the lost. Indeed, a new missions text, The Changing Face of World Missions (Baker Academic, 2005), has a chapter entitled, "Changing Motivations for Missions: From 'Fear of Hell' to 'the Glory of God.'" Of course, God's glory has always been primary for the church. The great American theologian Jonathan Edwards—he of the "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" fame—looked forward to a "general revival of religion" that would be "very glorious … special and extraordinary" and would produce the "flourishing of Christ's kingdom on earth."

But deliberately downplaying the motive of other-love will prove fatal, I fear. Actually, we're not shy about expressing our love for others, as long as the focus remains on the needs of the here-and-now. Holistic concern for health, education, and justice is okay, advocates tell us. But other-love in terms of a rescue mission from a bad ending—well, that's so offensive to the postmodern we mustn't even mention it, let alone emphasize it.

The way I read John 3:16, however, is that God so loved people he gave his one and only Son to—do what? Save them from perishing (hell). That's God's motive, so it can't be too wrong. I believe the shift among evangelicals to de-emphasize hell could prove the demise of Pauline-style missions. And thus it could lead to the spiritual death of multitudes who would, as a consequence, never hear the Good News of redemption.

If that should happen, of course, it would be a case of déjà vu, for that is precisely what took place in the early part of the last century. The mainline denominations moved away from saving people from hell to saving them in the here and now.

With every move in that direction, the missions enterprise shriveled. And no wonder. Why make such great sacrifices to reach the unreached if there is no eternal-destiny danger?

next page... |  2 of 3

share this page

July 2006, Vol. 50, No. 7