Defining missions

https://confessional.org/mercy-ministry-is-not-missions

The above link is to an article in a genre I find a bit odd, because I find myself agreeing with all of it and none of it at the same time.

The summary given is a fair summary of the article, so I'll just discuss that, to keep things brief.

Mission work, as defined by Scripture, is the church sending ordained ministers to preach the gospel, make disciples, and plant churches through the ordinary means of grace—Word, sacraments, and prayer. While mercy ministries support gospel outreach, they must not be confused with missions itself, which addresses humanity’s deepest need through the proclamation of Christ.

"Mission work, as defined by Scripture". The point of the article is to distinguish between "missions" and "mercy ministry". The difficulty is that the work of the article is generally done by the article's own definitions. There isn't a definition of "mission work" in Scripture, unless we mean that the Scriptures define the ministry of preaching the gospel, making disciples and planting churches, and then we define *that* to be what we are choosing to call "missions work". The author of the article has followed a confusing line, of arguing both that the ministries of mercy and evangelism/church planting are in certain ways distinct, and also arguing, implicitly and without explaining what he's doing, that the English terminology of "mission/missions/missionary work" should be reserved only for evangelism/church planting. Church-planting is (he argues) disciple-making; mercy ministry is not, and the lexical cognates of "mission" belong only to the former.

Looked at this way, it is a strange article. What is it actually about? The English word-group of "missions" comes to us not directly from the New Testament, but from the Latin "mittere" (to send); and whilst sending (and equivalent Greek words) are in the New Testament, missiologists (at least, the ones I've read) don't build out a whole theory of missions based on the etymology. Christians have no particular theological commitment to requiring that the English words "mission, missions, missionary, etc." are used in one, and only one, particular way, much less that this one particular way must exclude "mercy ministries", and must only be tied to the set of concepts to do with evangelising and church-planting. Non-biblical vocabulary can be used in the ways that people see as best; and in practice, if we decide to use a particular word in a different way to other people generally, it'll make life confusing. The article says "The clearest passage that defines mission work is Matthew 28:19-20". If this is the definition of how we must use the English words "mission work", then fine - but as I say, it is unreasonable to insist that everybody else do the same, because Matthew 28 does tell us what the mandate which the church received is, but does not then require us to use a particular lexicography fetched from outside the passage for that in English.

In the article, the lines of clarification are very hard and fast. An example of a "missionary" is a church-planter; whereas examples of people in "mercy ministries" are teaching English in an Asian country (why simply that would be an act of "mercy" is not clarified), and digging wells and building houses in an African country. The impression given is that the twain shall not meet. Is the English teacher presenting the gospel - perhaps it is an English learning group openly advertised as Christian and including a Bible study? Why is the house-builder building houses when there are plenty of African house-builders? Presumably the well-digger is demonstrating Christ's love in action, as part of explaining who Christ is and how he came. Does this make him a "missionary" or a "mercy minister", or does he switch suddenly back-and-forth between the two roles, perhaps multiple times a day, depending upon the precise activity he is performing at any one point?

I agree with the author that if the church simply sends people to do "mercy ministry", meaning doing good to people in a way divorced from a witness to Jesus Christ, then it has indeed lost sight of the marching orders, the commission, which it received from the Saviour, and that would be spiritually disastrous. If the church is just doing the same as large secular charities (perhaps doing it slightly or significantly better), then this is not what Jesus told us to do. But, the article hasn't begun to engage with the challenges and opportunities of mission in much of the world. A simple binary of "is it mercy or evangelism?" does not cover plenty of real-world, flesh-and-blood Christian activity. Christians, rightly, speak today about "holistic" mission. This word can be abused, and can, like "mission", be given unhelpful definitions. But the word itself is an attempt to recognise that man is body and soul. Jesus' miracles were not simply proofs of spiritual power and his Messianic claims in general, but also enactments of personal divine compassion towards their recipients. And many Christians today are carrying out works because they understand that since "the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us", so they too, in order to preach the gospel, must incarnate practical love as part of their Christian/gospel witness, and not deliver the message in verbal form only. It was part of the apostolic witness, Acts 10:38, that Jesus "went about doing good", and this same Jesus told us "let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven" (Matthew 5:16).

From that point of view, a distinction between gospel-proclamation by word, and gospel-enactment by deed, can exist only as a technical, conceptual distinction, on paper. It helps us to understand what we are doing; but it is not a distinction between two different sets of activities, such that one set of Christians talks about Jesus Christ, and the other distinct set of Christians demonstrates the reality of Jesus Christ. Many missionaries should, and are, doing both, because the two can no more be separated in practice than Christ's manhood and deity can. Christ's manhood and deity are not the same thing, and the distinction is important theologically; but the actual Christ who saves us unifies them in a single person. In the same way, word-based missionary proclamation, and mercy ministry, may be separate conceptually, but are not actually separate in practice. And as such, though I agree with what the author seems to be aiming for, and the concerns he wants to guard against, as I understand them, I don't think the way he's gone about them, and the walls he's erected in doing so, ultimately help us.