Scripture, Culture, and Missions
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 55, No. 1 – Fall 2012
Managing Editor: Terry L. Wilder
Edited by David J. Hesselgrave and Ed Stetzer. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2010. 312 pages. Softcover, $26.99.
Many evangelical missiologists remain locked in debate over a few missiological issues of vital importance. MissionShift will help to clarify these issues. Editors David Hesselgrave and Ed Stetzer differ with one another to some extent as they react to the thoughts of the other contributors to the book. The book is a compilation of three essays with five responses to each. Stetzer writes the introduction and a response to each essay. Hesselgrave writes the conclusion. Charles Van Engen writes the first essay: “Mission Defined and Described.” Keith Eitel, Enoch Wan, Darrell Guder, Andreas Köstenberger, and Stetzer respond to Van Engen. The late Paul G. Hiebert writes the second essay: “The Gospel in Human Contexts: Changing Perceptions of Contextualization.” Michael Pocock, Darrell Whiteman, Norman Geisler, the late Avery Willis, and Stetzer respond to Hiebert. The late Ralph Winter writes the third essay: “The Future of Evangelicals in Mission.” Scott Moreau, Christopher Little, Mike Barnett, J. Mark Terry, and Stetzer respond to Winter.
An apparent de-emphasis on biblical limitations to missiological creativity is a recurring theme in MissionShift. Van Engen explains that evangelicals are searching for creative definitions of mission (22). Eitel cautions, however, that “creative tensions without biblically firm boundaries will result in compromises that undermine the message we have to offer to the world” (34). Köstenberger agrees with Eitel (64). Stetzer’s characterization of Eitel’s position is inappropriate: “He applies his concerns to any ‘creative’ missiology. This is the slippery slope argument—which the Pharisees applied to Jesus and the Judaizers to Paul” (73). Eitel only applies his concerns to creative missiology “without biblically firm boundaries.” Stetzer also uses the term “Pharisees” in his response to Köstenberger and says that “Köstenberger follows Eitel’s argument down the slippery slope” (78). In contrast, Hesselgrave agrees with the concern of Eitel and Köstenberger: “Left to their own devices, Evangelical mission thinkers and practitioners tend to become overly creative and unduly adventurous” (278).
In his response to Hiebert’s essay, Whiteman endorses C5 contextualization, which can involve believers attending a Mosque and continuing to use Muslim forms. Whiteman says, “I am convinced that there are no sacred forms, only sacred meanings” (124). Geisler correctly notes, however, that “forms communicate meaning” (142). He explains that “the C5 approach leads to syncretism, as field research has shown” (141).
In the final essay, Winter advocates a larger role for social ministry in evangelical mission work, and he spoke glowingly of the philanthropy of Bill Gates and Madonna (188). Little provides an appropriate retort: “Oprah can build schools; Madonna can sponsor orphanages; and Bill Gates can promote global health, but only the church is entrusted with the apostolic role of gospel proclamation” (217). Evangelicals who exercise good stewardship of limited resources will prioritize gospel proclamation over social ministry. In sum, a thorough reading of MissionShiftwill encourage caution in contextualization.
