[Missiology] attempts to allow Scripture not only to provide the foundational motivations for mission, but also to question, shape, guide, and evaluate the missionary enterprise.
Second, from Rebecca Lewis (pg. 36, note u):
Missiology must be based on seeing what God seems to be doing and evaluating that in the light of scripture (copying the apostolic process in Acts 15).
I believe there is a very big difference in these two approaches which explains why people in disagreements (e.g. insider movements) seem to be talking past each another. In the first approach, the Bible is integral to mission. In the second approach, the Bible is mainly used for evaluation.
2 comments:
Can we use both at different times? They are both different, but maybe we need both approaches?
Paul Lion, good clarification. I think I was unclear. Perhaps "approach" is the wrong word, and "paradigm" would be better. In the second "paradigm," the Bible takes a back seat to our perceptions of reality i.e. what God seems to be doing. The question is, do we allow God's word to guide us, or does the Bible just have secondary status in mission?
Post a Comment