The New Testament should not just inform our motivations for missions, but also our methodology for missions.
Yet, a lot of missionary work is undertaken by practitioners who—though motivated by the Scriptures—derive their methods elsewhere. If, however, the Word of God is the authority for both faith and practice, then missionaries do well to consider how the Scriptures—particularly the New Testament (NT) and its narration of the early Christian movement (i.e., the book of Acts)—should shape the nature of their work.
While some missionaries have simply overlooked this point, others have more consciously downplayed—to varying degrees—the relevance of the book of Acts for contemporary missions practice. Such downplaying happens in various ways.
Denying the Authority of Scripture
First, some deny the authority of Scripture and thus its ability and right to shape missionary practice. Such a denial occurs less in Protestant evangelicalism and more so in progressive theological circles, where a low view of the Bible remains commonplace. Those who do not believe that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God see little reason to root missionary practice in the precedents and instruction of NT narratives.
Claiming that the NT Period was Unique
Second, some claim that the early period of the church was unique and thus insinuate that the narration of it (in Acts) is therefore of limited value when it comes to shaping contemporary missionary endeavors. Such claims of uniqueness come from different angles. Some point to the unique presence of eye-witness Apostles in the early church and contend that we should thus be careful not to see the narration of that period and its missionary practices as normative for today. Some claim that the context of the early church was substantially different from contemporary contexts today, which should thus constrain the current applicability of NT missionary methods. Still others might point to the time of Acts as a unique foundation-laying period of the church—a period which they view as now passed, considering the worldwide scope of Christianity today.
Such claims, however, can fall prey to “Hume’s Guillotine,” which highlights the logical fallacy of deriving how something “ought” to be from an observation about what something “is.” In other words, the fact that something “is” a certain way does not provide sufficient warrant to claim that something else “ought” to be or happen accordingly (e.g., “Jesus wore a tunic; therefore, we should all wear tunics”). In this case, the claim that the early church of Acts had eye-witness Apostles for its leaders is true yet does not provide sufficient grounds to say that we therefore “ought” not to follow the early church’s missionary patterns. Similarly, the fact that Acts narrates a foundation-laying period in the church’s history does not necessarily indicate that the methodology therein is irrelevant for the church today.
Moreover, the claim of difference between the NT context and contemporary contexts can be overstated. Many realities of the first-century Greco-Roman world (e.g., hostile state governments, idolatry, heavy persecution, Christianity as a minority religion) can be readily seen in places across the world today.
Such claims regarding the uniqueness of the early church period may be true (in some cases), but by themselves remain insufficient arguments against the applicability of NT missionary methods.
Claiming that Acts is not a Manual for Missionary Methods
A third way that some downplay the book of Acts in reference to missionary methods is to claim that the book was not intended to be a church planting manual. While it is true that the primary purpose of the author, Luke, is not to provide step-by-step “how-to” instructions for missionaries, that reality does not preclude the notion of Acts serving as a formative influence for shaping contemporary missions practice.
Acts does not need to be a church planting manual in order for it to guide missionary endeavors today. In fact, part what Luke is doing through his writing is showing how missional witness is part of allegiance to Christ and demonstrating what missional witness looks like. As Darrell Bock claims, “Luke not only introduces Jesus and his ministry, but also shows how that ministry relates to the early church era. This linkage enables Luke to discuss how God brought his salvation in Jesus, how the earliest church preached Jesus, and how they carried their mission to both Jew and Gentile.… This is a major burden of the Gospel of Luke: to define Jesus’ mission and that of the disciples who follow after him.”[i]
Allowing the Old Testament and Gospel Accounts to Overshadow Acts
Finally, some downplay the relevance of the book of Acts for contemporary missionary methodology by elevating other sections of Scripture over and above Acts, to the extent that it becomes of secondary importance. That is not to say that other parts of Scripture have no bearing on our understanding of mission; mission, in fact, begins with God himself and remains a major theme throughout most of the Old Testament (OT). Further, Jesus himself—being sent by the Father (John 20:21)—carried out the missionary calling of Isaiah’s “servant” (Isa 49:6; Luke 2:25–32), and thus the gospel accounts have much to teach us regarding the nature and practice of Christian mission.
However, in a worthy attempt to root Christian mission in the fullness of Scripture, some authors have practically devalued the role of Acts in shaping missionary practice by devoting far more attention to either Israel’s missionary calling in the OT or Jesus’ mission in the gospels. In such cases, the book of Acts receives scant consideration for its role in shaping contemporary missionary endeavors.
______
These means of downplaying the relevance of the book of Acts are not uncommon. While evangelical missiologists and scholars do not often deny the authority of Scripture, various voices have argued that the uniqueness of the NT period and the fact that Acts is not a missionary manual both mitigate the applicability of missionary methods therein. Further, some evangelical voices have functionally devalued Acts in a worthy effort to root Christian mission in the fullness of the biblical text.
Yet, for various reasons, such arguments and measures are either questionable or provide insufficient reason for relegating the book of Acts as a source of instruction for missionary methods. Scholars and practitioners do well to revisit Acts and consider how it might shape not only our motivations for mission but also our methodology for mission.
[i] Darrell L. Bock, Luke, 2 vols., in Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1996).