The Millennium Development Goals and Christian Mission

Or should that be “Christian mission and the Millennium Development Goals”?

In the year 2000 the United Nations announced eight goals having to do with global development and poverty. And established the deadline by which to reach these goals – the year 2015.

1. In brief the eight goals are:
2. eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
3. achieve universal primary education
4. promote general equality and empower women
5. reduce child mortality
6. improve maternal health
7. combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases
8. ensure environmental sustainability
9. develop a global partnership for development

Let me state up front that I do not oppose these goals.

Those who are part of or simply observe the Episcopal Church know that the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) have become – and I dare anyone to argue otherwise – the central vision for and even the definition of the mission of the Episcopal Church. General Conventions affirm and promote – aggressively – support for and work towards the MDGs. Diocesan conventions – the same. Even the Diocese of Louisiana – not the most but among the moderately conservative dioceses in the Episcopal Church – has signed onto the MDGs.

Most recently Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori preached at an “Evening Prayer Service for the United Nations Community” on September 11. Her sermon appeared on several occasions to equate the United Nations and its work/mission with the Kingdom of God (and by extension with the mission of the Christian church):

The United Nations, in the minds of many, is also an image of that city of God, in which all the nations may find peace. When the nations gather, seeking peace, we still dream that justice will prevail. When human beings begin to converse together, to seek understanding and cooperation, even in multiple languages and with many interpreters, that possibility begins. We claim a heritage, common to the Abrahamic faiths, that God’s justice will eventually prevail, and that justice has something to do with an ideal city – an interconnected and interdependent human community.

Perhaps I – and critics of Presiding Bishop Schori and of the Episcopal Church – overstate our case. But peruse news items from Episcopal News Service and you will see what I mean. Promoting and supporting the MDGs appear to be the dominant and primary understanding of Christian(?) mission that one finds among the leadership of the Episcopal Church.

There is some cause for concern if one defines Christian mission in terms of the United Nations MDGs. Not because I see anything wrong with the MDGs themselves. I do not. (And I will say more about that below.) But because it leaves one wondering if such an understanding of mission is… Christian.

Several commentators and bloggers have discussed this problem. Among them is Richard Kew who until recently was a priest serving in the Diocese of Tennessee. He wrote – and please permit me to quote at length:

I have come to conclude that one of the reasons why the Millennium Development Goals figure so prominently in Dr. Schori’s thinking is that she seems to start into the Baptismal Covenant with the very last question and affirmation: “Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?”

I am not one of those who has real difficulties with the Millennium Development Goals. There is absolutely nothing wrong in striving for justice, peace, and human dignity, and I would assert that these are very important outcomes from believing, but they are outcomes and not the starting point. As one who when called by Christ into his fold was committed to bringing in the Kingdom of God, then obviously justice, peace, and human dignity are part of the mix, and we should chide ourselves and our forebears that so often we have forgotten this.

However, we should not hold our whole way of understanding the faith through the lens of justice, peace, and human dignity. When that happens we come up with a very different perception of what believing is about. The Baptismal Covenant, despite its shortcomings, lays things out in the right order. The starting point is the Trinitarian God who has called us into his family, redeemed us, and made us his own — then it goes on to the fulness and nature of our response to God’s initiative, and the nature of Christian discipleship.

When the last part of the Covenant is made first we immediately start defining the nature of discipleship in our own terms, and that then allows us to define the nature and call of God in light of our own perceptions. As a Christian believer I believe passionately in what might broadly be labelled justice, peace, and human dignity, but I must define what they mean in light of God’s nature, God’s call, how God has revealed himself, and what God wants me to do and be.

In a nutshell – to define Christian mission in terms of “justice peace and human dignity” (as laudable and worthy as these are) is to get things in the wrong order. What about God? What about the mission of God – which includes how God relates to a rebellious creation and rebellious creation? and how the Triune God has acted most decisively of all through the incarnation suffering death and resurrection (and ascension!) of Jesus Christ the Son of God? If one defines Christian mission (almost?) entirely in terms of the MDGs then what happens to sin? repentance? forgiveness? salvation? eternal life (which is not just going to heaven when one dies thank you very much)?

You have a list of worthy goals. But do they by themselves constitute the missio Dei (mission of God) which is now the mission of the Christian church?

I agree with critiques of the Episcopal Church and of the Presiding Bishop for their overemphasis – not support for but overemphasis of – the United Nations MDGs. I believe that are compatible with Christian mission. Even can be considered as part of Christian mission. But they are not the primary definition of Christian mission.

So imagine my reaction when I receive the latest issue of fellowship! the bimonthly newsletter(? magazine? propaganda organ?) of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (the organization with which I most identify at present – do not my restrained language). All of page four devoted to the United Nations Millennium Development Goals:

Almost a decade before the U.N. established the Millennium Development Goals, the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship was focused on ministering to the world’s most neglected and marginalized people. Since then, the CBF Global Missions network of field personnel, churches and partners has been working to alleviate poverty around the world.

Below are a few examples of how the U.N. Millennium Development Goals align with the Fellowship’s vision of being the presence of Christ in the world…

At first I thought, “Oh crud. ‘My’ denomination is turning into a Baptist version of the Episcopal Church”. Again – what about historic orthodox Christianity? An understanding of Christian mission that actually includes such bizarre notions as the Trinity and Jesus and sin and salvation and…? You get the idea.

But if one reads carefully I do not think the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship is going quite so far as the Episcopal Church in terms of equating the mission of the church with the MDGs. But rather is attempting that difficult and delicate balancing act of articulating a broader vision of Christian mission that leaves room for and includes such things as the MDGs – but does not equate our mission with them. (Such that the world-in-rebellion-against-God does not dictate the mission of God or of his people.) Although I found myself scratching my head a bit when I read the short piece (same issue) by Daniel Vestal who is the Executive Coordinator of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship and someone whom I respect highly:

My conviction is that all of us have much to learn about being the presence of Christ as a missional people. We have to learn how God is at work in the world (U.N., ONE Campaign, government and non-government organizations) and in the Church (congregations, Micah Challenge, Baptist World Alliance, Bread for the World, Together for Hope, missionaries). (2)

So God is definitely at work in the United Nations? Maybe. But I am not quite prepared to offer such sweeping (if positive) judgment. Rwanda? Kosovo? Screw Israel? Pardon my cynicism but I have my doubts about the United Nations even if it sometimes gets something right.

One writer that has helped me articulate and understand better my understanding of (Christian) mission is Brian McLaren especially in his book A Generous Orthodoxy. In his chapter “Why I Am Missional” he offer this succinct description (definition?) of the mission of the Christian church:

To be and make disciples of Jesus Christ in authentic community for the good of the world. (107)

This has – among others – two important ramifications. The first is that the gospel of Jesus is not all about me (us). “I believe in Jesus so I can have my sins forgiven and live forever in heaven with him”. An all too common and frankly self-centered articulation of the gospel. That when it has a chance gets to the church and maybe when we have a few minutes or dollars gets around to concern for the world.

The second is what McLaren describes as follows (sorry about the long quotation):

… Jesus comes with saving love for the world. He creates the church as a missional community to join him in his mission of saving the worlod. He invites me to be part of this community to experience his saving love and participate in it. …

Among other things, it eliminates old dichotomies like “evangelism” and “social action.” Both are integrated in expressing saving love for the world. Those who want to become Christians… we welcome. Those who don’t, we love and serve, joining God in seeking their good, their blessing, their shalom.

This approach gets rid of distinctions like ministry (what we do in the church) and mission (what we do outside it), since ministry is for mission from the start. (108)

The result is that the MDGs – if they are indeed compatible with how God wants to save the world (justice and mercy and so on) – are compatible with even part of Christian mission. Although they are not – they are not! – the sum total or definition thereof.

I used to be uncomfortable with how much the congregation I serve (University Baptist Church) emphasizes service and social justice but seems reticent to mention God or salvation or Jesus. We have a few hundred volunteers who serve every week/month at a local elementary school – where we cannot (theoretically) talk about the Christian faith. It is a public school. (And I happen to respect such restrictions. More or less.) And yet can only get a tiny handful of people who will help with Sunday school or Bible studies or evangelism or Church of the Nations (the ministry with internationals which is my primary responsibility). We love to help people but seem uncomfortable with the whole Jesus-and-God thing.

I still am a little uncomfortable with our apparent discomfort with distinctively Christian theology/teaching/practice. But I now see social ministry as not distinct from but entirely part of Christian mission. Mission is participation in the life of the Trinity. When God proclaims repentance and forgiveness… or excoriates the rich of Judah for their injustice toward the poor… all of that is Christian mission.

What really bewildered me was when I stated in business meeting that you know maybe we should consider uniting two distinct areas of the church. Maybe we should not have Missions over here and Community Service over there – perhaps they should both be brought together. That would articulate much better the nature of Christian mission. Imagine my shock when it was not the Missions area leadership but the Community Service area leadership wanted no part of this proposal. “People involved in the elementary school will not be interested in missions projects in Moldova”. (That is a direct quote.) Well. That is the sort of thing that concerns but does not trouble me when organizations like the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship starts playing up the MDGs. We might end up like the Episcopal Church. Peace and justice and all that. But God? Jesus? Bible? Thanks but no thanks. We “have no interest” in that.