Something to say

Why does writing on world mission often use shoddy exegesis? Here's an example for you. The gospel of Mark records Jesus' refusal to continue teaching and healing in the town of Capernaum. David and Joyce Huggett think they know why: "Jesus’ need for space, then, was urgent, and He did not hesitate to make sure He had such space, even though at times this caused Him to close His ears to cries for help and to turn away from people".1 Wheras in actual fact, if you read the very next verse, Jesus has another explanation for why he acts this way: "Let us go somewhere else—to the nearby villages—so I can preach there also. That is why I have come." (Mark 1:38)

My guess is that because it's a practical field, people turn on the 'common sense' part of their brain. So I hear people basing their views of the 'missionary call' on the experience of famous missionaries or guaging the rightness of a course of action solely by the effectiveness of its outcome (eg "I wouldn't normally agree with women leading churches, but there are no mature Christian men here, so it must be okay for the female missionary to lead the church.") Coming up with a Bible verse or a general Christian principle to support the decision is something of an afterthought and lacking in rigour (as the above example shows).

This sort of thinking drives me crazy! If the Bible doesn't provide any practical help for everyday life and decision-making then why are we bothering with the whole enterprise? Is it only for heaven that we are Christians?!? No!


1 D Huggett, J Huggett, "Jesus Christ: The Heart of Member Care" in K O'Donnell (ed) Doing Member Care Well (William Carey Library, 2002), 209-21.