I Timothy 1:12-17; Luke 15:1-10

One of the controversies surrounding St. Paul's writings is his commitment to missions. Is he, and if so, why do we read so little about mission? Notably absent in his epistles is any clarion call to go to the ends of the earth and plant churches. Even a call to evangelize is only rarely stated. The slogans and appeals of missions agencies (yes - like AFM's "concentration on church planting among the 25 largest and least evangelized people groups"!) can cite no quotation from the Apostle to the Gentiles.

He does address many of the categories which appear as agenda items on monthly meetings of church boards and vestries. For these - like stewardship, discipleship, church governance, spiritual gifts, and so on - there are several sections of his writings for endorsement or teaching. But missions, sending missionaries, completing the task, taking Albania for Christ, bold missions thrust, whatever - no source, no text, no reference. So the question is, did Paul only concentrate on systematizing theology around Christ's crucifixion and resurrection to the exclusion of mission?

Paul did address missions and put it in the highest priority. This passage from I Timothy gives a perfect illustration of where and how Paul treated it.

Paul makes a simple statement about himself, puts that in the context of Christ's redeeming power, forms a lesson to ponder, and then points to conclusions. The conclusions, if the reader traces his logic, move us to mission.

His statement is that he is the chief of sinners. In the context of Christ's grace this says that Christ died for sinners. His lesson comes from a simple combination of those two statements - Christ saves sinners, even a sinner who is the chief of sinners; Christ died to save all sinners. No sinner is disqualified. He loves them, died for them, and wants to save them. The conclusion, then, is unspoken but obvious: therefore mobilize yourselves to go out as witnesses to sinners about Christ's redeeming death and resurrection.

That this command is unstated raises the doubt about Paul's commitment to mission. But suppose he had rounded off this passage with a rousing call. How would that be treated in the life of the church? It would have been a citation for missions, which would have fed a missions task force, who would promote the missions item on the agenda. And what would the result be? Missions advocacy in the church alongside the youth advocates, the Christian education committee, and whatever else makes it on the monthly meeting's agenda.

That is not where Paul wanted missions. Paul would put missions as the self-identity of the church. Not a program, not a department, not a group alongside other groups but understood missions as the essence of the life of the church.

If the church sees itself as constituted of sinners who have been surprised by the grace of Christ, then, well, take it from there. The shepherd in our Lord's parable left to search for one lost sheep. A church knowing missions in its essence will certainly want to help search for 1 billion 700 million lost souls.