One comment

1. A very informative paper, especially concerning Winter’s change of mind/heart with the great commission. Winter is an easy target because it seems as if he’s sympathetic to open theism and replacing substitutionary atonement with the Christus Victor view and then applies them to mission. Hesselgrave’s point, that those who move away from a higher view of scripture and doctrine usually adopt a more holistic view of mission has some support with the Stotts and Winters.

   But what about some new people on the horizon, particularly Christopher H. Wright (not to be confused with N.T. Wright). C. Wright’s book, the Mission of God, takes a Canonical view of Mission (from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22). Therefore, by emphasizing the unity of O.T. and N.T., there can be a compelling case for Holistic Mission, when you don’t pull the Matthew 28:18-20 text out of the context of the entire Bible. C. Wright is a respected O.T. scholar, particularly with O.T. ethics and does well making an argument not to ignore the O.T. when articulating what Mission is. My point is, that there are reputable scholars who hold to a holistic mission view point that haven’t sacrificed their theology. Regrettibly, the current emergent movement and their emphasis on holistic mission may reinforce Hesselgrave and others who believe that one must sacrifice doctrine in order to embrace holistic mission……

   Thank you for putting this paper out….It really got me thinking. Praying for you in LDS land, Joel