Add new comment

The name "Master's Commission" is more or less self-evident for both evangelicals and pentecostals. The name comes from what is also known as "The Great Commission" in Matthew's gospel:

And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." (Matthew 28:18-20)

Both evangelicals and pentecostals tend to interpret this passage through the lens of being "born again" (as in the famous John 3:16 passage where Jesus talked to the religious teacher Nicodemus at night, attempting to explain what spiritual awakening and rebirth entails). That is, both evangelicals and pentecostals put greater emphasis on theoria (doctrine) than mainline and liberal churches, which tend to emphasize praxis (experience) more. These are broad generalizations, of course: the Master's Commission, for example, is an organization that definitely does emphasize the role of praxis and putting into practice the "social gospel" (community and charitable service: food pantries, homeless shelters, and so on).

The Great Commission in Matthew, then, was given by Jesus, and a title of respect for Jesus is "Master": hence "The Master's Commission." And while, especially from the perspective of a pentecostal (as opposed to an evangelical who otherwise often shares the same core set of beliefs), this includes "miracles, signs, and wonders"--includes the healings and other compassionate miracles Jesus performed (more on that in a moment)--it also has very much to do with getting people "saved," which is itself very much a product of theoria, or a particular application of theoria. Therefore, among the things that Jesus' "great commission" entails, it is what its detractors disparage as "proselytizing," and what its insiders would call "witnessing"--in its purest sense, "witnessing" is acting as a credible witness for the transforming power of God in one's life, though it detractors point to plenty of examples where witnessing seemed to have little grounding in personal experience with God and much grounding in rote formulations designed to maximize persuasion/conversion.

Now about Jesus' "miracles, signs, and wonders" (using the terminology of believers like Sid Roth --, these can be spelled out in Luke 7:22-23. When an imprisoned and doubting John the Baptist inquired whether Jesus was the "Expected One" or if he should expect another, Jesus replied "Go and report to John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have the gospel preached to them. Blessed is he who does not take offense at me."

To the progressive or liberal church (and to one half of the pentecostal understanding), the idea of "gospel" has changed meanings somewhat. It is still "the good news," but it is seen as having more practical ramifications in the present life: it delivers people from cycles of poverty, cycles of crime, and other sociological ailments, as well as helping to alleviate psychological needs such as loneliness, the sense of being cut off and abandoned, the sense of having some kind of existential "hole" right through one's center that is never quite filled, and so on.

So, I am not suggesting that mainline and liberal churches are all praxis and pentecostal and evangelical churches are all theoria, nor that the two never cross over. I am, however, suggesting that they take on different understandings. For the pentecostal and evangelical, the WAY that you answer the question the question of WHO Jesus was and what he saw himself accomplishing with his ministry on earth tends to take front and center stage to a much greater degree. He is seen as the Son of God (not merely "a son"), and belief in his divinity is seen as paramount for salvation, salvation in this sense cast in futurist terms of life after death. Thus, with this interpretative lens it follows that Matthew's "Great Commission" is cast as an appeal to "proselytize," and that particular passage in term supplies us with the name "Master's Comission." However, since we are dealing with pentecostals and not evangelicals (or even more conservative groups such as fundamentalists), we see more of the sense of the "good news" also involving a social gospel as well: that is, cast not only in futurist terms of life after death but "good news" right here and right now through such things as building projects, meals on wheels, and so on.

Last, I really appreciated what you said in your comments, Trent:

"The growth experience of working on SOF is actually realizing and acknowledging that many personal truths coexist in the world -- that they should live together, even in tension with one another. Now, I'm not naive enough to think that they peacefully coexist or that one doesn't trump the other in certain political or theological hierarchies. In my immediate circle of friends who are non-religious and secular for the most part, the same could be said for "applying" their foundational texts of NPR or the NYT or Marx's manifesto. People sometimes wield this knowledge as a weapon, an instrument intent on blunting the conversation and winning rather than informing and serving as an entry point to dialogue about religion and politics and arts and so on. Simply put, we don't get to know and understand one another better."

I am a liberal Christian who often finds himself "reaching across the gap," my foundational texts coming from both arenas, though my interpretation of Jesus' words are at once more radical (and to me more beautiful) than what are often represented. For me, the message is simple and universal: Humanity is hurting and broken on many different levels, and we face insecurities, misunderstanding, longing, and lack even within ourselves--we certainly aren't always consistently virtuous to our own detriment and that of others--and hurting people tend to hurt other people perpetuating endless cycles that can only be broken by being transcended. What humanity needs is some kind of redemption: some way to rise higher than it has and re-connect with its divine source. I do not believe that kind of change is possible without a spiritual transformation. And spiritual transformation doesn't happen by accident. It happens, often, by concerned people doing what they can to help bring it about. Concerned people try to help one another, remind one another to be mindful, to live a worthy life, to strive to effect real change, to try to recognize that merely boosting the ego is not the way to heal the ego, rather the ego is healed by serving a cause greater than itself--by being authentic and by helping other people do the same. I see SOF as furthering this cause, because it puts on the table for civil discussion what far too often divides.