On Receptivity

Frankly, I am writing this as a reactionary. I am reacting because both potential missionaries and those who teach them seem to shy away from sending or going to western-culture nations such as Europe, Australia and New Zealand because it is “too hard.” They label them “unreceptive.” But, I left at least half of my heart in Australia after ten years of mission work there so, it could be that I have the tiniest, itsy bitsy chip on my shoulder When I hear people say, “Forget about that place…you need to go to some place receptive,” I admit I get a little warm. But that warmth ignited my little gray cells and set my thought processes in motion. This article is the result.

Perhaps a little more personal history is appropriate here. In less than a decade, working basically through two families, God placed a church of 150 people in Adelaide, South Australia. He did that through young, ignorant, untrained (in evangelism) and inexperienced men and their families. That church flourished until, like so many churches around the world, a savage wolf entered in and destroyed the flock (Acts 20:29). So, especially when speaking of the Australian culture, I know what is possible. It boggles the mind to think of what the Lord could have done in the same place with a well-trained and mentored team. The International Church of Christ, preaching the same gospel, has experienced great evangelistic success in places we in the “mainstream church” thought were too hard. Hard? Yes. Impossible? Never![1]

When we talk a lot about the “receptivity” of a culture, we mean how readily the good news of Jesus is received and how easily and quickly conversions result. These are places to which we want to send quality missionaries ASAP. Some go so far as to say we should send most or all our evangelists to such areas. One missionary to a “receptive” Asian country said we need to send 95% of our missionaries to the 10/40 window. His concern for his country in that region is understandable given its huge population. But what will happen to other regions if we apply that standard across the board?

What constitutes receptivity? How many conversions are necessary before a population is considered receptive? Since “receptive” is not defined in terms of numbers, it must ever be a relative term, sort of like “pretty.”  How do we determine who is receptive enough to be preached to? Furthermore, we need to be careful not to hastily label a population as unreceptive. It is fairly easy to establish that great numbers have been converted to various doctrinal systems in regions that others call “unreceptive.” Our failures in these regions may be more a matter of ineptitude than resistance.

If we concentrate solely on highly receptive areas, we will pull our evangelists out of the United States. We also eliminate Western Europe from our list of targets. Certainly we’ll ditch Australia and New Zealand. Japan is out. For various reasons, primarily materialism, these countries require that we actually seek the lost. People in these countries do not generally seek you out and ask, “What must I do to be saved?” But are they receptive? Ask that question of the numerous religious groups in these areas who are adding thousands to their denominations. Ask the Mormons who have built temples and buildings in every major city of the Western world.

It is true that people in some regions are no longer eager to receive traditional Western expressions of Christianity. They are not interested in a religion whose primary focus is on meeting together in a building or hall to listen to a talented public speaker and take in a “Christian Music” concert performed by talented musicians and singers. They could care less about assembling in some building or hall to observe some rituals, passively listen to a sermon and go home thinking they have been “faithful” by virtue of their attendance.

People are no longer attracted (if they ever really were) by the archaic, irrelevant, impotent, repetitious, sanctimonious and pointless. They are repelled by an established religion that is too often political and too ready to turn a blind eye to social injustice and violence. You can paint a cow chip and put a pretty bow on it, but its essence remains the same.

The picture is not consistently bleak. In fact, there is reason for great optimism. It is amazing how swiftly and efficiently faith-based organizations respond to crises and causes. People need to see the love, mercy, justice and compassion the Christians are capable of. These characteristics must emerge all the time – not just in reaction to disasters and catastrophes. Jesus was constantly compassionate, merciful and loving. These characteristics create receptivity.

The Christian faith must relate to the needs of every day. People who are hurting seldom find comfort in distant promises of eternal life. They need an every-day Savior who draws the weary and burdened to his rest right now. You will find these precious souls everywhere and they are receptive.

I have no problem when missionaries say “I think…” or “It is my opinion,” or even “It stands to reason…” that we should concentrate solely on highly receptive areas of the world. But when someone seeks to establish that as the scriptural thing to do, I have a serious problem. Trouble is, you see, we can’t seem to dredge that same emphasis out of Scripture, especially when it concerns the work of the prophets, Jesus and his apostles. The closest we get is when God says of a place; “I have many people in this city” (Acts 18:9, 10). Paul responds to a dream or vision that calls him to Macedonia, (Acts 16:9, 10) not on the basis of “receptivity,” but because Paul and his companions concluded “…that God had called us to preach the gospel to them.” Paul could have resisted the invitation to speak in Athens (Acts 17:16 ff) and said, “Men of Athens, I see that you are not receptive and so I’m not going to waste my time preaching to you.” Instead, Paul was eager to speak because he was “greatly distressed” to see all their idols. How can anyone tour a modern western city and feel any different? The result of his work? “A few men became followers of Paul and believed.” The rest sneered.

If we revisit the marching orders of the church, we never see mission connected to receptivity. Jesus did not say, “Go therefore and make disciples of the receptive nations…” (Matthew 28:19). Did Jesus really mean, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the receptive creation” (Mark 16:15)? I think we have come up with this stricture because we are results-oriented and we think the required results are conversions.

We must not hold the gospel hostage to rates of conversion! We begin a radio ministry, we publish a newspaper article, we host a television program and judge their effectiveness and decide about continued financing by how many conversions result. But isn’t that the wrong standard of measurement? Shouldn’t we rather be asking if the gospel is being effectively proclaimed to people who must hear it…whose eternal salvation depends upon it? What makes one population more valuable than another?

As I wrote elsewhere,

Among the wrong-headed notions that have harmed the kingdom most is the Western practice of judging actions primarily by results. It is not hard to see why this is the case. No one wants to be floundering around pursuing causes without effect. And, certainly, some common sense needs to be used. If some means of publishing the gospel is consistently failing to connect, then it ought to be dropped. But here is the key concept: connection.[2]

 

IS RECEPTIVITY A VALID CRITERION FOR FIELD SELECTION?

If conversion is the sole reason for preaching the truth of the gospel, then the lack of conversions might be a valid criterion for judging effectiveness. But such is not the case. The criterion ought to be: Is the gospel being proclaimed to the people? While God wants all to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4), He wants truth published for more reasons than conversion. Making disciples and converting the lost are not the only reasons for preaching the gospel truth.[3]

Jesus tells us that our job is to bring the kingdom of God near to the people. He also tells us what to do when the people refuse to receive the message of the kingdom (Luke 10:10, 11). This passage teaches that a city is not receptive when the people do not receive us. Let’s take some space to examine scriptures used by some to teach that God wants us to limit or even concentrate our efforts to the more receptive cultures. In each case, the question we must ask is: what do these passages really say?

Matthew 9:35-38 – Jesus is our example He was among the people proclaiming and doing good — seeking the lost (Luke 19:10). We cannot save if we do not seek! His motivation was compassion for their distress and dispirited condition. But this passage says nothing about receptivity. His concern is about workers in the harvest, not receptivity.

Matthew 10:11-16 – Often used to show Jesus’ attitude toward the unreceptive. But how can it be established that someone is unreceptive until we give them something to accept or reject? They first have to be proven unreceptive: “…whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words.”

John 4:34-38 – Says nothing (implies nothing) about receptivity but simply says that the fields are “white for harvest.” In other words, they are ready. It also says that they may be ready for harvest because someone else has cultivated the soil and brought ground which was previously unfruitful to the point of being ready to harvest. Is the person who cultivates an unreceptive field and prepares it for receiving the seed of God’s word doing God’s work?

John 10:16; 25-27 – Simply says that there are some sheep who hear his voice and some that do not. The ones that hear his voice and follow him will be given eternal life. This passage says nothing about concentrating on “receptive” fields.

Acts 13:46-51 – It actually says it was necessary to preach to unreceptive Jews “…since you repudiated it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life…” As a result of their self-judgment Paul and Barnabas turned to the Gentiles who proved to be receptive.

Acts 18:6 – This is a very interesting passage! Again, it was necessary to preach to the unreceptive before he could be released from that responsibility. Question: If Paul had not preached to them – would he have had their blood on his head? Would he have discharged his responsibility? The application of this passage seems to require that we preach even to the “unreceptive.”

Acts 19:8-10 – As in every place “some were becoming hardened and disobedient…” as a consequence, he “took away the disciples, reasoning daily in the school of Tyrannus.” The result was that “…all who lived in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks” (19:9, 10).

Acts 28:28 – Look at the context (verse 24); “some were being persuaded by the things spoken, but others would not believe.” This is true of every place we preach. We must speak regardless of how the truth is received.

In every case, it was important that the people hear the word. Not all responded but some did. The responsibility to preach was discharged. What must be done in all cultures? The Gospel must be fully proclaimed as we explain and solemnly testify about the kingdom of God.

Do we meet our obligation by renting a hall, passing out some pamphlets and holding a gospel meeting? Is our responsibility met by telling people to come and hear our speeches? We need to be reminded that people listened to Jesus because of his deeds. By our good works we create receptivity. It is not granted, it is earned.

Could it be that we are concerned about receptivity because we are taking responsibility for things that are none of our business? We are not responsible for the faith and obedience of others. We are not responsible for whether or not they receive, believe and obey what they hear. We are responsible, however, for their hearing the gospel. We are responsible for planting and watering. And, we certainly are charged with concentrating our efforts on those who believe and obey putting their trust in God.

We are charged with proclamation of the gospel. We are charged with letting our light shine and being salt to our world (Matthew 5:13-16) and being the aroma of Christ (2 Corinthians 2:14-16).

It is vitally important for us to realize that, in reality, there are no unreceptive cultures…never have been. There are less receptive and more receptive cultures. Within each culture there are less receptive and more receptive communities. Within each community there are less receptive and more receptive people. Receptive people are usually in crisis and they are everywhere. Wars, famine, poverty…all are conditions that increase receptivity. Family problems, bereavement, job loss, financial problems are rife in every culture and create a situation where answers, solutions, peace, comfort and hope are sought. The crises of life present opportunities to share Christ. These conditions occur in the most comfortable, secular cultures. These are the people who are looking for what we have to offer. We find them by fanning-out into the community; joining their clubs, playing their sports, breaking bread with them, volunteering with them, and a thousand other ways. We invite them into our homes. We invite them to our parenting seminars. Eventually, we invite them into our fellowships.

Are there easier and more pleasant places to preach the gospel? Yes indeed. But we follow a Savior who gave comfort very little thought. We follow Paul who said to preach the word when it’s easy and when it’s hard and invited us to suffer hardship with him as an evangelist (2 Timothy 4:5) and a good soldier (2 Timothy 2:3). Don’t let the prospect of hardship cause you to choose the easy path. Countless souls will be eternally grateful.

---

[1] Churches consisting of thousands of members were established (and continue) in “difficult” places such as London, Moscow, Sydney and the Northeastern United States.

[2] Some of this material is adapted from another paper, Truth for Its Own Sake. It can’t be plagiarism since I wrote it too.

[3] See “Truth for its Own Sake”