What is the difference between 'receptive context' and 'resistant context' in mission planning?

• A. Receptive context is open to the gospel and church-planting; resistant context presents barriers such as religious, political, or social opposition.
• B. Receptive context is opposed to any change; resistant context welcomes the gospel.
• C. Receptive context means only urban areas matter.
• D. Resistant contexts have no barriers.

Answer: (A)

Receptive context is about settings where people are open to hearing the gospel and considering church planting; they’re receptive to spiritual themes, relationships, and new faith communities. In mission planning, this openness means you can emphasize clear gospel proclamation and partnerships that facilitate church multiplication, because the social and cultural climate already supports or at least does not strongly oppose such steps. A receptive context often includes existing curiosity, positive relationships, or a climate where local leaders, culture, and institutions are amenable to new faith expression.

A resistant context, on the other hand, presents barriers—religious, political, or social opposition that can hinder sharing faith or starting churches. Planners in these contexts work with heightened risk awareness and use approaches that build legitimacy and trust over time, sometimes focusing on service, community needs, or protection of local partners while navigating legal or safety constraints. The contrast is clear: openness to the gospel and church planting versus barriers that require careful, context-aware strategies.

The other options mischaracterize receptivity and barriers. One option suggests receptivity opposes change and that resistance welcomes the gospel, which reverses the reality. Another narrows receptivity to urban areas only, which misses the broader, context-driven openness. The last option claims resistant contexts have no barriers, which is opposite to the reality of opposition and obstacles.