Categories
Observations

The Future of Missions Is Indigenous

Some thoughts on what the future might hold.

I recently attended an online seminar hosted by Global Connections in which Jay Matenga of the World Evangelical Alliance spoke on the theme The Future of Missions is Indigenous. Jay has written at length on this subject in the past (here for example) and it is worth reading what he has to say. In what follows, I’ll note some of what Jay had to say with comments of my own inserted at the end. For the most part, what I have to say is taken from my own notes, so if I misrepresent what was said the responsibility lies with me, not with Jay. The quotes are taken directly from his Powerpoint.

Update: since I posted this, Jay has made the text of his presentation available; you can find it here.

Authority

From the earliest days of the Protestant mission movement the establishment of indigenous churches was a central goal. However, in practice, expat missionaries proved reluctant to cede their authority until the local churches had reached some unstated (and probably impossible) level of authority. It is an established norm (and not just among Western missionaries that trans-boundary missionaries carry an implicit superiority of self which is not scripturally warranted).

Being an authorised news reader doesn’t translate to authority over or imposition upon others.

Indigeneity

For Jay, the term indigenous refers to a series of epistemic values relating to a community orientation which contrasts with the industrial values which are based on a pragmatic Enlightenment dualism. (Read more in the link above.) While industrial broadly overlaps with the Western world, Jay sees the indigenous: industrial contrast as being fundamentally about world-view rather than geography.

Industrial: Autonomy, Contract, Transaction, Project, Productivity, Team, Merit

Indigenous: Covenant, Mutual, Reciprocal, Growth, Family, Honour.

These two outlooks lead to contrasting approaches to cooperation. The industrial mindset seeks partnerships to achieve a goal and when that goal is reached, the partnership dissolves. The indigenous approach is to seek community and harmony first of all.

Hybridity

The indigenous and industrial approaches are both expressions of the body of Christ and need to be held in tension as we go forward. However, the money and power and the influence lies with those of an industrial bent, it will be necessary to emphasise the indigenous in order to achieve the sort of balance that we need.

Our transboundary interactions are an opportunity for co-learning.

Global missions needs to shed itself of its confidence in the Eurocentric theological consensus.

We should be looking towards the establishment of authentic, orthodox churches. However, these should not be clones of the missionary sending churches. Historic orthodoxy leaves wiggle room for indigenous expressions.

I found the seminar helpful and thought provoking, though frustratingly short (then again it was held in the middle of Jay’s night).

Not surprisingly, given my particular interests, I would like to have explored the way in which structures have an impact on the indigenous: industrial issue. Modern mission agencies are by their nature industrial organisations (it would be interesting to explore how the original missionary societies envisaged by Carey differ from this). To what extent can these organisations evolve to play a meaningful role in mission in the future? For me, the jury is out on this question. In one sense it was heartening to see around 80 people at the online seminar yesterday, but that is a small proportion of the UK agency leadership and there were some significant absences. Without any evidence to back it up, I suspect that some churches are much better placed than agencies to enter into genuine mutual relationships with Christians in other parts of the world. There is a conversation to be had here.

Whether the future of mission(s) turns out as Jay envisages is something that only time will reveal. However, we can be sure that it will be different to what we have been used to in the past. The question remains whether the structures and ways of thinking that have driven the British missionary movement can change to fit the new reality. We have enough momentum (and money) to keep going for a long time yet; but will we still be relevant?

“What is clear by now is that both the concept of mission as a one-way movement from Christendom to the un-evangelised world, and the structures devised at the close of the eighteenth century to facilitate that movement, have been overtaken by a historical developments that render them increasingly irrelevant and redundant.”

David Smith; Mission After Christendom p. 116

The Kouyanet blog, podcast, videos and downloads are distributed (for the most part) free of charge in the hope that they will be of use to those who are interested in mission, theology and the world church. However, if you would like to support the site, you can do so by signing up to be a regular patron, buying something from our Wishlist or making a one off donation using the button below.

One reply on “The Future of Missions Is Indigenous”

This put me a bit in mind of the way we began to think about our different “generations” of missionaries arriving in Nepal in the 1990s. Church planting had always (since the 1950s) been done by Nepalis, with the “missions” being multi-agency cooperations providing health & development services. So it’s not the sort of situation that you are generally writing about.

But back to the point, we found it useful to consider incoming (‘western’) missionaries as represented by three different parables: the earlier ones (many of whom were still there) were “hand to the plough” people, who would stick with their original calling for life. The middle ones (myself included) were “gift” ones, quite akin to your “industrial” outlook here – focussed on projects, wanting to be placed where they could be most “use”. The younger ones (roughly, those born ~1970?) were “body” ones: more interested to be placed in teams and work in those teams, changing project or location when the team decided to – somewhat akin to your “indigenous” outlook.

So perhaps there are signs of hope for you, as the west – at least in part – becomes more communcal / cooperative in outlook. Or perhaps in this century, that cultural change has been reversed.

Comments are closed.