More on the Mission of God

By | November 21, 2013

On more than one occasion, I’ve questions whether the terms ‘missiology‘ or ‘mission of God‘ (even when written in Latin a missio Dei) are actually very useful terms. They are used in so many different ways that you are never quite sure what people mean by them.

In a recent article, Ed Stetzer highlights the evolution of the term ‘Misison of God’ and notes why some Evangelicals are reluctant to use it. This quote gets to the heart of the issue:

Johannes Hoekendijk and others, sought to define themissio dei as larger than the church. Their concern was that the mission of God was more than church extension–and they were partially right.

Hoekendijk challenged the member bodies in the World Council of Churches to abandon both the traditional form of church and the traditional approach to missions. He held that the congregations should abandon their buildings and institutions and become bands of roving ministers, believing that the time for evangelistic mission work had passed. This was called participating in the missio dei.

Because of this history, and much of the social justice emphasis (or “social gospel” depending on your view), evangelicals have historically shied away from missio deitheology. For example, there is this telling description in the Evangelical Dictionary of Missions under the heading, “Missio Dei”:

Hoekendijk challenged missionaries to identify and integrate with the suffering masses, seeking to realize God’s shalom on earth. As this occurred in the 1960’s and 70’s, the World Council’s ministry focused almost entirely on social, economic, and political “liberation.” Positively, the WCC reminded evangelicals that Jesus came feeding and healing as well as teaching and preaching. Evangelicals, especially the neo-evangelicals, admitted they had presented a “one-sided Gospel,” as Ron Sider put it. Unfortunately, the leaders in the World Council of Churches also advocated a “one-sided Gospel,” one that neglected humanity’s need for reconciliation with God.

However, you really need to read all of Ed’s article (and the associated links) if you want to get a full picture of what he is saying.

If you want some further background to the term missio Dei, you could do worse than read my chapter in James Butare’s book International Development in Kingdom perspective. It’s now available as a pdf here.

This post is more than a year old. It is quite possible that any links to other websites, pictures or media content will no longer be valid. Things change on the web and it is impossible for us to keep up to date with everything.

2 thoughts on “More on the Mission of God

  1. Antony Billington

    Thanks Eddie – and for the pdf too.

    I confess I have struggled and continue to struggle with the use of ‘mission’ in a wide-ranging sense. I have found myself reading someone else’s manuscript of a forthcoming book and occasionally substituting the word ‘plan’ for ‘mission’ where I thought it would do just as well.

    I’ll enjoy taking a look at your essay.

    1. Eddie Post author

      Thanks, Antony. I’ll be interested to see what you think of my essay – as long as it isn’t too rude!

      Regarding terminology, I think there is probably another blog post in there and I may, one day, even write it. I hear your discomfort with the way the term mission is spread so thin; was it Stephen Neil who said that if everything is mission, then nothing is mission? Equally, I want to reject the absolutism of some who would restrict mission to proclamation alone. How to get the balance.

      However, in some ways, I’m less interested in terminology as in what we do with the theology behind it. I hear a lot about the missio Dei but I don’t actually see a lot of evidence of this thinking impacting the ethics and practice of mission.

      If our theology doesn’t change our thinking and our action, what is the point in it?

Comments are closed.