Yesterday, I commented on a recent blog post from New Zealand which looked at the future of mission agencies through a particular model of organisational behaviour. The original blog post and, to some extent, my reply engendered a debate about the way that the situation changes from country to country and how this will impact mission agencies.
There was a lot of good stuff in the twitter conversation and blog comments and it is hard to argue with much that was said.
but…
I struggle with much of this conversation, because I believe that the problems facing mission agencies are a symptom of a deeper question, and that deeper issue is being more or less ignored.
In 1991, David Bosch wrote a book that many consider to be one of the most important theologies of mission of our age; Transforming Mission. In the introduction, Bosch asserted that mission is facing crisis because of massive changes in the church and the wider world. He suggested six ways in which this crisis manifests itself (though he does not claim that the list is exhaustive).
- The advance of science and technology, and the worldwide process of secularisation.
- The slow but steady de-Christianistion of the West.
- The fact that the world can no longer be divided into “Christian” and “non-Christian” spheres.
- Western guilt for racism and colonialism, leading to an unwillingness to engage in mission.
- The increasing gap between the rich and the poor.
- The reaction against over-academic Western theology in many parts of the church.
Over the years, I’ve looked at some of these issues in more detail than others. The important thing to understand is that these are issues which touch the whole church worldwide, not just the Western mission movement. The challenges which agencies currently face, emerge out of these issues, but they are not the only ones who are impacted.
This means that in looking to the future of mission, we have to look at a whole world solution, not just look at what will happen to the agencies that we are familiar with. Of course, it is natural and right that those of us who work within the Western agency model concentrate on the area that we are familiar with. However, as we do so, we flirt with (at least) two dangers:
- We run the risk of over-stating the importance of our particular historical model of mission; of assuming that our structures and way of doing things must not only be preserved, but must be exported to the rest of the world, so that they can have their ‘western agencies’ too.
- By concentrating on our own field of mission, we may well fail to spot the way in which God is actually getting his mission achieved around the world. If mission history teaches us anything, it is that there are no limits to the Spirit’s flexibility, but that human beings take a long time to catch on to what he is doing.
So, as we wrestle with the way that agencies need to adapt and change in the future, we need to bear in mind that their challenges are only one expression of a much deeper, world-wide move of the Spirit of God.
I’m never entirely convinced by the distinction between mission and missions that some people draw. However, this oft quoted (by me) passage from David Smith does show why the distinction matters:
At this point the distinction between mission, as the abiding obligation and mark of the church of Christ at all times and in all places, and missions, signifying specific, historically conditioned institutions created to advance the cause of the kingdom of God in particular cultural situations becomes vitally important. To fail to make this distinction, and therefore to identify a specific inherited paradigm of mission and its organisational structures with mission itself, is to risk being locked into an obsolete model and so to be condemned to increasingly futile and frustrating activity. Any serious study of the history of the Christian mission leads to the conclusion that, while the cross-cultural transmission of the faith constitutes the very lifeblood of the church and is one of the most vital religious characteristics, the means and methods by which this has been done are various and many. Thus, while mission is a biblical universal, the modern missionary movement was a specific, culturally conditioned initiative which, while amazing successful in its time, is likely to be come increasingly dysfunctional if the attempt is made to preserve it in the new context we have described.
From Mission After Christendom by David Smith p.116.
26 replies on “Mission in Crisis”
Very helpful insights. Well-written too. Thanks for the understanding you bring to the challenges we face.
Paul Bailie liked this on Facebook.
Christian Missiology liked this on Facebook.
Once again, the gold medal goes to… Eddie!
Keep talking my new friend. Keep talking.
People normally tell me to stop talking!
Once again, the gold medal goes to… Eddie!
Keep talking my new friend. Keep talking. http://wp.me/pdWfA-26h#comment-26552
RT @kouya: The challenges that mission agencies face are an expression of a world wide move of God’s Spirit… https://t.co/dg4h4NbpXA
The genius of Theology lies in finding the question, not in finding the answer. So, what is the question? Is it:
How can we as a mission agency make ourselves more relevant and useful?
How can we best foster cross cultural mission from our context to other contexts?
How can we foster mission that includes people going from Ethiopia / India / Brazil / China?
Each is a different type of question with different answers. My sense is you’re asking a mix of the first and the last question. It may be better to separate them.
Those questions are precisely not what I am asking. These are all pragmatic questions and my suggestion is that there are underlying issues which need to be looked at before we get to the pragmatic level.
I wrote: “So, as we wrestle with the way that agencies need to adapt and change in the future, we need to bear in mind that their challenges are only one expression of a much deeper, world-wide move of the Spirit of God.”
First of all we have to ask what does this world-wide move of the Spirit of God look like? What is happening? What is God doing? When we’ve done that, we can start to look at how this should challenge our current practice. Practice will then need to be contextualised.
The problem is that we leap to practice without adequate reflection on the wider situation. I’ll try and unpack this in a blog post tomorrow.
Oh good. Then we are on the same wavelength. My simple view of doing mission is to find out what God is doing and join him in it. Models we are used to may or may not fit that. But, as you say, that is a secondary question
“Find out what God is doing and join him in it”. This missio dei thinking is becoming very popular among evangelicals. Problem is, who gets to decide on what God is doing? Very easy to project our preferences onto this question. As so often, Bosch got there first with some trenchant criticism of this very question.
Oh indeed , it’s very easy to confirm my own bias in what I want to see. However, I still think good research and wise watching is the start to moving in new directions
I agree with Richard. You’ll not be surprised in me saying that The Liberation Theologian first said this. We cannot “sacralise” our own understanding of God’s actions in history but we do need to “make and option”; I.e. Discern where God is working but be willing to adjust and change as we see clearer through our own praxis. Omnis recta cognitio Dei ad obedience nascatur (Johannes Calvinus).
“Who gets to decide on what God is doing?” Richard’s question has a surprisingly straightforward answer: those with the loudest voices and most money. And that is perhaps why we actually need to listen most carefully to those with the quietest voices and the poor for it is there we might actually hear the voice ofGod most clearly
Preach it John.
RT @kouya: The challenges that mission agencies face are an expression of a world wide move of God’s Spirit… https://t.co/dg4h4NbpXA
RT @kouya: The challenges that mission agencies face are an expression of a world wide move of God’s Spirit… https://t.co/dg4h4NbpXA
Huge assumption in the assertion that cross-cultural transmission of the faith is the lifeblood of the church …. Since when? The lifeblood of the church is holistic evangelism (my preferred term for mission because it is a much sharper phrase) with the cross-cultural dimension being secondary.
Since AD 70? The church survived the destruction of Jerusalem precisely because it had crossed into Gentile culture. Andrew Walls has demonstrated (at least to my satisfaction) that without cross-cultural transmission, Christianity would not survive.
I did not mean to suggest that it was not important but that a core of the faith is the transmission of faith – to any and all – and that the cross-cultural aspect of that is a subset of the wider core practice.
I got what you were saying; I’m just not convinced that I agree; however, it’s a minor quibble in the great scheme of things. I just wish more Christians (myself included, to be honest) were better at passing on their faith to others.
Eddie Arthur am with you there.
Eddie. I have been thinking on your answer and am inclined to change my mind.
I like what you say about being better at passing on our faith, Eddie, but I would suggest that we actually need to become better at sharing the reality of our personal life in union with God. So, holistic evangelism is a phrase I warm to, if it means giving ourselves to others (or sharing with others whatever of God has been given to us). And that must surely start with Love.
Mutatis mutandis baby! Mutatis Mutandis!
Justin Long liked this on Facebook.