What is the Goal of Missions?

Two goals in missions are often affirmed as non-negotiable.  They sound contradictory and can even work against each other.  But they are, nevertheless, both wrong in their own right.  The first goal is: nationalise (or indigenise) the mission.  The second goal is: pursue multicultural identity.

The first goal arises out of mission dynamics in the post-colonial era—we might say starting in the 1960s and picking up steam in the  1970s.  In mainline circles, it was strongly supported as a corollary to decolonisation, liberation, and antipatriarchalism.  In other mission circles, it received milder support out of concern to strengthen the local church.  It became popular for missionaries to say that they intended to ‘work ourselves out of the job.’  Even Paul could be called forward as a witness: did he not say that his goal was to preach the Gospel where Christ had not been named before (Rom. 15.20)?  Other reasons might be listed, some from the perspective of the nationals.  Do nationals not know the culture and language better?  Are they not less expensive than a foreign missionary?  Are they not committed life-long to life and ministry in that context?

There is a qualification to this mission goal that would not undermine it but that should be noted.  It might even be stated as a sort of additional goal: partnerships in mission are valued.  The language of ‘partnership’ allows nationals to receive funding and some additional help, but it keeps foreign missionaries from becoming too involved.  It allows nationals to indiginise their churches, including, most importantly, the institutional authority.  While there are other reasons for the trend of ‘short-term’ missions (not meaning 1 or 2 years but the two-week mission trip from a church in the West), this is one reason for the rise in the 1980s of this popular approach to missions.

Let’s deconstruct this goal of nationalising the mission.  We might go back to Paul.  First, he did not mean that all missionaries should have as their goal to preach where Christ has not been named.  Not all missions is frontier work, as important as that is.  After all, Paul positively recognised those who came after his ‘planting’ to ‘water’ in God’s field (1 Cor. 3.6).  Moreover, Paul himself returned to churches that he had planted on subsequent mission trips.  Also, members of his mission team might be sent to previously established churches.  It seems that Paul was interested in building a network of relationships in various ways as churches related to one another, contributed to one another (with visiting ministers and funds, depending on the needs), connected with the Jerusalem Church, and connected with his ‘Gentile mission’.  Also, when Paul thought of mission activity, he did not think in terms of nationalising but in terms of gifting.  He understood the ligaments of the body of Christ as apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers (Eph. 4.11).  Gifts, not nationalities or even local knowledge, were the primary consideration.

That is where I think we ought to put the emphasis: gifting.  God gives gifts in the form of persons with certain ministries ‘to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ’ (Eph. 4.12).  This gifting is not just at the local church level—as in Rom. 12 and, to some extent, 1 Cor. 12.  (But more than the local church seems to be in view in the list of gifts in 1 Cor. 12.27-30, as in Ephesians 4.11.)  It spills over to enrich the whole Church.  
If the Church focuses on having national identity, it will inevitably prioritise ethnicity or nationalism over the gifts of ministers in the Church and over the unity of the Church.  This does not invalidate some of the concerns noted above, but it should relativise the arguments.  When Paul raised money for the Jerusalem Church—for whatever reason (scholars have offered several suggestions)—he chose representatives from different churches to accompany him with the funds.  Here was a reason to pay attention to location and nationality: nobody from one church could accuse others of misusing the funds, and having representatives from other churches showed the solidarity of the Gentile mission and of these churches with the (Jewish) Jerusalem church.  There are occasions when this kind of focus is necessary, but not as a general policy in missions.

The second goal noted at the beginning can be questioned along the same lines.  If nationalising was a goal that arose at the end of the Modern era, in a post-colonial context, multicultural identity is a goal that has arisen in a postmodern era.  Modernity valued freedom and equality, and these values reached their peek in post-colonial times.  Postmodernity values diversity and inclusiveness, and these values get expressed together in ‘multiculturalism’.  This was Tony Blair’s government’s gospel for its immigration policy.  It was the impetus for Britain’s involvement in the European Union.  It was the grounds for international policies of various Western governments, positive attitudes toward non-Western religions, and, of course, the non-binary sexual revolution.  The point is that the culture now had new headwinds, and Christian missionary goals could get caught up in them as well.

One trend, therefore, has been to celebrate the multicultural church.  Of course, this view tends to favour the urban, mega-church—which raises enough concern of its own.[1]  The theological downside of multiculturalism has shown itself in ecumenism and indigenous theologies that disvalue orthodoxy.  Local churches still operating with a 19^th century concept of missions also value the ethnic focus of international missions.  They want a collection of missionaries dressed up in local costume, waving foreign flags, speaking another language, and chatting about different foods and customs.

What is the problem with all of this?  Once again, ethnicity is the issue instead of the mission.  The focus in missions needs to be the mission.  Yes, the mission goes to the nations, but the mission is to proclaim the Gospel.  Churches that get excited about sending someone overseas are not necessarily engaged in missions.  Average, untrained Christians who can raise enough money (often from some mega-church) go overseas and come back with stories about some other culture.  They might actually do some ministry.  They might get involved in some project of value—digging a well, building a school, etc.  We could, actually, label anything that they do as ‘missional’ because, on this model for missions, the main thing is to engage in cross-cultural living, with a little ministry on the side.

What if, alternatively, we had a clearer definition of the mission?  What if it was so clearly defined around the proclamation of the Gospel that it involved evangelism, translating and teaching the Scriptures, and church planting?  And what if this focus of the mission took missionaries to such needy places as Boston or Birmingham?  Of course, many do ‘get it’ these days: they know that there is a need for mission in places that are not necessarily cross-cultural and where the Gospel may have once been known but is not anymore.  In fact, the Church once thrived in places like Turkey, Syria, and Egypt.  It once thrived in Boston and Burmingham.  The Gospel was once believed in the Church of England and the Episcopal Church.  In these contexts, ground-breaking mission work is needed once again.  When our focus is on the mission of proclaiming the Gospel, such places and denominations as these become our mission field.

This is not to suggest that Western missionaries should not still go overseas in missions any more than that they ought to work themselves out of a job overseas; it is to say that ministry is a matter of gifting and calling to where the mission needs us.  It is not to say that Christians do not value the multi-ethnic make-up of the Church; it is to say that communal unity is an outcome, not a goal in itself, of devotion to one God (Rom. 3.28-30; 15.5-9).  (One of the greatest misreadings of Scripture in our day is to read passages like John 17 as though it is affirming communal fellowship and unity rather than unity of faith through unity with Christ).[2]

If we prioritise the mission, we will not have ‘mission creep’, chase whatever sounds good as long as it is overseas, highlight cross-cultural experiences as missions, or drop the mission simply because we want to nationalise.  We need to train missionaries for that mission, no matter which country they come from.  The goal of missions is the mission!

---

[1] See my criticism of the multicultural church as a goal in itself: ‘The Rise of Identity Ecclesiology’ (May 10, 2019); online at https://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/2019/05/the-rise-of-identity-ecclesiology.html.

[2] See Rollin Grams, ‘Stay or Leave? Is John 17 Grounds for Staying in Mainline Denominations in Our Day?’; online at: https://bibleandmission.blogspot.com/2019/09/stay-or-leave-is-john-17-grounds-for.html.