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.
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 19th
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.
Comments