For
years, the missionary was the axis by which one understood and did global
mission. They described and interpreted the country to those of us “at home”
through the lens of their own experience. Everything was brokered through them.
This has all changed. The missionary has been decentred and is in the process
of being dethroned due to a shrinking world and greater global access. We have
many angles and perspectives from which to choose. Each of them presents a
different view. Media feeds us with daily images of the global world. Travel
and immigration brings the world to our door.[1]
Globalisation is experienced on a daily
basis. We can no longer assume that “our way” of looking at things is the “only
way”. For example, for many Europeans and North Americans, Pearl Harbor and
D-Day lie at the centre of that time in history. For the Chinese their stories
contain events such as the “Rape of Nanjing.”[2]
The experience of Peter in Acts 10 is an example of this shift of paradigm. His
worldview and his understanding of God was shaped around cultural and national
identity. The invitation to visit and share table fellowship in the home of
Cornelius required Peter to examine fundamental issues of his identity. Living
in a global world necessitates a constant questioning of our assumptions and
our prejudices.[3]
The Western churches might need to ask themselves this question: If our methods
of ministry and mission are so effective, why are the Western churches in
decline and the church in the Global South growing?[4]
Christianity is flourishing wonderfully among the poor and persecuted while it
atrophies among the rich and secure.[5]
This is not to suggest that everything about the church in the South is good,
but simply to suggest that they have much to teach to the West about their
nominalism and stagnation.[6]
The centre of Christianity has moved to the Southern world.[7]
The churches in the South read the Bible in ways much different from those that
Western missionaries taught as their readings and reflections emerge from their
experiences. Jenkins goes on to muse about “who should be missionaries to
whom?”[8]
Six basic shifts to understanding are required of missionaries, churches, denominations, and mission agencies that wish to offer faithful service to God at home and in distant lands.
1) Our basic framework of mission: from an exclusive to an inclusive understanding of God’s mission. In the traditional paradigm, mission is understood as the task of the church to bring God, in Christ, to the “unreached” peoples. This understanding is what is called Noah’s ark model of mission (Genesis 6-8). Like the ark of Noah, the church is composed of people who are plucked out of an evil world that is set for damnation and who need to be safeguarded to enter their heavenly abode. As those who are rescued, it is now their task to prevent people from jumping out of the ark, and to rescue a few others who may be drowning.[9] An inclusive understanding of mission is based on the affirmation that Christians are in mission because God is “already present and active” in the world, bringing it unto himself. God’s mission, which God carries out in many different ways, includes the creative and healing activities happening in the world even though these actions may not always be under the umbrella of the church. Mission takes place through God’s participation in the sufferings of the world. This inclusive understanding of mission therefore places the loving, caring, judging, and compassionate presence and mission of God in the heart of all human affairs, despite all its ambiguities.
2) Goal of mission: from conversion to transformation. The traditional approach is to set conversion as the ultimate goal of mission. However, aggressive models of evangelism have increased mistrust, animosity, and tension between religious communities. During the rehabilitation and relief work being done to and for the victims and survivors of the December 2004 tsunami in Indonesia, the efforts of some Christian groups were severely criticised. They had intentionally compelled orphaned children of Muslim families to accept the gospel message within the context of Christian orphanages. Mission today challenges the narrow notion of conversion. Conversion is the transformation activity of the Spirit in the lives of individuals and communities, leading them to a life orientated toward God and their neighbours.[10]
3) Community of faith: from majority to minority. The traditional model of conversion is an imperialist and colonialist aspiration for church growth and development. The resurgence of denominationalism and the emphasis on church planting and church growth reminds us there is still a triumphalist desire to become the Christian majority: as if strength is measured by size or number. But churches need to relearn how to be at home as a minority community whose life is rooted in God, and whose life is lived in, for, and on behalf of the world. God will call us to account, not simply about numbers, but about how faithful we were in working for the transformation of the world to reflect God’s values of justice, love, and mercy.
4) The content of mission: from doctrinal debates to spiritual concerns. Traditional mission paradigms have often focused on Christian apologetics, trying to convince others that our theological framework is superior to others. The result has been rivalry and animosity both within the Christian traditions and among different believers. Peace, reconciliation, and freedom from violence and oppression are deep spiritual longings. These spiritual concerns that transcend religious or denominational labels should help define the content of our mission today.[11]
5) The practice of mission: from tokenism to genuine partnership. What is being done today in mission promotes a “recolonization of mission.” Missionaries arrive with money, buy land, and build churches and schools. They declare a desire to cooperate with national partners, but their actions too often create socioeconomic enclaves of independent behaviour. In some countries, missionaries have gone as business people setting up factories, taking advantage of cheap labour and resources. How can there be genuine partnership between people who are unequal right from the start? To be in solidarity is to stand alongside one another. It shares deeply the pain and hurt of the other, and requires sharing the burden of the other as if it were one’s own.[12]
6) Finality of mission: from liberation to reconciliation. Liberation and reconciliation share similarities: both are concerned about overcoming oppression and place the pursuit of justice at the heart of their activity. Both presume God acting in our history here and now and actively seek the opportunity to bring hope for better humanity by reference to the great biblical narratives. They also acknowledge the need to attend to the structural dimensions of oppression and conflict. However, reconciliation emphases on God’s role in healing and restoration and builds a framework for the future.[13]
Good stories entertain and inform. They
stick with you for a long time and pop into your consciousness at strange
moments. Shared stories play an important role within social movements. They
unite people around common values and create a unifying vision of social
transformation.[14]
There
is a critical need to shift attitudinally form seeing mission as “doing
something” to mission as discipleship formation. This discipleship framework
considers all involved in the mission activity of God in the world as sisters
and brothers in Christ. It demands a willingness to move toward mutual
partnership models in which all partners learn from each other. If agencies and
organisations working in the same areas simply “do their own thing” without
talking to each other, there will be potential for duplication of resources and
unhealthy competition for loyalty. When we reduce mission to what we can
accomplish, we can miss the call of God on each of our lives, the call to
become his disciples.[15]
While much has been written about the professionalization of mission, “good”
mission emerges out of genuine and authentic living. Better techniques,
strategies, and practices will never replace humble human living. The witness
of the church is always strongest when authenticity and powerlessness are its
characteristics, when people live in the tension of faith and doubt but still
act on what they believe. In Matthew 28:18-20, we are told that we will not be
alone in our being sent by God, as God will be with and will empower the
activity. Missional discipleship is a faith internalised and formed so that,
while we fling ourselves into the world to make a difference, the difference is
made by the One who sent us.[16]
It takes great faith to be a disciple, because it is only the presence of
Christ that will make obedience possible. Disciples cross cultural boundaries.
We are to make disciples of all “nations”. “Nations” means cultural peoples or
ethnic groups that are distinct and different. This means, the good news of the
Gospel will transcend ethnic barriers and be translatable in a variety of ways
culturally. The Gospel will be able to speak to all cultures because of its
unlimited translatability. It will shape the church’s mission within the
culture in which it is located.[17]
[1] Gary V. Nelson, Gordon W. King, and Terry G. Smith, Going Global: A Congregation’s Introduction
to Mission beyond Our Borders (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2011), 10.
[2] Nelson, King, and Smith, Going
Global, 11.
[3] Nelson, King, and Smith, Going
Global, 12.
[4] Philip Jenkins, The Next Christendom
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 56.
[5] Jenkins, The Next Christendom,
96.
[6] Nelson, King, and Smith, Going
Global, 16.
[7] Nelson, King, and Smith, Going
Global, 35.
[8] Jenkins, The Next Christendom,
204.
[9] Nelson, King, and Smith, Going
Global, 53.
[10] Nelson, King, and Smith, Going
Global, 54.
[11] Nelson, King, and Smith, Going
Global, 55.
[12] Nelson, King, and Smith, Going
Global, 56.
[13] Nelson, King, and Smith, Going
Global, 57.
[14] Nelson, King, and Smith, Going
Global, 80.
[15] Nelson, King, and Smith, Going
Global, 142.
[16] Nelson, King, and Smith, Going
Global, 146.
[17] Nelson, King, and Smith, Going
Global, 147.
No comments:
Post a Comment