So many good comments. Yes, I agree that there is a more Evangelical version of Missio Dei... but I would contend that a better way to say it is that it is "less universalizing, but still universalizing." The "People of God" book outlines that mission in terms of evangelism, social justice, and care for creation. I am trying to draw a distinction between a specific mission, given by Jesus, to the apostles to disciple the nations. What Missio Dei does is universalize mission into all that Jesus commanded, and I think Wright does this in the same way that older versions of Missio Dei have done.
One outcome, and I do think you see this with Global South missiologists (not so much with Global South field workers) is in the critique of Western missions structures. There is plenty to critique, and I welcome that critique, but I don't think the repudiation of specific structures to accomplish mission (which are different from the local church) is a proper response to these critiques. There was a missionary band in the New Testament, It was not the local church crisscrossing the Roman world. Missio Dei missiology drips with church-centric language. To be fair, the word "church" does not help us here - we use it interchangeably between local and universal and we should not. The "People of God" are all Christians in Wright's book. Everybody is on mission. This is part of what I mean by "universalizing missions." This is very much in line with the missional movement.
Another outcome is the emphasis on social justice as mission. This was on display at the recent Lausanne event. Is it heresy to say that our modern understanding of social justice is a far cry from the justice of the Old and New Testament? I do not see Global South missionaries carrying out the program of social justice that is common in American Evangelicalism (and it does not matter if that social justice is left wing or right wing).
The CPM/DMM movement is, to me, the most obvious example of how Global South workers have strayed from Missio Dei. The PDF article noted is making the case that CPM/DMMers are holistically taking the gospel forward. I agree and that is fine. My point is that Missio Dei missiology has paved the way for a form of mission in which the specific proclamation of the gospel is not a required component of discipling the nations. If, for example, one can say that "providing healthcare is in itself redemptive" and that then is used to build a missiology apart from the specific proclamation of the gospel, well... that is not "discipling the nations." Providing healthcare can be redemptive but only if placed in a larger context in which a more specific effort is made that is tied to the gospel.
I call this the "UN Test." The UN feeds hungry people. Is this discipling the nations? When does feeding people become "discipling the nations?" It might include the proclamation of the gospel (though let's be careful - I am not saying that a non-contextualized presentation is sufficient or desired) or it might include an introduction to a believer who will take that step, or... a thousand other things. But... there is some substantive difference between doing good works and discipling the nations. Universalizing mission to all Christians do, which what Missio Dei has led to, does a disservice to the more specific command of Jesus to disciple the nations.
The quote in the paper cited from Bosch is a clear example of why I am concluding that Missio Dei is a reaction against modernity. "According to Bosch, “mission remains undefinable; it should never be incarcerated in the narrow confines of our own predilections." Bosch is being very post-modern here. "Things cannot be defined, and thus truth eludes us." This is classic post-modern deconstruction.
And Flett was reflecting on missiology after Lesslie Newbigin and Darrell Guder and the missional church movement.
I guess I'm wary of any slogan including the Missio Dei to summarize the biblical description of mission.
I feel like what you're talking about here in this post is tension that Lesslie Newbigin experienced in the 1960's where people began to be aware of colonialism and abuses and said there should be a moratorium on missions. The idea was God was alive in the Civil Rights Movement and in the nationalist movements to throw off colonialism and in the feminist movement and in the anti-war movement. Christian Mission was doing more harm than good was the idea. Newbigin saw all these things but also saw the need for Christian Mission. Geoffrey Wainwright has a biography of Newbigin and Newbigin also has a autobiography. I also just reread Dana Robert's Christian Mission about the history of missions. And I have students read Samuel Escobar's book The New Global Mission. I guess all I'm saying is that for students of mission, there is always an awareness that Christian mission can become colonial, patriarchal, abusive, patronizing, violent, deceptive, manipulative. There is also a sense that the choice to strictly depend on God, pray, be passive, not plan is a rejection of the clear outward moving of the church from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth. Don't be a neighbor? Don't help? Surely that is not the Christian answer. It is right to imagine God at work before us as we act but dismissing human agency is a dismissal of every verse in the Bible that encourages positive human agency and action. I guess I think history and Bible are more useful sources than whether we do Missio Dei or not.
While error can be realized in either direction, the more frequent mistake is to broaden the mission over time rather than to focus it too narrowly. Jesus and Paul had a way of cutting through the fog: "What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?" (Mt. 16:26) "Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!" (1 Cor 9:16) The more we love people the more we will want them to understand and respond to the gospel message. Social "lift" flows from the 'dynamite' of the gospel. (Romans 1:16). The world generally welcomes our health, educational and economic help. What it doesn't normally want is a clear and convicting proclamation of the gospel message. We insist on both, with a call for conversion at the core. God has His overarching mission, and He's made clear our part in the current age - to love Him wholeheartedly and to train up Christ-obeyers everywhere. If the Global South is reminding us of these basics, wonderful!
It seems to me that your article today strikes at the heart of contemporary missiology. The Missio Dei paradigm has provided a much-needed corrective to activistic mission thinking that stresses evangelistic programs and focuses on reaching certain goals (finishing the task, reaching the world by ...., etc.). But it also has a tendency to remain theoretical, and therefore does not appeal to many mission practitioners who prefer to focus on actually bringing the gospel where it is not yet known. In my experience Majority World mission leaders and practitioners have a more holistic approach than many Westerners, even when they emphasize the need for proclamation, saving souls. etc. Integral mission is a natural concept for them, simply because it reflects the reality around them, not just as a missiological concept.
The area where is see the most tension is whether the Bible calls us to help people out of poverty, addressing disability and dysfunction, or whether we are also called to confront systemic injustice and inequality, and address social challenges such as racism and the larger power structures in society. While the Gospel writers (echoing Jesus himself) emphasize the coming of Gods Kingdom, we see much less of this theme in the book of Acts and in the Epistles. I guess this debate will be ongoing for some time to come. With the shift of Christianity to the Global South, this issue is not becoming any less important. Rather, it may be more relevant than ever.
I read your post with interest today, especially since I’m in the middle of teaching a class on missional ecclesiology to a group of Filipino pastors. As you point out, the idea of the mission of God is rather complex, but I did just want to say that when we discussed this idea in our Filipino context they seem to embrace the idea and love it and want to find more ways to do it. I should also point out that at least in my experience, Filipinos are among the most active and successful church planters so they certainly don’t see this as being a hindrance to their church planting efforts, but rather a way that they can frame how that church planting takes place.
I think "missio Dei" missiology has both an ecumenical/liberal version (as expressed in the World Council of Churches) and a more evangelical version (as expressed in Chris Wright's writings, and Lausanne, etc.). I could be wrong, but your four bullet points strike me as more resembling the WCC version than the Chris Wright version which helped me to clarify my own evangelical missiology. A few points of pushback on your definition:
- Missio Dei, in its "Chris Wright" version, would not agree with your first point that, "We have not been given a mission." Chris Wright affirms both "The Mission of God" and "The Mission of God's People" (see his two books under those titles). The latter is an active participation in the former.
- On your second point, I'd add that Chris Wright, while affirming mission as inclusive of all that God calls his people to do in the world (including creation care and holy living), affirms an "ultimacy" to proclamation/evangelism (language he prefers over "primacy", sorry that I don't have a page citation). So I think this qualifies the importance that Wright attaches to evangelism.
- The fourth point says that missio Dei "tends to ignore the fullness of his character which is holy and that holiness itself (which is loving, by the way) demands judgment." Wright's biblical theology, which draws significantly upon OT theology, strikes me as quite robust in including Yahweh's holiness and the demands upon God's people to also be holy and bear witness to our holy God.
With that said, I agree with you (and am encouraged by the fact) that many in Global South churches can be more clear headed about the need for evangelism and church planting among the least reached than those in some Western circles.
However, I do believe that "missio Dei" has run out of steam, but maybe for different reasons. Nearly everyone calls themselves "missional" these days, but what has changed? The changes required have not gone deep enough. "Mission" is too abstract or dichotomized: where do we see evangelism, discipleship, and church planting (and holistic ministry) in the life and ministry of Jesus? They are instead integrated - I think there is much power in the integration.
But more to the point, I think we need to anchor our biblical imperatives/responsibilities in a lived experience and a discourse more dynamic than "sending." Maybe the next concept we need to spend more time developing is the motus Dei. ;-)
Would say it is true that the Global South has less or fewer financial resources than the Western church? If this is true, could it be that their lack of focus on social justice and stronger focus on evangelism and discipleship is related to their capacity? Meaning, they don't have the financial capability to solve certain issues, so they don't try. Whereas, they are capable by the power of God in them to see people come to faith and develop into mature disciples and so that is where they focus their energy?
Is part of the problem that in the West (and other places as well), we have such an abundance of resources that it broadens our focus beyond the essential tasks of evangelism, discipleship and church planting?
So many good comments. Yes, I agree that there is a more Evangelical version of Missio Dei... but I would contend that a better way to say it is that it is "less universalizing, but still universalizing." The "People of God" book outlines that mission in terms of evangelism, social justice, and care for creation. I am trying to draw a distinction between a specific mission, given by Jesus, to the apostles to disciple the nations. What Missio Dei does is universalize mission into all that Jesus commanded, and I think Wright does this in the same way that older versions of Missio Dei have done.
One outcome, and I do think you see this with Global South missiologists (not so much with Global South field workers) is in the critique of Western missions structures. There is plenty to critique, and I welcome that critique, but I don't think the repudiation of specific structures to accomplish mission (which are different from the local church) is a proper response to these critiques. There was a missionary band in the New Testament, It was not the local church crisscrossing the Roman world. Missio Dei missiology drips with church-centric language. To be fair, the word "church" does not help us here - we use it interchangeably between local and universal and we should not. The "People of God" are all Christians in Wright's book. Everybody is on mission. This is part of what I mean by "universalizing missions." This is very much in line with the missional movement.
Another outcome is the emphasis on social justice as mission. This was on display at the recent Lausanne event. Is it heresy to say that our modern understanding of social justice is a far cry from the justice of the Old and New Testament? I do not see Global South missionaries carrying out the program of social justice that is common in American Evangelicalism (and it does not matter if that social justice is left wing or right wing).
The CPM/DMM movement is, to me, the most obvious example of how Global South workers have strayed from Missio Dei. The PDF article noted is making the case that CPM/DMMers are holistically taking the gospel forward. I agree and that is fine. My point is that Missio Dei missiology has paved the way for a form of mission in which the specific proclamation of the gospel is not a required component of discipling the nations. If, for example, one can say that "providing healthcare is in itself redemptive" and that then is used to build a missiology apart from the specific proclamation of the gospel, well... that is not "discipling the nations." Providing healthcare can be redemptive but only if placed in a larger context in which a more specific effort is made that is tied to the gospel.
I call this the "UN Test." The UN feeds hungry people. Is this discipling the nations? When does feeding people become "discipling the nations?" It might include the proclamation of the gospel (though let's be careful - I am not saying that a non-contextualized presentation is sufficient or desired) or it might include an introduction to a believer who will take that step, or... a thousand other things. But... there is some substantive difference between doing good works and discipling the nations. Universalizing mission to all Christians do, which what Missio Dei has led to, does a disservice to the more specific command of Jesus to disciple the nations.
The quote in the paper cited from Bosch is a clear example of why I am concluding that Missio Dei is a reaction against modernity. "According to Bosch, “mission remains undefinable; it should never be incarcerated in the narrow confines of our own predilections." Bosch is being very post-modern here. "Things cannot be defined, and thus truth eludes us." This is classic post-modern deconstruction.
Interesting. In theology, John Flett used Karl Barth's work to reflect on the Missio Dei. I thought Flett overdid it and talk about that in my dissertation. https://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/handle/10161/13622
And Flett was reflecting on missiology after Lesslie Newbigin and Darrell Guder and the missional church movement.
I guess I'm wary of any slogan including the Missio Dei to summarize the biblical description of mission.
I feel like what you're talking about here in this post is tension that Lesslie Newbigin experienced in the 1960's where people began to be aware of colonialism and abuses and said there should be a moratorium on missions. The idea was God was alive in the Civil Rights Movement and in the nationalist movements to throw off colonialism and in the feminist movement and in the anti-war movement. Christian Mission was doing more harm than good was the idea. Newbigin saw all these things but also saw the need for Christian Mission. Geoffrey Wainwright has a biography of Newbigin and Newbigin also has a autobiography. I also just reread Dana Robert's Christian Mission about the history of missions. And I have students read Samuel Escobar's book The New Global Mission. I guess all I'm saying is that for students of mission, there is always an awareness that Christian mission can become colonial, patriarchal, abusive, patronizing, violent, deceptive, manipulative. There is also a sense that the choice to strictly depend on God, pray, be passive, not plan is a rejection of the clear outward moving of the church from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth. Don't be a neighbor? Don't help? Surely that is not the Christian answer. It is right to imagine God at work before us as we act but dismissing human agency is a dismissal of every verse in the Bible that encourages positive human agency and action. I guess I think history and Bible are more useful sources than whether we do Missio Dei or not.
While error can be realized in either direction, the more frequent mistake is to broaden the mission over time rather than to focus it too narrowly. Jesus and Paul had a way of cutting through the fog: "What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?" (Mt. 16:26) "Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel!" (1 Cor 9:16) The more we love people the more we will want them to understand and respond to the gospel message. Social "lift" flows from the 'dynamite' of the gospel. (Romans 1:16). The world generally welcomes our health, educational and economic help. What it doesn't normally want is a clear and convicting proclamation of the gospel message. We insist on both, with a call for conversion at the core. God has His overarching mission, and He's made clear our part in the current age - to love Him wholeheartedly and to train up Christ-obeyers everywhere. If the Global South is reminding us of these basics, wonderful!
It seems to me that your article today strikes at the heart of contemporary missiology. The Missio Dei paradigm has provided a much-needed corrective to activistic mission thinking that stresses evangelistic programs and focuses on reaching certain goals (finishing the task, reaching the world by ...., etc.). But it also has a tendency to remain theoretical, and therefore does not appeal to many mission practitioners who prefer to focus on actually bringing the gospel where it is not yet known. In my experience Majority World mission leaders and practitioners have a more holistic approach than many Westerners, even when they emphasize the need for proclamation, saving souls. etc. Integral mission is a natural concept for them, simply because it reflects the reality around them, not just as a missiological concept.
The area where is see the most tension is whether the Bible calls us to help people out of poverty, addressing disability and dysfunction, or whether we are also called to confront systemic injustice and inequality, and address social challenges such as racism and the larger power structures in society. While the Gospel writers (echoing Jesus himself) emphasize the coming of Gods Kingdom, we see much less of this theme in the book of Acts and in the Epistles. I guess this debate will be ongoing for some time to come. With the shift of Christianity to the Global South, this issue is not becoming any less important. Rather, it may be more relevant than ever.
I read your post with interest today, especially since I’m in the middle of teaching a class on missional ecclesiology to a group of Filipino pastors. As you point out, the idea of the mission of God is rather complex, but I did just want to say that when we discussed this idea in our Filipino context they seem to embrace the idea and love it and want to find more ways to do it. I should also point out that at least in my experience, Filipinos are among the most active and successful church planters so they certainly don’t see this as being a hindrance to their church planting efforts, but rather a way that they can frame how that church planting takes place.
Thanks for this provocative reflection, Ted.
I think "missio Dei" missiology has both an ecumenical/liberal version (as expressed in the World Council of Churches) and a more evangelical version (as expressed in Chris Wright's writings, and Lausanne, etc.). I could be wrong, but your four bullet points strike me as more resembling the WCC version than the Chris Wright version which helped me to clarify my own evangelical missiology. A few points of pushback on your definition:
- Missio Dei, in its "Chris Wright" version, would not agree with your first point that, "We have not been given a mission." Chris Wright affirms both "The Mission of God" and "The Mission of God's People" (see his two books under those titles). The latter is an active participation in the former.
- On your second point, I'd add that Chris Wright, while affirming mission as inclusive of all that God calls his people to do in the world (including creation care and holy living), affirms an "ultimacy" to proclamation/evangelism (language he prefers over "primacy", sorry that I don't have a page citation). So I think this qualifies the importance that Wright attaches to evangelism.
- The fourth point says that missio Dei "tends to ignore the fullness of his character which is holy and that holiness itself (which is loving, by the way) demands judgment." Wright's biblical theology, which draws significantly upon OT theology, strikes me as quite robust in including Yahweh's holiness and the demands upon God's people to also be holy and bear witness to our holy God.
With that said, I agree with you (and am encouraged by the fact) that many in Global South churches can be more clear headed about the need for evangelism and church planting among the least reached than those in some Western circles.
I agree with ST. I'm not sure the bullet points above capture the importance of the missio Dei concept. I actually think Majority World CPMs/DMMs have much more in common with the missio Dei discourse than is commonly acknowledged, on both sides: https://www.academia.edu/41724829/Motus_Dei_Disciple_Making_Movements_and_the_Mission_of_God
However, I do believe that "missio Dei" has run out of steam, but maybe for different reasons. Nearly everyone calls themselves "missional" these days, but what has changed? The changes required have not gone deep enough. "Mission" is too abstract or dichotomized: where do we see evangelism, discipleship, and church planting (and holistic ministry) in the life and ministry of Jesus? They are instead integrated - I think there is much power in the integration.
But more to the point, I think we need to anchor our biblical imperatives/responsibilities in a lived experience and a discourse more dynamic than "sending." Maybe the next concept we need to spend more time developing is the motus Dei. ;-)
Would say it is true that the Global South has less or fewer financial resources than the Western church? If this is true, could it be that their lack of focus on social justice and stronger focus on evangelism and discipleship is related to their capacity? Meaning, they don't have the financial capability to solve certain issues, so they don't try. Whereas, they are capable by the power of God in them to see people come to faith and develop into mature disciples and so that is where they focus their energy?
Is part of the problem that in the West (and other places as well), we have such an abundance of resources that it broadens our focus beyond the essential tasks of evangelism, discipleship and church planting?