Missions as Problem Solving

A tension we should embrace

Last week I posted some thoughts I have been having about the Missio Dei approach to missions. Let me build a little further on this topic. I believe that one reason why we have Missio Dei is because of pragmatism. This reveals itself in the push for problem-solving as the primary lens through which we see missions.

When we think about missions, do we see it as a problem that must be solved? Most of us do, even if we do not readily admit it. We betray this in our language about missions, at least those of us on the more conservative, Evangelical side of the church. Let me suggest that seeing missions as problem-solving has both positive and negative impacts on your view of “the task” (see what I did there?). It also hits hard on the innovation paradigm that I, and many others, have been pressing on for some time with ministry leaders.

What is True

On the “true” side of the equation sits the inescapable reality of lostness. Christianity is exclusive. Without Jesus in your life, you are damned. I think it is a fact (Bible scholars can correct me if I am wrong) that Jesus talked about hell more than heaven. He also gave us a more detailed description of hell than heaven. He believed in hell and he taught on hell. Furthermore, a relationship with Jesus is the antidote to spending eternity in hell. Not just knowing about him (the demons know about him) but being a follower, a part of his Kingdom, and a disciple.

If this is true, then missions is solving a problem. Namely, not having a relationship with Jesus is a problem. This problem is not evenly distributed. In some cultures, the chance of meeting a Christian or reading the Bible in a language you understand is virtually non-existent. These are populations in which the problem is more acute. This is the overarching problem presented to us regarding missions.

The framing of missions-as-problem-solving is everywhere around us. This perspective involves identifying specific challenges or issues that the mission aims to address and then developing strategies to overcome them. Some phrases that highlight this are "unreached people groups,” “Bible-less people,” and “do X within our generation.” Boomers in particular have organized missions around problem solving. There are biblical texts that we use to talk about missions-as-problem-solving.

Missions-as-problem-solving has led to an enormous amount of activism on the part of churches, denominations, and ministries. It has helped bring focus and intentionality to missions.

What is the Problem with Seeing Missions as Problem-Solving?

The problem with seeing missions-as-problem-solving is human agency. If we believe that God is at work and that he is ultimately responsible for the outcomes of ministry, then missions is not a problem we can solve. Now, to be fair, this is not a problem only of missions. The problem of human agency and our part in what God is doing exists in all of Christian life. Yet, I would contend that in missiology the issue of human agency stands taller and higher than it does in other areas. This is because the nature of the problem, lostness, is so dire.

Human agency is a difficult problem in Christian philosophy. I took a course from the infamous Dr. John Gerstner, a Jonathan Edwards scholar, while prepping for my PhD work. Gerstner did a fabulous job of covering all things Edwards (except, I note, he never mentioned that Edwards was a slaveowner in the course I took) in his gravelly voice. He noted that Edwards’s worst moment theologically was when he attempted to reconcile original sin (which Christians attribute to human agency) with God’s sovereignty. Might I suggest that this is a tension in the Christian worldview which is hard to explain. Many people have shipwrecked their faith on this question. Let me suggest that this is not an issue that will fit nicely into the Greek categories so loved by Aristotle that have influenced Western thinking and systematic theology. It is truly a tension, and a tension I believe that God intends for us to live with. It is the uncertainty of a certain faith.

This is the same tension we face regarding missions-as-problem-solving. No strategy of evangelism, discipleship, or planting churches can survive this question. We know that God calls us to partner with him in his work. Yet, God is the ultimate arbiter of what fruit comes from that work. When we ascribe success to our strategies, we diminish the work of the Spirit. This tension is where all missiology stands. The more anthropological (think contextualization, language learning, and other “means” of mission) the less likely we are to see outcomes in terms of the Spirit.

Reconciling the work of God with the work of man has risen its head historically at important junctures. You can read, “A Treatise of Grace and Free Will” by Augustine, much of what Luther wrote, and Edward’s own “Freedom of the Will.” These three agree that God’s sovereignty towers above human agency. We are not mere actors, though, but active participants in what he is doing. When we believe that our method of church planting, for example, is producing results are we relying on God or the method? This is also where missiology stands. Theology is easy. You can speculate and talk about things with no real effects. The moment you do something (which missions requires) you are no longer in the realm of theology but missiology.

So What?

Missions-as-problem-solving may lead to a number of problems. Here are a couple of things I have noticed recently:

• Missions becomes increasingly methodological. This is true if you are using traditional missions methods (like preaching in a Western style in front of a congregation like so many pastors think is the appropriate method) or in newer methods like those used by church planting movement practitioners.

• It leads to constant critique about “what went wrong.” This type of critique is simply another form of missions-as-problem-solving. The idea here is that we can troubleshoot the problems of the past to make a better future. This is why we have a constant stream of “reimagining missions” articles and symposiums.

• It diminishes the supernatural in missions. When I see statements from organizations that state, “We can plant a church for $400,” I wonder why we need God. Let’s just go out and find some big donors and get the job done that way. This is pragmatism on steroids.

Of course, there is the other side of the coin. If we do not emphasize that lostness is real (the problem to be solved), that Jesus died for a reason, and that people will perish without a relationship with Jesus, that has its own set of issues.

• Missions becomes universalized. This happens because we lose the “sharp point” or focus of Jesus’ command to disciple the nations. All Christians are missionaries and the definition of both missions and missionaries lose significance.

• Demonstration becomes a substitute for proclamation. For an example of this, consider the quote attributed to Francis of Assisi, “Preach the gospel at all times and if necessary, use words.” I have heard this quoted at international gatherings of Evangelical missions leaders.

• Social justice becomes a stand-in for evangelism, discipleship, and planting churches. Liberation theology, creation care, poverty alleviation, and a host of other causes become soteriological.

Whereas pragmatism can lead to a human-centered missiology, Missio Dei lends itself to no missiology. Jesus command to disciple the nations loses its significance.

Have we gone too far?

I have, on a couple of occasions, gotten into trouble for saying that “Academic missiology has left the building.” For the past few decades, pragmatism has been the domain of activists while academics have gone all in on Missio Dei. To be sure there are exceptions to this. But the overall trend has been a growing divide between those writing about missiology and those doing it.

Missio Dei is in large part a reaction to pragmatism in missions. It declares that mission is the “mission of God,” not the mission given by God to the apostles by Jesus. I am not condemning Missio Dei. It has brought helpful balance to a human-centered approach to missions. Unfortunately, though, Missio Dei has swung the pendulum too far in the opposite direction. It has universalized mission into something vague and abstract.

At this point in missiological history, a tighter focus on Jesus’ command to disciple the nations is needed. As I posted earlier, and despite the few comments that were made in response, I know of very few Global South leaders who are in the field and actively promoting Missio Dei. Yes, you will hear it at global gatherings and read it in journals. I am referring to those who are doing cross-cultural ministry in far flung places. You are more likely to meet somebody with a high commitment to evangelism, discipleship, and church planting than you are somebody who sees missions as creation care, social justice, or other issues that align better with Missio Dei.

It is okay to feel some tension here. God moves hearts, not our methods and strategies. Yet, the command of Jesus to disciple the nations is to be obeyed. This is a good tension. This is the tension we should be living in. I am not sure we are.