Progressive Missiology and the Future of Global Missions

There is little future in global missions under progressive Christianity

Photo by JF Martin on Unsplash

I did not purposely arrange this, but in the past week I have listened to a couple of podcasts on how formerly conservative denominations have gone liberal, how some denominations have fought this liberal drift, and how there are those fighting back inside of institutions that are already liberal. This is all very interesting to me as Evangelicalism continues to fragment and disintegrate into different blocs.

As I have pondered this from the viewpoint of global missions, here are a few observations I have made from these, and other pundits, but directed at global missions.

There is little future in global missions under progressive Christianity

Liberal denominational drift, like that which has happened in the PCUSA, has no place for soteriology. Global missions is undermined when institution leaders do not believe non-Christians go to hell.  During the mid to late half of the 20^th century, liberal theology in mainline denominations denuded Christianity of its exclusive claims. Theology that taught that Jesus was not divine, that Scripture was not inspired, and that there were many paths to God rendered global missions irrelevant.

The prior century also proves that once a denomination starts down this path, the global missions emphasis is going to decline. Today, liberal denominations either have no global missions department at all, or they have a department which is greatly reduced in size, influence, and impact from its former days. In some cases, there are still missionaries, but they do not emphasis evangelism, church planting, or discipleship. Instead, they tend to focus on humanitarian aid, women and children, justice, and similar “cultural mandate” issues.

The more conservative a church or denomination is, the more likely they will be investors of people, money, and institutional capital in the global Great Commission. Progressive institutions, whether they are schools or churches, will not play a significant role in the future of Evangelical global missions. They will do what we have seen them do in the mainline liberal denominations. They will work to discredit and stop global missions efforts.

Progressives are attacking global missions by equating it with colonialism

This is not a new argument, but racial issues have reenergized it. Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in corporate America are mostly based around the principles of Critical Race Theory (CRT). Just like the CRT-influenced 1619 Project depicts the American founding as a racist founding, so too are progressive theologians depicting the global missions movement as founded in exploitation and racism. It is updated to include a heavy emphasis on the Doctrine of Discovery. These progressives see missionary work as exploitive. Institutions and organizations within Evangelicalism that take this position will no longer support cross-cultural missionary work.

These institutions will depict their efforts as “re-imagining” or “re-thinking” global missions. Much of this re-imagining will use the oppressed/oppressor language of CRT rather than the language that Jesus used surrounding “Go and Send.” They will focus their critique on Western theology, epistemology, and philosophy. They will seek to paint conservative positions as influenced by the Enlightenment, racism, individualism, and a host of similar concepts. At the same time, they will bristle at the suggestion that the oppressed/oppressor paradigm is neo-Marxist, which it clearly is.

There are allies in progressive institutions that have a heart for global missions

Despite this liberal drift in many Evangelical institutions, there are allies in the more progressive denominations and churches that embrace an orthodox, Evangelical position on global mission. There are congregations embedded inside progressive denominations that are more conservative. There are professors at formerly conservative seminaries and schools which have an orthodox view of soteriology. There are members of progressive churches who are “waiting out” the liberal drift they are currently experiencing.

As we relate to these more conservative members of progressive institutions, we who embrace the command of Christ to take the gospel to the nations should be careful not to throw these folks to the side. Often, they are the key to reformation in these institutions and need our partnership.

The best defense for global missions is a well thought out offense

I am not suggesting we fight a culture war within the church.

Instead, we need to create a “public missiology” in which the Bible’s framing of mission is put forward in a positive way. This is needed at many levels in the church. I recently heard of a local church missions committee that read a book equating missions with injustice. There was nobody in the committee who understood the larger context and could intelligently address this issue. As a result, financial support has been curtailed and withdrawn from long-term church planters. Similarly, mobilizers, seminary and Bible professors, local church pastors and so on need theological tools to address the challenges of liberal drift in missiology.

Rather than allowing progressive ideas to go unchallenged, a robust apologetic for global missions should admit missiological errors when appropriate, challenge the rise of secular ideas in the church (like CRT), and lay out the biblical flow of redemptive history from Genesis to Revelation.

Where is the global missions movement going in light of the progressive march to capture Evangelical institutions? We can sit by and join an ever-shrinking circle of missions activists, or we can find our voice and push back on the mass deconstruction currently underway.