In no way do I think that traditional missionary practice isn't up for debate and analysis. But progressive missionary strategies have very little to do with the three primary activities of mission (evangelism, discipleship, leading to church planting) These should be traditional, by the way, because they are found in the pages of the Bible as commands (evangelism and discipleship) with an evident outcome (churches).
I do note that in the article I state that there are allies within liberal denominations toward a missiology that takes Jesus' commands regarding the nations seriously. You, evidently, are one of them.
If I were titling your book, I would have avoided "re-imagining" in the title. It has been "done to death" as a title for missions books (along with "re-thinking"). I agree with the thesis you state: short-term missions is, in my view, very sick. It is mostly about the goers, not the three primary activities that align with Jesus' command to take the Gospel to the nations. Short-term mission is not the primary activity of people taking the Gospel to the nations. It has a role, to be sure, but that role is limited in when compared to the larger task of seeing evangelism, discipleship and church planting happen.
If you think I am not up for innovation in missions, please check out my book, The Innovation Crisis.
As someone who comes from the Reformed tradition, I have always appreciated the motto of the Reformation: Ecclesia Reformata, Semper Reformanda. The Reformation itself was a push to make change in the church, recognizing that practices and attitudes that had "worked" for a while were no longer working, in no small part because they excluded most of the very people the gospel meant to include. The beauty of "The church reformed, always being reformed" is that we are a learning community, in progress of becoming more the people of God we are meant to be--in tune with grace and salvation. I'm grateful that the church is recognizing that *maybe* we used the evangelism mandate as a poor excuse and practice of the Doctrine of Discovery, something that the Catholic church has acknowledged was wrong. Did the gospel spread? Yes. Did it get shared perfectly? No. Similarly, my faith today is different than it was when I was 15, and I'm hopeful that it will be different still in 15 more years. I think that is, dare I say, progressive in the best of ways. In that process of working out my salvation, I am invited to let go of elementary perspectives and practices that have limited my understanding and application of the gospel. I've grown from seeing that Jesus wasn't just concerned that we be 'saved from hell' but about partnering with him to bring heaven to earth. God knows we only need to turn on the news to see that hell is having a heyday. And while we bicker about DEI/CRT and the like, we miss the opportunity to be light and salt and grace and salvation to those who were once, be design, excluded and dehumanized. In this sense, I'd rather err on being "progressive" than embrace an anemic gospel that thinks that we're "done" when people say they believe in Jesus, thinking that Jesus only came to offer a 'get out of hell free' card.
That is a bit different use of the word "progressive," though. Progressive in the way I am using it has more to do with a theological position which denies the deity of Christ, does not believe that Jesus is the only way to the Father, sees the Bible as far less than inspired, and so forth. It is these very beliefs that make Progressive Christianity hostile to global missionary work. Why proclaim Christ to the nations, after all, if there are many paths to God, no eternal punishment, and so forth?
I agree that there is no "get out of hell free card" soteriology in play. But there is, at least according to Jesus, a hell.
Ted, I think what is difficult for me in this article is that I would probably consider myself a progressive Christian, but I do NOT deny the deity of Christ, I DO believe in the necessity and efficacy of Christ's death for salvation, and DO look to the Scriptures as the infallible word of God pointing me to the Word of God in Christ Jesus. I am NOT hostile to global missionary work, and in fact have lived much of my life as a missionary. But I DO believe that the Western Church has dismissed the 2/3 world and its experience of Christianity to our detriment and that we make the foolish mistake of centering ourselves theologically and culturally. Even the nomenclature of DEI does this! Diverse from whom? Equity with whom? Inclusion with whom? As white, Western Christians, we have a lot of learning to do about the gospel and its implications in a world that is neither majority white nor Western. My grief in reading what you have written is that you seem to be inviting your readers to adopt an 'either/or' perspective which feels antithetical to the table Christ sets for all.
If you believe those things, you are not a progressive Christian.
I don't think, though, that popular portrayals of Christianity in the 2/3rds world are to be taken at face value. William Carey, the founder of the modern missionary movement, is a prime example. Colonizer? Well, he went out on a ship from England bound for India during the days of English colonial rule in India. He ended up having to get the Danes to support him in order to stay. Why? Because he was championing human rights the Brits did not like. He cherished the Indian culture, to the point of introducing them to their own Sanskrit writings. A few years ago, he was honored by the Indian government with a postage stamp for his cultural contributions. He was a white, Western Christian.
The narrative progressives are pushing is that missionaries were operating under the Doctrine of Discovery, chewing through cultures and dehumanizing people. Did it happen? Yes, for sure. Were there William Carey's? Yes, again, for sure.
My grief in what you write is that you have an either/or perspective - either you are a champion of the DEI deconstruction of mission or "get out of jail free card carrier." Does that not also feel antithetical to that same table?
I'm fascinated by the position of power you are determined to hold in this conversation by making yourself the judge of who is progressive/conservative or right/wrong on any given topic. What if the conversation and exploration of faith together is the point? What if sharing the gospel is less about making myself comfortable with what someone else believes but standing with them where they are and affirming their search for Truth?
Andrea, this is rather the point of my article. You are redefining the Gospel away from the things those Reformers you mention had written so much about. Jesus, the cross, discipleship, proclamation of the Kingdom (evangelism), and the gathering of believers into communities of faith.
This doesn’t strike me as a very nuanced evaluation of the current movement to question traditional missions practice. Are the issues really so black and white? You seem to be arguing that the church needs to resist critique of missions praxis, and to fight for old ways of thinking and acting--which is an attitude that characterizes so much of the Evangelical church in particular these days, one that works against necessary, healthy growth and change. In my view, taking honest account of the ways in which we might have gotten missions wrong can (if we are teachable) lead to doing missions better--in more humble and more theologically sound ways. I wonder too: As the editor of a new volume called Reimagining Short-Term Missions, and as someone who was sent by PCUSA as a missionary to do church planting in the Muslim world, I find that some of the generalizations in this piece to be unhelpful, and not encouraging of truly open dialogue on this topic.
Forrest,
In no way do I think that traditional missionary practice isn't up for debate and analysis. But progressive missionary strategies have very little to do with the three primary activities of mission (evangelism, discipleship, leading to church planting) These should be traditional, by the way, because they are found in the pages of the Bible as commands (evangelism and discipleship) with an evident outcome (churches).
I do note that in the article I state that there are allies within liberal denominations toward a missiology that takes Jesus' commands regarding the nations seriously. You, evidently, are one of them.
If I were titling your book, I would have avoided "re-imagining" in the title. It has been "done to death" as a title for missions books (along with "re-thinking"). I agree with the thesis you state: short-term missions is, in my view, very sick. It is mostly about the goers, not the three primary activities that align with Jesus' command to take the Gospel to the nations. Short-term mission is not the primary activity of people taking the Gospel to the nations. It has a role, to be sure, but that role is limited in when compared to the larger task of seeing evangelism, discipleship and church planting happen.
If you think I am not up for innovation in missions, please check out my book, The Innovation Crisis.
As someone who comes from the Reformed tradition, I have always appreciated the motto of the Reformation: Ecclesia Reformata, Semper Reformanda. The Reformation itself was a push to make change in the church, recognizing that practices and attitudes that had "worked" for a while were no longer working, in no small part because they excluded most of the very people the gospel meant to include. The beauty of "The church reformed, always being reformed" is that we are a learning community, in progress of becoming more the people of God we are meant to be--in tune with grace and salvation. I'm grateful that the church is recognizing that *maybe* we used the evangelism mandate as a poor excuse and practice of the Doctrine of Discovery, something that the Catholic church has acknowledged was wrong. Did the gospel spread? Yes. Did it get shared perfectly? No. Similarly, my faith today is different than it was when I was 15, and I'm hopeful that it will be different still in 15 more years. I think that is, dare I say, progressive in the best of ways. In that process of working out my salvation, I am invited to let go of elementary perspectives and practices that have limited my understanding and application of the gospel. I've grown from seeing that Jesus wasn't just concerned that we be 'saved from hell' but about partnering with him to bring heaven to earth. God knows we only need to turn on the news to see that hell is having a heyday. And while we bicker about DEI/CRT and the like, we miss the opportunity to be light and salt and grace and salvation to those who were once, be design, excluded and dehumanized. In this sense, I'd rather err on being "progressive" than embrace an anemic gospel that thinks that we're "done" when people say they believe in Jesus, thinking that Jesus only came to offer a 'get out of hell free' card.
Andrea,
Good words about your personal journey.
That is a bit different use of the word "progressive," though. Progressive in the way I am using it has more to do with a theological position which denies the deity of Christ, does not believe that Jesus is the only way to the Father, sees the Bible as far less than inspired, and so forth. It is these very beliefs that make Progressive Christianity hostile to global missionary work. Why proclaim Christ to the nations, after all, if there are many paths to God, no eternal punishment, and so forth?
I agree that there is no "get out of hell free card" soteriology in play. But there is, at least according to Jesus, a hell.
Ted, I think what is difficult for me in this article is that I would probably consider myself a progressive Christian, but I do NOT deny the deity of Christ, I DO believe in the necessity and efficacy of Christ's death for salvation, and DO look to the Scriptures as the infallible word of God pointing me to the Word of God in Christ Jesus. I am NOT hostile to global missionary work, and in fact have lived much of my life as a missionary. But I DO believe that the Western Church has dismissed the 2/3 world and its experience of Christianity to our detriment and that we make the foolish mistake of centering ourselves theologically and culturally. Even the nomenclature of DEI does this! Diverse from whom? Equity with whom? Inclusion with whom? As white, Western Christians, we have a lot of learning to do about the gospel and its implications in a world that is neither majority white nor Western. My grief in reading what you have written is that you seem to be inviting your readers to adopt an 'either/or' perspective which feels antithetical to the table Christ sets for all.
If you believe those things, you are not a progressive Christian.
I don't think, though, that popular portrayals of Christianity in the 2/3rds world are to be taken at face value. William Carey, the founder of the modern missionary movement, is a prime example. Colonizer? Well, he went out on a ship from England bound for India during the days of English colonial rule in India. He ended up having to get the Danes to support him in order to stay. Why? Because he was championing human rights the Brits did not like. He cherished the Indian culture, to the point of introducing them to their own Sanskrit writings. A few years ago, he was honored by the Indian government with a postage stamp for his cultural contributions. He was a white, Western Christian.
The narrative progressives are pushing is that missionaries were operating under the Doctrine of Discovery, chewing through cultures and dehumanizing people. Did it happen? Yes, for sure. Were there William Carey's? Yes, again, for sure.
My grief in what you write is that you have an either/or perspective - either you are a champion of the DEI deconstruction of mission or "get out of jail free card carrier." Does that not also feel antithetical to that same table?
I'm fascinated by the position of power you are determined to hold in this conversation by making yourself the judge of who is progressive/conservative or right/wrong on any given topic. What if the conversation and exploration of faith together is the point? What if sharing the gospel is less about making myself comfortable with what someone else believes but standing with them where they are and affirming their search for Truth?
Andrea, this is rather the point of my article. You are redefining the Gospel away from the things those Reformers you mention had written so much about. Jesus, the cross, discipleship, proclamation of the Kingdom (evangelism), and the gathering of believers into communities of faith.
This doesn’t strike me as a very nuanced evaluation of the current movement to question traditional missions practice. Are the issues really so black and white? You seem to be arguing that the church needs to resist critique of missions praxis, and to fight for old ways of thinking and acting--which is an attitude that characterizes so much of the Evangelical church in particular these days, one that works against necessary, healthy growth and change. In my view, taking honest account of the ways in which we might have gotten missions wrong can (if we are teachable) lead to doing missions better--in more humble and more theologically sound ways. I wonder too: As the editor of a new volume called Reimagining Short-Term Missions, and as someone who was sent by PCUSA as a missionary to do church planting in the Muslim world, I find that some of the generalizations in this piece to be unhelpful, and not encouraging of truly open dialogue on this topic.