Toward a Definition of Deconstruction

Laying a groundwork by defining what is being deconstructed

[Many of these images come from Grok. When I post them, I don’t always attribute them. In this case, I feel I need to attribute this to the painter, Edvard Munch.]

In the next month or so I have an article coming out on the deconstruction of missions in a journal called Mere Orthodoxy. I am hoping that it creates some reflection in the broader church about what is happening under our noses when it comes to missions.

Today, I am going to lay some groundwork for that article. Due to readability and size limitations, I could not offer a deeper reflection on what I am seeing deconstructed. I plan to do a follow up after the article comes out, summarizing the “4 Deconstructions” I list in the article. Today I present some preliminary thinking that you, a more focused and missions aware Substack newsletter audience, have patience to read (I hope).

I have written about deconstruction in missions in a couple of different formats over the past half decade. One pushback has been that “deconstruction” is ill defined. “If you could define what you mean by deconstruction that would be helpful,” has been lobbed my way numerous times. Fair enough. This is a proper question and so I am hoping to begin to unpack that here.

Deconstruction can come in many forms, some of it very helpful. Within Evangelicalism, we have typically thought about deconstruction in terms of young people falling away from the faith. When I refer to it in a missions sense, it is something different. I am talking about the dismissing of Jesus’ command to disciple the nations (what we often call “The Great Commission”). I might also be referring to those who are defining Jesus’ command to disciple the nations in a way other than the historic understanding found in conservative Protestantism over the past 250 years.

Before we can describe missions deconstruction, we should describe what is getting deconstructed. This question, “What is mission/s?” is at the center of much missiological debate. Each of us has to think about how we understand Jesus’ command to disciple the nations. Here is mine.

I believe any valid definition of missions needs to include three tasks. These are evangelism, discipleship, and planting churches. I believe that the first two (evangelism and discipleship) are clearly commanded in the Bible. Church planting is the inescapable outcome of doing the first two. Thus, missions, in my definition, must include at least one of these, and often all of them. Not every missionary will focus on all three, of course, nor is that an expectation we should have.

Additionally, because Jesus said, “panta ta ethne” (all nations), there must be some element of the cross-cultural to distinguish missions from general ministry.

The above two elements (the three tasks and the need for cross-cultural engagement) are up for lots of debate and disagreement. But generally, I believe that most Christians agree. If you say that somebody is a missionary, most have in their mind people who focus on cross-cultural evangelism, discipleship, and planting churches. Some may think about humanitarian ministry as well, but they assume a ministry component like preaching or evangelism goes along with that.

I just returned to my office from getting my hair trimmed. My barber was an Indonesian woman (I just moved, so I was a “walk in” and I got her by chance). As we talked, I told her I that I work in missions. I did not need to explain any further. Her first question was, “Where do you serve?” I believe my definition is a popular understanding of missions. Academics in missiology would most likely not agree. They would cite Missio Dei missiology or some form of missions which is more abstract. I am the minority in missiological circles with a definition as narrow as this.

By the way, when my barber found out I was headed to Africa later this week, she offered to pray for me. She herself had heard the gospel from missionaries in Jakarta. So, we had a little prayer meeting together there that led to further interaction in the barber shop. So fun! She asked me what churches we were starting. Even my Indonesian barber assumed that my missions work included cross-cultural church planting.

With that groundwork laid, what do we mean by “the deconstruction of missions.” I am referring to influences that take away from an understanding of missions that includes cross-cultural evangelism, discipleship, and church planting.

Does this mean that things like seeking justice, feeding the poor, and so on are not missions? I would say that missions needs to be more narrowly defined than Christian obedience. We should all to seek justice. We are all to care for the poor. We should feed the hungry if we are able. As Christians we may express God’s love in very tangible ways. These are all things that Christians are called to do. This is being Christian. But if missions is going to have any meaning past a general sense of being an obedient disciple, I believe it needs to be narrower.

That narrower definition should arise from Jesus’ narrower commands about this unique task of discipling the nations (see, for example, John 20:21, Mark 16:15, Matthew 28:18-20, Luke 24:44-49 and Acts 1:8).

This narrower definition is also, I believe, how Protestantism has generally defined missions and understood Jesus’ command in the past three centuries or so. This would be true at least up until what I would call the first major missions deconstruction, which started in the early 1900s in mainline denominations. Ah, but that is in the article that is forthcoming.

Be on the lookout for it in Mere Orthodoxy. I plan to write a follow up here, focusing on a little more detail regarding the four types of deconstruction that are happening in missions today.

[I am going to be in a very remote location for the next 14 days or so. I leave Friday and will not be able to interact with comments for most of the time I am gone.]