Global Missiology For The 21 Century

GLOBAL
MISSIOLOGY
FOR THE
21
ST
CENTURY
GLOBAL
MISSIOLOGY
FOR THE
21
ST
CENTURY
Edited by
William D. Taylor
The Iguassu Dialogue
Technical editor: Susan Peterson
Cover design: Cheryl Van Andel
Cover photos: Jackie Gibson and William D. Taylor
2000 by World Evangelical Fellowship
Published by Baker Academic
A division of Baker Book House Company
P.O. Box 6287, Grand Rapids, MI 49516-6287
Printed in the United States of America
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted in any form or by any meansfor example, electronic, photocopy, recordingwith-
out the prior written permission of the publisher. The only exception is brief quotations in printed
reviews.
Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTER-
NATIONAL VERSION
. 1973, 1978, 1984 by the International Bible Society. Used by permission

of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Global missiology for the 21
st
century: the Iguassu dialogue /
edited by William D. Taylor.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-8010-2259-2
1. MissionsTheoryCongresses. I. Taylor, William David.
BV2063.G56 2000
266dc21 00-058583
For information about academic books, resources for Christian leaders, and all new releases avail-
able from Baker Book House, visit our web site:
http://www.bakerbooks.com
v
Contents
In appreciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Ravi Zacharias
Part 1: Setting the stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1. From Iguassu to the reflective practitioners of the
global family of Christ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
William D. Taylor
2. The Iguassu Affirmation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Part 2: Establishing the macro context of the major issues . . . . . . . 23
3. The global scenario at the turn of the century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Samuel Escobar
4. Engaging Escobar and beyond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Jonathan Bonk
5. Globalization and world evangelism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Alex Araujo
6. Christ and the mosaic of pluralisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Chris Wright
7. Evangelical missiology: peering into the future
at the turn of the century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Samuel Escobar
8. Learning from Escobar and beyond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Valdir Steuernagel
9. A Two-Thirds World evaluation of contemporary
Evangelical missiology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
David Tai-Woong Lee
10. The Scriptures, the church, and humanity:
who should do mission and why? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Antonia Leonora van der Meer
11. Spiritual warfare and worldview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Paul Hiebert
12. Rethinking trinitarian missiology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Alan Roxburgh
vi
Part 3: Grounding our reflections in Scripture:
biblical trinitarianism and mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
13. God: the source, the originator, and the end of mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Ajith Fernando
14. Jesus: the message and model of mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
Ajith Fernando
15. The Holy Spirit: the divine implementer of mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
Ajith Fernando
16. The church: the mirror of the Trinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
Ajith Fernando
Part 4: Addressing issues of globalized
Evangelical missiology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
17. Profiling a globalized and Evangelical missiology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
Tokunboh Adeyemo
18. Evangelical missiology from Africa: strengths and weaknesses . . . . . . . . . 271
Yusufu Turaki
19. Missiological challenges from the South Pacific region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
Joshua Daimoi
20. Evangelical missiology from an East Asian perspective:
a study on Christian encounter with people of other faiths . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
Kang San Tan
21. Evangelical missiology from India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
K. Rajendran
22. Ancient springs and sweet fruit:
missiological contributions from the Middle East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
David Greenlee
23. Further contributions to missiology from an Arab perspective . . . . . . . . . . 347
Raed Abdul Masih
24. Mission and missiology from Latin America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 357
Norberto Saracco
25. Younger generations and the gospel in Western culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367
Stuart McAlister
26. Telling stories: contextualization and American missiology . . . . . . . . . . . 377
Miriam Adeney
vii
Part 5: Responding to the challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389
27. The Indian church and missions face the saffronization challenge . . . . . . 391
Joseph DSouza
28. The Hindu missionary movements and Christian missions in India . . . . . 407
Richard Howell
29. The complex spiritual mosaic of East Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421
Ian Prescott
30. A vision from the world beyond: Islam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439
Bertil Engqvist
31. Dry bones in the West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447
Rose Dowsett
32. Let X = X: Generation X and world mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463
Richard Tiplady
33. From synthesis to synergy: the Iguassu think tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477
Rob Brynjolfson
Part 6: Listening to mission that rises
from community and spirituality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 489
34. Celtic community, spirituality, and mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491
Clifton D. S. Warner
35. Nestorian community, spirituality, and mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495
Paula Harris
36. Moravian community, spirituality, and mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503
Richard Tiplady
37. Jesuit community, spirituality, and mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 507
Bertil Ekstrm
38. Coptic community, spirituality, and mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 511
Francis Omondi
39. Brazilian Antioch community, spirituality, and mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 515
Barbara Burns
Part 7: Accepting serious commitments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 519
40. The Iguassu Affirmation: a commentary
by eight reflective practitioners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 521
Oswaldo Prado, John Wood, Cathy Ross, Jeff Fountain,
Rudy Girn, Jim Stamoolis, Seth Anyomi, Met Castillo
41. Drawing to a close: inviting reflective, passionate,
and globalized practitioners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549
William D. Taylor
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 557
In appreciation
AM PROFOUNDLY GRATEFUL to many
colleagues who joined me in doing
missiology. First, there are the brothers
Bertil and Leif Ekstrm, Brazilian-Swedes,
who made the Iguassu Consultation hap-
pen administratively. Joining them in Bra-
zil were Mark Orr and David Ruz. The four
were a quiet, efficient, and servant-hearted
team.
Thanks too to my World Evangelical
Fellowship Missions Commission staff col-
league, Jon Lewis, and our Chairman,
David Tai-Woong Lee, who understood the
entire concept of our process. Together
we envisioned a process that would flow
from consultation to publication and then
to further work on global missiological
concerns.
Special thanks to the Iguassu Affirma-
tion team. Nobody knows how many
hours they worked, late at night and early
in the morning, listening, writing and re-
writing, editing and re-editing. Thank you,
David Tai-Woong Lee (Korea) and Jim
Stamoolis (USA) as co-leaders, Rose Dow-
sett (Scotland), Abel Ndjerareou (Chad),
David Neff (USA), Kang San Tan (Malay-
sia), and Tonica van der Meer (Brazil).
viii
I
Many Iguassu participants have en-
couraged me and made recommendations
since Brazil, including: Paul, Rose, Bob,
Cliff, K, Jim, Paula, Stewart, Richard,
Stanley, Jonathan, Jason, Alex, John, Bar-
bara, Jeff, David, Jorge, Stan, Hans, Kathy,
Norbert, Francis, Rosifran, Gary, Dave. You
know who you are.
Susan Peterson again has taken on
the task as our technical editor. Her eagle
eye has shaped all our Missions Commis-
sion books. This volume has been a spe-
cial challenge, and without her patience,
keen sense for language, and accuracy, we
would not have the editorial quality we
have sought over the years.
And finally, let me publicly express
my thanks to Yvonne, my wife. Her con-
ceptual thinking helped shape the Iguassu
Consultation itself in many ways. Her edi-
torial gifts clarified a number of the chap-
ters, including my own. Called by vocation
to the contemplative life, she has served
unseen, quietly, and deeply as my silent
partner.
To all of you, a thousand steadfast
thanks.
William D. Taylor
ix
WILL NEVER FORGET the first missionary conference I
ever attended. The year was 1966. My brother and I had
just arrived in Canada as immigrants from India and hap-
pened to walk into a church that was beginning its week of
missions emphasis. As it turned out, the opening speaker
was an American missionary who had been serving in India
for many years. I had never been at such a conference be-
fore. In a new church, in a new country, and experiencing a
new theme, I sat there awaiting the missionarys address.
When he was through, I was quite shaken, wondering if all
of his descriptions of the land of my birth were exactly the
way I had seen them. Both my brother and I left that service
somewhat perplexed by it all. Not only was I a relatively new
Christian, but I was now going through an identity crisis. I
was not sure if I was inside looking out or outside looking
in. It took a few years for me to realize what had happened.
When I made my first trip back to India five years after
this event, its sights and sounds caught my attention in a
way that had never registered with me before. Yes, there was
the nostalgia and the thrill of using the language in which so
much of my cultural memory was enshrined. But there was
the staggering experience of surprise, even shock. I was re-
minded of the old Chinese proverb: If you want to know
what water is, dont ask the fish. The point is well taken.
When we are immersed in an environment, we do not see it
for what it really is. It takes an outsiders glimpse to bring a
visceral response to that for which proximity only brought
familiarity without emotion.
But something fascinating happened as a sequel. Years
later, when I was preaching in India alongside that very mis-
sionary who was hosting my meetings, he made a comment
Foreword
I
x
that brought laughter to all of us. When I
told him of my initial reaction when I
heard him years ago, he told me of his
memory of seeing us walk into the sanc-
tuary. It gave him a great deal of unease,
he said. Not knowing who we were
friend or foehe had held back from
many things that he had wanted to say.
This simple episode may well capture
our fears and agonies in finding a mean-
ingful response to a world in need of the
gospel of Jesus Christ. Many of us have
become so immersed in our present con-
texts that we are not able to be objective
judges of our failures and our shortcom-
ings. At the same time, cultural sensitivi-
ties are running so deep that we are fearful
of saying the wrong thing and bringing
unwarranted offense. How do we under-
stand the need, the demands, the meth-
ods, and the commitments that will be
needed to bring the message to the whole
world? Change is in the air.
For that alone, I am deeply grateful to
the men and women who gathered at the
Iguassu Missiological Consultation to
share from their hearts and their convic-
tions for the cause of Jesus Christ. Listen-
ing to this diversity of voices and having
our eyes opened to the vastness of the
need are the first steps to grasping the
urgency of the response. I for one will al-
ways be grateful to the Lord for the mis-
sionary call and burden that brought the
gospel to my native land. Because of the
passion of William Carey, the devotion of
Amy Carmichael, and the sensitivity of the
missionary I just mentioned, there are
millions today who call the Lord Jesus
their Savior. They were missionaries who
loved the people and lived the message.
One of the key sentiments voiced at this
historic consultation was that of kairos
the timing of Gods working. I believe this
is real, not just imagined. May I add an-
other slant to this? An English writer years
ago penned an essay that he titled, The
Candle and the Bird, in which he con-
trasted the light of a candle with the song
of a bird. If you extinguish a candle, he
said, the light goes out. On the other hand,
if you chase a bird away, it just goes and
sings its song on another bough. The
gospel as carried by the Holy Spirit, he
mused, is not just a candle. It is also akin
to a birds song. At times, it has seemed as
the though the bird were silent in a land
because it has been frightened away. But,
he said, if you follow the bird, you will
find that it is just singing in a different
land.
What a wonderful metaphor that is for
the proclamation and timing of Gods
work around the world! It was not acci-
dental, for example, that in the late 18
th
century, at the very moment that the
French mob was tearing the cross off Notre
Dame Cathedral in Paris, France, William
Carey was setting foot on Indian soil. No,
the bird had not been silenced. It had just
moved its music elsewhere. If we track the
history of missions, we will see that just
as one nation seemed harder to reach,
another one was opening its arms. The
writer summarizes that theme by saying,
There is a divine element in the church
an element that no persecuting fires can
devour and that no convulsion can de-
stroy. That is a glorious reminder that the
light never goes out and the song of the
soul set free is ever being sung in some
land somewhere. We must be in tune with
the kairos of God for such music.
I commend this book to you who long
to know what you can do to hear these
strains. I commend it to you who may be
getting weary in well doing. I commend it
to the Christian who needs to get a
glimpse of the convulsion in some parts
and the exultation in others. Oh, that we
might hear his voice and say, What will
you have me to do, Lord? When the famed
missionary Robert Jaffray was offered an
enormous sum of money by an oil com-
xi
pany to work for them rather than as a
missionary, he answered, Your salary is
big, but your job is too small. How mar-
velous is the example of those who knew
what the real cost was and what the real
inheritance is. Are we surprised at the re-
sult of such commitment?
Let us who are immersed in familiar
air breathe in these thoughts. I have no
doubt that we will be stirred within by a
counter-perspective impelling us to cap-
ture the moment with eternity in sight.
When our task is done, with the hymn-
writer we can beckon:
Let every creature rise and bring
Peculiar honors to our king
Angels descend with songs again
And earth repeat the long Amen.
Dr. Ravi K. Zacharias
President
Ravi Zacharias
International Ministries
1
Part 1
Setting the stage
WE BEGIN WITH AN INVITATION to the global Evan-
gelical reflective practitioners. These are women and men
of both action and study; rooted in the Word of God and the
church of Christ; passionately obedient to the fullness of the
Great Commandment and Great Commission; globalized in
their perspective, yet faithful citizens of their own cultures.
This book emerges from the Iguassu Missiological Con-
sultation, held in Brazil in October 1999. The World Evan-
gelical Fellowship Missions Commission leaders convened
this strategic event because we perceived the need to pause
at this historical hinge of both century and millennium to
examine our missiological foundations, commitments, and
practices. That event and this book initiated an ongoing pro-
cess that purposes to release further serious and practical
global missiology at the service of the borderless church.
The structure of this publication in part parallels that
of the Iguassu Consultation. Of the 41 chapters, only 13 were
commissioned after Iguassu, primarily to fill in some gaps
and address other major global challenges that Christians
face. Only two of the 41 writers were unable to attend the
consultation itselfHowell and Engqvist. Escobar had to
cancel at the last moment due to his wifes health, but his
papers played a central role in the Consultation.
The Iguassu Affirmation began months before the con-
sultation, when the WEF Missions Commission leadership
2
asked David Tai-Woong Lee (Missions Commission Chair) and
Jim Stamoolis (WEF Theological Commission Executive Di-
rector) to coordinate the composition of a document that
would reflect the Consultation itself and point to new direc-
tions of our globalized Evangelical missiology.
Lee, who had read many of the papers prior to Iguassu,
began structuring the missiological concerns in a draft form.
By the time it was given to the Team of Seven, the document
had gone through six initial revisions. The Team of Seven
members were drawn Europe, Southeast Asia, Northeast Asia,
North America, South America, and Africa. Together they
crafted a broad-based document, carefully studied two cycles
of written and oral suggestions from the participants, and
presented the final copy for participants to affirm. The Iguassu
Affirmation comes as a working document, forged in the
warmth, collegiality, and discussion of a very intense week
of doing missiology in Brazil.
The Iguassu program was designed to be rooted in
worship and prayer, followed by the models of mission that
flow from spirituality and community, then Fernandos ex-
positions; from there we transitioned into the missiological
themes during morning and afternoon sessions. These in
turn led to group interactions and discussion, further prayer
and worship, with the evenings primarily open for network-
ing and relationships.
One mid-week highlight came with Steuernagels poi-
gnant introduction to the movie The Mission, followed by
viewing the film. Many scenes from that movie had been
filmed at the Iguassu Falls, and hence when we visited them
the next morning, they had been transformed from a natu-
ral wonder of the world into missiological waterfalls of his-
toric significance for the church in mission.
3
From
Iguassu
to the
reflective
practitioners
of the
global
family
of Christ
William D.
Taylor
UR NEW CENTURY and millennium present a kairos mo-
ment of unparalleled magnitude and opportunity for
the borderless church of Christ. However, the global chronos
moment will not make it easy for the Christian movement.
Externally and internally, we grapple with a spectrum of sig-
nificant and unrelenting challenges: globalization with its
mixed blessings and curses; the global AIDS tragedy; the in-
formation technology revolution; unrelenting urbanization
and the economic crises it presents; the massive refugee high-
way movement; and a new pluralism that challenges our
Christian concept of truth, our hermeneutic of Scripture,
our Christology, and our understanding of what it means to
be human. Multifaceted persecution unleashes its violence
against Christians in many areas of the world; yet, ironically,
we discover that we have a deficient theology of suffering
and martyrdom. The worldwide worldview transformation
pre-modernity to modernity to post-modernitydoes not
allow us to rest on our past accomplishments.
The church struggles to define truth and the authority
of Scripture. It also grapples with the nature of the trans-
forming gospel of Jesus, with what it means to be Chris-
tian and Evangelical, with what it means to be and do
church, with the international anemia that characterizes the
church, and with what it means to be obedient to the king-
dom of God regarding our mission in the world and within
our diverse mission movements. We still have not understood
how modernity has misshaped our church and missions en-
terprise.
In light of these challenges, many insightful and coura-
geous observers of the international arena felt it vital that we
as Evangelicals pause and gather together a group of women
and men who, as reflective practitioners, could consider how
1
O
4 setting the stage
these complex trends and realities affect
us as we project mission and missions into
the century before us.
In light of this kairos hinge-moment
of history, therefore, the World Evangeli-
cal Fellowship Missions Commission con-
vened an international missiological
consultation held in the historic city of
Iguassu, Brazil, October 10-16, 1999. There
160 church, theological education, and
mission leaders met for an intense week
of worship, prayer, relationship-building,
and missiological reflection. We had six
stated purposes:
1. A call to international reflection in
order to identify and carefully evaluate the
radical global and cultural changes which
have shaped our contemporary world his-
tory as well as the church and its mission.
2. An occasion that allows us to begin
the process of identifying and seeking defi-
nitions of the key concepts and terminol-
ogy of globalized Evangelical missiology,
faithfully representing the diverse and bib-
lical perspectives from West and non-West,
North and South. From one or two domi-
nant centers of Christianity, the Spirit has
now created a rich panoply of centers of
globalized Christianity.
3. An initial creation of a mosaic/
profile of this international Evangelical
missiology, and then the effective commu-
nication of its content and import to the
borderless church and mission commu-
nity.
4. An opportunity to help shape glo-
bal missiological foundations which are
both biblical and culturally appropriate
and which will undergird us for the long-
term future.
5. An occasion that encourages us to
broker and invest in a process of global-
ized missiology that returns us to our
grassroots, to our cultures, to our home
churches, and to our ministries and net-
works.
6. A moment of time that allows us
to evaluate/critique the prime missiologi-
cal emphases and currents that influenced
the missionary movement in the last 50
years of the 20
th
century.
The Danger of
Over-Simplification
of a Complex Assignment
Following up on the last item above,
we realized that during the last decades
of the 20
th
century, an unfortunate over-
emphasis on pragmatic and reductionist
thinking came to pervade the international
Evangelical missionary movement. Whether
we wish to recognize it or not, we must
acknowledge that this emphasis has
seeped into the church around the world.
The results have not been healthy or en-
couraging (see Engel & Dyrness, 2000).
What are some of the over-simplifica-
tions that have been made? They include
the following:
The crippling omissions in the
Great Commissionreducing it to proc-
lamation alonewhich lead to only a par-
tial understanding of the mission of the
church, resulting in spiritual anemia and
a thin veneer of Christianity, regardless of
culture or nation.
The absence of a robust gospel of
the kingdom which calls us to radical com-
mitment and discipleship to Christ.
An inadequate theology of suffer-
ing and martyrdom.
The use of emotive slogans to drive
the missions task, leading to a false un-
derstanding of both task and success in
our mission.
The application of simplistic think-
ing and methodologies to the Great Com-
mission, which are guided too much by
marketing strategies and secular concepts
of what it means to be effective and effi-
cient.
from iguassu to the reflective practitioners 5
The reduction of world evangeliza-
tion to a manageable enterprise with an
over-emphasis on research, statistics, quan-
tifiable objectives, and desired outcomes.
A focus on a limited geography of
the world and an excessive emphasis on
the year 2000, generating unrealistic ex-
pectations and leading to profound dis-
appointment.
An over-emphasis on short-term
missions that minimizes longer-term ser-
vice, and an inadequate biblical theology
of vocation.
The illusion by some that mass me-
dia is the final answer to world evangeli-
zation or the suggestion that the church
finally has the technology to finish the
Great Commission, whether the Internet,
mass communications, publication, or
other media. The danger is obvious, for it
disregards the sacrificial, incarnational
calling of God into our world of profound
personal, familial, socio-economic, cul-
tural, and environmental crises.
Inviting the
Reflective Practitioners
of the Evangelical World
The search for reflective practitioners
guided us in formulating the roster of par-
ticipants who were invited to the consul-
tation. These women and men of both
action and reflection are committed to
Gods truth; obedient in the power of
Gods Spirit to the Great Commission in
all its fullness; servants who are global-
ized in perspective; citizens of their own
culture but also of the world; leaders who
are passionate of heart and who also re-
flect the heart of Christ. Of the 160 par-
ticipants at Iguassu, half came from Latin
America, Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and
the Islands; the other half came from
North America, Europe, Australia, and
New Zealand. This balance of West and
the Great Rest of the World contributed
to the spice and diversity of Iguassu. All
of us were challenged, even forced, to lis-
ten to and engage with perspectives that
graciously and at times sharply questioned
some missiological presuppositions. There
were lively discussions and even disagree-
ments between colleagues of West and
non-West, East and East, South and South.
It was a free-flowing and dynamic week.
The venue of the consultation was se-
lected by our Brazilian colleagues, the city
of Iguassu, Brazil, a few short kilometers
from the majestic falls of the same name.
Those who have seen the movie, The Mis-
sion, will remember well the scenes filmed
on site at the falls. Halfway through our
consultation, Valdir Steuernagel presented
an eloquent talk on the historic and con-
temporary significance of that film; then
we viewed the movie on a large screen. It
was a powerful evening. The next morn-
ing, we took a break from heavy discus-
sions and traveled the short distance to
the falls themselves. We saw them not only
as one of the seven natural wonders of
the world, but also in missiological con-
text. Steve Sang-Cheol Moon, one of our
Korean colleagues, came up to me in the
spray of the falls to say with a touch of
Asian humor, Bill, Niagara Falls is a mo-
dernity worldview cataractone huge
flow in the same general direction. But
Iguassu Falls is a post-modernity cata-
ractthree kilometers of 265 different
falls, flowing in so many directions!
This publication has been written by
and for the global community of reflec-
tive practitionersmen and women en-
gaged in the trans-cultural mission of God,
whether students or veterans, female or
male, younger or older, activists or mis-
siologists, regardless of geography or
culture. Samuel Escobars definition of
missiology (see page 101) has been very
helpful in the shaping of this book. For
him, missiology is an interdisciplinary
6 setting the stage
approach to understand missionary ac-
tion. It looks at missionary facts from the
perspective of the biblical sciences, theol-
ogy, history, and the social sciences. The
consultation as well as this book flow in
the strength of this definition, and we in-
tentionally emphasize a globalization di-
mension.
The borderless body of Christ in recent
years has experienced a massive epicen-
ter shiftfrom the centers of the North to
the many centers of the South. No single
center from now on will dominate the
agenda of our dialogue and reflection.
Nobody knows for certain, but estimates
suggest that 75% of the family of Jesus is
found in the non-Western nations (Asia,
Africa, Latin America, South Pacific, Car-
ibbean, Middle East). This transformation
does not spell the end of the West as a
center of Gods church and its leadership.
It simply means that the Spirit of God has
created many centers where he is at work,
and it provides rich soil from which new
kinds of strategic thinking and long-term
commitment to service will germinate,
flower, and transform the global church.
We are all familiar with the historic
three selfs of the church: self-support-
ing, self-propagating, self-governing. But
todays reality is more complex, richer,
and more challenging, for there are really
five selfs. These include the known
three, plus self-theologizing and self-
missiologizing. These latter two by defini-
tion will challenge the established verities
of older theology and missiology, includ-
ing theological and missiological ap-
proaches and categories and the historic
ways of conceptualizing and doing theol-
ogy and missiology. Guided by the Spirit,
faithful to Scripture, within the commu-
nity of faith, and graciously reflecting the
marvelous diversity of culture and church
permutations, the future is bright and en-
couraging. However, the outcomes may be
radically different from those that are cur-
rently known.
Learning From Valuable
Missiological History
Further background for the Iguassu
Consultation came as we read our missio-
logical church history. As far as we in the
WEF Missions Commission knew, this con-
sultation, coming upon the eve of the year
2000, was the primary Evangelical global
event of such a theological-missiological
nature. This realization was disturbing, for
it seemed that the major Evangelical in-
ternational structures, networks, and theo-
logical institutions were focusing on their
own particular tasks and were perhaps
more concerned about their own projects,
programs, curricula, and organizational
future. There was relatively little interest
in substantial theological and missiologi-
cal reflection or in a sober self-evaluation
that would lead to a revised way of going
about our task in the worlda revitalized
praxis.
Looking back to the historic World Mis-
sionary Conference of Edinburgh (1910)
at the beginning of the 20
th
century, we
realized there were lessons we needed to
heed. That international event, the fourth
of its kind in the West, had been very care-
fully conceived and prepared in its
character as an assembly for careful and
scientific thought and not merely for the
edification of the faithful and the expres-
sion of Christian enthusiasm; and in the
steps which it took to secure the perma-
nence of Christian cooperation in the fu-
ture (Neill, 1986, p. 393).
Edinburghs driving slogan, coined and
given currency by John Raleigh Mott
(1865-1955), was, The Evangelization of
the World in This Generation. Actually,
as Neill (1986, p. 394) reports, The slo-
gan was based on an unexceptional theo-
logical principlethat each generation of
Christians bears responsibility for the con-
temporary generation of non-Christians in
the world, and that it is the business of
each such generation of Christians to see
to it, as far as lies within its power, that
the gospel is clearly preached to every
single non-Christian in the same genera-
tion.
Edinburghs leaders understood the
continual growth of missionary outreach
in the world and the hope that it would
increase. Neill lists 12 great achievements
in the preceding century, and the confer-
ence convened serious men and women
for a landmark event. However, most sig-
nificantly, he notes:
There had been little discussion of
theology at the Edinburgh Conference of
1910. There had seemed to be little need
for it, when all were at one on all the
fundamentals. All were agreed that Jesus
Christ the Son of God was the final and
decisive Word of God to men; that in him
alone is the certainty of salvation given to
men; that this gospel must be preached
to every living human soul, to whom God
has given the freedom to accept or to re-
ject and who must stand by that accep-
tance or rejection on the last day. The
delegates differed somewhat in their atti-
tude towards the non-Christian religions,
but all were agreed that, as the Lordship
of Christ came to be recognized, these
others religions would disappear in their
present formthe time would come when
Shiva and Vishu would have no more wor-
shippers than Zeus and Apollo have to-
day.
But in these years of rapid missionary
expansion, a very different gospel had
been growing up and taking hold of the
minds of a great many Christians, espe-
cially in America. The liberal was not by
any means so sure that Jesus Christ was
the last Word of God to man. He was re-
pelled by the exclusive claim to salvation
through Christ alone. He tended to take a
much more favourable view of the other
religions than his more conservative col-
leagues, and to look forward to some kind
of synthesis of religions rather than to the
disappearance of any of them. The real
enemy is secularism. Adherents of all the
great religions should stand together in
defence of the spiritual reality of mans
life. There should be no hostility between
them, the spirit of proselytism being re-
placed by the willingness to learn from
one another (Neill, 1986, pp. 454-455).
As we approached the Iguassu Consul-
tation, at the end of the 20
th
and the be-
ginning of the 21
st
century, we members
of the international body of Christ recog-
nized that it behooved us to listen to and
learn from our history. We did not want
to repeat the errors that have come from
not revisiting the theological and biblical
underpinnings of our mission. For that
reason, we felt it imperative to engage in
serious and substantive reflection and
analysis. For our own good as reflective
people of God in global mission, we must
strive to be thoughtful and grounded prac-
titioners and visionaries.
Revisiting a
Relevant and Poignant
Gospel Narrative
Having studied the various papers
prior to the consultation and pondering
the issues and trends with which we would
be grappling, I felt the Spirit of God call-
ing me to Matthew 11:1-12 as a reference
point for our days together in Iguassu.
During the last decade, I have pondered
this story, mining it time and time again
for its richness and finding its application
so relevant for our lives and ministry. Fol-
lowing are some of the reflections that
flow from this narrative, with its power to
shape our lives and ministry.
8 setting the stage
Matthew 11:1-12
[1] After Jesus had finished instruct-
ing his twelve disciples, he went on from
there to teach and preach in the towns of
Galilee.
[2] When John heard in prison what
Christ was doing, he sent his disciples [3]
to ask him, Are you the one who was to
come, or should we expect someone else?
[4] Jesus replied, Go back and report
to John what you hear and see: [5] The
blind receive sight, the lame walk, those
who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear,
the dead are raised, and the good news
is preached to the poor. [6] Blessed is the
man who does not fall away on account
of me.
[7] As Johns disciples were leaving,
Jesus began to speak to the crowd about
John: What did you go out into the desert
to see? A reed swayed by the wind? [8] If
not, what did you go out to see? A man
dressed in fine clothes? No, those who
wear fine clothes are in kings palaces.
[9] Then what did you go out to see? A
prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a
prophet. [10] This is the one about whom
it is written: I will send my messenger
ahead of you, who will prepare your way
before you.
[11] I tell you the truth: Among those
born of women there has not risen any-
one greater than John the Baptist; yet he
who is least in the kingdom of heaven is
greater than he. [12] From the days of
John the Baptist until now, the kingdom
of heaven has been forcefully advancing,
and forceful men lay hold of it.
Mission is carried out in the
context of change, crisis, and
the unexpected turns of life.
In the time of Jesus
We observe our Lord in the previous
two chapters encountering the swelling
wave of opposition that would soon ex-
plode against him. We contemplate his
heart for the sick and the dead, the aged
and the children, the oppressed and the
demonized, the helpless and the shep-
herdless. We see his commitment to prayer.
We note his selection and commissioning
of the Twelve to a first-time, strategic,
short-term mission project. Now, in chap-
ter 11, Matthew introduces John the Bap-
tizer into the story. Jesus uses that occasion
for penetrating and enigmatic statements
about the times of opportunity and vio-
lence, about true meaning in life and min-
istry.
Little could the disciples have imagined
what Jesus was referring to as he spoke of
personal and ministry significance and of
the future. But they would discover and
experience those realities very soon. And
then the task would be theirs, empowered
by the Spirit, to impact their own histori-
cal moment.
In our times, today
We stand at the start of this uncertain
new century, this new millennium. New
language and categories have entered our
lives. We speak of globalization, and we
witness the worldview transitions from
pre-modernity to modernity to post-
modernity with their respective blessings
and curses. Regardless of our culture, our
gender, our geography, and our ministry,
the times have radically changed, requir-
ing a serious re-evaluation of why we do
the things we do in ministrywhether
personal or organizational.
Mission is worked out in the
context of questions and doubt.
The Baptizers existential crisis has be-
come painfully real. He had no idea that
his prophetic ministry would land him in
jail or of the kind of death that would
come to him with such violence. Grap-
pling from prison with profound doubts
(Did I misunderstand history, God, and
you, Jesus?), he sends a delegation of his
last disciples to ask Jesus that very hard
question. However, our Lord sends him
an oblique answer, inviting the disciples
only to report to John what they had heard
and seen of the signs of the kingdom. Its
only after they leave that Jesus gives his
verdictan unprecedented accoladeof
John as a person with a mission. Why did
Jesus not encourage John more by send-
ing word of his now public evaluation and
affirmation of John? Notably, Jesus did not
condemn John for his doubts.
In our times, today
We must feel free to ask each other, and
God, the dangerous and presuppositional
questions: Where is the power of the gos-
pel and the church today? Has something
gone wrong with the harvest? What kind
of gospel have we transported around the
world? Why Rwanda, Ireland, Bosnia? Why
such a post-Christian and anti-Christian
Europe and North America? What does it
mean to see the presence of the kingdom
of heaven today in our world? Has there
been an excessive export/import business
of theology, missiology, and church and
educational structures, primarily from the
West to the rest of the world?
On a more personal level, why are we
followers of Jesus the Christ? How have
we uncritically allowed our own cultures
to shape and misshape our worldview, our
relationship with the supernatural God,
our theological structures, and our missio-
logical reflection and action? What would
it mean to become practicing supernatu-
ralists today?
Mission must be carried out
in the context of downward
mobility, not upward success.
The great Forerunner would soon face
a stunning and ignominious death. Whats
more, he never heard what Jesus had said
about him on that occasion, for Jesus
talked about him after Johns disciples left.
John apparently died without explanation
and without comfort from God. But then,
Jesus himself would die a brutal and seem-
ingly pointless death. In time, all of the
apostles except John would be subse-
quently martyred. Worldly success, tri-
umphalism, and popular acclaim were
definitely not written into the contract of
their spiritual journey.
In our times, today
The majority of Christianswhether in
the West or the non-Westdo not have an
adequate theology of suffering, much less
of persecution and martyrdom. But we
must develop one soon! The Iguassu Con-
sultation purposefully did not convene the
powerful, the network controllers, the
wealthy, or the high-profile people. Those
present were primarily lower-profile ser-
vant-leaders. And if we dont place our-
selves in the category of the powerless and
the nameless, we need to revisit what we
think it means to walk with Jesus on the
path of downward mobility.
Perhaps the late Henri Nouwen (1989,
p. 62) says it best, with direct application
to our Evangelical world and its fascina-
tion with leadership and power: The way
of the Christian leader is not the way of
upward mobility in which our world has
invested so much, but the way of down-
ward mobility ending on the cross. This
might sound morbid and masochistic, but
for those who have heard the voice of the
first love and said yes to it, the down-
ward-moving way of Jesus is the way to
10 setting the stage
the joy and the peace of God, a joy and
peace that is not of this world.
Mission is worked out in
the bipolar context of gospel
advance and persecution.
Matthews narrative notes how the
kingdom of heaven had advanced force-
fully through the life and ministry first of
John (Matt. 3:5-8) and then of Jesus (Matt.
4:23-25). Yet we note the enigma of verse
12, an ambiguity that is reflected in differ-
ent translations. The first part is clear: the
kingdom of heaven would advance force-
fully, as in the ministry of John and Jesus.
But the second part is simply unclear. The
Greek text allows us to translate it two
ways. One idea is that some would force-
fully want to get into the kingdom. The
second possibility is a very different idea,
that others would forcefully attack the
kingdom itself. The account in Luke 16:16
emphasizes the first option. In the time
of Jesus, some people were pushing their
way in, even tearing up the roof-tops of
homes to get to Jesus. But at the same
time, the opposition to Jesus would grow
into the plot to eliminate him. Ultimately,
the converged adversarial forces would kill
both John and later Jesus. Was our Lord
playing with words, preparing the dis-
ciples (and us) for both options?
In our times, today
World population stands today at
about the 6 billion mark. We saw the ad-
dition of 2 billion in the 20
th
century alone.
This is the global arena of the church of
Christ. The task is almost overwhelming!
We are encouraged as we witness and
read of the advance of the gospel. We re-
joice in each reportassuming the infor-
mation is verifiablethat marks the
advance of the kingdom message. We live
in the remarkable day of the globalization
of both the church and the missions move-
mentfrom every nation and every conti-
nent to every nation and every continent.
This is good news and challenging news.
We also live in a day of instant communi-
cation through the Internet. Not every re-
port is truly true. So we must ask hard
questions: What does it mean to be the
church? What kind of gospel have we ex-
ported and communicated around the
world?
We rightfully must be wary of the
Christian numbers game, such as this
statement which I recently read in a fund-
raising letter: More than 100,000 people
a day are choosing to follow Christ in Asia,
Africa, Latin America, East Europe, and the
former Soviet Union. Where does this
number come from? How do we acquire
and believe rounded-off figures? Is the
truth being told, or are we being sold a
successful package of guaranteed religious
projects and programs? More significantly,
have we assumed that God promises that
a majority of the worlds population will
be found in the church?
Even as we celebrate the growth of the
Christian faith, we also witness the revival
and expansion of a well-funded and in-
tensely expansionist Islam, the new mis-
sionary vision of Buddhism and Hinduism,
as well as the plethora of smaller evange-
listic religious groups. The New Age net-
works have spread throughout the world,
offering an especially appealing religious
soup that allows one to be both spiritual
and materialistic at the same time. These
religious alternatives have joined the
forces of anti-Christian secularism, moder-
nity, and post-modernity to challenge
Christians today as never before. It is the
best of times and the worst of times for
the church. And this is the arena into
which the Spirit invites Evangelical reflec-
tive practitioners to serve, suffer, and die.
While some of the opposition is subtle
and non-violent, we have documented the
growing wave of persecution against
Christians. Significantly, the theme of suf-
fering and martyrdom emerged many
times during the Iguassu Consultation.
Ajith Fernandos expositions, plus reports
from specific geographiesthe Middle
East, India, and other areaswere a so-
bering reminder of the suffering church.
Ironicallyand sadlywe know that
some of the persecution of Christians is
precipitated by Christians using language
and missions metaphors that rely heavily
on military terminology: target, conquer,
army, crusade, mobilize, beachhead, ad-
vance, enemy, battle, spiritual warfare,
capture the city for Christ. Thankfully, the
movement to eliminate inappropriate lan-
guage is growing, but much damage has
been done (see Mission Leaders, 2000).
How Might One Read
This Book With Profit?
This book emerges primarily from the
Iguassu Consultation, where the majority
of the chapters were presented there in
some form. Of the 41 writers, all but three
were with us in Iguassu. Another 13 chap-
ters were commissioned afterward to fill
in missing themes. Three of the major
papers, the two by Samuel Escobar and
the one by Chris Wright, had been circu-
lated by e-mail for the participants to read
prior to our gathering.
How might a person work through this
compendium? Some courageous ones
might want to read from start to finish.
Congratulations if you do so!
Here are some other possible ap-
proaches:
First, review the table of contents to
get a sense of the overall flow of catego-
ries and topics. Note the structure of the
book and its major categories:
Establishing the global arena
Setting the macro context and rais-
ing major issues
Grounding trinitarian missiological
reflections in Scripture
Addressing issues of globalized
Evangelical missiology
Responding to major challenges
Listening to mission that rises from
community and spirituality
Engaging the commitments flowing
from the Iguassu Affirmation
Concluding with final challenges
Second, read and evaluate the Iguassu
Affirmation (chapter 2), for much of the
book will echo these themes. This missio-
logical statement summarizes the issues
of the Iguassu Consultation. But keep in
mind that not all of your concerns will
emerge in this short document.
Third, remember that this book reflects
a globalized missiology. Represented here
are many voices speaking from within or-
thodox Christianity and the authority of
Scripture, rooted in history and commit-
ted to serious contextualization of the
gospel and church.
Fourth, trace some of the key themes
of personal interest through the index. For
example, note the references to trinitarian
missiology.
Fifth, dont get sidetracked with things
with which you disagree. Examine every-
thing and attempt to read through the eyes
of the writer. If what is said about mana-
gerial missiology irritates you, dont worry;
you are not alone. At the same time, lis-
ten to the challenge, for it comes from
your colleagues and friends. If you are
concerned about what should have been
said, fine. At the same time, listen to the
godly and creative voices that may offer a
healing critique to mission that flows from
the worldview of modernity and is too
dependent upon marketing techniques.
Ask the Holy Spirit to allow you to listen
and learn, even when you disagree.
Sixth, keep in mind the diversity of the
writers: ethnicity, gender, age, perspective,
formal education, experiences in life and
ministry, and style of writing. Almost half
of the writers would not consider English
their first language, and for many of them
this was their first venture into print.
Finally, read away! Stretch your mind,
your heart, and your theological and
missiological categories. Read together
and perhaps out loud with a group of re-
flective practitioners, whether younger or
older, students or those experienced in
ministry. In a spirit of receptivity, ask the
Triune God what he has to teach you
through this publication.
Metaphors That
Draw to a Close
This Invitation to Read
The Iguassu Missiological Consultation
and this book remind me of my first trip
to Singapore and a late-night visit to that
city-nations Newton Circus hawkers cen-
terthe open-air culinary feast at the in-
tersection of Scotts, Bukit Timah, and
Newton Roads. Surrounded by a dizzying
array of food booths, we were invited to
savor the unusual diversity of foods, tex-
tures, tastes (and after-tastes)Chinese,
Malay, Indian, and all of Southeast Asia.
In a similar way, Iguassu and this book
offer a feast of the globalized body of
Christ. This book also allows participants
and readers to share in the multifaceted
exchange and contribution to the mission
of the church that took place as we sat
together around the table as equal part-
ners in mission.
Likewise, Iguassu and this book offer
us the gift of a tapestry, multi-colored and
multi-textured, but all part of the same
weaving. From below, the pattern may be
confusing; but from above, one discerns
the rich integration and harmony of the
tapestry. Whats more, there are key col-
ors, fabrics, and designs. This book is com-
plex and challenging. However, the key
elements reveal that all of the writers had
a commitment to think Christianly about
their world and the diverse challenges
before us. The publication uniquely con-
tributes to the robust Evangelical missi-
ology we need for the future.
Finally, this book is like a prism refract-
ing light. The resultant colors depend on
the angle, but all come from a single beam
of light focused on the prism. In a similar
way, light emanating from Gods full rev-
elation is refracted through the prism of
the magnificent diversity of culture, lan-
guage, gender, and ministry of the writers
of this book. All of the authors share a
deep commitment to the authority of
Scripture, and all are deeply involved in
ministry, most of them in cross-cultural
service. The result is a singular sample of
Evangelical and global missiological reflec-
tion.
I close with the powerful prayer that
has come to us from the heart of Jim Engel
(Engel & Dyrness, 2000, pp. 24-25).
A Prayer for Renewal
and Restoration
Heavenly Father,
our Lord and giver of life,
forgive us for the extent to which
we have naively succumbed
to the spirit of the age,
for our preoccupation with
false measures of success,
for a sense of triumphalism
which replaces
humble dependence on you,
and for our blindness in avoiding
those parts of your Word
which do not fit neatly
into our theology.
We humbly confess our total
dependence on you
as the Lord of life.
Let us see a lost world afresh
through your eyes
and give us discernment
through your Spirit.
Share with us your priorities
and give us the courage to be
responsible stewards
of our obligation
to take the whole gospel
to the whole world.
Speak, Lord, for your servants
are listening.
To you we give all glory,
honor, and praise.
Amen.
So to our colleagues, sisters and broth-
ers in the global task, may the blessing and
empowering presence of the Sacred Three
be upon you all.
References
Engel, J. F., & Dyrness, W. A. (2000). Changing
the mind of missions: Where have we gone
wrong? Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press.
Mission leaders urge end to fighting words.
(2000, August 4 ). World Pulse, pp. 6-7.
Report and formal statement from the Con-
sultation on Mission Language and Meta-
phors held at the School of World Mission,
Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena,
California, June 1-3, 2000.
Neill, S. (1986). A history of Christian mis-
sions. New York: Penguin Books.
Nouwen, H. J. M. (1989). In the name of Jesus:
Reflections on Christian leadership. New
York: Crossroad.
William D. Taylor is Executive Director of the
WEF Missions Commission and has coordi-
nated the ministries of the MC since 1986. He
was born in Costa Rica of missionary parents
and has lived in Latin America for 30 years,
17 of them with his family as a long-term
missionary with CAM International, serving
on the faculty of the Central American Theo-
logical Seminary. Married to Yvonne, a na-
tive Texan, he has three adult children who
were born in Guatemala. He has edited In-
ternationalizing Missionary Training
(1991), Kingdom Partnerships for Synergy
in Missions (1994), and Too Valuable to
Lose: Exploring the Causes and Cures of
Missionary Attrition (1997). He co-authored
with Emilio Antonio Nuez, Crisis and Hope
in Latin America (1996), and with Steve
Hoke, Send Me! Your Journey to the Nations
(1999). He also serves as visiting faculty at
seminaries in various countries.
15
2
The
Iguassu
Affirmation
ROM IGUASSU, BRAZIL, to the missions movement
around the world, October 17, 1999:
The WEF Missions Commission has just concluded the
historic Iguassu Missiological Consultation in the city of Foz
do Iguassu, Brazil, October 10-15. With gratitude to God,
the Missions Commission leadership commends a crucial
outcome of this singular week to the mission movement
around the world, in particular the missions networks.
We are profoundly thankful to our Lord for those who
in recent decades have sustained the passion for world evan-
gelization. There are many women and men, organizations
and movements which have done all in their power to focus
our attention on the unfinished task, to understand the vast
unreached world of peoples and cities, and to underscore
the vital necessity of obedience to Christs final charge to the
apostles. For this we are grateful, and we are indebted to
them. We are also grateful to God for the growing body of
women and men who are seriously reflecting on just what it
means to do biblical missiology in this complex world. Just
as the epicenter of the global church has shifted from the
North to the South, in the same way the epicenter of creat-
ing and doing theology and missiology is changing. We re-
joice in the former shift and realize that the second one invites
us to greater missiological partnership. The Triune God has
many centers from which to work now.
As we face the unique turn of a century/millennium,
the 160 participants at the Iguassu Missiological Consulta-
tion have also sensed the need for a serious analysis of the
challenges we face in a radically changing worldin the
sociological, cultural, philosophical, economic, and spiritual
arenas. We came together to contribute to the development
F
and application of a biblical missiology
which represents with authenticity the
national and cultural diversity of Gods
people in mission. And then we came to-
gether to affirm the foundational commit-
ments we make as mission practitioners,
missiologists, and church leaders. We also
worshiped and prayed together all
through the week.
With this backdrop, we present to you
the Iguassu Affirmation, a statement of
context, declaration, and commitment as
we look to the Spirits empowering pres-
ence in our mission task, regardless of ge-
ography, culture, or ministry.
The Iguassu Affirmation emerged from
the process of the week in Brazil. A Team
of Seven was given an initial draft (based
on the plenary papers already in distribu-
tion) for discussion, and then they went
to work. The 160 participants were able
to study three drafts of the document, giv-
ing scores of serious recommendations to
the team. Friday the 15
th
found us meet-
ing for a three-hour session to finalize
changes and emerge with a strong con-
sensus of the direction of the Lord on the
Affirmation.
The Iguassu Affirmation is to be re-
ceived as a working document to stimu-
late serious discussion around the world.
We desire that it will become a point of
dialogue that will help shape both missi-
ology and strategy into the next century/
millennium. The first phase of our work
took place in Brazil, the second phase fol-
lowed the consultation, and now the third
phase beginsthe release of this major
book. We pray that this processinterna-
tional and contextualizedwill facilitate
the flow of the Iguassu Affirmation down
into our regional/national networks and
organizations, and into the grassroots life
of the churches.
This local, regional/national, and orga-
nizational contextualization invites discus-
sion, modification, and adaptation of the
document for the diverse realities we live
in mission. The invitation is to the global
missions community, and that can also
include mission societies, as well as theo-
logical and missiological training institu-
tions. We will focus on Evangelicals whose
roots are linked to the churches and
whose members share our deep passion
for serious world evangelism.
We invite each participating network
and organization to communicate to us
your discussion of this document. We re-
lease the Affirmation to you for transla-
tion into any language, and we ask that
you send us a copy for our own records,
verification, and information.
Respectfully submitted,
The Team of Seven and the
WEF Missions Commission
Executive Commission
The Affirmation team:
David Tai-Woong Lee (Korea), co-leader
Jim Stamoolis (USA), co-leader
Rose Dowsett (Scotland)
Abel Ndjerareou (Chad)
David Neff (USA)
Kang San Tan (Malaysia)
Tonica van der Meer (Brazil)
The Iguassu Affirmation
Preamble
We have convened as 160 mission prac-
titioners, missiologists, and church lead-
ers from 53 countries, under the World
Evangelical Fellowship Missions Commis-
sion in Foz do Iguassu, Brazil, on Octo-
ber 10-15, 1999 to:
1. Reflect together on the challenges
and opportunities facing world missions
at the dawn of the new millennium.
2. Review the different streams of 20
th
century Evangelical missiology and prac-
tice, especially since the 1974 Lausanne
Congress.
the iguassu affirmation 17
3. Continue developing and applying
a relevant biblical missiology which re-
flects the cultural diversity of Gods peo-
ple.
We proclaim the living Christ in a world
torn by ethnic conflicts, massive economic
disparity, natural disasters, and ecological
crises. The mission task is both assisted
and hindered by technological develop-
ments that now reach the remotest cor-
ners of the earth. The diverse religious
aspirations of people, expressed in mul-
tiple religions and spiritual experimenta-
tion, challenge the ultimate truth of the
gospel.
In the 20
th
century, missiology wit-
nessed unprecedented development. In
recent years, reflection from many parts
of the church has helped missions to con-
tinue shedding paternalistic tendencies.
Today, we continue to explore the relation-
ship between the gospel and culture,
between evangelism and social responsi-
bility, and between biblical mandates and
the social sciences. We see some interna-
tional organizationsamong them World
Evangelical Fellowship, the Lausanne
Committee for World Evangelization, and
the AD 2000 and Beyond Movementthat
have begun a promising process of part-
nership and unity.
Increased efforts at partnership have
been catalyzed by an emphasis on meth-
odologies involving measurable goals and
numerical growth. Flowing from a com-
mitment to urgent evangelization, these
methodologies have shown how our task
might be accomplished. However, these
insights must be subject to biblical prin-
ciples and growth in Christlikeness.
We rejoice in diverse missiological
voices emerging around the world, but we
confess that we have not taken them all
into our theory and practice. Old para-
digms still prevail. Participation by and
awareness of the global church, as well as
mission from people of all nations to
people of all nations, are needed for a
valid missiology in our time.
Our discussions have invited us to
fuller dependence on the Spirits empow-
ering presence in our life and ministry as
we eagerly await the glorious return of our
Lord Jesus Christ.
In the light of these realities, we make
the following declarations:
Declarations
Our faith rests on the absolute author-
ity of the God-breathed Scriptures. We are
heirs of the great Christian confessions
handed down to us. All three Persons of
the Godhead are active in Gods redeem-
ing mission. Our missiology centers on the
overarching biblical theme of Gods cre-
ation of the world, the Fathers redeem-
ing love for fallen humanity as revealed in
the incarnation, substitutionary death, and
resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
ultimately of the redemption and renewal
of the whole creation. The Holy Spirit,
promised by our Lord, is our comforter,
teacher, and source of power. It is the
Spirit who calls us into holiness and in-
tegrity. The Spirit leads the church into all
truth. The Spirit is the agent of mission,
convicting of sin, righteousness, and judg-
ment. We are Christs servants, empow-
ered and led by the Spirit, whose goal is
to glorify God.
We confess the following themes as
truths of special importance in this present
age. These themes are clearly attested to
in the whole of the Scriptures and speak
to the desire of God to provide salvation
for all people.
1. Jesus Christ is Lord of the church
and Lord of the universe.
Ultimately every knee will bow and
every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord.
The Lordship of Christ is to be proclaimed
to the whole world, inviting all to be free
from bondage to sin and the dominion of
evil in order to serve the Lord for his glory.
2. The Lord Jesus Christ is the unique
revelation of God and the only Sav-
ior of the world.
Salvation is found in Christ alone. God
witnesses to himself in creation and in
human conscience, but these witnesses
are not complete without the revelation
of God in Christ. In the face of competing
truth claims, we proclaim with humility
that Christ is the only Savior, conscious
that sin as well as cultural hindrances of-
ten mask him from those for whom he
died.
3. The good news of the salvation
made possible by the work of Jesus
Christ must be expressed in all the
languages and cultures of the
world.
We are commanded to be heralds of
the gospel to every creature so that they
can have the opportunity to confess faith
in Christ. The message must come to them
in a language they can understand and in
a form that is appropriate to their circum-
stances. Believers, led by the Holy Spirit,
are encouraged to create culturally appro-
priate forms of worship and uncover bib-
lical insights that glorify God for the
benefit of the whole church.
4. The gospel is good news and ad-
dresses all human needs.
We emphasize the holistic nature of the
gospel of Jesus Christ. Both the Old Tes-
tament and the New Testament demon-
strate Gods concern with the whole
person in the whole of society. We ac-
knowledge that material blessings come
from God, but prosperity should not be
equated with godliness.
5. Opposition to the spread of the gos-
pel is foremost a spiritual conflict
involving human sin and princi-
palities and powers opposed to the
Living God.
This conflict is manifested in different
ways, e.g., fear of spirits or indifference to
God. We recognize that the defense of the
truth of the gospel is also spiritual war-
fare. As witnesses of the gospel, we an-
nounce that Jesus Christ has power over
all powers and is able to free all who turn
to him in faith. We affirm that in the cross,
God has won the victory.
6. Suffering, persecution, and martyr-
dom are present realities for many
Christians.
We acknowledge that our obedience in
mission involves suffering and recognize
that the church is experiencing this. We
affirm our privilege and responsibility to
pray for those undergoing persecution. We
are called to share in their pain, do what
we can to relieve their sufferings, and work
for human rights and religious freedom.
7. Economic and political systems
deeply affect the spread of Gods
kingdom.
Human government is appointed by
God, but all human institutions act out of
fallenness. The Scriptures command that
Christians pray for those in authority and
work for truth and justice. Appropriate
Christian response to political and eco-
nomic systems requires the guidance of
the Holy Spirit.
8. God works in a variety of Christian
traditions and organizations, for
his glory and the salvation of the
world.
For too long believers, divided over is-
sues of church organization, order, and
doctrinesuch as the gifts and ministry
of the Holy Spirithave failed to recog-
nize each others work. We affirm, bless,
and pray for authentic Christian witness
wherever it is found.
9. To be effective witnesses of the Holy
God, we need to demonstrate per-
sonal and corporate holiness, love,
and righteousness.
We repent of hypocrisy and conformity
to the world, and we call the church to a
renewed commitment to holy living. Ho-
liness requires turning from sin, training
in righteousness, and growing in Christ-
likeness.
Commitments
We commit ourselves to continue and
deepen our reflection on the following
themes, helping one another to enrich
our understanding and practice with in-
sight from every corner of the world. Our
hearts desire is the discipling of the na-
tions through the effective, faithful com-
munication of Christ to every culture and
people.
1. Trinitarian foundation
of mission
We commit ourselves to a renewed
emphasis on God-centered missiology.
This invites a new study of the operation
of the Trinity in the redemption of the
human race and the whole of creation, as
well as to understand the particular roles
of Father, Son, and Spirit in mission to this
fallen world.
2. Biblical and theological
reflection
We confess that our biblical and theo-
logical reflection has sometimes been shal-
low and inadequate. We also confess that
we have frequently been selective in our
use of texts rather than being faithful to
the whole biblical revelation. We commit
ourselves to engage in renewed biblical
and theological studies shaped by mission,
and to pursue a missiology and practice
shaped by Gods Word, brought to life and
light by the Holy Spirit.
3. Church and mission
The church in mission is central to
Gods plan for the world. We commit our-
selves to strengthen our ecclesiology in
mission, and to encourage the global
church to become a truly missionary com-
munity in which all Christians are involved
in mission. In the face of increasing re-
sistance and opposition from political
powers, religious fundamentalism, and
secularism, we commit ourselves to en-
courage and challenge the churches to
respond with a deeper level of unity and
participation in mission.
4. Gospel and culture
The gospel is always presented and
received within a cultural context. It is
therefore essential to clarify the relation-
ship between gospel and culture, both
in theory and practice, recognizing that
there is both good and evil in all cultures.
We commit ourselves to continue to dem-
onstrate the relevance of the Christian
message to all cultures, and ensure that
missionaries learn to wrestle biblically
with the relationship between gospel and
culture. We commit ourselves to serious
study of how different cultural perspec-
tives may enrich our understanding of the
gospel, as well as how all worldviews have
to be critiqued and transformed by it.
5. Pluralism
Religious pluralism challenges us to
hold firmly to the uniqueness of Jesus
Christ as Savior even as we work for in-
creased tolerance and understanding
among religious communities. We cannot
seek harmony by relativizing the truth
claims of religions. Urbanization and radi-
cal political change have bred increased
interreligious and ethnic violence and
hostility. We commit ourselves to be agents
of reconciliation. We also commit our-
selves to proclaim the gospel of Jesus
Christ in faithfulness and loving humility.
6. Spiritual conflict
We welcome the renewed attention
given in recent decades to the biblical
theme of spiritual conflict. We rejoice that
power and authority are not ours but
Gods. At the same time, we must ensure
that the interest in spiritual warfare does
not become a substitute for dealing with
the root issues of sin, salvation, conver-
sion, and the battle for the truth. We com-
mit ourselves to increase our biblical
understanding and practice of spiritual
conflict while guarding against syncretis-
tic and unbiblical elements.
7. Strategy in mission
We are grateful for many helpful in-
sights gained from the social sciences. We
are concerned that these should be sub-
ject to the authority of Scripture. There-
fore, we call for a healthy critique of
mission theories that depend heavily on
marketing concepts and missiology by
objectives.
8. Globalized missiology
The insights of every part of the church
are needed, and challenges encountered
in every land must be addressed. Only thus
can our missiology develop the richness
and texture reflected in the Scriptures and
needed for full obedience to our risen
Lord. We commit ourselves to give voice
to all segments of the global church in
developing and implementing our missi-
ology.
9. Godly character
Biblical holiness is essential for cred-
ible Christian witness. We commit our-
selves to renewed emphasis on godly
living and servanthood, and we urge train-
ing institutions, both missionary and min-
isterial, to include substantive biblical and
practical training in Christian character
formation.
10. The cross and suffering
As our Lord called us to take up our
crosses, we remind the church of our
Lords teaching that suffering is a part of
authentic Christian life. In an increasingly
violent and unjust world with political and
economic oppression, we commit to equip
ourselves and others to suffer in mission-
ary service and to serve the suffering
church. We pursue to articulate a biblical
theology of martyrdom.
11. Christian responsibility and
the world economic order
In a world increasingly controlled by
global economic forces, Christians need
to be aware of the corrosive effects of
affluence and the destructive effects of
poverty. We must be aware of ethno-
centrism in our view of economic forces.
We commit ourselves to address the reali-
ties of world poverty and oppose policies
that serve the powerful rather than the
powerless. It is the responsibility of the
church in each place to affirm the mean-
ing and value of a people, especially where
indigenous cultures face extinction. We
call all Christians to commit themselves
to reflect Gods concern for justice and
the welfare of all peoples.
12. Christian responsibility
and the ecological crisis
The earth is the Lords, and the gospel
is good news for all creation. Christians
share in the responsibility God gave to all
humanity to care for the earth. We call on
all Christians to commit themselves to
ecological integrity in practicing respon-
sible stewardship of creation, and we en-
courage Christians in environmental care
and protection initiatives.
13. Partnership
As citizens of the kingdom of God and
members of Christs body, we commit
ourselves to renewed efforts at coopera-
tion, because it is our Lords desire that
we be one and that we work in harmony
in his service so that the world will be-
lieve. We acknowledge that our attempts
have not always been as equals. Inad-
equate theology, especially in respect to
the doctrine of the church, and the imbal-
ance of resources have made working to-
gether difficult. We pledge to find ways to
address this imbalance and to demon-
strate to the world that believers in Christ
are truly one in their service of Christ.
14. Member care
Service of the Lord in cross-cultural
environments exposes missionaries to
many stresses and criticisms. While ac-
knowledging that missionaries also share
the limitations of our common humanity
and have made errors, we affirm that they
deserve love, respect, and gratitude. Too
often, agencies, churches, and fellow
Christians have not followed biblical
guidelines in dealing with cross-cultural
workers. We commit ourselves to support
and nurture our missionary workers for
their sakes and for the gospel witness.
Pledge
We, the participants of the Iguassu
Missiological Consultation, declare our
passion as mission practitioners, missiol-
ogists, and church leaders for the urgent
evangelization of the whole world and the
discipling of the nations to the glory of
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
In all our commitments, we depend on
the Lord who empowers us by the Holy
Spirit to fulfill his mission. As Evangelicals,
we pledge to sustain our biblical heritage
in this ever-changing world. We commit
ourselves to participate actively in formu-
lating and practicing Evangelical missiol-
ogy. Indwelt by the Spirit, we purpose to
carry the radical good news of the king-
dom of God to all the world. We affirm
our commitment to love one another and
to pray for one another as we struggle to
do his will.
We rejoice in the privilege of being part
of Gods mission in proclaiming the gos-
pel of reconciliation and hope. We joyfully
look to the Lords return and passionately
yearn to see the realization of the eschato-
logical vision when people from every
nation, tribe, and language shall worship
the Lamb.
To this end may the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Spirit be glorified. Hallelu-
jah!
Amen.
23
Part 2
Establishing the
macro context
of the major issues
THIS MEATY SECTION requires careful study. Escobars
two papers and Wrights one were circulated via e-mail prior
to Iguassu, enabling participants to start reflection as they
prepared for the event, and also provide feedback to the
writers prior to the Consultation.
Escobars double challenge was to read both the global
scenario as well as current Evangelical missiology. Due to
his absence, Bonk and Steuernagel were drafted at a late
date to engage thought-provoking challenges. Hieberts pre-
sentation was directed at the delicate yet crucial issue of spiri-
tual warfare and worldview. In this section, four writers who
were present at IguassuAraujo, Lee, van der Meer, and
Roxburghwere asked later to write chapters that addressed
crucial issues.
Araujo presents a well-researched discussion of the con-
troversial issues swirling around globalization. Even as I write
these words from Malaysia, news from Melbourne, Austra-
lia, reports the organized protests against the World Eco-
nomic Forum Asia/Pacific Economic Summitsequels to the
violent protests in Seattle in late 1999 and Washington, D.C.
in early 2000. But globalization must be evaluated from a
Christian perspective, for we cannot accept uncritically the
24
dictums of the dominant global financial institutions. How
should thoughtful Christians respond to the journalist who
declares, That the world is moving towards globalization is
as inevitable as the sun rises each morning?
Wright presented a masterful exposition of the plural-
isms before ushermeneutical (Scripture), religious (Jesus),
and ethical (humanity). His consultation draft had a preg-
nant footnote on the subject of eternal destinies, which fos-
tered discussion and controversy in small groups and
hallways. Due to the complexity of this subtopic, Wrights
final chapter does not explore the options that godly
Evangelicals have taken on this theme, and it remains a fu-
ture agenda item.
One element of Escobars second paper critiqued mana-
gerial missiology, and this generated another wave of dis-
cussions. In light of these issues, Lee was asked to write his
own evaluation of contemporary Evangelical missiology, of-
fering another perspective from the Two-Thirds World.
Van der Meer focused on the church and its mission,
and Roxburgh offered another perspective on the vital sub-
ject of trinitarian missiology.
Iguassu reminded us that we live in a complex world.
Some of our colleagues serve in the context of three over-
lapping worldviews: pre-modernity, modernity, and post-
modernity. While some participants at Iguassu felt that too
much emphasis was given to post-modernity, the fact is that
this worldview has traveled at warp speed through the
world through modern media, the Internet, the arts world,
and globalizing economies. While around the world the tran-
sition from pre-modernity to modernity to post-modernity
is patchy, nevertheless it is taking place, whether we realize
it or want it.
25
3
The
global
scenario
at the turn
of the
century
Samuel
Escobar
HE END OF A CENTURY and the beginning of a new one,
which in this case is also the beginning of a new millen-
nium, lend themselves not only to an inventory of opportu-
nities and resources, but also to a balance of where things
stand at the point at which we have arrived. As I try to sketch
an outline of the way ahead for Christian mission, I am aware
that as a Christian in 1999, I have a way of looking at reality
grounded in the memory and the experience of my own
Christian generation: I stand on ground that represents the
sacrificial work of many missionary generations that have pre-
ceded us.
The balance of that missionary work has been positive,
in spite of the paradoxes of this century. Unbelievable scien-
tific and technological prowess has gone hand in hand with
the regression to refined forms of cruelty and barbarism in
totalitarian revolutions and wars. Rapid and efficient com-
munication that has turned the planet into a global village
has gone hand in hand with intolerance and tribalism that
hinder the pacific coexistence of peoples that have been
neighbors for centuries. In a relentless movement of urban-
ization, the cities with their accumulation of intellectual so-
phistication, wealth, and educational and medical services
have attracted masses; but the same greed, injustice, and
abuse that were the marks of feudal structures in the rural
world have turned the hearts of these cities into a jungle of
concrete and asphalt, where humans live in alienation and
despair. However, in the midst of these processes that re-
flect so well the fallenness of human beings, Christian mis-
sion has advanced in this century, and the balance is positive
for the cause of Gods kingdom. I feel it is only appropriate
that I try to express some convictions that come from the
T
26 establishing the macro context of the major issues
reflection about this positive balance of
the century that is coming to an end. These
are some notes of what is involved in the
way I look at the world from a missionary
stance. These are the notes from what I
might call an Evangelical outlook on mis-
sion from a Latin American missiologist.
A Translatable Gospel
I start with doxology, with thanksgiv-
ing to God for the mystery and the glory
of the gospel. The missionary facts of our
time make me pause in wonder. Jesus
Christ, Son incarnate of God, is the core
of the gospel that as a potent seed has
flourished in a thousand different plants.
We can name a place and a time on earth
in which Jesus lived and taught. In other
words, we can place him in a particular
culture at a particular moment in history.
The Word became flesh and lived for a
while among us in Palestine during the
first century of our era. After that, the story
of Jesus has moved from culture to cul-
ture, from nation to nation, from people
to people. And something strange and
paradoxical has taken place. Though this
Jesus was a peasant from Palestine, every-
where he has been received, loved, and
adored, and people in hundreds of cul-
tures and languages have come to see the
glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
Moreover, they have come to feel that he
is theirs, so that they say, Jesus is one
of ours. At this end of the century, the
global church stands closer than ever to
that vision of the seer in Revelation: A
great multitude that no one could count,
from every nation, tribe, people, and lan-
guage, standing before the throne and in
front of the Lamb (Rev. 7:9).
I cannot but wonder in amazement at
the fact that the message of Jesus Christ is
translatable. This means that the gospel
dignifies every culture as a valid and ac-
ceptable vehicle for Gods revelation. Con-
versely, this also relativizes every culture;
there is no sacred culture or language
that may be considered as the only vehicle
that God might use. Not even Hebrew or
Aramaic is sacred, because the original
documents of the gospel that we possess
are already a translation from those lan-
guages to that form of popular Greek that
was the lingua franca of the first century,
the koin.
1
Thus it is clear that the God
who revealed himself in Jesus Christ
intended his revelation to reach all of
humankind, as Jesus stated it so clearly
in the Great Commission, and Paul ex-
pressed it in sweeping statements:
God our Savior, who wants all men to
be saved and to come to a knowledge of
the truth (1 Tim. 2:3-4).
My Evangelical outlook starts with com-
mitment to the authority of Gods Word,
and in the contemporary situation I have
become aware that understanding of
Gods Word requires cultural awareness.
The new global dimension of Christianity
has brought this new sensitivity to the fact
that the text of Scripture can only be un-
derstood adequately within its own con-
text, and that the understanding and
application of its eternal message demand
awareness of our own cultural context.
From a global Evangelical dialogue about
this issue after Lausanne came this illumi-
nating statement: Todays readers cannot
come to the text in a personal vacuum and
should not try to. Instead they should
come with an awareness of concerns stem-
ming from their cultural background, per-
sonal situation, and responsibility to
others. These concerns will influence the
questions which are put to the Scriptures.
What is received back, however, will not
1
For a fascinating development of the theological consequences of these facts, see Walls
(1996) and Sanneh (1989).
the global scenario at the turn of the century 27
be answers only, but more questions. As
we address Scripture, Scripture addresses
us. We find that our culturally conditioned
presuppositions are being challenged and
our questions corrected. In fact, we are
compelled to reformulate our previous
questions and to ask fresh ones. So the
living interaction proceeds (Willowbank
Report, 1996, p. 84).
An adequate training provides the
Bible scholar with a working knowledge
of the cultural world of the Middle East
and the Mediterranean basin during the
time span covered by the Old and New
Testaments. It also must provide a high
degree of cultural awareness to the evan-
gelist or teacher in the church, who must
move meaningfully from the questions of
our post-modern culture to the answers
that the gospel has for them.
A Global Church
Work in WEF activities and in several
of the Evangelical organizations related to
it that provide its capable international
leadership have made me aware of the
reality of a global church. At this end of a
century, facilities for travel, the flow of
information at a global scale through the
media, as well as colossal migration move-
ments caused by economic change allow
Christians and churches in the West and
everywhere else to see and experience the
amazingly rich and diverse varieties of ex-
pression of the Christian faith. I have met
with amazement wandering prophets of
independent African churches, native sto-
rytellers from Latin American Pentecostal
Movements, tireless missionary entrepre-
neurs spreading through the world from
their Korean homeland, Orthodox priests
regaining political weight in the lands
which used to be part of the Soviet Em-
pire. Their images fill the pages of our
missionary books and the screens of our
VCRs. They are also a living testimony to
the remarkable variety of human cultures
and the uniqueness of the gospel of Jesus
Christ, which is the one seed of a thou-
sand different plants.
Migration patterns and refugee move-
ments have also brought the great variety
of cultures from this planet, as well as the
different forms that the Christian church
has taken among them to Europe, the
United States, and Canada. At the heart
of European and North American cities,
there are now growing pockets of Third
World cultures, as well as varied expres-
sions of the global church. From the mis-
sionary perspective, indigenous churches
from faraway places have become sister
churches down the street, and growing
Muslim communities have become a new
evangelistic challenge that put to the test
the quality of our Christian lives, as well
as our ability to communicate the gospel.
In the case of the United States, while
at the beginning of this century many
churches and denominations were com-
mitted to the task of Americanizing the
immigrants, today the same churches have
to grapple with multiculturalism.
This phenomenon also has a conse-
quence for Christians in these Western
nations, because the form of Christianity
that has grown more in the Southern
hemisphere and has come now to the
great Western cities could be described as
a popular form of both Catholicism and
Protestantism that we might well call
grassroots Christianity. It is marked by
the culture of poverty: an oral liturgy, nar-
rative preaching, uninhibited emotional-
ism, maximum participation in prayer and
worship, dreams and visions, faith heal-
ing, and an intense search for community
and belonging. Sensitivity to this form of
Christianity is especially necessary for
Evangelical leaders who have always em-
phasized the clear and correct intellectual
expression of Christian truth and the ra-
tionality of the Christian faith.
A New Balance
of Christian Presence
Through the reality of the global
church, we have also become aware of the
new balance of numerical and spiritual
strength in the Christian world.
2
As we
look at the religious map of the world to-
day, we find a marked contrast between
the situation at the beginning of this cen-
tury and the present situation. Scottish
missiologist Andrew Walls has described
it as a massive southward shift of the cen-
ter of gravity of the Christian world. He
understands the history of Christian mis-
sionand of the church, in factas a se-
quence of phases, each one of which
represents the embodiment of Christian-
ity in a major culture area, and the move-
ment forward through transcultural
mission in such a way that when that ma-
jor culture declines, Christianity contin-
ues to flourish, now in a different setting.
In our times, Walls (1996, p. 22) reminds
us, the recession of Christianity among
the European peoples appears to be con-
tinuing. And yet we seem to stand at the
threshold of a new age of Christianity, one
in which its main base will be in the South-
ern continents, and where its dominant
expressions will be filtered through the
culture of those countries. Once again,
Christianity has been saved for the world
by its diffusion across cultural lines.
The new situation has been hailed by
a Swiss missiologist who was a missionary
in Africa as the coming of the Third
Church (Bhlmann, 1986, p. 6). He
points to the fact that the first thousand
years of church history were under the
aegis of the Eastern Church in the eastern
half of the Roman Empire, and the sec-
ond millennium the leading church was
the Western Church in the other half.
Those familiar with the history of theol-
ogy also perceive to what degree theologi-
cal themes, language, and categories
reflected this historical situation. Bhl-
mann (1986, p. 6) goes on to say, Now
the Third Millennium will evidently stand
under the leadership of the Third Church,
the Southern Church. I am convinced that
the most important drives and inspirations
for the whole church in the future will
come from the Third Church.
Drive and inspiration to move forward
and take the gospel of Jesus Christ to the
ends of the earth, crossing all kinds of
geographical or cultural barriers, are the
work of the Holy Spirit. There is an ele-
ment of mystery when the dynamism of
mission does not come from above, from
the expansive power of a superior civili-
zation, but from below, from the little
ones, those that do not have abundance
of material, financial, or technical re-
sources, but are open to the prompting
of the Spirit. It may not be entirely coinci-
dental that the form of Christianity that
has grown more during this century, es-
pecially among the poor urban masses, is
that which emphasizes the presence and
power of the Holy Spirit. It was by 1912
that Roland Allen first coined the expres-
sion the spontaneous expansion of the
church, and in this year 1999 we can
measure the incredible extent to which a
Christian testimony among the masses of
this planet has been the result of such
spontaneous expansion, especially in
China, Africa, and Latin America. In many
cases, such expansion was only possible
when indigenous Christians became free
from the stifling control of foreign mis-
sionary agencies.
Another aspect of this reality is that
while many non-Western cultures are very
receptive to the gospel of Jesus Christ,
2
Helpful data on which many statements of this paper are based can be found in Myers
(1996).
paradoxically it is within the Western cul-
ture that we find less receptivity to it.
Lesslie Newbigin (1986, p. 3), who was a
missionary in India for 30 years and later
on went back to minister among working
class people in England, wrote, The most
widespread, powerful, and persuasive
among contemporary cultures modern
Western culture more than almost any
other is proving resistant to the gospel.
Patterns of church growth prove the va-
lidity of this observation in the case of
North America and Europe today. Several
of the old mainline denominations show
decline and fatigue with significant nu-
merical losses. We could well ask the ques-
tion if here we are confronted with the
resistance of Western culture or with the
impotence of the Western churches. In
many cases, ethnic churches of the same
denominations are growing vigorously.
This constitutes a tough challenge for part-
nership in mission.
Precisely at the point in which the in-
fluence of Christianity declines in the
West, which turns into a hard mission field
because its culture resists the gospel, the
new global order has brought the so-called
Third World into the heart of North
America, Europe, and Japan. Within that
environment, Christians from old and new
churches are called to new partnerships.
For the old traditional denominations,
partnership with the new immigrant
churches will bring the need for serious
self-appraisal. This is not easy for respect-
able, middle class, Evangelical churches
that have a more steady, institutionalized,
well-mannered, predictable kind of
church. Mission at our doorstep is the
new training ground for the new partner-
ships that will also carry on mission
around the world. Such partnerships will
have as an aim the proposal advanced by
the Lausanne Covenant: Missionaries
should flow ever more freely from and to
all six continents in a spirit of humble ser-
vice (LC, par. 9).
These are some of the missionary re-
alities of today, which allow us to believe
that the balance of mission in this century
has been positive. It has been the result
of Gods initiative revealed in his Word,
and human obedience that responded to
that Word. They are the ground from
which we peer into the future in an effort
to figure out the special challenges to mis-
sionary obedience in the coming century.
Globalization
and Contextualization
Empires have always been the
sociohistorical frame for the development
of Christian mission, as the Pax Romana
was in the first century, the Pax Hispanica
in the 16
th
, or the Pax Britannica in the
19
th
. Since 1955,
3
the way in which we
used to look at the world was influenced
by the idea of three worlds: the Western
capitalist world, the socialist world, and
the emerging Third World of new na-
tions. In many ways, this perspective af-
fected missionary concepts and practices.
Well into the 1980s, U.S. President Ronald
Reagan referred to the Soviet Union as the
evil empire. With the collapse of the So-
viet empire, bipolar thinking has become
obsolete, and there is only one world
power with several poles connected to it.
There is a growing awareness that the
most recent form of capitalism is now
embracing all nations in the planet
through a sophisticated system of commu-
nication that takes the latest aspects of
Western culture as merchandise to the
most remote corners of the world. It is
every day more and more evident, said
Jacques Attali (1991, pp. 8-9), that the
3
That year during the Bandung conference of non-aligned nations, a French journalist
coined the expression Third World.
central organizing principle of the future,
whatever happens at the margins, will be
economic. This will become increasingly
apparent as we approach the year 2000.
The rule of military might that character-
ized the Cold War is being replaced by the
reign of the market. Like an irresistible
wave, the market is the main force behind
this process of globalization. The market
is even giving a new language to the way
some Christians in the North speak about
the church: marketing your church.
Howard Snyder (1995, p. 46) has very
aptly summarized this trend: Global in-
tegration and networking are now the
driving force in business and economics.
The world is becoming one vast market-
place, not a patchwork of local markets.
Economic integration on a world scale is
reshaping society in a process that will
reach well into the 21
st
century. A key
question to be asked is, Should Christian
mission simply ride on the crest of this
wave?
Missiologists who have reflected about
this globalization process point to its am-
biguities. Schreiter (1997, p. 9), for in-
stance, analyzes the modern values of
innovation, efficiency, and technical ra-
tionality that drive the global systems. But
he states that though innovation connotes
improvement, without a clear goal [it]
becomes change for its own sake, or
change to create new markets or to stimu-
late desire. Think for a moment on how
this kind of innovation may create havoc
for missionary organizations that make
computer technologies indispensable for
their task. In the same way, Efficiency can
mean less drudgery; but efficiency with-
out effectiveness can become narrow and
abstract, even deadly. Technical rational-
ity has the advantage of providing clear
purpose and procedure, but it can become
profoundly dehumanizing (Schreiter,
1997, p. 9). I have observed this in mis-
sionary life: ideological pressure to make
numerical growth the only standard of
correct missionary practice is destroying
the ability of churches to develop pasto-
ral responses to sweeping cultural trans-
formations. My attention has also been
called to another fact. Instant global
communication through the Internet pro-
vides sometimes a selfish way of escape
to a fictitious global village, for mission-
aries who refuse to work in the difficult
task of contributing to build up fellowship
with those that live around them day after
day.
If we trace back the globalization
movement, we may connect it with the ex-
pansion of Europe that took place after
Columbus came to the American conti-
nent in 1492. It accelerated in the 19
th
century, and in both cases Christian mis-
sionary work accompanied it. In the 16
th
century, Iberian Catholic mission trans-
ported to the Americas, some parts of
Africa, and the Philippines the feudal
medieval social and economic order that
was disappearing in Europe. Two centu-
ries later, on the wake of British imperial-
ism and U.S. manifest destiny advance,
Protestant missions had a modernizing
component by their insistence on Bible
translation, literacy, leadership training for
the laity, and also by their use of modern
medicine and the communication of ba-
sic technology. Aspects of globalization
such as efficient communication at a glo-
bal level or facilities for exchange within
an increasingly connected economic sys-
tem could be neutral factors from which
Christian mission may benefit. Therefore,
it becomes more difficult to review criti-
cally the past and present associations of
mission to globalization.
The culture of globalization as it has
been pointed out creates attitudes and a
mental frame that may be the opposite of
what the gospel teaches about human life
under Gods design. If mission simply
rides on the crest of the globalization
wave, it might end by changing the very
nature of the gospel. Coming from the
experience of evangelistic movements that
wanted to pattern their missionary activ-
ity according to biblical standards, in 1974
at Lausanne, Ren Padilla (1985, pp. 16-
17, notes) criticized the total identification
of modern Western values (the American
way of life) and the gospel that was propa-
gated in the name of Christian mission.
He called it culture Christianity and com-
mented: In order to gain the greatest
possible number of followers, it is not
enough for culture Christianity to turn
the gospel into a product; it also has to
distribute it among the greatest number
of consumers of religion. For this the 20
th
century has provided it with the perfect
tooltechnology. The strategy for the
evangelization of the world thus becomes
a question of mathematical calculation.
The criticism is still valid today and a
good warning against contemporary
trends. Let me give an example. Precisely
at the point in which religiosity has re-
turned to be a mark of our post-modern
culture, organizations in the U.S. have
turned prayer for mission into an indus-
try in which teachings and methodologies
are packaged and marketed. The quanti-
fying rationality of American technologi-
cal culture has been uncritically applied
even to the understanding of demonic
activity. Nations that are at odds with the
foreign policies of the United States have
been represented in maps as windows
in which we are told that through spiri-
tual mapping it is possible to detect a more
intense demonic activity than in other
parts of the earth. Without any care for
theological consistency, the warlike lan-
guage of the Old Testament permeates lit-
urgy and worship to an intolerable degree.
In tension with the globalization pro-
cess, we have the rise and expansion of a
movement that seeks to affirm local cul-
tures in their search for autonomy and full
expression. This may be described as a
contextualization movement, and Chris-
tian mission has also played an important
part in it. Through Bible translation, Prot-
estant missions have contributed to the
preservation, recognition, and evaluation
of native tongues and cultures. The his-
torical significance of this movement has
been the subject of research and writing
by African scholar Lamin Sanneh (1989,
p. 2). His thesis is that particular Chris-
tian translation projects have helped to
create an overarching series of cultural
experiences with hitherto obscure cultural
systems being thrust into the general
stream of universal history. Conversely,
Bible translation into the vernacular has
been a decisive factor in the strengthen-
ing of a sense of identity and dignity of
peoples and nations, thus preparing them
to struggle against colonialism. On the
basis of his research in Africa, Sanneh
(1989, p. 138) says, When we look at
the situation, we are confronted with the
paradox of the missionary agency promot-
ing the vernacular and thus inspiring
indigenous confidence at a time when co-
lonialism was demanding paternal over-
lordship.
The great challenge to Christian mis-
sion at this point is for missionaries to be
messengers of Jesus Christ and not just
harbingers of the new globalization pro-
cess. The biblical perspective on mission
has a global vision and a global compo-
nent that comes from faith in God the cre-
ator and his intention to bless all of
humankind through the instruments that
he chooses. The contemporary globaliza-
tion process has to be evaluated from that
biblical perspective. Missionaries will be
caught in the tension between globaliza-
tion and contextualization, and they also
have to avoid a provincialist attitude that
exaggerates contextualization to the det-
riment of a biblical global awareness.
The Growth of Poverty
and Inequality
The economic side of the globalization
process has accentuated social disparities
in the world. On the one hand, it has gen-
erated new wealth and unprecedented
comfort, placing the most sophisticated
technologies within the reach of the aver-
age citizen in the rich nations and of the
elites in the poor nations. On the other
hand, figures indicate that a larger pro-
portion of people are being driven into
extreme forms of poverty. According to
Schreiter (1997, p. 7), This is caused par-
tially by global capitalisms quest for short-
term profit, a quest that precludes long-
term commitment to a people and a place;
and partially by the destruction of tradi-
tional and small-scale societies and econo-
mies by the centrality of the market.
This process has brought uncertainty,
suffering, and decline in the quality of life
for people whose welfare depends on pub-
lic institutions, such as older and retired
people, children, and poor students. Chris-
tian missionaries become conversant with
the subject because of their firsthand ex-
perience with the victims of this process.
Long-term Christian endeavors such as theo-
logical education and institutional develop-
ment necessary for the fulfillment of the
churchs mission have been affected by the
collapse of financial supporting structures
in some Latin American nations, due to grow-
ing unemployment brought by privatization
of health, social security, and education.
An analyst of the scene in the U.S. has
stressed the social transformation that is
taking place in North America. Peter
Drucker (1994) describes this as the post-
capitalist society in which knowledge
workers are replacing industrial workers.
He stresses the fact that this shift to knowl-
edge-based work brings enormous social
challenges that will transform the lives of
peoplefor instance, by the disappear-
ance of old communities, such as family,
village, and parish. For Drucker, neither
government nor the employing organiza-
tions, the classic two sectors that hold
power in post-capitalist America, are able
to cope with the effects of this massive
social change, what he calls social tasks
of the knowledge society. These tasks in-
clude education and health care; the ano-
mies and diseases of a developed and,
especially, a rich society, such as alcohol
and drug abuse; or the problems of incom-
petence and irresponsibility such as those
of the underclass in the American city.
Drucker places the agenda of assum-
ing those tasks in the hands of what he
calls the third sector in U.S. society,
which is made up of churches and of a
myriad of voluntary organizations that he
calls parachurches, because they have
modeled themselves following the non-
profit pattern provided by the churches.
He assigns to this social sector two re-
sponsibilities. One is to create human
health and well-being, and the other is
to create citizenship. Of course, a pre-
supposition behind Druckers scheme is
the tremendous volunteerism that char-
acterizes American society, and which has
definitely Protestant roots, though its con-
temporary manifestations may be secular
in outlook and intention. His formula,
however, may not work in societies that
have totally different structures, world-
views, and attitudes.
From the perspective of mission, par-
ticularly in the Evangelical world, we have
lately observed the mushrooming of ho-
listic mission projects, in which a social
component becomes indispensable.
4
In
4
Agencies such as World Vision, MAP, Food for the Hungry, Habitat for Humanity, MEDA, and
World Concern have grown significantly in recent years. Several volumes in the series Cases in
Holistic Ministry from MARC (Monrovia, California) provide a helpful overview.
Latin America, for instance, the number
of street children who are victims of all
forms of exploitation is the result of fam-
ily disintegration, loss of basic Christian
values, and growing poverty. A good num-
ber of missionary projects have developed
as a response, and there is now a network
trying to give a measure of coordination
to them. Services to the material needs of
people are in some places the only way
through which missionaries can obtain a
visa to enter a country. Mission projects
of this kind are not just the result of a new
awareness among Christians about a bib-
lically based social responsibility. They are
also the inevitable response to worsening
social conditions that have created many
victims, becoming a new challenge to
Christian compassion.
It will be a fact, however, that in the
coming century Christian compassion will
be the only hope of survival for victims of
the global economic process. The chal-
lenge for missionaries will be how to avoid
the pitfalls of missionary paternalism on
the one hand and the failed secular wel-
fare system on the other. Only the redemp-
tive power of the gospel transforms people
in such a way that it enables them to over-
come the dire consequences of poverty.
Sociological studies of Christianity in the
1960s and 70s were usually hostile against
churches. The scenario has changed to-
day. As social planners and city govern-
ments acknowledge the problems
generated by the current economic sys-
tem, sociologists in places as distant as the
city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Staf-
ford, 1999), the urban world of Brazil
(Mariz, 1994), South Korea, or South Af-
rica (Martin, 1990)
5
have come to see
churches as the source of hope from which
the urban poor gain strength, courage,
and a language to cope with poverty. Just
as in New Testament times, even among
the poorest the gospel brings a measure
of prosperity. This prosperity is totally dif-
ferent from the kind of blessed consum-
erism known as prosperity theology,
which is being propagated from the United
States, Germany, and South Africa. One of
the main differences is that Christian pros-
perity goes always hand in hand with ethi-
cal responsibility and with an intentional
solidarity: He who has been stealing must
steal no longer, but must work doing
something useful with his own hands, that
he may have something to share with those
in need (Eph. 4:28).
There is a related factor that seems a
paradox from a purely human perspective.
It is precisely among the poor where we
find people open to the gospel and en-
thusiastic about their faith. Churches are
growing with incredible vitality in this
world of poverty, while churches in other
segments of society tend to decline. In
Asia, Africa, and Latin America, Evangeli-
cals have found receptive hearts among
the millions who have moved from rural
areas to the cities. Even in North America
and Europe, popular forms of Protestant-
ism are growing. These churches of the
poor have learned to respond to the ur-
ban challenge; they speak the language of
the masses and offer fellowship in the
impersonal city. The urban frontier pre-
sents a challenge for holistic witness.
Neighborhood associations, the mass me-
dia, schools, medical services, and the war
on drugs await the presence of Christians
with a sense of mission.
Moreover, missionary initiative ex-
pressed in numbers of persons volunteer-
ing for missionary work seems to be
passing from North to South at a time
5
Martin (1990) uses studies about Pentecostal growth in South Africa and South Korea for
comparison with his massive study about Latin America.
when the South is increasingly poor.
Within this context of poverty, two mod-
els of mission activity have developed that
provide keys for the future. In the coop-
erative model, churches from rich nations
add their material resources to the human
resources of the churches in poor nations
in order to work in a third area. Some spe-
cialized Evangelical organizations or min-
istries such as YWAM, OM, and IFES have
experience with this model, forming in-
ternational teams to carry on transcultural
mission in very different settings. Several
other missionary organizations are mov-
ing in this direction, but the model poses
some practical questions for which there
are no easy answers, one of them being
the raising of support for non-Western
participants. The traditional Catholic mis-
sionary orders such as Franciscans or Je-
suits, which are supranational, provide the
oldest and more developed example, fa-
cilitated by the vows of poverty, celibacy,
and obedience. However, they presuppose
concepts of missionary vocation, church
order, and ministry which are totally dif-
ferent from the Evangelical ones.
The migration model has also func-
tioned through the centuries. Migrants
from poor countries who move in search
of economic survival carry the Christian
message and missionary initiative with
them. Moravians from Curazao moved to
Holland; Jamaican Baptists emigrated to
England; Filipino Christian women go to
Muslim countries; Haitian believers went
to Canada; and Latin American Evangeli-
cals are going to Japan, Australia, and the
United States. This missionary presence
and activity has been significant, though
it seldom gets to the records of formal in-
stitutional missionary activity. Some de-
nominational mission agencies as well as
faith missions are trying to set up connec-
tions that will allow them to serve within
the frame of this migration movement.
They will need to exercise much care to
avoid stifling the lay initiative and sponta-
neity that characterize it.
The End
of Christendom
I would venture to say that the unbal-
anced economic growth that has widened
the gap between rich and poor may well
be an evidence of the degree to which
Western culture has lost the veneer of
Christian values that it used to keep. The
position of the church in society evolved
from the time that Emperor Constantine
made Christianity official: The church was
blended into a half-civil, half-religious so-
ciety, Christendom. It has covered a whole
civilization with its authority, inspired a
politic, and had become an essentially
Western reality (Mehl, 1970, p. 67).
Christendom presupposed the predomi-
nance of Christianity in Western societies
and a certain degree of influence of Chris-
tian ideas and principles on the social life
of nations and on their international poli-
cies. However, it is important to remem-
ber what historian Latourette (1948, p. 8)
said: No civilization has ever incorporated
the ideals of Christ. Today the influence
of Christianity has declined, and not even
lip service is paid to elements such as com-
passion and fairness in the national or
international policies of the rich and de-
veloped nations where Christianity still
may be an established religion.
In the post-Christendom situation,
Christians cannot expect society to facili-
tate through social mechanisms the kind
of life that abides by the qualities of
Christian ethics. Legislation in Western
countries of Europe or North America con-
tinues to lose Christian values. Today the
Christian stance in the West has to become
a missionary stance in which the quality
of Christian life goes against the stream
to the point that to be a Christian is equiva-
lent to being a resident alien
6
(Hauerwas
& Willimon, 1989). The same qualities
that were required of the pioneers that
went to plant Christianity in mission fields
have come to be required for the Chris-
tian who stays at home in a Western na-
tion and wants to be a faithful witness of
Jesus Christ. Missionaries have learned
and have been inspired by the way in
which Christians live their lives in the hos-
tile environment where they are a tiny
minority. Western Christians can learn
much from Christians in situations of mi-
nority and hostility, where every day they
practice an alternative lifestyle.
Within this situation, missionaries
will have to expect less and less in terms
of support or protection from their gov-
ernments as they travel and engage in
mission. At the same time, it becomes nec-
essary for missionaries to go back to the
fundamentals of the gospel and to disen-
gage themselves from the Western cultural
trappings that consciously or uncon-
sciously characterized mission during the
imperial era in the 19
th
and early 20
th
cen-
turies. The Lausanne Covenant expresses
this conviction forcefully when it says:
The gospel does not presuppose the su-
periority of any culture to another but
evaluates all cultures according to its own
criteria of truth and righteousness, and
insists on moral absolutes in every culture.
Missions have all too frequently exported
with the gospel an alien culture, and
churches have sometimes been in bond-
age to culture rather than to the Scripture.
Christs evangelists must humbly seek to
empty themselves of all but their personal
authenticity in order to become the ser-
vants of others, and churches must seek
to transform and enrich culture, all for the
glory of God (LC, par. 10).
Movements that minister among young
people and students have been more open
to take risks, creating models of sensitive
multicultural missionary teams. Partici-
pants in them have been able to look at
their own culture from a critical distance.
This has been facilitated also by the mo-
bility and simple lifestyle of the teams.
Through experience and reflection in light
of Gods Word, this has been an impor-
tant training ground for mission. I believe
that this type of experience gives partici-
pants a taste of some of the positive char-
acteristics of the traditional monastic
orders that have remained in the Catholic
church as instruments for mission across
cultural and social frontiers. Evangelical
movements could have a systematic ex-
change of experiences along these lines.
Much could be gained from the experi-
ence of movements such as Operation
Mobilization, Mennonite Central Commit-
tee, YWAM, and IFES.
A Post-Modern Culture
Not only Christianity has lost a grip on
contemporary Western societies. The re-
jection of Christian values could be un-
derstood within the larger frame of a
rejection of ideologies and worldviews
that had been shaped by the ideas of the
Enlightenment, what is usually known as
modernity. Now we see in Europe and
North America the rise of a culture and
attitudes that might be described as post-
modern, because they express a revolt
against some of the key points of moder-
nity. Thus we have the predominance of
feeling and the revolt against reason, the
revival of paganism in elements such as
the cult of the body, the search for ever
more sophisticated forms of pleasure, and
the ritualization of life. Sports and popu-
lar artistic shows take the shape of reli-
6
This is the title of a very helpful book that deals with the issue in the United States context.
gious celebration and substitute religious
services to provide relief from the drudg-
ery of routine work and duty.
An important aspect of post-modernity
is the glorification of the body. Post-mod-
ern culture depicts the body in all forms
and shapes and offers thousands of prod-
ucts to beautify, perfume, modify, improve,
and perfect the body, even to the point of
promising ways to overcome the inroads
of natural decay. There are products, meth-
ods, and stimuli for enhancing physical
pleasure in all its forms. This search for
pleasure has become a mark of contem-
porary life that, coupled with the hope-
lessness brought by the collapse of
ideologies, becomes pure and simple he-
donism. Globalization through communi-
cations generates another imbalance here.
The media portray this hedonistic way of
life and thought and propagate it across
the globe. Incitement to expensive plea-
sure fills the screens of TV sets in poor
societies, and young people specially crave
the symbols and instruments of a sophis-
ticated hedonistic West, while not having
met some of the basic necessities of their
own material life, such as adequate hous-
ing and running water.
Another important mark of modernity
was that its myths provided hope and a
sense of direction to the masses. Some of
us remember well how the Marxist dream
of a classless utopia fostered political mili-
tancy in several generations of students
that were ready to give their lives for the
cause of the proletariat. When some of us
attended high school, we were required
to memorize the political liberal dis-
courses of the French Revolution and the
dreams of unlimited progress. Later on
came Marxism, and the words of Argen-
tinian medical doctor Che Guevara
painted in the walls of the University of
Cordoba in Argentina come to mind as an
illustration: What does the sacrifice of a
man or a nation matter if what is at stake
is the destiny of humankind? A mark of
post-modernity is precisely the loss of
those dreams. No one has a clue to the
direction of history nowadays, and it does
not matter anymore. For post-modern
generations of students, the philosophy
of life may be embodied in those words
that Paul quotes from Isaiah to describe
the materialism of his own day: Let us
eat and drink for tomorrow we die (1 Cor.
15:32).
Such materialism lies behind the atti-
tude that turns consumption into the main
determinant value of the average citizen
in the developed world. The incredible
abundance of consumer goods generated
by modern economy is met by the passion
for buying and using, the ideology of con-
sumerism. The great shopping malls that
are open seven days a week have become
the new temples of a post-modern reli-
gion, and it is not difficult to detect the
vacuum in the lives of its worshipers.
Jacques Attali (1991, p. 5) describes them
as modern nomads with their Walkmans,
laptops, and cellular phones that will
roam the planet seeking ways to use their
free time, shopping for information, sen-
sations, and goods only they can afford,
while yearning for human fellowship and
the certitudes of home and community
that no longer exist because their func-
tions have become obsolete.
Statements like this from secular
sources about the human condition in the
post-modern culture come close to the
theological description of the symptoms
of the fallen condition of human beings.
Post-modern literature in both North and
South evidences the cynicism and bitter
disillusion brought by the end of modern
myths and ideologies. This is the condi-
tion of the unreached peoples of afflu-
ent post-modern societies, which are also
a challenge to Christian compassion.
Prayer is required here, along the lines of
what Jesus taught us when he looked at
the harassed and helpless masses of his
day (Matt. 9:35-38). Compassion and
prayer are needed, more than a kind of
triumphalistic apologetics that seems to
be saying, I told you so, from the dis-
tance of a self-righteous aloofness. Mis-
sionary obedience at this frontier is
mandatory for Evangelical churches and
is as urgent as missionary obedience to
go to unreached peoples in exotic
jungles or remote rural areas.
It is also important to reconsider the
lifestyle of Jesus himself. Maybe our im-
ages of him and of what the Christian life
is have been conditioned by the rational-
ism of modernity. We have made him look
more as a somber and serious professor
of theology than as a popular teacher and
storyteller who was committed to his
Fathers will but also able to enjoy cre-
ation, human friendship, good meals, and
playing children. In contrast with the dark-
ness of deconstruction and hopelessness
that permeates what media moguls and
intellectuals try to sell to young people
around the world, how important it is to
have in every level of society Christian fel-
lowships that are communities of faith,
love, and hope, able to express uninhibit-
edly the joy of salvation and new life.
7
Those that go to work as missionaries
among the poor confess that many times
they receive back the gift of joy from Chris-
tians who have an abundance of it in the
midst of dire poverty and persecution.
A New Religiosity
Modernity in both its liberal as well as
its Marxist versions operated with the en-
lightened presupposition that religion
was in the process of waning away. At this
end of the century, however, we find our-
selves in a more religious world. This
trend started in the 1960s and surprised
alert missionaries, especially on the uni-
versity campuses around the world. Dur-
ing the first part of the century, Christian
thinkers were confronted in cultural
circles by a hostile rationalism nourished
by the three masters of suspicion: Marx,
Nietzsche, and Freud. From the perspec-
tive of Christian mission, the return of an
attitude of openness to the sacred and the
mysterious looked at first sight as a sign
of improvement. Soon it became evident
that Christians were being confronted with
a new and more subtle challenge. Our
apologetics needed serious refurbishing,
and the plausibility, authenticity, and qual-
ity of our faith were now being questioned
from a different angle.
As a student evangelist on campuses
of different parts of the world, already in
the late 70s I had a chance to lecture or
to dialogue with students who showed this
new openness to the religious. In many
cases, it allowed Christians to demonstrate
in the open air a freer and uninhibited
expression of Christian faith through
prayer, song, and drama. I found myself
engaged in dialogues with people whose
language was strangely similar to the lan-
guage of some forms of evangelicalism: joy
in the heart, a feeling of self-realization, a
sense of peace and harmony, a feeling of
goodwill towards all human beings, in-
cluding animals and planet earth. How-
ever, when I pushed some specific issues
such as suffering, death, compassion, fi-
nal hope, failure, and sin, this new reli-
gious mood became hollow and empty.
And when I talked of the cross, evil, sin,
redemption, and Christ, I could see hos-
tility developing against what was consid-
ered my exclusivism and intolerance.
The new attitude towards religion and
the proliferation of religious practices has
to be understood as part of the revolt
7
For a well-informed and theologically based book on discipleship on North American cam-
puses along these lines, see Garber (1996).
against modernity. The modern ideologies
of indefinite progress and social utopia
were actually myths that attracted and
mobilized masses for action. Their failure
and collapse have brought awareness of a
vacuum and disillusionment about the
ability of human reason to give meaning
to life and provide answers for deep exis-
tential questions. This is at the root of the
search for alternatives, for a contact with
the occult, for an ability to handle mys-
tery, for a connection with extra-rational
forces that may influence the course of
human events, both in individual lives as
well as in communities and nations.
It is helpful to remember that in the
days of the New Testament, the message
of Jesus Christ confronted not only the
challenges of Greek philosophy and Ro-
man politics, but also the questions that
came from the mystery religions that per-
vaded especially the ideas and practices
of popular culture. Mystery religions in the
first century claimed to help people with
their daily problems, to give them immor-
tality, and to enable them to share their
lives with the god. They promised cleans-
ing to deal with guilt, security to face fear
of evil, power over Fate, union with gods
through orgiastic ecstasy, and immortal-
ity (Green, 1970). The way in which the
Apostolic message and practice developed
in the New Testament was the response
to these needs of the human heart, stem-
ming from the basic fact of Jesus Christ.
8
Missionaries today are being driven to
restudy the New Testament teaching about
religiosity, as well as about the presence
and power of the Holy Spirit. Communi-
cation technology and techniques, as well
as an intellectually reasonable faith, are
not enough. Spiritual power and disci-
plines such as prayer, Bible meditation,
and fasting are necessary for mission
across this new religious frontier. Evan-
gelicals must be open to the ministry of
persons who are gifted to minister in these
areas. On the other hand, the Apostle Paul,
writing to the Corinthians, recognized also
that there could be worldliness, abuses,
and manipulation even within a context
of spiritual gifts. Eastern European theo-
logian Peter Kuzmic has said, Charisma
without character leads to catastrophe.
This warning has a particular relevance
as we consider the phenomenon of new
megachurches that have developed in the
most recent decades. Some of them fol-
low what we might call the Willow Creek
pattern, in which the marks of classical
evangelicalism are evident in doctrine and
liturgy, in spite of the fact that they studi-
ously avoid names that would indicate a
denominational origin. Others, especially
in Latin America, have come from Catho-
lic charismatic movements and show in
their preaching, lifestyle, and liturgy some
of the marks of the middle class Catholic
culture from which they proceed. What
they have in common is the ability to re-
spond positively to the needs, attitudes,
and outlook generated by the market cul-
ture in a post-modern society. There are
logical reasons to understand why pros-
perity teaching, developed within popu-
lar Protestantism in the U.S., attracts
people to these megachurches that have
developed adequate techniques to mar-
ket their church.
While Protestants in general and
Evangelicals in particular have emphasized
true doctrine as a mark of the church, they
have been weak in their understanding of
ritual and symbol as well as church struc-
ture as equally important components in
the religious life of people, and conse-
quently in the formation of disciples of
Jesus Christ. The new religiosity demands
8
Helpful at this point is the article by Drane (1998).
a better understanding of how these ele-
ments relate, that will allow for better
pastoral and teaching practices. Mega-
churches have learned how to use these
elements, though sometimes they may
cross the thin line that divides an adequate
use from sheer manipulation. The fact that
so many Evangelicals are attracted to
Catholic spirituality in North America is
another indication of the limitations of
excessive concentration on correct doc-
trine at the expense of the other dimen-
sions of the Christian life.
Old Religions and
Fundamentalist Wars
Besides the new religiosity, there is the
resurgence of old religions. In the streets
of Western cities, you see now the shapes
of mosques and Hindu temples being built
not as exotic ornaments for casinos, but
as places of worship for communities that
sometimes outdo Christians in their mis-
sionary zeal. With the end of Christendom,
many societies face the thorny issue of
religious pluralism. The West with the
Protestant ideals and practice of democ-
racy and tolerance was intellectually pre-
pared. Nations where Catholicism and the
Orthodox church predominated have
found it more difficult to come to terms
with it. All Christians, however, are faced
with the need to review their attitudes; a
more alert form of apologetics must be
matched by spiritual discernment.
9
One of the most significant trends in
recent years is the resurgence of Islam.
Islam has become one of the greatest mis-
sionary challenges of today. It is now a ri-
val faith in Indonesia, several African
countries, the Middle East, and even at the
heart of cities in Europe and the United
States. Islams success turned it into a
thriving, conquering faith that remained
in the Iberian peninsula for eight centu-
ries and could barely be stopped at the
Pyrenees. Within the frame of a Christen-
dom mentality, Europeans later organized
aggressive wars called Crusades. Chris-
tian mission at that time became a holy
war against the Moors. Unfortunately,
many Christians still operate within those
categories. The rhetoric of some Christian
mission promoters during the Gulf War
in 1990-1991 reflected more the propa-
ganda of the United States government
than the spirit of Christ. Criticizing that
type of discourse during the 1990 Urbana
missionary convention, an IVCF staff
wrote: Foreign policy is couched in spiri-
tual conflict terms, and militaristic atti-
tudes are baptized in the name of Christ.
Havent we learned anything from his-
tory? (Escobar, 1991).
There is, however, an alternative way
to relate to Islam that reflects more the
spirit of Christ. At the time of the Crusades,
Francis of Assisi dared to cross the battle
lines peacefully in order to share the gos-
pel with the Sultan of Egypt, showing him
a different Christian approach. The same
attitude was exemplified by Raimon Lull,
the Spanish mystic and missionary who
made four trips to North Africa in order
to preach the gospel and who died as a
result of persecution in 1315. Evangelical
missionaries I have known, such as Will-
iam Miller, Dennis Clark, Margaret Wynne,
and Phil Parshall, have taught me that the
key to mission in the Muslim world is a
spirituality of the cross, readiness for suf-
fering, and a respectful acquaintance with
the Muslim faith.
9
We are indebted to Vinoth Ramachandra (1997) for his excellent book The Recovery of
Mission. It is an example of an Evangelical approach to other religions in a post-Christendom
situation.
What is a more difficult reality to face
is the phenomenon of fundamentalism.
This term was coined to refer to the con-
servative reaction against theological lib-
eralism among Protestants in the U.S. at
the beginning of this century. What started
as a theological effort to reformulate and
defend the fundamentals of Evangelical
faith became dominated by what Carl
Henry (1957, pp. 43, 33) called a harsh
temperament, a spirit of lovelessness and
strife. Its anti-intellectualism degenerated
into a morbid and sickly enthusiasm, and
it became a reactionary cultural phenom-
enon associated with the defense of a con-
servative political agenda in the United
States and with racism, nationalism, blind
anti-Communism, and the arms race.
When in the 1980s a resurgent Islam
came to power in Iran, the religious/
political phenomenon that followed in
several other countries of the Middle East
and North Africa came to be known as
Muslim fundamentalism. It was around
the same time that Protestant Fundamen-
talists in the U.S. came again to political
prominence through the Moral Majority.
It is this reaction against modernity and
secularism from a conservative alliance of
religious conviction and political interests
that today is known as fundamentalism.
There is Hindu fundamentalism in India,
Jewish fundamentalism in Israel and the
United States, and Catholic fundamental-
ism in Mexico and Argentina. Other religions
such as Buddhism have also fundamen-
talist forms. From a missiological perspec-
tive, the problem is the confusion this
might create. Protestant fundamentalism
in the form of religious/political alliances
such as the media empires of Pat Rob-
ertson and Jerry Falwell in the United
States tends to mix evangelism with the
promotion of a variety of political causes
in different parts of the world. These fun-
damentalists seem committed to attract
national Evangelical leaders from other
countries to their educational institutions
in the U.S.
The Pentecostal
Phenomenon
It is a well-known fact today that dur-
ing this century there has been a relent-
less process of urban accumulation that
has turned old cities into urban labyrinths
and has given birth to new cities around
the world. This has brought to light the
emergence of new segments of popula-
tion, especially those with low education
or those that belong to ethnic minorities
that in the past could be hidden in dis-
tant rural areas but now have invaded
massively the streets of capitals in six con-
tinents. The expansion of popular Protes-
tantism in the form of Pentecostal and
Pentecostal-like churches among these
emerging masses has been one of the sur-
prising phenomena of our century.
These churches may be described as
forms of popular Protestantism because
they have taken roots among the populus,
the social stratum at the base, which al-
most everywhere constitutes the majority
of the population. During our century, the
form of popular Protestantism known as
Pentecostalism has become a new force
to be reckoned with in the Christian reli-
gious scene. Some observers predict that
this will become the predominant reli-
gious force in Latin America at the eve of
the Third Millennium. These churches are
indigenous in nature and inspired by a
contagious proselytistic spirit. They show
some of the marks of the early Pentecostal
Movement in North America that Hollen-
weger (1997) also associates with indig-
enous non-white churches in other parts
of the world, namely, glossolalia, oral
liturgy, a narrative style in the communi-
cation of their message, maximum partici-
pation of all the faithful in prayers and
worship, inclusion of dreams and visions
in public meetings, and a unique under-
standing of the body/mind relationship
applied in healing by prayer.
10
In the case of Latin America, these Pen-
tecostal churches grew especially among
the most marginalized social groups in the
urban areas, usually unnoticed during
their first decades. However, in some cases
political circumstances brought them to
public attention, especially when govern-
ments had tensions with the Roman
Catholic Church and looked for other
sources of religious legitimation. When the
Billy Graham Evangelistic Association
sponsored the great Congress on Evange-
lism in Berlin (1966), one of the most dif-
ficult decisions that Graham himself faced
was the admission of Pentecostals to the
platform and the leadership of the con-
gress (see Martin, 1992, especially chap.
20, pp. 331-335). Those of us who at-
tended the congress will never forget that
when reports about evangelization were
presented, country after country and con-
tinent after continent, the story was fre-
quently the same: Pentecostals number
more than all other Protestants put to-
gether.
At the middle of the 20
th
century, the
great historian of missions, Kenneth Scott
Latourette (1948, p. 147) presented a
series of lectures assessing the state of
Christianity at that point and trying to un-
derstand trends that could help foresee
the future. As he drew the panorama with
rough strokes, Latourette kept asking the
question, What forms will Christianity
take in the far future? His balance of facts
and trends was mostly positive about the
contribution of Protestantism and its fu-
ture. He answered the question in this
way: The Protestantism of the future will
not be the Protestantism of the past. We
cannot yet clearly discern what that Prot-
estantism is to be. We can, however, per-
ceive something of the direction which is
being taken and from it may be able to
forecast in part what is to come. The very
fact that we cannot foretell the precise or
even the general features of the Protestant-
ism of the future is probably evidence of
vitality in that branch of Christianity.
Latourette said almost nothing about
Pentecostals. However, the marks of mis-
sionary Protestantism that he stressed,
such as active lay participation in mission,
indigenous leadership, poor ecclesiology,
and a sectarian trend of separation from
the world, are precisely the marks of
Pentecostalism. Less than five years after
Latourette wrote what I quoted above,
Lesslie Newbigin (1954) was calling all
Protestants to acknowledge the reality of
Pentecostalism and the missiological and
theological contributions it was making to
Christianity. Recently, in a report about
conversations between Pentecostals and
Catholics, a well-known Catholic author
stated clearly that the importance of these
conversations was due to the fact that
Catholics and Classical Pentecostals [are]
the two largest bodies of Christians in the
world (McDonnell, 1999, p. 11).
Latin American Pentecostalism has
been studied intensely in recent years,
partly because of its explosive numerical
growth and partly because of its political
significance. David Martin (1990) offers a
massive summary of his own research and
that of many others and compares Ameri-
can Pentecostalism with other forms of
Pentecostalism in other parts of the world.
It could be said that these popular Protes-
tant churches have become alternative
societies where urban poor people are
accepted and become actors, not on the
basis of what gives people status in the
10
This description comes from Walter J. Hollenweger, considered an authority in the
missiological study of Pentecostals. His most recent book (1997) is a good summary of key points
in a long-standing life of research around the world.
world, but on the basis of values that come
from their vision of the kingdom of God.
A new generation of social scientists work-
ing at the micro level have brought to light
the transforming nature of the spiritual
experience offered by these churches.
11
Martin (1990, p. 284) finds that the mas-
sive migration from countryside to mega-
city is the background for the religious
transformation: The new society now
emerging in Latin America has to do with
movement, and Evangelicals constitute a
movement. Evangelical Christianity is a
dramatic migration of the spirit matching
and accompanying a dramatic migration
of bodies.
Observers and scholars have had to
come to terms with the fact that in spite
of all good theory and good intentions,
many actions in favor of the poor were
tainted by a paternalistic approach. Social
and political conscientization took the
form of a struggle for the poor, trying to
create a more just society for them rather
than with them. Historical churches con-
nected to world communities and denomi-
national families had access to funds,
foreign press, and even diplomatic ties
that were used in an effort to help the vic-
tims of poverty or state terrorism. Incar-
nation among the poor has been many
times the source of these movements, but
they have failed in mobilizing the poor
themselves. By contrast, the popular Prot-
estant churches are popular movements
in themselves. Their pastors and leaders
do not have to identify with the poor; they
are the poor. They do not have a social
agenda but an intense spiritual agenda,
and it is through that agenda that they
have been able to have a social impact. As
Martin (1990, p. 284) observes about the
impact of the Pentecostal experience,
Above all it renews the innermost cell of
the family and protects the woman from
the ravages of male desertion and vio-
lence. A new faith is able to implant new
disciplines, reorder priorities, counter
corruption and destructive machismo, and
reverse the indifferent and injurious hier-
archies of the outside world.
Any missiological outlook has to ask
questions about the significance of what
sociology has now described and inter-
preted. Both the redemptive nature of the
Pentecostal experience and its indigeneity
are key factors for mission in the future.
They throw light on our understanding of
what is the gospel and the mission of the
church? I have also posed elsewhere
(Escobar, 1996) the way in which these
facts throw us back to understand the New
Testament church as a model for mission
in our times. For non-Pentecostals, and
especially for those Evangelicals that have
seen their task as guarding the integrity
of a biblical gospel, a great question is how
their own contribution to Protestantism
will match the vitality and Spirit-filled
sense of mission that Pentecostalism is
contributing. They must learn to apply a
hermeneutic of charity instead of a
hermeneutic of suspicion, as theologian
Richard Mouw (1994, pp. 15-19) has so
ably reminded us. The future demands a
common walk of mutual understanding
and learning for mission.
Recovery of Biblical
Patterns for Mission
As we have moved through this quick
overview, it has become evident that the
new century will require a return to bibli-
cal patterns of mission. Radical shifts in
culture, politics, and economics, as well
as the growth of Christianity in the South-
ern hemisphere, have brought new sce-
11
The conflicting approaches to popular Protestantism are studied in Escobar (1994).
narios. Traditional mission models inher-
ited from the Christendom mentality and
the colonial era are now obsolete. It is time
for a paradigm change that will come from
a salutary return to the Word of God. As
South African missiologist David Bosch
(1993, p. 177) said, Our point of depar-
ture should not be the contemporary en-
terprise we seek to justify, but the biblical
sense of what being sent into the world
signifies.
The new perspective requires a firm
commitment to the missionary imperatives
that are part of the very structure of our
faith and at the same time a serious work
of biblical scholarship and interpretation.
Here we have a key to understand the
long-term impact of the Lausanne Move-
ment. An antecedent of the Lausanne Con-
gress (1974) was the Berlin Congress on
Evangelism that I have already mentioned.
It was called by Billy Graham to com-
memorate 10 years of the periodical Chris-
tianity Today. The vision for this periodical
came from the desire to keep together the
evangelistic thrust of Billy Graham with
the scholarly work of leading Evangelical
theologians. The revival of Evangelical
scholarship in the English-speaking world,
after the controversies of Fundamental-
ism, came from vigorous Evangelical stu-
dent movements. It was not purely
academical, but it had a missionary thrust,
thanks to the connection with the mission-
ary life of those movements.
Mission has to be acknowledged as
Gods initiative coming from Gods love
for his creation, and from his design of
choosing some instruments to use them
for the salvation and blessing of all of hu-
mankind. When the old way of doing mis-
sion needs to be reviewed, we can see to
what degree it had become just a human
enterprise, maybe the religious side of the
expansion of one culture and one empire.
At the point at which we recover a biblical
vision, we come to experience the awe and
wonder of being invited to enter into
Gods plan, which is far more than choos-
ing a career or going for a nice trip abroad.
We experience what Moses felt before the
burning bush (Ex. 3:11), and Peter when
Jesus invaded his boat (Luke 5:8), and Saul
when he was met by Jesus on the road to
Damascus (Acts 22:8-10).
John Stott opened for us another di-
mension of the biblical agenda: mission
in Christs way.
12
Already in 1966 he
shifted our attention from the classic pas-
sage of the Great Commission in Matthew
28:18-20 to the almost forgotten text of
John 20:21. Here we have not only a man-
date for mission, but also a model of mis-
sion style: in obedience to the loving
design of the Father, patterned by the ex-
ample of Jesus Christ, and driven by the
power of the Holy Spirit. In the cross, Jesus
Christ died for our salvation and also left
a pattern for our missionary life. Before
any practical training for mission in the
use of methods and tools for the verbal
communication of a message, it is impera-
tive to form disciples for a new style of
missionary presence. Mission requires
orthopraxis as well as orthodoxy.
This Christological model that was also
the pattern under which Paul and the
other apostles placed their own mission-
ary practice could be described as mis-
sion from below.
13
At the beginning of
the 20
th
century, a great missionary gath-
ering such as the Edinburgh 1910 Confer-
ence represented the triumphant spirit of
a church identified with Christendom and
12
I refer here to the 1966 Berlin Congress on World Evangelism that preceded the Lausanne
Movement. Stott presented there the Bible expositions about the Great Commission that became
very influential afterwards.
13
For an excellent theological meditation about this point, see Tomlin (1997).
the rich and developed West; it was mis-
sion from above. The trends we have de-
scribed make it necessary to consider a
new paradigm, because the dynamism for
mission is coming now from the periph-
ery of the world, from the churches of the
poor, as well as from Christians in the West
that have to live as resident aliens in a
post-modern culture. This Christological
paradigm is only possible by the power of
the Holy Spirit.
I think it is very important to remem-
ber at this point that Protestant missions
came from the Evangelical movements in
Europe. The missionary movement after
Carey was more inspired by the Wesleyan
revivals and the Moravian pioneers of mis-
sion than by the 16
th
century magisterial
Reformers. The dynamism of missionary
Protestantism came from the renewal
movements of the 18
th
and 19
th
centuries.
They had grasped truth about the Holy
Spirit which then began to make sense.
This, however, is not the whole picture.
The readiness of men like John Wesley and
Count Zinzendorf to abandon old church
structures and their creativity in develop-
ing new structures for mission were made
possible because they were open to the
movement of the Spirit. Such an attitude
of openness to the Spirit is what Brazilian
missiologist Valdir Steuernagel (1993) calls
for: Mission understood in pneumato-
logical language is one act with two steps.
It is first to perceive the blowing of the
Spirit and the direction from which it
comes. And then it is to run in the same
direction to which the Spirit is blowing.
Conclusions
Contemporary trends place a demand-
ing agenda for missionaries and mission
organizations in the new millennium. The
pace of change is such that we may better
limit ourselves to think of the next decade.
By way of conclusion, I would like to sug-
gest some notes about the direction to
which we should be moving in light of the
trends I have outlined.
As in the first century, when Paul en-
gaged in mission in the context of the
Roman Empire, mission today should use
the means provided by globalization, with-
out falling prey to the spirit of the global-
izing age. Paul used the means provided
by the Pax Romana without ever appear-
ing in style, intention, or method as a rep-
resentative of Rome. Paul also affirmed
and defended the freedom of Gentiles
from the burdens that the Judaizers
wanted to impose on them. As missionar-
ies today, we must be open to respect the
many contextual expressions of the faith
that are developing around the world.
Existing missionary models among
Evangelicals have not been able to over-
come the distances and barriers created
by the comparative affluence of mission-
aries and agencies. The frequent tendency
of Western mission agencies to bypass
their indigenous partners and to perpetu-
ate their own independence is an indi-
cation of failure, and growing poverty
exposes that failure. The missionary dy-
namism of churches in the South could
well be stifled and misdirected by an imi-
tation of the expensive Western models of
missionary organization. The future de-
mands more models of non-paternalistic,
holistic missions. An incarnational ap-
proach modeled by Jesus and Paul is the
key. Gross inequalities make partnership
impossible.
A church that lives comfortably in the
post-Christian West is unable to respond
to the pain and the spiritual need of post-
modern generations. It is interesting to see
how spiritual vitality can foster a mission-
ary stance in Western societies that ex-
presses itself also in an ability to partner
with churches abroad. It seems to me that
churches that look successful (because
they give the people in North America the
kind of domesticated Christianity they are
asking for) become the supporters of the
most traditional forms of global mission,
the ones that prolong the old colonial situ-
ation.
In the face of growing religiosity, mis-
sion in the next decade will require spiri-
tual revitalization at the base. There must
be a more humble attitude of dependence
on the Holy Spirit and a renewed under-
standing of the gifts and the fruit of the
Spirit as they manifest themselves in mis-
sion. The question is not so much to mar-
ket spiritual packages that have no
theological or biblical basis, but to walk
alongside churches everywhere that en-
gage in mission from the base of a simple
but real spiritual vitality.
Traditional missionary practice among
Evangelicals reflects a very weak and
undefined concept of the church. This ex-
plains the sectarian trends, the competi-
tive spirit, the waste of resources that we
all know and lament, and the tendency to
practice proselytism instead of evangelism.
As missionaries and missiologists, we need
to tackle seriously the task of understand-
ing the church, in order to understand
better what we expect as a long-term out-
come of our mission activity. Not to do so
is to content ourselves with irresponsible
activism. Such understanding of the
church is also indispensable in order to
know better how to do mission in the face
of the great traditional religions.
I have tried to outline the missionary
challenge ahead of us in this century and
the resources of our trinitarian faith for
responding to this challenge. Gods Spirit
is at work in the world in many different
ways. During the past half century, the
Evangelical Missionary Movement has
been an instrument of God to keep a bib-
lical missionary vision alive within Protes-
tantism. After Lausanne, the Evangelical
Movementor at least some sectors
within itwere able to appreciate the
distinctives and the unique contextual
identity of the growing churches in the
world outside North America and Europe.
At the same time, this new appreciation
came from a firm stand on the biblical
basis for understanding and articulating
the Christian message. This combination
of firmness and flexibility will allow the
rise of creative partnerships that are re-
quired in order to respond to the new mis-
sionary situations around the world.
References
Attali, J. (1991). Millennium. New York: Times
Books.
Bosch, D. (1993). Reflections on biblical mod-
els of mission. In J. M. Phillips & R. T. Coote
(Eds.), Towards the 21
st
century in Chris-
tian mission: Essays in honor of Gerald
H. Anderson (p. 177). Grand Rapids, MI:
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
Bhlmann, W. (1986). The church of the future:
A model for the year 2001. Maryknoll, NY:
Orbis Books.
Drane, J. W. (1998, February). Methods and
perspectives in understanding the New
Age. Themelios, 23(2), pp. 22-34.
Drucker, P. F. (1994, November). The age of
social transformation. The Atlantic
Monthly, p. 73.
Escobar, S. (1991). The significance of Urbana
90. Missiology, 19(3), pp. 333-338.
. (1994). The promise and precarious-
ness of Latin American Protestantism. In
D. R. Miller (Ed.), Coming of age: Protes-
tantism in contemporary Latin America
(pp. 3-35). Lanham, MD: University Press
of America.
. (1996, OctoberDecember). Maana:
Discerning the Spirit in Latin America.
Evangelical Review of Theology, 22(4), pp.
312-326.
Garber, S. (1996). The fabric of faithfulness:
Weaving together belief and behavior dur-
ing the university years. Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity Press.
Green, M. (1970). Evangelism in the early
church. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerd-
mans Publishing Co.
Hauerwas, S., & Willimon, W. H. (1989). Resi-
dent aliens: Life in the Christian colony.
Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.
Henry, C. F. H. (1957). Evangelical responsi-
bility in contemporary theology. Grand
Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
Hollenweger, W. J. (1997). Pentecostalism:
Origins and developments worldwide.
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers.
Latourette, K. S. (1948). The Christian outlook.
New York: Harper & Brothers.
Mariz, C. (1994). Coping with poverty. Phila-
delphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Martin, D. (1990). Tongues of fire. Oxford,
England: Basil Blackwell.
Martin, W. J. (1992). A prophet with honor: The
Billy Graham story. New York: William
Morrow.
McDonnell, K. (1999, March 6). Pentecostals
and Catholics on evangelism and sheep-
stealing. America, p. 11.
Mehl, R. (1970). The sociology of Protestant-
ism. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press.
Mouw, R. J. (1994). Consulting the faithful:
What Christian intellectuals can learn
from popular religion. Grand Rapids, MI:
Myers, B. L. (1996). The new context of world
mission. Monrovia, CA: MARC.
Newbigin, L. (1954). The household of God:
Lectures on the nature of the church. New
York: Friendship Press.
. (1986). Foolishness to the Greeks: The
gospel and Western culture. Geneva: World
Council of Churches.
Padilla, C. R. (1985). Mission between the
times: Essays. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co.
Ramachandra, V. (1997). The recovery of mis-
sion: Beyond the pluralist paradigm.
Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub-
lishing Co.
Sanneh, L. O. (1989). Translating the message:
The missionary impact on culture. Mary-
knoll, NY: Orbis Books.
Schreiter, R. J. (1997). The new Catholicity.
Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
Snyder, H. A. (1995). Earthcurrents: The
struggle for the worlds soul. Nashville, TN:
Abingdon Press.
Stafford, T. (1999, June 14). The criminologist
who discovered churches. Christianity
Today, 43, pp. 35-39.
Steuernagel, V. R. (1993). Obediencia mission-
ria e prtica histrica: Em busca de
modelos. So Paulo, Brazil: ABU Editora.
Tomlin, G. (1997, October). The theology of
the cross: Subversive theology for a post-
modern world? Themelios, 23(1), pp. 59-
73.
Walls, A. (1996). The missionary movement in
Christian history: Studies in the transmis-
sion of faith. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
The Willowbank report on gospel and culture.
(1996). In J. R. W. Stott (Ed.), Making Christ
known: Historic mission documents from
the Lausanne Movement 1974-1989. Grand
Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Co.
Samuel Escobar
and his wife Lilly
are Peruvians. From
1959 to 1985, they
were missionaries
among university
students in Peru,
Argentina, Brasil,
Spain, and Canada,
under the Interna-
tional Fellowship of
Evangelical Students. Samuels missiological
thinking developed as reflection on praxis in
evangelism and through mission conferences
such as the Urbana Missionary Convention,
CLADE I Bogota (1969), and Lausanne (1974).
Samuel was a founder of the Latin American
Theological Fraternity and served as its presi-
dent (19701984). He has an earned Ph.D.
from Universidad Complutense, Madrid,
Spain, and an honorary D.D. from McMaster
University, Canada. He is an ordained Bap-
tist minister. Presently he teaches at Eastern
Baptist Theological Seminary in Wynnewood,
Pennsylvania, during the fall and serves the
rest of the year as Consultant for Theological
Education with Baptist International Minis-
tries, based in Lima, Peru. He and Lilly have
a daughter who teaches in Spain and a son
who works as agricultural economist with
MEDA in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
47
4
Engaging
Escobar
and
beyond
Jonathan
Bonk
NE OF THE MOST CRYPTIC descriptions of the century
just passed has been provided by Robert Conquest
(1999), for whom the 100 years of life on our planet from
1900 to 1999 are reducible to three Ts: total war, totalitari-
anism, and terror. For all of humankinds astounding tech-
nical accomplishmentsindeed, to some extent because of
themthe human slaughter that wiped out an estimated 200
million human beings, a majority of these civilians, may well
be the 20
th
centurys most enduring legacy. Samuel Escobars
11-part discussion of themes which distinguish our globe as
it embarks upon a new millennium constitutes a similarly
sobering inventory. Because both the present and the future
grow out of the past, these themes mark the contours of the
macro context in which Christian missionaries are formed
and in which they must function.
Escobar (page 26) begins with praise to God for the mys-
tery and the glory of the translatable gospel. It is of course
absolutely appropriate to begin with what Escobar refers to
as a potent seed that has flourished in a thousand differ-
ent plants [soils?]. Seed is a wonderfully biblical metaphor,
but it is sobering too, because it reminds us that fruit from
any seed comes only with the death of that seed. This is one
of the great themes in our Lords teaching. One of the great
missiological books of the past decade is Lamin Sannehs
(1989) Translating the Message: The Missionary Impact on
Culture, to which Escobar alludes. This book is notable be-
cause it offers an articulate, dissenting point of view to the
commonly held notion that Christianity destroys culture,
arguing rather that with its insistence on providing the Scrip-
tures in the vernacular, Christianity has provided otherwise
oral cultures with a means of recollecting their stories.
O
These storieswhich would otherwise
suffer obliteration by the inexorably ho-
mogenizing forces of modernitythus
affirm, strengthen, and enrich cultural
identities in ways which Islam, with its
insistence upon Arabic, cannot. The trans-
latability of the gospel is an appropriate
theme with which to begin any missio-
logical discussion, but it must also be the
last word, and I shall return to the theme
in my conclusion.
Escobar next addresses the global
church, the new balance of Christian pres-
ence, and globalization and contextuali-
zation, three naturally intersecting and
overlapping themes. I begin with the re-
minder that this global church is diverse
so kaleidoscopic in its variety as sometimes
to prevent one part of the church from
recognizing its counterpart. Andrew Walls
(1996, pp. 3-15) has steadily reminded us
that the gospel is at once the prisoner and
liberator of culture and that one will look
in vain for an historic Christian faith.
Walls takes his readers on an imaginary
journey through Christian time, in com-
pany with a scholarly space visitor, a pro-
fessor of comparative inter-planetary
religions, who is engaged in the study of
Christians over the centuries and whose
research grant enables him to visit this
planet every few centuries to conduct his
research. After two millennia of study, in-
volving field visits to Jerusalem in 37 CE,
Nicea in 325 CE, Ireland in 650 CE, Exeter
Hall in 1840, and Lagos in 1980, Walls
imaginary scholar is able to distill several
seminal continuities from the plethora of
conspicuous discontinuities. These con-
tinuities are that Jesus the Christ has ulti-
mate significance; the same sacred
writings are employed; all use bread, wine,
and water in similarly significant ways; and
each group believes itself to be part of the
same Christian continuity, which in turn
is in some strange way linked to that of
ancient Israel. Our professor concludes
that while each of these groups is cloaked
with such heavy veils belonging to their
environment that Christians of different
times and places must often be unrecog-
nizable to others, or indeed even to them-
selves, they must nevertheless be
regarded as manifestations of a single
phenomenon (Walls, 1996, p. 7). It is the
presence of these elements which marks
the faith community as Christian.
In terms of both demographics and
evangelistic vigor, the Christian center (but
not the money center) has moved from
the North to the South, from the rich to
the poor, from the centers of power to the
slums of the periphery (see Barrett &
Johnson, 2000). While the profound rami-
fications of this shift have yet to be
adequately reflected in Euro-American
missiological theory and practice, we are
beginning to understand that Eurpoean
and North American churches no longer
command the heights when it comes to
theological, ecclesiastical, or missiological
agendas. Their fiscal, organizational, and
print resources are significant, but as the
surprised and somewhat chagrined North
American bishops attending the 1998
Lambeth conference discovered, there is
a big difference between the agendas of
the two hemispheres. While prim, politi-
cally correct bishops, presiding over their
older, somewhat theologically agnostic,
declining ecclesiastical domains might re-
gard ordination of homosexuals and the
blessing of same-sex marriages as central
to the 21
st
century churchs task, to African
and Asian bishops representing more
youthful, vigorously reproductive chur-
ches, it was clear that evangelism was para-
mount.
Our Scriptures remind us that God has
always found it difficult to work with or
through comfortably secure people. There
seems to be something spiritually corro-
sive about the kind of security to which
we who inhabit the hemisphere of privi-
engaging escobar and beyond 49
lege have come to assume entitlement. We
Western theologians and missiologists
have, to all appearances, become accus-
tomed to thinking like the Laodicean
church: we have need of nothing, and
we think that the flow of missiological and
theological benefits, insights, personnel,
and agendas is a one-way flow, with rich
churches providing out of their largess for
the poor churches. Recognition that our
relative affluence may have made us im-
pervious to our wretched, poor, blind, and
naked state is rare, despite the fact that of
the seven churches described in St. Johns
Revelation, the most desperately needy
church was the Laodicean churcha
Christian faith community with Christ on
the outside, trying to get in. This being
so, it can come as no surprise that the
church in affluent lands, seemingly secure
with its economies of plenty, its culturally
driven entitlements to more and more of
this worlds goods, and its participation
in the Western engines of the global
economy, desperately needs its materially
poorer counterpart.
Escobar is right to warn us of the in-
sidious effects of globalization upon those
of us who actually benefit from it. The
culture of globalization, he warns (pages
30-31), creates attitudes and a mental
frame that may be the opposite of what
the gospel teaches about human life un-
der Gods design. If mission simply rides
on the crest of the globalization wave, it
might end by changing the very nature of
the gospel. There can be no doubt that
missionaries must inevitably be carriers of
more than the gospel of our Lord! They
are also powerful advocates of those val-
ues, orientations, and privileges which
they themselves incarnate and value. I
have written on this extensively (Bonk,
1991) and need not belabor it in this con-
text. The awkward question which must
be raised, but to which no sure answer
can be provided, relates to the speed and
inevitability of the corrosive effects of secu-
larism upon the emerging centers of Chris-
tian faith. This is something that our
brothers and sisters in the South, not we
in the North, will need to address on their
own terms and within their own contexts.
Given the importance of evolving tech-
nologies in the global culture and the ease
with which technological luxuries become
technological needs in Western missiol-
ogy, Escobar is right to remind us that tech-
nology will not save the world. Only the
imitable gospel, incarnate at the level of
person to person, will spare us from the
pitfalls of propaganda and jingoism that
sometimes substitute for genuine Chris-
tian mission. The extent to which we who
are part of the Western mission establish-
ment have embraced the power and the
convenience provided by the new tech-
nologies, on the one hand, and the essen-
tially relational nature of our faith and its
transmission, on the other, make Ruth
Conways (1999, p. 18) observations both
apt and timely: One much trumpeted fea-
ture of modern information and commu-
nications technologies, she observes, is
their ability to span geographical dis-
tance.
But we should not be fooled into
substituting information exchange for
genuinely Christian mission. Conway
(1999, pp. 18-20) continues, We can ex-
change a flood of information but remain
aloof from the personal experience and
feelings, the genuine hopes and fears of
other people who are briefly on line.
Technology-reliant communication can
thus become a distancing power that
undermines real understanding, solidar-
ity, and commitment one to another.
Preoccupation with disembodied instan-
taneous messages prevents a fully sympa-
thetic response to actual pressing human
needs. It is this distancing power that
contributes a lethal element to globaliza-
tion: it makes possible the gathering of
data, the transfer of capital, the control of
markets, the bureaucratic communica-
tions within global institutions, and the
management of structural adjustment pro-
grams, all without any feel for the highly
varied, unique local situations affected.
In anticipation of missiologys ten-
dency toward Walter Mittyism, more needs
to be said concerning the globalization
juggernaut sweeping our globe. No one
can avoid being swept along by this tidal
wave. Like the proverbial flies on a chariot
wheel, we find ourselves perched upon
a question of which we can neither see
the diameter, nor control the motion, nor
influence the moving force.
1
Christian
missionaries are at once caught up in and
contribute to this irresistible force for
change, and like virtually everyone else on
our planet, they are deeply affected by the
impact of values, images, goods, and
weapons which emanate from the West
and which are mediated through tourism,
media images, Western-style education,
global economy, the substitution of artifi-
cial needs for real needs, the generational
and economic division of once coherent
families and peoples, and the widespread
and seemingly indiscriminate use of fright-
eningly destructive Western weapons
against largely civilian populations all over
the world. Missiology needs to ask deeply
theological questions about prevailing
notions of progressnotions whose roots
extend to the old, discredited white mans
burden, to a time when it was unabash-
edly assumed that a part of the mission-
arys task was to civilize. The terms
metamorphosis into the word develop
provides only the most threadbare of dis-
guises, certainly not sufficient to conceal
its fundamental Eurocentrism, and its ef-
fects are the same everywhere, with the
West both its measure and its motor (see,
for example, Norberg-Hodge, 1996).
It is within this context of chronic un-
certainty and endemic mayhem that Esco-
bars stress on the authority of the Word
of God is significant, offering us an un-
derstanding of ourselves, our times, and
our destiny within the context of human-
kinds individually short and sometimes
brutal sojourn on this planet. The Word
of God is both a compass and a handbook,
providing reliable direction regardless of
where its readers might be located in time,
culture, or circumstance.
In his fifth section, accenting the
growth of poverty and inequality, Escobar
rightly reminds us of the fact that the pros-
pect of material, economic, and techno-
logical progressonce thought to be an
inevitable outcome of social and economic
organization along capitalist lineshas
proven to be an illusory and fundamen-
tally false dream. The relative proportion
of impoverished people around the world
is increasing, not diminishing. At the same
time, the relative proportion of very rich
persons is diminishing, while the percent-
age of the planets material resources
which they control is increasing.
A recent United Nations Human De-
velopment Report
2
provides some per-
spective on just what this means:
1
This image comes from the colorful Sydney Smith, in his 1823 counter-petition to the several
emancipating bills brought before the British Parliament in the first quarter of the 19
th
century
bills which alarmed his fellow Anglican clergymen. Smith suggested an alternative petition, ask-
ing for an inquiry into all laws affecting the Roman Catholics of Great Britain and Ireland, in the
hope that only those which were absolutely necessary to the safety of Church and State might be
suffered to remain. The quotation above was a part of his speech in support of his motion.
Despite his eloquence, his motion was soundly defeated by his fellow Anglicans (see Russell,
1905, pp. 106-109).
2
As summarized in The New York Times (September 27, 1998, p. 16).
1. The worlds 225 richest individuals,
of whom 60 are Americans with total as-
sets of $311 billion, have a combined
wealth of over $1 trillionequal to the
combined wealth of the poorest 47% of
the entire worlds population.
2. The three richest people in the
world have assets that exceed the com-
bined gross domestic product of the 48
poorest countries.
3. The average African household is
some 20% poorer today than it was 25
years ago.
4. The richest 20% of the worlds
people consume 86% of all goods and ser-
vices. The poorest 20% consume 1.3%.
5. Americans and Europeans spend
$17 billion a year on pet food. This is $4
billion more than the estimated annual to-
tal needed to provide basic health and
nutrition for everyone in the world.
6. Americans spend $8 billion a year
on cosmetics$2 billion more than the
estimated annual total needed to provide
basic education for everyone in the world.
Even in the United States, the gulf be-
tween rich and poor is growing. In com-
paring the change in relative wealth of the
wealthiest and the poorest U.S. citizens
between 1977 and 1999, Congressional
Budget Office figures indicate that the
poorest 20% of the U.S. population earned
5.6% of all income in 1977 but only 4.2%
in 1999. Their after-tax income averaged
$10,000 in 1977 but only $8,800 in 1999,
a 12% decrease. The richest 1% of the U.S.
population earned 7.3% of all income in
1977 and 12.9% in 1999. Their after-tax
income amounted to $234,700 in 1977
and $515,600 in 1999, an increase of
119.7%.
3
Evangelicals have responded to these
realities by becoming more involved in
holistic mission projects, Escobar points
out. This is appropriate, being the way of
obedience, and it will need to be a con-
tinuing and growing priority if the gospel
is to be comprehensible and meaningful.
Partial obedience has always been lumped
with disobedience in the Scriptures, and
the line between evangelism and the so-
called social gospel has always been an
excuse for selective obedience. For Evan-
gelicals, partial obedience is not an op-
tion.
The fact that the capacity for vital
missionary initiative is passing from the
North to the South at a time when the
Souths financial ability to engage in mis-
sions or theological education as modeled
by the North is diminishing has serious
implications, some of which we are just
beginning to grasp. Escobar advocates an
international model of mission which for
many Western agencies will require a re-
thinking of their fundamental structures.
It has been common for missiologists
and mission strategists to speak of part-
nership. This is a useful term, but it has
its roots in the cognitive domains of man-
agement and business and allows us to
remain somewhat remote from the one
3
These figures appeared in The New York Times (September 5, 1999, p. 16). See also Zuckerman
(1999, p. 108). Zuckerman, the Editor in Chief of U.S. News and World Report, points out that the
U.S. itself is becoming two nations. The prosperous are rapidly becoming more prosperous, and
the poor are slowly getting poorer. Even though the American economy continues to experience
dramatic growth, according to New York University economist Edward Wolff, the top 20% of
Americans account for more than 100% of the total growth in wealth from 1983-1997, while the
bottom 80% lost 7%. Zuckerman cites another study that found that the top 1% saw their after-
tax income jump 115% in the past 22 years. The top fifth have seen an after-tax increase of 43%
during the same period, while the bottom fifth of all Americansincluding many working moth-
ershave seen their after-tax incomes fall 9%. The result is that 4 out of 5 households are rela-
tively worse off than they were 22 years ago.
with whom we partner. As the social and
economic disparity between erstwhile
partners increases, partnership becomes
more and more complicated and to some
extent unworkable, since in managerial
terms a partnership between unequals al-
ways favors the more powerful partner.
The term is to some extent satisfactory,
so long as our ecclesiology stresses the
independence of individual churches, in
consonance with the tried and true three-
self formula. But when we begin to ap-
ply a more biblically satisfactory set of
metaphors to the relationshiporganic
metaphors that will not allow us to think
of being independent from one another,
but as interdependent members of the
same body with limbs, torso, head, eyes,
ears, etc.it becomes more difficult to use
the term. After all, what does it mean for a
hand to be in partnership with a leg or a
foot or an eye? All members are a part of
the same body, and partnership in that
context surely requires as a minimum a
permanent sharing of resources, experi-
ences, and agendas. We need an ecclesi-
ology and a missiology that more aptly
reflect the language, the intent, and the
reality of Gods view of the church as the
body of Christ.
As a Mennonite, I heartily endorse what
Escobar has written about the end of
Christendom, his sixth point. The funeral
dirge of Christendom is one at which
Christians should join in lifting their voices
in praise to God, since we humans so eas-
ily confuse self-serving ends with God-
tolerated means. I can think of only one
social aggregate than can be more mind-
lessly self-serving than the nation-state,
and that is the ethnic group. The notion
that any nation-state ever has or indeed
can manifest the self-giving, self-sacrific-
ing spirit of Christ has been one of the
great delusions of Christendom and of
much of its missionary expression. The
idea that the West in particular has been
somehow more Christlike than those
other expressions of collective ego that we
have come to call nations continues to
result in great confusion in its inevitable
conflation of human culture with Chris-
tian gospel.
Escobars comments on post-modern
culture and a new religiosity go naturally
together, and I do not have time to dwell
on them. I note only that resurgence of
religious interest is not necessarily a hope-
ful sign, although it might be. To use a
rather crude analogy, preoccupation with
ones body is usually a sign of ill health or
old age, not a sign of health. It may be
that Western interest in religion is simply
a symptom of that fatal malaise marking
the approaching end of life. On the other
hand, the disillusionment and hope-
lessness of post-modernism are quite
consonant with observations of Gods
messengers nearly 3,000 years ago. The
prophets were deeply disillusioned be-
cause they could see their societies as God
saw those societies. If there is anything
positive about the culture of post-moder-
nity, it is that people now have the capac-
ity to see themselves and their cultural
contexts for what they really arewithout
God, hopeless, and in desperate need of
redemption. This is a good starting point
for conversion.
Jesus was no stranger to either old
religions or fundamentalism, Escobars
ninth point. In the end, it was those bent
on protecting the old religion who ar-
ranged for Jesus execution. Jesus showed
his followers the way to deal with this: the
way of the cross, the way of the seed fall-
ing into the ground, the way of love for
enemies, the way of forgiveness, the way
of refusing to respond in kind. All of this
takes place only at the level of everyday
relationships with real people. It is risky,
of course, but there is no other way.
The Pentecostal phenomenon is per-
haps the most remarkable evidence that
the gospel is still good news for the poor
and not simply a secret passage into West-
ern consumer culture and, in the sweet
by and by, a comfortable middle class
existence. It is only natural that there
should be a surge in the Pentecostal phe-
nomenon, since its concerns and expres-
sions have always resonated with the
poorand most Christians around the
world are now poor.
Escobars conclusions begin with his
appeal for a recovery of biblical patterns
for mission. His four concluding observa-
tionseach of which suggests the new
direction required if our missionary en-
deavors are to maintain or regain rel-
evancecan be little improved upon
within the confines of this short response.
That neither the present nor the future
is very different from the past may be the
most appropriate vantage point from
which to contemplate the new century.
Despite what appear to be remarkable
changes at the turn of the century, the fa-
mous lament of the author of the book of
Ecclesiastes provides a helpful perspec-
tive. After a lifetime in close pursuit of
novelty, he observed that there is nothing
new under the sun. This is at once com-
forting and disconcerting. Comforting,
because we know that the eternal revela-
tion of God transcends culture and time,
addressing the sad realities of the human
condition which, while expressing itself
in various cultural contexts, remains es-
sentially the same. We need peace with
God. We need redemption. We cannot save
ourselves. We need a Savior.
While it is not a little fascinating to look
at the macro trends affecting persons,
tribes, nations, continents, and the entire
globe at the end of the century, it is en-
tirely possible for us as missiologists and
missionaries to become, in Walker Percys
(1983) words, lost in the cosmosso
caught up in the big picture that we lose
sight of the particular. Missionary action
always takes place at the micro level. The
macro level is simply context. But the gos-
pel is always mediated through and to
specific persons, families, communities,
and contexts. An understanding of global
trends can be helpful only if it helps us to
incarnate the gospel right where we are.
If Evangelical missiology is to keep in
touch with the really big issues, it must
think small.
A theme implicit in much of what
Escobar has written, but which we who
fashion our livelihoods from thinking
missiologically can inadvertently over-
look, needs to be highlighted: Gods
people are never instructed or urged to
love the world or large segments of popu-
lations within it. God can and does love
the world, but human beings are so con-
stituted that they cannot. When we try, our
expressions of love for the multitudes in-
evitably degenerate into pious posturing.
We are called upon to love one another,
spouse, neighbor, stranger, and enemy
whatever the cultural or cross-cultural
context. This is challenge aplenty for even
the most pious among us. Wherever the
context of our missionary work, unless we
fall into the ground and die at this
personal level, our missiology means noth-
ing. Given the ways in which we missiol-
ogists have come to envision and project
the Christian task, this fact is of profound
missiological import.
When God sent his Son to save the
world, he sent him to live in a small back-
eddy of the Roman Empirein an occu-
pied country, traveling on foot, never
wandering very far beyond a 30-mile ra-
dius from where he grew up. It is good to
recall that Jesus never even rode a bicycle,
let alone flew in a jet! The Son of God,
when he came to save the world, walked
at three miles per hour (Koyama, 1980)
and was constantly interrupted by the
petty, intensely personal needs of individu-
als who could not realize what an impor-
tant agenda he had personallyto save the
world.
The most significant discussion in
which we can engage involves this ques-
tion: What does it mean to do missionary
work in ways congruent with biblical pat-
terns and models? Are there some con-
stants that transcend time and culture and
society? I believe there are:
1. We need a missiology that recap-
tures the servant modenot the servant
with an a priori agenda, but the servant
who lets his or her master set the tasks.
2. We need a missiology that recap-
tures the corn of wheat principlethe he
saved others, he cannot save himself ap-
proach to mission modeled and mandated
by Jesus.
3. We need a missiology that distin-
guishes between mere motion and actual
accomplishment, between slick organi-
zation and costly incarnation, between
believable propaganda and true commu-
nication, between self-serving career and
self-giving service.
4. We need a missiology that moves us
away from efficiency and teaches us to
walk with the poor.
5. We need a missiology that forces us
to think small, that encourages us to rec-
ognize that each human being lives at the
level of micro-context, that this is the level
at which the good news transforms and
transfigures, and that this is the Great
Commission.
6. We need a missiology that translates
the good newsa missiology that recog-
nizes that any gospel not made visible in
the living flesh of another human being is
no gospel at all. It is simply noise.
References
Barrett, D. B., & Johnson, T. M. (2000, Janu-
ary). Annual statistical table on global mis-
sion: 2000. International Bulletin of
Missionary Research, 24(1), pp. 24-25.
Bonk, J. J. (1991). Missions and money: Afflu-
ence as a Western missionary problem.
Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
Conquest, R. (1999). Reflections on a ravaged
century. New York: W. W. Norton & Com-
pany.
Conway, R. (1999). Choices at the heart of tech-
nology: A Christian perspective. Harris-
burg, PA: Trinity Press International.
Koyama, K. (1980). Three mile an hour God:
Biblical reflections. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis
Books.
Norberg-Hodge, H. (1996). The pressure to
modernize and globalize. In J. Mander &
E. Goldsmith (Eds.), The case against the
global economy and for a turn toward the
local (pp. 33-46). San Francisco: Sierra
Club Books.
Percy, W. (1983). Lost in the cosmos: The last
self-help book. New York: Farrar, Straus &
Giroux.
Russell, W. E. (1905). Sydney Smith. London:
MacMillan & Co.
Sanneh, L. O. (1989). Translating the message:
The missionary impact on culture. Mary-
Walls, A. F. (1996). The missionary movement
in Christian history: Studies in the trans-
mission of faith. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis
Books.
Zuckerman, M. B. (1999, October 18). A na-
tion divided: What to do about the ever
widening gulf between rich and poor? U.S.
News and World Report, p. 108.
Jonathan J. Bonk, formerly Professor of Glo-
bal Christian Studies at Providence College
and Seminary in Canada, has served as Asso-
ciate Director of the Overseas Ministries Study
Center in New Haven, Connecticut since 1997.
He became Director of OMSC and Editor of
the International Bulletin of Missionary
Research in July of 2000. He grew up in Ethio-
pia, where he and his wife also served as mis-
sionaries. He is an ordained Mennonite
minister, has served as President of both the
American Society of Missiology and the Asso-
ciation of Professors of Mission. He is the au-
thor of numerous articles and reviews and has
published four books, the best known of which
is Missions and Money: Affluence as a West-
ern Missionary Problem (Orbis, 1991), now
in its sixth printing. He is Project Director for
the multilingual (English, French, Portuguese,
Swahili) electronic Dictionary of African
Christian Biography. He graduated from
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and the
University of Aberdeen.
57
5
Globalization
and world
evangelism
Alex
Araujo
OW CAN A BRAZILIAN ministry leader obtain funds from
a multi-national corporation like Microsoft? Simple, ac-
cording to an electronic message I received recently. Microsoft
offered to send someone a reward for testing one of its soft-
ware products, this person writes. All one has to do, he ex-
plains, is send a particular e-mail message to as many friends
as possible, as a test of a new Microsoft product. This person
claims to have received several thousand dollars already, and
he encourages all of us to participate in this product test to
raise funds for our ministries. Anyone anywhere in the world
can participate through e-mail, at no cost and in only a few
minutes. I have not been able to verify this message, but the
amazing thing is that the message was written by a sincere
Christian leader at all.
Globalization permits the merging of widely disparate
interests from any place on earth by any person with access
to modern technology. It permits, even invites, as in the real-
life example above, the merging of world evangelization and
the marketing plans of a multi-national corporation. For
some, as with this Brazilian friend, globalization seems to be
a welcome development, because it offers new ways to find
and apply resources for ministry. Others have serious mis-
givings, suspecting that there is a hidden danger when such
disparate interests as the profit strategies of a multi-national
corporation and the evangelism strategies of a missions
agency come together.
The difference of perspective between those Christians
who are willing to seize the benefits of globalization for mis-
sions purposes and those who see or at least strongly sus-
pect something wrong with this approach defines the essence
of relevant discussions about globalization and missions.
H
Is there something inherently bad or prac-
tically harmful to missions in the global-
ization phenomenon? Are there safe ways
to take advantage of elements of global-
ization without at the same time being
exposed to its harm? Perhaps more impor-
tant still, is globalization merely a neutral
realignment of socio-economic mecha-
nisms, or does it have inherent ethical er-
rors and weaknesses?
These questions cannot be ignored,
because globalization itself cannot be ig-
nored. It is shaping how we think and
function in missions. Either we know what
it is and how to control what it does to us
and through us, or we will simply be
shaped by it according to its own imper-
sonal forces and agenda. The missions
movement today already relies extensively
on electronic mail, for example, one of the
more ubiquitous tools made available
worldwide by globalization. E-mail has
made it possible for Christians from very
different countries and socio-economic
contexts to participate in dialogue about
the theology and practice of missions. It
has also begun to divide us into those who
have access to electronic mail and those
who dont. Some precious believers, toil-
ing under harsh conditions, blessing many
by their sacrificial service, are excluded
from the rich mission dialogue the rest of
us enjoy because they do not have effec-
tive access to e-mail.
Globalization of information not only
permits wider participation in the dia-
logue, but also provides avenues for
worldwide dissemination of prevailing
ideas and methods concerning missions.
While on the one hand it gives Christians
of non-Western countries an opportunity
to join the dialogue, it also provides
new avenues for the better resourced
Western Christians to promote and dis-
seminate their own already-developed
ideas through Internet-ready literature,
courses, and activity reporting. These ac-
tivities are extremely relevant to the ques-
tion of better involvement of non-Western
missions thinkers and practitioners in the
worldwide missions movement, because
they maintain and even increase the gap
between the more affluent and less afflu-
ent churches, independently of spiritual
worth and effectiveness of ministry.
Defining Globalization
How should Christians
think about globalization?
Globalization is, at the practical level,
a way of describing the manner in which
socio-economic interaction is carried on.
At this level, some would argue that it is
ethically neutral. The rice I eat is just rice,
whether it is produced by the local tenant
farmer or by an international agro-busi-
ness concern. At another level, globaliza-
tion represents a way of thinking about
the world, a worldview. It is a way of orga-
nizing priorities, thus establishing a scale
of values for determining what is more
important. How is economic globaliza-
tion likely to change our common future
and particularly our view of what is im-
portant and of value? asks Tom Sine
(1999, p. 49).
1
Globalization, like any
other worldview, has serious ethical im-
plications. While it may not be a fully
developed system of thought such as
1
Sines book Mustard Seed versus McWorld (1999) provides very practical approaches to
understanding and responding to the pressures of globalization. The book is especially useful for
American Christians, although non-Americans will also find it helpful as a tool for better under-
standing their American colleagues and their challenges. The book can also be used to identify
some of the main issues of globalization that need to receive more specific treatment in each
cultural context.
globalization and world evangelism 59
Marxism, socialism, or Western democracy,
it does provide ethical themes, which we
will discuss below. Christians eager to take
advantage of the new tools of globaliza-
tion must first reflect seriously about these
less obvious ethical implications. My pur-
poses in this essay are to identify and in-
troduce for the larger discussion some of
these themes and to suggest some ques-
tions Christians need to ask of one another
concerning the implications of globaliza-
tion for world missions.
What is globalization?
Globalization is a complex phenom-
enon that can be approached from many
different directions. Thomas Friedman
provides one of the best secular analyses
in his book The Lexus and the Olive Tree.
He offers the following as three key ele-
ments to a definition of globalization:
Democratization of technology, fi-
nance, and information. This means that
it is now possible for hundreds of millions
of people around the world to get con-
nected and exchange information, news,
knowledge, money financial trades
in ways and to a degree never witnessed
before (Friedman, 1999, p. 45).
Free-market capitalism as the orga-
nizing principle of world economics. The
more you let market forces rule and the
more you open your [national] economy
to free trade and competition, the more
efficient and flourishing your economy
will be. Globalization means the spread
of free-market capitalism to virtually ev-
ery country in the world (Friedman, 1999,
p. 8).
A specific cultural bias. global-
ization has its own dominant culture,
which is why it tends to be homogeniz-
ing. Culturally speaking, globalization
is largely, though not entirely, the spread
of Americanization on a global scale
(Friedman, 1999, p. 8).
The strongest advocates for a new glo-
bal economic order, writes Tom Sine
(1999, p. 50), have been schooled in
a worldview that defines what is best
largely in terms of economic growth and
efficiency. And they have concluded that
the best way to achieve those outcomes is
through the creation of a borderless eco-
nomic order.
Edward Luttwak (1999, p. 222) writes,
Everywhere the logic of turbo-capitalism
[Luttwaks concept for what drives global-
ization] is that nothing should stand in
the way of economic efficiency for noth-
ing must hinder competition, which alone
enforces efficiency by impoverishing less
efficient individuals, firms, industries, lo-
cal communities, and countriesand
sometimes all of them at once. Another
way to put this is that growth and change
must occur because they can occur. The
idea echoes the evolutionary view that a
things existence is its own justification
and that the possibility of growth and
change is sufficient reason for that growth
and change to occur. C. S. Lewis (1946, p.
295) anticipated this in the mid-1940s,
when he put in the mouth one of his char-
acters the following words: is justified
by the fact that it is occurring, and it ought
to be increased because an increase is tak-
ing place.
It seems, from these examples and
from the writings of other students of glo-
balization, that this complex reality con-
tains the following key elements:
1. It is fueled primarily by economic
considerations.
2. It is inspired by rapid economic
growth and efficiency as the best founda-
tion for solving humanitys problems.
3. It has a strongly Western, primarily
American cultural imprint.
4. It is highly dependent on recent de-
velopments in communication technology.
5. It favors those who have a longer
tradition in free-market capitalism and
who lead in communication technology.
We will look at some of the implica-
tions of globalization to the Christian mis-
sions movement, but first we need to
consider globalization in relation to the
church.
Globalization
and Christs Church
The growth of the church around the
world, in contrast to globalization, is an
expression of eternal principles set in
motion by God in Christ through the Holy
Spirit. It is not a product of recent secular
historical movements and trends.
The church was meant to become glo-
bal even if the world remained forever
provincial. Since Abraham, God has been
speaking explicitly about the gathering of
all nations into one people. The Psalmist
writes, The nobles of the nations as-
semble as the people of the God of Abra-
ham, for the kings of the earth belong to
God; he is greatly exalted (Ps. 47:9).
2
And
the writer of Revelation proclaims that the
new Jerusalem, representing Gods king-
dom on earth, does not need the sun or
the moon to shine on it, for the glory of
God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp.
The nations will walk by its light, and the
kings of the earth will bring their splen-
dor into it. The glory and honor of the
nations will be brought into it (Rev. 21:23,
24, 26).
We often hear the question these days
how we should face globalization. It seems
that we feel the church may be left behind
if it doesnt adapt and adapt speedily. Glo-
balization, the experts tell us, is the only
boat available for mankind today. If we
dont get into it, we will be left behind.
Globalization is this inexorable force that
is sweeping the world like a tidal wave.
Those who learn quickly to ride the wave
will survive, and those who dont will per-
ish. This idea seems to have infected some
in the missions movement, to judge by the
optimism and eagerness of some mission
agencies in adapting to globalizations
hopes and promises.
The question of how the church should
face globalization is misplaced. From a
biblical perspective, it is globalization that
has to face the church. We must judge the
pattern of this world and decide under
the counsel of the Holy Spirit what is good
and what is not good about it. As the
Apostle Paul puts it, Do not conform any
longer to the pattern of this world, but be
transformed by the renewing of your
mind. Then you will be able to test and
approve what Gods will ishis good,
pleasing, and perfect will (Rom. 12:2).
The key principle for Christians look-
ing at globalization, then, is to refuse to
be lured, intimidated, or pressured by it.
Globalization is the current strategy that
a secular and lost humanity has developed
to cope with an existence devoid of faith
and hope in God. World evangelization is
essentially the reality of which globaliza-
tion is merely and ineffectively a shadow.
In this sense, missions has the answer to
the question that gave birth to globaliza-
tion. The church does not need to learn
how to adjust to globalization. It is called
to speak to people caught up in globali-
zations tidal wave, just as it did with all
the previous tidal waves in human history.
Jacques Ellul (1989, p. 4) has elo-
quently stated this point. Speaking of the
church in society, he writes, This light of
the world is that which gives meaning and
direction to the history of the world, and
thus explains it. In the succession of events
which the course of history presents, there
2
See also Gen. 12:1-3; Isa. 49:6; 66:18-21; Matt. 28:19; Eph. 2:15-19; Rev. 5:9-10; 7:9; 11:15.
is no logic, no certitude, but this logic is
supplied by the presence of the church,
however strange this may seem the
Christian reveals to the world the truth
about its condition. The Christian, Ellul
(1989, p. 39) continues, judges the pres-
ent time in virtue of a meta-historical fact,
and the incursion of this event into the
present is the only force capable of throw-
ing off the dead weight of social and po-
litical institutions which are gradually
crushing the life out of our present civili-
zation.
This view does not give us license to
be aloof or proud, nor to ignore the
significant and occasionally beneficial
changes brought about by globalization.
It simply establishes a right order of rela-
tionship between the church and the cur-
rent pattern of this world.
Understanding Globalization
With the above discussion in mind, we
must set ourselves to the task of under-
standing globalization and its implications
to the work of missions.
First, the balance between nation-states
has changed. In the present globalization
system, the United States is the sole and
dominant superpower, and all other na-
tions are subordinate to it to one degree
or another (Friedman, 1999, p. 11). In
some ways and in a parallel sense, the situ-
ation resembles for the current American
missions movement the colonial days of
William Carey and Hudson Taylor. Just as
Carey and Taylor rode on the wings of the
British economic empire, with all its fa-
cilities and power of projection, American
missionaries today ride on the global ex-
pansion of American economic activities
and accompanying cultural exports. This
is not a criticism of American missionar-
ies. In some ways, Americans have no
choice, just as Carey and Taylor did not.
In fact, Taylor fought hard to shed his
Britishness. Yet even to the degree that he
succeeded, he had to direct a fair amount
of energy to that issue. So, to the extent
that globalization today carries a strong
American flavor, American missionaries
have to face similar tensions. Conversely,
non-Americans on the field have to con-
tend with this American cultural overlay
as they seek to work in cooperation with
their American colleagues. The sooner
both sides recognize this reality and dis-
cuss it openly, the better it will be for truly
cooperative missions work.
Second, the balance between nation-
states and global markets has changed.
These global markets are made up of mil-
lions of investors moving money around
the world instantly through their comput-
ers and from the privacy of their homes.
Friedman calls them the electronic herd.
This herd cannot be tightly controlled
by national governments. The national
economy can be severely affected by this
activity, whether or not it fits national
policy. Like swarming bees, this herd
cannot be controlled by governments,
because they gain access to a nations
economy from any place in the world
through electronic transactions. And they
can force governments to make decisions
and adopt policies by the simple threat of
taking their investments from one coun-
try and instantly placing them in another.
This weakens national sovereignty and
erodes democratic processes. Voters may
elect their leaders, but the international
economy may dictate the leaders policies.
Third, the balance between nation-
states and individuals has changed. Indi-
viduals and their wealthparticularly very
rich individualscan move across national
boundaries with increasing freedom. That
means that financially powerful indi-
viduals such as Osama Bin Laden and Bill
Gates may find themselves negotiating
directly with governments of sovereign
states, striking deals that their own coun-
tries governments may not approve, yet
are powerless to prevent.
Implications for Missions
What are the implications of this turn
of events to the missions movement? The
challenge of globalization intersects with
the Christian missions movement in a va-
riety of ways.
The theology of the church
We need to reflect on the current state
of our theology of the church and of mis-
sions. The church, to be true to its nature,
must be distinct, separate from any cur-
rent human trend and condition, so that
it can speak to humanity and to its condi-
tion. The Apostle Paul tells us that God
placed all things under [Christs] feet and
appointed him to be head over everything
for the church, which is his body, the full-
ness of him who fills everything in every
way (Eph. 1:22-23). And Gods intent
was that now, through the church, the
manifold wisdom of God should be made
known to the rulers and authorities in the
heavenly realms, according to his eternal
purpose which he accomplished in Christ
Jesus our Lord (Eph. 3:10-11). Unless we
see the church as greater than the human
condition at any point in history, it does
not have a message. It must be in the
world, in order to speak intelligibly to the
world. But if it is of the world, it is part
of the problem, however conscientious it
tries to be in preaching the gospel.
The church is not supposed to cope
with globalization, but rather to judge
globalization and offer itself as the real glo-
bal community. The church is what a glo-
balized society can never be, a chosen
people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation,
a people belonging to God, that you may
declare the praises of him who called you
out of darkness into his wonderful light
(1 Pet. 2:9). Peter, along with Paul, helps
us understand how the church stands as
prophet and priest to the world. But in
order to exercise its prophetic and priestly
role effectively, the church cannot be or
act like a mere religious segment of the
world. The church is not part of the glo-
balization phenomenon, needing to learn
how to ride its wave, as human institutions
must, in order to survive.
As Peter puts it, we are aliens and
strangers in the world (1 Pet. 2:11). It
seems, at times, that our local churches
resemble more and more a religious ver-
sion of business enterprises. We compete
for customers by improving the market-
ing of our Christian product. We look to
the business gurus to help us recreate our
churches and agencies in terms that make
sense within modern economic trends.
The more our ecclesiology resembles in
practice the commercial world around us,
the more it fits the terminology and world-
view of global economic trends. Unless we
review our ecclesiology and restore it to
its biblical foundations and conceptual
language, we will not be able to judge the
trends that surround us, and the churches
may in fact become simply one of the many
sub-elements of that trend. We have al-
ready seen the development of a school
of thought that promotes the marketing
of the church. Soon we may see the next
development, the globalization of the
church, along the same driving concepts
of economic globalization: rapid numeri-
cal growth and efficiency defined by re-
turn on missions dollars.
Non-numerical language
We must rediscover the non-numeri-
cal language of the gospel. Evangelicalism
has flourished predominantly in Western
and North American societies during the
last two centuries. This flourishing coin-
cides with the development of the free-
market capitalism that is now both the
driving force and the essence of global-
ization. It has given Western society a nu-
merical language that is particularly suited
to business transactions, but terribly poor
to describe the worth and experience of
the gospel. Recently I attended a missions
consultation that focused on a region of
the world where the growth of the church
is modest in comparison to certain places
in Asia and Latin America. At least in two
instances, speakers described the success
of the mission in a given area by indicat-
ing the percentage of growth of the church
in the last 10 years. It was interesting that
this growth was described in percentages
rather than absolute numbers, which al-
lowed them to say the church grew 28
times in 10 yearsan impressive growth
rate. This way of reporting growth has a
much greater impact on the churches back
home than if the growth were described
in absolute numerical terms: from 50 to a
few thousand in 10 years.
Would the disciples in the early church
have thought in terms of numerical valua-
tion of the church? After all, the Lord Jesus
used very different language, perhaps
shocking to our ears, when he said that
there is more joy in heaven for one sinner
who repents than for 99 righteous; and
he considered the widows mite a greater
offering than the larger offerings of the
Pharisees. He also gave us a very humbling
picture of the growth of the gospel in the
parable of the narrow way and the broad
way. And he never promised that Chris-
tians were to become a national majority
population.
I am not arguing for a total abandon-
ment of numbers in assessing and report-
ing our missions work, but I suggest that
statistics and numbers for the most part
be presented as footnotes to our field re-
ports, since they seem to be given only
marginal significance in the Scriptures.
The actual language with which Christ de-
scribed matters of the kingdom was quite
different, and we need to rediscover it.
Conceptual language is powerful in
shaping how we think and eventually what
we believe. I recently attended another
regional-focused missions consultation. In
the midst of field reports by various mis-
sionaries, a woman believer from the re-
gion was asked to give her testimony. She
spoke from the podium about how the
gospel came to her family. As she elabo-
rated on the biblical metaphor of the light
of the gospel shining to the darkness of
her people, her testimony became increas-
ingly an emotional expression of deep
gratitude to the Lord and to the mission-
aries he had sent to her country. She fin-
ished unable to speak, her eyes flooded
with tears of gratitude to her gracious God.
I was myself deeply moved by such a
beautiful reminder of the reason for mis-
sions, which is precisely to make the won-
derful light of Christ to shine and deliver
people from darkness. In my heart I
deeply hoped the moderator would inter-
rupt the formal agenda with a time of
praise to God. Instead, as soon as this sis-
ter finished, the moderator announced the
next presenter, and we went on with the
report. Where was the rejoicing in the
church for the one sinner who had re-
pented? Can it be that we have become so
shaped by the pattern of this world that
we dont even recognize the full impact
of our own service to God in the lives of
those we touch? Therefore, this matter of
language is very important. How can we
judge the spirit of the age, the pattern of
this world, if we do not have an indepen-
dent, biblically based conceptual language
with which to describe it?
Exporting distortions
The church in mission-sending coun-
tries must be careful not to export such
culturally generated distortions to emerg-
ing churches. Yet the Western church may
not be able to escape the strong grip of
economic globalization without the help
of the emerging church. What does the
church look like when it is not so heavily
influenced by material affluence and
driven by the mechanistic values of growth
and efficiency? How do brothers and sis-
ters who live at the margins of this world-
wide globalization pattern experience
communion with Christ and his family? We
must learn to listen to and learn from
them.
Redefining what it
means to be human
Since globalization is essentially driven
by economic forces, it must redefine what
it means to be human in terms that are
compatible to the structures, mechanisms,
and outcomes of a free-market economy.
We attribute to the economist Adam Smith
much of the foundation of todays West-
ern version of a market economy. Theolo-
gian Timothy Gorringe (1999, p. 30),
discussing this point, writes, Aristotle
believed that speech was given us to form
community, but for Smith speech was part
of our property to barter, truck, and ex-
change one thing for another. So for
Smith it was not the polity [community]
which came first, but the market. We see
how the community that nourishes the
virtues is displaced by this loose agglom-
erate of individuals in trade. Doubtless led
on by the flow of his argument, Smith
abandoned the elaborate cautions of his
moral philosophy and famously observed
that it is not to the benevolence of the
butcher that we owe our dinner, but to
the appeal to his self-interest.
Thus, Gorringe (1999, p. 30) goes on
to say, Homo sapiens is reduced to Homo
economicus, the rational utility maximizer,
of whom it is assumed that self-interest,
expressed primarily through the quest for
financial gain, is his main concern. Since
globalization is primarily a globalization
of the Western free-market economy, the
market view of humans is that they are
consumersbuyers and sellers. Though
people who are in the vanguard of global-
ization may deny that this is their view of
human beings, in practice it really doesnt
matter since they assume (whether implic-
itly or obviously) that in the end every con-
sumer will eventually find space within the
global economy and benefit from it.
The church, in contrast, must affirm
the biblical view of human beings as Homo
spiritualis, created male and female, in
the image of God, not reducible to Homo
economicus or any other variant.
Competition and Change
The free-market economic model is
marked by the need for constant compe-
tition and change. Wealth, in this system,
is created by competition and innovation.
It is not a maintenance economy but a
growth economy. Today, writes Friedman
(1999, p. 41), there is no more First
World, Second World, and Third World.
There is now just the Fast Worldthe
world of the wide open plainand the
Slow Worldthe world of those who ei-
ther fall by the wayside or choose to live
away in some walled-off valley of their
own. Market economies have thrived for
centuries by ruthless competition, in an
economic Darwinism where the strongest
survive by devouring the others. Global-
ization, says Friedman (1999, p. 41),
put this process into hyperspeed in the
1980s, requiring companies and countries
to move much faster in order to avoid di-
saster.
The reduction of humans to Homo
economicus does not alleviate the anguish
that a global free-market system driven by
constant change at ever-increasing speed
generates. Surely we must recognize that
competition as a way of life is ultimately
destructive and in contradiction to the life
of the gospel. A socio-economic system
that thrives only when there is fierce com-
petition may indeed generate better
medical treatment and improved food pro-
duction. But its longer-term implications
need serious and continuous assessment.
Its implicit moral tenet is that each of us
must fend for ourselves because there is
no one else who is for us.
Effects on
American Culture
We have seen that globalization is not
culturally neutral. It is heavily marked and
shaped by American culture, as Friedman
points out. Various authors have exten-
sively documented this fact, and I will not
elaborate on it, except as it relates to the
Christian missions movement. In sum-
mary, all we have to do is to travel to any
country in the world, including some
small towns in under-developed countries,
to see the presence of American culture,
whether in the music coming out of radio
boxes, the brand names found in sports
shoes and tee-shirts (in fact, the practice
of wearing sports shoes and tee-shirts
merely as fashion is itself an Americanism),
the long lines of applicants for visas in
American consulates, and the billboards
advertising American products. Again, glo-
balization is not neutral. It has given all of
us, regardless of nationality, the wonders
of the portable computer. Yet, it is Ameri-
can-based Intel and Microsoft which make
it possible for us to use it. This means that
globalization provides a home-culture fla-
vor for American mission personnel that
is not experienced by missionaries of any
other country. This reality says that the role
of Americans in missions is not simply that
of just another cultural group, but of a
group whose culture and values have a
major influence in shaping the trend and
values of globalization.
More specific to our missions topic, we
note the predominance of American au-
thors in Christian bookstores throughout
the world, of American worship music CD-
ROMs and tapes, and the trend toward
seeker friendly services copied from
America. While other societies have inter-
national projection and influence, none
comes close to matching the extent of
American influence. But does this projec-
tion of American Christianity worldwide
result in the global church being enriched
by deeper spirituality and more serious
missiology?
I must make the following caution at
this point. It is very important that the
reader not conclude that this is merely a
generalized criticism of American believ-
ers or specifically of American missionar-
ies. It is simply a factor to take into account
as we consider the impact of globalization
on world missions. It would be unprofit-
able and unjust to fault all American be-
lievers for what obviously is not of their
doing. Neither does their cultural locus
disqualify them for effective participation
in the international missions enterprise.
My point is simply to say that the role of
Americans in missions requires a more
complex self-assessment in light of their
societys place in the globalization phe-
nomenon.
Implications
of Cultural Bias
What are the implications for missions
of this cultural bias in favor of the United
States? First of all, a missions movement
so steeped in the dominant culture that
drives globalization is bound to reflect,
consciously or unconsciously, elements of
the prevailing value system. It is easy to
discern in American missions thinking
certain traits that reflect the economic glo-
balization mindset, things such as numeri-
cal thinking, pragmatism, efficiency, and
continuous quantifiable growth, to name
the more obvious.
Second, the American church has been
predominant in leading and shaping the
modern missions movement, at least since
the end of World War II. That means that
for much of the promising emerging mis-
sions movements from Latin America, Af-
rica, Asia, and even Eastern Europe today,
the most visible missions model is Ameri-
can. In this sense, American missions lead-
ers have a burden that they may not have
chosen to carry, but it is theirs neverthe-
less. They must pay particular attention
to how globalization trends, so closely tied
to American culture as it is projected
around the world, shape their missions
model and how this model is unwittingly
reproduced.
Third, missions thinkers and practitio-
ners from the emerging missions move-
ments around the world, and even from
Western Europe, can in good faith help
Americans see beyond their cultural blind
spots (all cultures have them). But Ameri-
cans must be helped to divest themselves
of undue valuation derived from the free-
market globalization, values such as the
primacy of efficiency, continuous quanti-
fiable growth, excessive pragmatism, and
numerical thinking as applied to the work
of missions.
Unequal Distribution
Though signs of a global economy and
accompanying value systems can be seen
nearly everywhere, it is important to un-
derstand that globalization is not experi-
enced equally by everyone. It is possible
to believe that globalization has made us
all equal in the face of the market forces
that shape us. But this is not true. As we
pointed out before, globalization has ex-
panded the free-market economy into
world scale. That means that those societ-
ies with a longer history of an innovative
free-market economy have a decided ad-
vantage. They set the pace, and the oth-
ers must work very hard simply not to fall
further behind. Americans, we have seen,
are at the front of the tidal wave, with some
European and Asian countries close be-
hind and matching the pace. But the vast
majority of the peoples of the world are
lumped together in a very distant third
place. Though people from all countries
can experience globalization, not all can
participate in shaping it or reaping its ben-
efits.
Globalization is experienced differ-
ently by people near its front and people
at the rear. Like the paralytic at the pool
of Siloam, those in weaker and less stable
economies are too far from the waters
edge, and there is always someone who
plunges in first whenever the angel stirs
the water. That someone will most likely
be an American, Japanese, or Northern Eu-
ropean. It is easy to say that with global-
ization we are all part of the same reality.
Yet some Christians live in a Western coun-
try with a negligible unemployment rate,
while others live where unemployment
reaches 50% to 60%. In countries near the
front of the globalization tidal wave, the
church parking garages are full of relatively
new automobiles. Churches in countries
at the rear may not even have paint on
the walls, much less own a parking garage
or have members who drive cars.
Implications for missions
For the missions movement, it is sig-
nificant that most of the still unreached
peoples of the earth belong to countries
that bring up the rear of globalization.
What are some of the implications of this
reality?
First, we must discern this fact beyond
superficial appearances. When I traveled
through the rural communities of Chiapas
in southern Mexico, I was intrigued by the
extensive Coca-Cola distribution network.
Coca-Cola signs appeared frequently
along the roads, and occasionally I saw
Coca-Cola warehouses and trucks, reflect-
ing a fairly extended distribution system.
Signs of Western commercialism in places
like Chiapas, Mexico, may give the impres-
sion that globalization is more evenly
spread than is true.
In Chiapas, rural peasants still cultivate
small plots of land for daily survival. In
West Kalimantan, among the Dayaks I vis-
ited two years ago, the drink offered to us
was not Coca-Cola but coconut milk,
which our host obtained by climbing one
of the coconut trees on his property, har-
vesting a few coconuts, opening them with
a machete, and serving the nourishing,
fresh, cool liquid to us. These people are
a little farther away from the reach of glo-
balization. With or without Coke, the least
reached peoples of the worldwith the
exception of a small elitestill do not di-
rectly participate in the global economy.
It can be argued that indirectly or not, they
are part of it. But the fact that a Chiapas
Indian may have become addicted to Coca-
Cola does not mean that he is ready to
understand the new language of global-
ization.
Second, failure to recognize the un-
even impact of globalization around the
world has implications for missionary
training. The preparation and training of
missionaries to reach the remaining un-
reached may not need to differ very much
from the way pioneering missionaries
were trained. Yet the pace of socio-eco-
nomic development in mission-sending
countries may pressure mission agencies
into more sophisticated and complex
models of ministry, which make heavy use
of technology and may be less effective in
the host countries.
Third, the unevenness with which glo-
balization distributes resources and allo-
cates control of decision-making, favoring
those near the front of the trend, means
that Western mission efforts will continue
to have a disproportionately greater influ-
ence in the world missions movement
unless we find a way to shift the weight
away from globalization-generated values.
What adjustments can Western believers
make to minimize this imbalance?
The view from the rear
Significantly, globalization is predomi-
nantly a Western concept, and from there
it spreads to other economically power-
ful nations. It was primarily born of a West-
ern reality and shaped and defined by
Western paradigms. Paradigms define the
nature of problems and limit the range of
solutions. It is not surprising, then, that it
is the Westerners in the missions move-
ment that seem more at home with the
subject and more likely to engage it. What
does globalization look like to those near
the rear? What perspective can they bring
to the missions movement and the remain-
ing task of world evangelization? Perhaps
they can help us see world evangelization
as more than a task we must accomplish.
They can help us to see where the com-
petitive urge of free-market economics
contradicts the Scriptures and can help us
to correct our thinking. They may also help
us, among other things, to see that things
that seem like virtues for those living at
the front end of globalization may not look
like virtues at all from a biblical perspec-
tive. And the fact is that both in Scripture
and history, most of the advance of the
people of God has taken place in contexts
of weakness, poverty, and uncertainty.
It is essential for the health of the mis-
sions movement that we really listen to
Christians from the rear. Those at the front
may not be able to see and value the won-
derful things God is doing through his
church elsewhere.
Missions as an Antidote
Missiologist, missionary, and anthro-
pologist Don Richardson faced criticism
from non-Christian anthropologists that
he and all missionaries are harmful to the
culture of the people they seek to evange-
lize. Some secular anthropologists charge
that the introduction of a new religion
disrupts benevolent age-old beliefs and
customs that define the values of persons
within that culture, thus creating insecu-
rity and leading to the breakdown of the
cultures altogether. Richardson ably cor-
rects the critics by pointing out that long
before the missionary comes to a people,
their doom is already sealed by the incur-
sion of profiteers and adventurers (includ-
ing the anthropologists who supposedly
study these peoples in supposed neu-
trality), who introduce destructive new
elements such as destruction of the envi-
ronment, liquor abuse, and new forms of
diseases. Missionaries, on the other hand,
actually bring to the peoples of the world
a set of values that are much more likely
to enable them to resist the incursions of
this incipient globalization. Though accel-
erated to the point where it covers the
globe and is making itself nearly irresist-
ible to any human culture, globalization
has manifested itself to some degree for
centuries.
One of my favorite books is the biog-
raphy of John Paton, missionary to the
New Hebrides more than a century ago.
One of his frustrations was the fact that
British colonial authorities did nothing to
police the European merchants and profi-
teers who introduced the liquor, diseases,
and firearms that caused irreparable dam-
age to the indigenous peoples to whom
he ministered. Over 100 years ago, Paton,
like Richardson, worked hard to prepare
these people for the growing, irreversible
onslaught of globalization in its earlier
expressions. As Richardson (1992, p. C-
144) states: There are reasons why mis-
sionaries had to go into isolated areas like
Irian Jaya as soon as they could. History
has taught them that even the most iso-
lated minority cultures must eventually be
overwhelmed by the commercial and po-
litical expansion of the majority peoples.
Missions today still can perform a sig-
nificant service to the nations by giving
them a new set of valuesGod-given
values with which they can judge all eco-
nomic systems, including the alien incur-
sions of global market forces. Are new
believers resulting from our missions work
becoming equipped to judge the pattern
of this world, or is our missions work
merely helping make them more compli-
ant with it? This equipping of the new
saints is not a peripheral by-product of
missions, but central to it. But in order to
equip effectively, we must ourselves:
1. Understand the nature and power
of globalization, not merely separating the
products that are beneficial from those
that are harmful, but discerning the value
system that is communicated by globali-
zations very existence and nature.
2. Recognize the degree to which glo-
balization may have already begun to re-
shape our worldview and take steps to
renew our minds through the Scriptures.
3. Reaffirm (for some of us, perhaps
even rediscover) a biblical worldview that
places Christ and his church above world
trends, whether economic, political, cul-
tural, or religious.
Mission Partnerships
and Globalization
The face of the church today has
changed dramatically since 100 years ago.
The church has changed geographi-
cally: In 1900, most Evangelical believers
were in North America, England, and
Northwest Europe. Today, these regions
comprise perhaps only 25% of the world-
wide Evangelical church.
The church has changed ethnically:
The church the Lord sees from his throne
today has many more people from Asia,
Africa, and Latin America than from North
America and Europe.
The church has changed intellectu-
ally: No longer are theological thinking
and understanding coming predominantly
from North America and Europe. Godly
men and women from other continents
are studying, researching, writing, and
teaching on an equal footing with their
North American and European colleagues.
The church has changed dynami-
cally: Today, most of the growth of the
church worldwide is generated locally and
nationally, rather than provoked and led
by expatriates.
We would be seriously mistaken if we
assumed that these factors are just another
expression of some religious version of the
wider globalization trend. They are, rather,
the expression of the sovereignty of God
in Christ, manifest in his church to fulfill
his Great Commission.
Back to the Beginning
This encouraging state of the border-
less church of Christ today offers us a
marvelous opportunity to learn new ways
of working together. We must abandon,
through newly acquired mental and spiri-
tual disciplines, any trace of paternalism,
cultural resentment, or cultural blinders
that might cause us to miss the blessing
that comes from brothers and sisters from
other cultures. Nigerians and North Ameri-
cans, Koreans and Brazilians, Filipinos and
Chinese, Swedes and Malays, and believ-
ers in every nation on earth form the one
universal church, the people of the God
of Abraham, a holy nation, a people be-
longing to God (1 Pet. 2:9). In contrast
to the doomed Babel of our day, we live
like strangers in a foreign country, look-
ing forward together to the city with foun-
dations, whose architect and builder is
God (Heb. 11:10).
Finally, we must return to the begin-
ning. Globalization is a logical develop-
ment of a secular world system. It is the
best one can expect of a world resistant
to the love and the kingdom of God. As
such, it is grossly inadequate to answer
the pressing deepest anxieties and despair
of humanity. The church must be careful
not to be too comfortable in the company
of globalization. The church is the wor-
shiping community of God, the one legiti-
mate unifying structure for the peoples of
the world. I believe the history of Babel
was recorded precisely to help us under-
stand this. It was humankinds best effort
to unite all peoples into one world com-
munity. God rejected it as unfit for the pur-
pose. He offers instead a new community
through the seed of Abraham, the church.
We are the alternative. The church today
must stand to globalization as Abraham
stood to Babel (see Gen. 11:1-8; 12:1-3).
Globalization is not the enemy, but it is a
bad answer to the problem of the fall and
fragmentation of humanity, and it will fail,
just as Babel failed.
Woe! Woe, O great city, O Babylon, city
of power! In one hour your doom has
come! The merchants of the earth will
weep and mourn over her because no one
buys their cargoes anymore articles of
every kind and bodies and souls of
men (Rev. 18:10-13).
Our mission remains, as always, to
bring to the stranded peoples of the world
the invitation to join the community of the
God of Abraham and become the kingdom
of the Lord and of his Christ, who shall
reign forever and ever in a truly universal
kingdom.
References
Ellul, J. (1989). The presence of the kingdom.
Colorado Springs, CO: Helmers & Howard.
Friedman, T. L. (1999). The Lexus and the olive
tree. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
Gorringe, T. J. (1999). Fair shares: Ethics and
the global economy. New York: Thames &
Hudson.
Lewis, C. S. (1946). That hideous strength: A
modern fairy-tale for grown-ups. New
York: The Macmillan Company.
Luttwak, E. N. (1999). Turbo-capitalism: Win-
ners and losers in the global economy. New
York: HarperCollins Publishers.
Richardson, D. (1992). Do missionaries de-
stroy cultures? In R. D. Winter & S. C.
Hawthorne (Eds.), Perspectives on the
world Christian movement: A reader (rev.
ed.) (pp. C-137C-148). Pasadena, CA: Wil-
liam Carey Library.
Sine, T. (1999). Mustard seed versus McWorld:
Reinventing life and faith for the future.
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
Alex Araujo was born in Brazil. His parents
were among the first-generation Evangelicals
in his home town. Alex and his wife Katy have
three children. Araujo has become bicultural
after many years in the United States. He has
served with the IFES in Portugal and with the
COMIBAM 87 steering committee in Brazil. He
served for 10 years as Director of Interna-
tional Operations with Partners International
and is currently serving with Interdev as a
consultant in contextualization and cross-
cultural partnership dynamics. Araujo has a
bachelors degree in political science and a
masters in international relations from San
Jose State University, California.
71
6
Christ
and the
mosaic of
pluralisms
Chris
Wright
N JANUARY 1999, England reeled under the shocking news
that Glen Hoddle, the coach of the England national foot-
ball team, had been sacked. This was not for failure on the
football field (though that would have been justified enough!)
but because of remarks he made about the disabled. Hoddle
had a Christian religious experience some years ago which
led to his being called a born-again Christian. However,
more recently he has embraced a form of New Age spiritual-
ity under the influence of a spiritual faith-healer, Eileen
Drewery. He expressed the view that the disabled are as they
are because of their karma from previous lives. It was, indi-
rectly, their own fault.
1
This statement outraged public sen-
timent in Britain and produced a fascinating clash of cultural
and ethical worldviews. Hoddles view, of course, comes
straight from the Hindu roots of much New Age philosophy
(though he did not go on to include women as also suffer-
ing the results of their karma, perhaps fortunately for him,
even though that is also part of the re-incarnational Hindu
worldview).
Interestingly, the response to Hoddle shows up a con-
tradiction in secular pluralism. On the one hand, a politi-
cally correct ideology wants to affirm the validity of Hindu
and New Age alternative spiritualities and reject allegedly
absolutist and arrogant Christian claims. Yet on the other
1
Hoddles words, in an interview with The Times, were, You
have to come back [in another lifetime] to learn and face some of
the things you have done, good and bad. There are too many injus-
tices around. You and I have been physically given two hands and
two legs and half-decent brains. Some people have not been born
like that for a reason. The karma is working from another lifetime.
It is not only people with disabilities. What you sow, you have to
reap.
I
hand, it is also very politically correct to
affirm and defend the disabled (or more
correctly, the differently abled).
What the Hoddle affair shows up is that
in the latter case, the politically correct
attitude itself is the legacy of a Christian
worldview which affirms the value of ev-
ery unique individual human being and
denies the debilitating and imprisoning
doctrine of karma. This contradiction with-
in popular religious and moral belief was
not much noticed, however. Pluralism
does not foster clear thinking about the
inconsistencies it is happy to live with. One
version of popular pluralism says, It
doesnt matter what you believe so long
as you are sincere. Another version seems
to say, It does matter what you believe if
it means insulting the weak. But those
who so vociferously adopt the latter view
would probably not like to be told that
such a view is itself strongly indebted to
the biblical and Christian worldview.
This example from recent British life
illustrates how popular spirituality and
opinions about ethical and social issues
are profoundly influenced by a great plu-
rality of religious worldviews, some being
new forms of pre-Christian paganism, oth-
ers being very ancient Oriental religious
fundamentals re-packaged in Western
forms.
The Task
My understanding of the task assigned
to me in this paper is two-fold:
1. To survey some of the forms of plu-
ralism that lie behind the pluralities of our
world as we enter the new millennium.
2
2. To suggest what will be key tasks for
Evangelical missiology in relation to them.
It is not my brief, as I understand it, to
propose what new mission strategies may
be needed in relation to global pluralities,
but rather to focus on what will be the
issues needing to be addressed by Evan-
gelical theological reflection that should
undergird our mission activity.
I have chosen three examples of
pluralism that I see as particularly chal-
lenging to Evangelical missiology: herme-
neutical, religious, and ethical.
3
Part of the
reason for this selection is that these three
forms of pluralism directly challenge three
of the defining marks of Evangelicalism
our concern for the authority of the Bible,
for the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, and for
transformed living according to biblical
ethical standards. These three are also
central to an Evangelical understanding
of mission, which flows from our under-
standing of the scriptural mandate, pro-
claims that Jesus Christ alone is Lord and
Saviour, and aims to produce transformed
human lives and communities.
I fully realise that this is an inadequate
selectionthere is a plurality of plural-
isms! Even pluralism itself is changing.
However, it is hoped that those reading
this sketch will helpfully fill out the gaps
in my own presentation, and that other
paper writers will address issues that I am
well aware of but have not felt able to ad-
dress in the confines of this paper. This
would especially include the plurality of
contextualized Christologies and the mis-
siologies that flow from them. I have also
chosen not to discuss the inner plurality
2
I will use the term plurality to denote the empirical phenomena of social, political, ethnic,
religious, etc. variety. Pluralism denotes the usually relativistic ideologies that support or re-
spond to those phenomena. Plurality is simply an observable fact of life. Pluralism is a philosophy.
I shall try to maintain this distinction.
3
In the first draft of this paper, I also included ethnic/political pluralism, but I have omitted
that variety now, since some aspects of that phenomenon are discussed in Samuel Escobars pa-
per (see chapter 3), under the heading Globalization and Contextualization.
christ and the mosaic of pluralisms 73
to be found within Evangelical missiology
itself (though I refer briefly to it under
Religious Pluralism below).
An Age of
Enormous Transition
Finally, by way of introduction, it is vi-
tal that we give full recognition to the tran-
sition from modernity to post-modernity
that is taking place in a very patchy way
around the world, together with the im-
plications not only for the practice of
Christian mission, but also for the task of
missiology. This is not to ignore the fact
that in some parts of the world, the tran-
sition is still more from pre-modernity into
modernity itself. However, it is the case
that some forms of pluralism that Chris-
tian missiology must address are the
product of post-Enlightenment modernity,
whereas others are the product of the
post-modern reaction to modernity itself.
Religious pluralism, for example, actually
exhibits a variety of forms that have roots
in the intellectual and cultural soil of both
modernity and post-modernity. Missiologi-
cal response, as we shall see below, must
discern and distinguish these different
roots when confronting different brands
of religious pluralism.
By modernity I am referring to the ep-
och of Western civilization that began with
the Renaissance, flourished in the wake
of the Enlightenment, and has reached its
zenith in 19
th
and 20
th
century cultures
dominated by the triumphs of science and
technology. Its dominant characteristic has
been the exaltation of autonomous human
reason and the application of reason to
every realm of life. There are many excel-
lent analyses of modernitys characteris-
tics and history.
4
Among the features of
modernity that are particularly relevant to
the Christian confrontation with various
pluralisms are those listed by Andrew
Walker (1996, ch. 5): the rise of the na-
tion-state, the establishment of functional
rationality, the emergence of structural
(epistemological) pluralism, the emer-
gence of cultural pluralism, a worldview
dominated by science and the idea of
progress, and the growth of individualism.
By post-modernity I am referring to the
shift in Western intellectual and popular
culture that began in the 1960s and 1970s.
It is helpful to distinguish the intellectual
and the popular forms of post-modernity
and, furthermore, in each case to observe
that there are negative and positive aspects
to the form.
5
Intellectual post-modernism
Intellectually, through the work of such
as Foucault, Lyotard, Derrida, and Bau-
drillard, the whole Enlightenment project
was exposed as having faulty foundations.
The negative or deconstructing acids
included the observation that so-called
objective and factual truth depends on
all kinds of assumptions, which are them-
selves relative and questionable. Foucault
pointed out that these hidden assump-
tions also frequently functioned as an in-
herent ideology of Euro-centric power and
hegemony. Language itself is no longer
seen as referential (referring to real ob-
jects) but symbolic (a system of signs). The
post-modern intellectual world is charac-
terized by relativism, with all attempts at
finding meaning doomed to being noth-
ing more than arbitrary and changing so-
cial constructions.
4
See, for example, Sampson, Samuel, & Sugden (1994); Giddens (1990); and Walker (1996).
5
In the section that follows, I am dependent on the helpful outline that explores these dis-
tinctions provided by Craig Van Gelder (n.d.).
Not all intellectual post-modern cul-
ture is negative in this way, however. There
are those who helpfully explore the rela-
tivity of all our knowing, without accept-
ing utter relativism. The position known
as critical realism accepts that there is an
objective real world out there (physically
and historically) which we can know, but
it insists that we need to be constantly criti-
cal of our own capacity to know it with
any finality or completeness. All our know-
ing is embedded in culture, history, and
community, but that does not invalidate
it. We may never be able to know fully or
perfectly, but that does not mean we can-
not know anything. So we need to be
humble (shedding Enlightenment arro-
gance) but not despairing.
6
In another way also, post-modernity
returns to perspectives on human life and
history which have been and still are held
by substantial sections of the human race
who have not yet been engulfed by the
Enlightenment assumptions of Western-
style modernity. I quote here from help-
ful comments made on the first draft of
my paper by Miriam Adeney:
Post-modernism has a number of as-
pects which may have positive dimensions.
For example: (1) Subject and object can-
not be disconnected. (2) Fact and value
cannot be disconnected. (3) History is not
necessarily progressing. (4) Cultures are
not necessarily ranked. (5) Truth is expe-
rienced in multiple and incomplete ways,
including paradox and ambiguity. (6) If
there is a meta-narrative, it is not based
on Enlightenment categories.
Post-modernism is not really a prob-
lem for much of the world, who always
have seen the sense of the above six per-
spectives and so are not disturbed by their
rise in the post-modern period.
It may well be, therefore, that Chris-
tian mission in the 21
st
century will find
that some aspects of the post-modern
worldview are more compatible with
bringing the gospel to certain cultures
than the values of modernity, which have
unfortunately characterized much Western
mission.
Popular post-modernism
Turning to the popular side of post-
modernity, popular culture manifests the
same ambiguity of negative and positive
forms of post-modernity. Negatively, there
is the brutal nihilism of some forms of art
and cinema. Life is meaningless: so what?
The failure and emptiness of so much of
the promise inherent in the mythology of
modernity have led to a great deal of pes-
simism in Western life, as well as a very
shallow attitude of get what you can from
the present: there isnt much future to
look forward to.
But post-modernity has its positive side
in popular culture as well. There are the
more vibrant forms of playfulness, collage,
irony, and symbolism of much contempo-
rary culture. Mix and match; switch im-
ages; plunder the past and mix it with the
present and future; dont look for depth
but enjoy the surface; life is a carnival to
be enjoyed, not a drama to be understood.
Furthermore, post-modernity celebrates
diversity of culture, whereas modernity
pushes for uniformity and homogeniza-
tion of human life into secular, scientific,
and materialistic categories.
Again, Miriam Adeney in her comments
on the earlier draft of this paper warned
against regarding plurality as a bad or be-
wildering thing. She says, I like to think
of Gods glorious multicultural kaleido-
scope. I view cultures as treasure chests
6
See Best & Kellner (1991, pp. 256-304). A helpful exposition of critical realism in relation
to biblical history is provided by the outstanding Evangelical New Testament scholar N. T. Wright
(1992, pp. 31-46).
of symbols for exuberant expression of
the image of God. Its true that people (as
sinners) create patterns of idolatry and
exploitation in every culture. Equally, how-
ever, people (in Gods image) create pat-
terns of beauty, wisdom, and kindness in
every culture.
I fully agree and would say that post-
modernitys celebration of cultural di-
versity is a lot closer to the Bibles own
affirmation of every tribe and nation and
language than is the homogenizing anti-
culture of modernity.
It is important, then, to be aware of
the fact that we live in an age of transi-
tionand it is not neat. People and soci-
eties do not go to bed one night modern
and wake up the next day post-modern.
There is an inter-layering between moder-
nity, late or hyper-modernity (the Mc-
World phenomenon (Sine, 1999) of the
globalized, multi-national, capitalist
world), and post-modernity. At the same
time, of course, large sections of human-
ity are bound to a religious worldview in
which the philosophical issues of moder-
nity and post-modernity are largely irrel-
evant or are treated with scathing dismissal
as evidence of the poverty of Western re-
ligion. The challenge to missiology is to
know which world we are addressing in
any given context, which world the church
itself is identified with, and what chal-
lenges the gospel presents to each of the
interwoven worldviews.
7
Hermeneutical
Pluralism
The transition from modernity to post-
modernity is producing some fascinating
effects in the world of biblical herme-
neutics, which have knock-on effects in
missiology, since so many missiological
issues are hermeneutical in essence. This
is especially so for Evangelicals, because
of our commitment to attaining a theol-
ogy of mission that can be defended as
biblical. The problem is, what does it
mean to be biblical, and who decides
when you are or are not being biblical?
Enlightenment modernity constrained
biblical hermeneutics into the straitjacket
of the historical-critical method and a form
of modern scientific exegesis that ex-
cluded the transcendent from Scripture as
sharply as autonomous rationality ex-
cluded it from the natural sciences. But,
as Brueggemann and others have point-
edly made clear, the myth of neutrality, of
scientific objectivity, concealed a Western
hegemony in biblical studies that tended
to stifle all other voices or readings.
Post-modernity, with its rejection of all
hegemonies and deep suspicion of all
claims to scientific objectivity, finality,
and universality, has challenged the criti-
cal hermeneutical consensus on Scripture
as well and has opened up a world of al-
most infinite plurality of readings and in-
terpretations. At one level, this has had
the exhilarating effect of giving a place in
the sun to a great variety of contextual
readings of the Scripture which are not
bound to the historical-critical method.
There is value in recognizing the relativ-
ity of all hermeneutics. A positive benefit
of the post-modern shift in biblical stud-
ies is that you dont have to submit your
interpretation of Scripture to a single ac-
crediting agencythe Western critical
guild of scholarship. On the other hand,
the post-modern rejection of any founda-
tion or grounds on which we might affirm
a reading of the biblical text to be right or
wrong opens up an uncontrolled relativ-
ism. The plurality of contexts in which the
text is read and heard becomes a plural-
ism of approach that has no limits or con-
7
Helpful discussion of these interwoven phenomena is to be found in Van Gelder (1996).
trols in relation to the truth of the text.
Indeed, such an approach questions
whether the very concept of the truth of
the text is meaningful. The text can have
as many meanings as there are readers and
contexts.
I believe 21
st
century missiology will
have to wrestle with a doctrine of Scrip-
ture that moves beyond the way Evangeli-
cal scholarship has tended to defend the
inspiration and authority of the Bible with
the concepts and methods of modernity
itself, towards a more dynamic under-
standing of the authority and role of the
Bible in a post-modern world. And I think
this will be one of the biggest challenges
for Christian theology in the 21
st
century,
since there is no mission without the au-
thority of Christ himself, and our access
to that authority depends upon the Scrip-
tures. So, a major missiological task for
Evangelical theology will be a fresh ar-
ticulation of the authority of the Bible
and its relation to Christs authorization
of our mission.
Faced with the basic hermeneutical
question, What does this biblical text
mean? scholars have tended to focus on
one of three possible locations for the real
source of meaning in texts: (1) the
author(s), (2) the text itself, or (3) the
reader(s). I would like to look at each of
these three focal points. First, I will very
briefly describe each one and evaluate
some key strengths and weaknesses. Then
I would like in each case to explore not
only how they relate to the contemporary
plurality of cultures and religions, but also
how cultural and religious plurality was
actually a major factor in the ancient bib-
lical context in which the text emerged
and which it addressed.
Author-centred focus
This hermeneutical approach, which is
common to Evangelical as well as more
critical interpretation, assumes that the
meaning of any biblical text is to be found
by going back to the origins of the text.
Exegesis is fundamentally based on recov-
ering the authors intent. This then in-
volves the grammatico-historical method.
By means of textual criticism, lexical and
semantic study, words, syntax, and gram-
mar, the exegete seeks to answer the ques-
tion, What did this author actually say,
and what did the words mean at the
time? A vital step in this process is to set
the text in its context or rather, its con-
texts, which will include canonical, histori-
cal, social, and cultural contexts. Then,
further, all the tools of critical study, some-
times collectively described as the his-
torico-critical method, will be employed
to explore the origins of the text before
us. These include source criticism, form
criticism, redaction criticism, etc. The com-
mon aim is to get as close as possible to
understanding what the original author(s)
of the text meant to communicate through
its production, collection, and preserva-
tion.
There are several obvious strengths in
such an approach:
It seems to be the common sense
approach. It assumes that meaning starts
in the mind of the author; when some-
body speaks or writes, he or she intends
to communicate some meaning which the
hearer/reader is meant to understand. This
approach respects the priority of author-
intent.
Author-centred focus tries to take
an objective approach, arguing for some
core of stable meaning in each text, which
is in principle recoverable by the exegete.
This approach offers some control
over the hermeneutical process by setting
limits/boundaries to possible meanings. It
enables some adjudication of legitimate
and illegitimate interpretations. We may
agree that a text could have several pos-
sible meanings but also agree that some
meanings are impossible. This does not
guarantee certaintythere is always
room for disagreement among readers.
But there is an assumption that we can
know enough to get a reasonably close
approximation to what the author prob-
ably meant to say.
The importance of paying attention
to the authors of biblical texts also lies in
their character as witnesses (directly or
indirectly) to the story of salvation. It is
assumed that biblical texts are referential.
That is, they actually refer to real events
in the real worldevents in which God
has acted for our salvation. The world of
the biblical authors is the world where
things happened that constitute the gos-
pel. The biblical text is like a window to
that world. Using the Bible among the re-
ligions must therefore mean telling the
story which makes it good news, not
merely treating it as a quarry of religious
ideas and ideals for comparison, admira-
tion, or exchange.
This last point highlights the futil-
ity of the question, Is there salvation in
other religions? Such a question over-
looks the primary nature of salvation in
the Bible, namely, as something that God
has done in and through the story which
the Bible relates. Other religions do not
save, not because they are inferior as reli-
gions in some way, but because religion
itself does not save anybody. God does.
Other religions do not tell the story, this
story. This is also why we cannot accept
the substitution of the scriptures of other
religions for the Old Testament.
But there are also some dangers if we
focus exclusively on the search for the
original authors intent:
Obsession with origins can obscure
the purpose of the text. The expression
modern scientific criticism reveals the
fact that the rise of the critical approach
to the text went hand in hand with En-
lightenment modernitys preference for
explaining everything by finding causes at
the expense of teleology (i.e., at the ex-
pense of seeking the purpose of some-
thing). Science explains by reducing
phenomena to their smallest parts and by
seeking causes of how things have become
what they are. It does not ask, What is
this for? Similarly, some critical exegesis
of the Bible breaks the text up into ever
smaller sources and then explores the ori-
gins, history, and structure for the small-
est possible units of the text, but it does
not answer the question, Yes, but what is
this book as a whole actually saying? What
is this text for? What does it do?
Author-centred focus treats the text
as a window, through which we can gain
access to the authors own world. How-
ever, exclusive attention to that world
(the world behind the text) can obscure
the fact that the purpose of a window is
also to let the light shine into the room of
the observeri.e., it can overlook (or ex-
clude) the revelatory function of the bib-
lical text. The text is not there simply to
shed light on the world of ancient Israel
or the early church, but to be a light to
my path. In other words, an Evangelical
approach to the Bible recognizes that au-
thor-intent is not confined to the human
author but must also include the intent
of the divine Author whose message ad-
dresses every human context through
these inspired texts.
In what way, then, does an author-
centred focus relate to religious plurality?
It is vital to remember that the biblical
authors did not speak or write in a vac-
uum: religious plurality was often a fac-
tor in their contexts just as much as ours.
Their intended meaning was related to
their world. We do not just look for a
sealed package of original meaning and
then seek to apply it to our context of
mission in the midst of plurality; we need
to recognize that what they meant in their
context was itself shaped by the missional
engagement of God and Gods people
with the world around them.
Here are a few examples in which reli-
gious plurality is clearly part of the con-
text of the authors world and needs to
be taken into account when interpreting
the text in question:
Exodus 15, the song of Moses. The
polemical affirmation of the kingship of
Yahweh is made in the context of a power
encounter with Pharoahs claim to divin-
ity.
Joshua 24:14f. Choose today ,
whether Mesopotamian gods of the ances-
tors or the gods of Egypt or of Canaan.
The monotheistic covenantal choice of
Yahweh was made in the context of ac-
knowledged religious plurality which was
part of the roots and background of the
people of Israel.
Hosea, confronted with the syncre-
tism of Baal cults with Yahwism, takes the
offensive by using the sexual nature of the
former as a source of language and imag-
ery to portray the married relationship
of Yahweh and Israel. By presenting the
covenant relationship as a marriage, he
can then portray Israels covenant unfaith-
fulness as adultery and prostitution. But
in doing so, he is exploiting the sexual
imagery of the very religious corruption
he is attacking.
Isaiah 4055. The great affirma-
tions of Yahwehs sovereignty over nations,
history, and the gods are made against
the background of the grand claims of
Babylonian godsespecially the astral
deities (40:26) and state gods (46:1-2).
Genesis 1. Israels monotheistic
understanding of creation is affirmed
against contemporary Ancient Near East-
ern mythology, polytheism, astrology, etc.
John. The conflict with elements of
Judaism that rejected the messianic claims
of Jesus and his early followers is por-
trayed.
Colossians. The uniqueness and
supremacy of Jesus Christ are upheld, in
the midst of the surrounding mixture of
paganism, early Gnosticism, Jewish ritu-
als, and mystery cults.
Revelation. Jesus is limned as the
Lord of history, against a background of
the sinister threat of emperor worship and
the state cult of Rome.
So, it seems to me that we will get
a closer understandinga better under-
standingof the authors original mean-
ing when we actually take into account the
worlds of religious plurality in which they
lived and therefore feel the contrast, feel
the way in which these words are being
emphasised. Our use of the Bible in the
world of modern religious pluralism will
be greatly helped in its missional sharp-
ness if we give more attention to the reli-
gious pluralism that was part of the world
of the biblical authors themselves.
Text-centred focus
This approach believes that meaning
is to be found in the text itself. The mean-
ing is regarded as an artifact, that is, some-
thing of human constructionlike a
painting, a piece of music, or a sculpture,
which can be appreciated for itself, no
matter who produced it or why. The text
is not so much a window that we look
through to some world beyond itself as it
is a painting that we look at. A painting
can even be made to look exactly like a
window, giving the illusion of some ob-
jective reality outside itself, but it is still
merely a painting, a work of human art-
istry. So, as applied to biblical texts, this
approach pays little attention to the au-
thor and his or her intentions (which we
cannot know for certain anyway). The text
now has an existence and a meaning of
its own, to be appreciated for its own sake
as a work of literary art and craft.
This approach has developed the use
of many helpful tools of literary analysis
and tends to engage in close reading of
texts, paying careful attention to all the
fine detail of a narrative or poem, in the
same way that an art connoisseur will ap-
preciate every brush stroke of a master
painter. Literary appreciation of biblical
literature will include, for example:
Genre identification What kind of
literature is this, and how is it to be read?
Literary conventions How do sto-
ries, poems, etc., actually work? How do
they engage and affect us when we read
them?
Narrative art Setting, plot, char-
acters, suspense, irony, perspective, gap-
ping, patterning, word-play, etc.
Poetic art Economy of words, im-
agery, metaphor, parallelism, poetic fig-
ures, chiasmus/concentricity, climax,
contrast, symbolism, etc.
Literary approaches to the biblical text
often bring out all sorts of layers of mean-
ing and significance that have been em-
bedded by the skill, the thought, the art,
and the craft of the human author to
whom God was entrusting the message
that was to be conveyed by the medium
of literature.
In evaluating this text-focused, literary
approach to biblical hermeneutics, we
may observe several strengths and values:
The Bible is great literature: it can
and should be appreciated at that level.
There is no necessary conflict between
believing in divine inspiration and appre-
ciating human artistry.
Literary approaches tend to be
more wholistic (that is, they tend to treat
passages or books as a whole), yet at the
same time they pay very close attention to
the fine details of the text. This is conso-
nant with an Evangelical commitment to
verbal inspiration; the choice of words
matters.
A literary approach helps us to un-
derstand how meaning is carried by the
form of a text and not just by its content.
We need to look not only at what is writ-
ten, but also at how it has been written.
Paradoxically also, a text-centred
approach respects the author, not so much
on the assumption that we can recover the
authors intended meaning, but that we
can admire the authors artistry.
Such an approach can go along with
the conviction that, strictly speaking (e.g.,
2 Tim. 3:16), inspiration is a property of
the texts of Scripture, not of the authors
or of the pre-canonical sources, etc. There-
fore, indirectly, a close literary reading of
the biblical texts is a compliment to the
divine Author as well (on an Evangelical
understanding).
A text-centred approach treats the
great variety of biblical texts with integ-
rity by genuinely listening to their pluri-
vocalityi.e., the internal dialectic of
views and perspectives, which often seem
in uncomfortable opposition to one an-
other. It resists flattening everything out
or squeezing everything into a univocal
system. This is a major emphasis in recent
post-modern hermeneutics.
8
But there are also, of course, dangers
in a literary approach which focuses ex-
clusively on the text itself without concern
for the identity or the world of the author.
(Never mind the history; feel the art.)
Literary approaches to the text can
sometimes totally ignore history. If the fas-
cination with literary art leads us to dis-
miss the historical question, Did it really
happen? then we have problems with the
biblical faith, which is actually rooted in
8
Cf. especially the later work of Brueggemann (1997a, 1997b), who rightly highlights how the
Bible itself has counter-pointing voices and traditions (exodus and exile, covenant and judge-
ment, hymn and lament, etc.), which need to be given their full expression and not explained,
excused, or excluded.
history. Now we may make allowances for
narrative libertythat is, we may be will-
ing to accept that not every single detail
in the way a story has been told mirrors
precisely what actually happened if youd
been there. But it is possible for real his-
tory to be told as a good story and for a
good story to be grounded in real history.
The having-happenedness of the bibli-
cal story is very important and should not
be lost sight of when we look at the art by
which that story was written.
A purely literary approach can lead
to texts being read without reference to
their place in the canon and therefore in
the story of Scripture as a whole. One can
focus on a text and appreciate its literary
qualities and even be moved by it, yet re-
main untouched by its significance as part
of the whole word of God to humanity.
Unbalanced commitment to unre-
solved plurivocality of the texts (favoured
by post-modern interpretation) results in
the loss of any real finality or normativity:
all we have is a constant oscillation of per-
spectives. This seems to me an abuse of
the plurality of the Bibles texts. It is the
opposite danger to the tendency to flat-
ten the whole Bible out into a single
monotone message. This is the tendency
never to allow the Bible to say anything
with finality at all.
Now, what about the religious plural-
ity aspect of this focus? It is important to
recogniseand I think sometimes Evan-
gelical scholarship does not adequately
recognisethat the biblical texts them-
selves do use religious language, meta-
phors, and symbolism that are drawn from
the plurality of religions that surrounded
the authors, yet without sharing the poly-
theistic worldview that supported such
religion.
As noted in the previous section,
Hosea, confronted with the syncretism of
Baal cults with Yahwism, takes the offen-
sive by using the sexual nature of the
former as a source of language and imag-
ery to portray the married relationship
of Yahweh and Israel. By presenting the
covenant relationship as a marriage, he
can then portray Israels covenant unfaith-
fulness as adultery and prostitution. But
in doing so, he is exploiting the sexual
imagery of the very religious corruption
he is attacking.
Some Psalms make use of
Canaanite mythology. For example, Psalm
48:1-3 uses the mythological city of the
great king, which in Baal epics was situ-
ated in the far north, to describe the his-
torical city of Yahweh, Jerusalem. Other
psalms employ Canaanite poetic metres,
such as Psalm 93, which also portrays
Yahweh as triumphant over the mighty
mythological enemy, the sea.
Isaiah 51:9-10 and Ezekiel 29:1-6
make use of Ancient Near Eastern dragon/
monster mythology to describe Yahwehs
judgement on Egypt, both in the Exodus
and in the defeat by Babylon.
Ezekiel 1 uses familiar Ancient
Near Eastern religious art and statuary, but
he transcends these objects in portraying
the dynamic sovereignty and glory of
Yahweh (e.g., four-headed, bull-legged,
winged creatures who held up the thrones
of gods or rode on wheeled chariots were
well known in Ancient Near Eastern ico-
nography).
Paul in Athens uses Greek poets,
yet subverts their religious worldview (Acts
17:24-31).
Johns Logos was a familiar term
in Greek philosophy, but John harnesses
it to full-scale Christological and incarna-
tional significance (John 1).
Such examples raise the age-old
missiological question of whether or how
far biblical texts can be preached and
taught, making use of contemporary reli-
gious concepts and symbols in our day.
Can we re-contextualize the biblical text
from an ancient to a modern religious
milieu, without dissolving the text into
syncretism? If the Bible itself could utilize
a plurality of pagan words, symbols,
myths, etc., to communicate its mono-
theistic and saving message, why should
not the church in mission, and in transla-
tion, do the same? But what are the limits
and controls? Again, the hermeneutical
task is fundamentally a missiological one,
and pluralism is the operating context at
both ends of the task, for both the biblical
text and the modern world.
It needs to be stressed that biblical texts
emphatically reject idolatry in all its forms,
throughout a very wide span of historical
and cultural contexts: Egyptian, Canaan-
ite, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Ro-
man idolatry are all condemned in the
course of biblical history. In fact, although
biblical texts obviously do describe the
religious practice of Gods own people
(i.e., of Old Testament Israel and of the
New Testament church), there is a strong
textual tradition that is anti-religious.
The Bible undermines the idea that
religion itself is the solution to human
problems. More often (in the prophetic
perception), it was the most virulent form
of the problem itself. (cf. Isa. 1, Jer. 7, Amos
5, Hos. 6, etc.).
Some biblical texts make remarkable
universal claims, in the midst of surround-
ing religious plurality, in relation to the
revelatory and salvific significance of par-
ticular key events (e.g., Deut. 4, Psalm 33,
Psalm 24, Isa. 4055, John 1, Phil. 2, Heb.
1, etc.). The great claim made for Jesus,
for example, in Philippians 2:10-11, was
made in its own context, against the wor-
ship of Caesar (Caesar is not Lord; Jesus
is). But it is made on the basis of quoting
a text from Isaiah 45:22-24 which is actu-
ally a claim for Yahweh in the context of
Babylonian pluralism: I am God, and
there is no other. By myself I have sworn,
my mouth has uttered in all integrity a
word that will not be revoked: Before me
every knee will bow; by me every tongue
will swear. They will say of me, In the Lord
alone are righteousness and strength. So,
the Philippians 2 passage is affirming the
uniqueness of Jesus in the context of Cae-
sar worship (religious plurality of the first
century) and building it on the founda-
tion of the uniqueness of Yahweh in the
context of Babylonian religious plurality
in the sixth century B.C. Both texts derive
their sharpness and significance from the
plurality of the contexts in which and
against which they were uttered. From a
missiological perspective, we need to see
their monotheistic meaning as sharply
defined because of the pluralism that they
so vigorously deny.
Reader-centred focus
Let us move on finally, then, to the third
main focusa reader-centred focus. This
is a more recent approach, in which
people bring into the foreground the role
of the reader(s) in active interpretation of
the Bible.
Under an author-centred approach, we
looked at the text as a window through
which we have access to the other world
the world of the ancient author. Under a
text-centred approach, we looked at the
text as a paintingthat is, as a product of
human art and skill, which needs to be
appreciated and understood for its own
sake. Here, under a reader-centred ap-
proach, we are thinking more of the text
as a mirror. What can be seen in a mirror
depends on who is standing in front of it.
The contents of the mirror, in a sense,
reflect who is looking into it or what ob-
jects are before it. And so, in this view, the
meaning in the text is not something fixed
and final in the textsome sort of objec-
tive reality. The meaning of the text actu-
ally only arises in the act of reading. It is
when the reader reads that the text means,
just as it is only when you look in a mirror
that the mirror reflects you. So meaning
is the interaction between text and reader.
Now this approach also reflects the
shift from a modernity paradigm of exege-
sis to a post-modernity paradigm. Under
modernity, the reader, rather like a scien-
tist, was simply the neutral observer of a
fixed reality which was external to him-
self or herself. An objective real mean-
ing, like the real world, was assumed
to exist; the task of the interpreter, like
the task of the scientist, was merely to
uncover the meaning. The more post-
modern view is to say, Well, actually, even
in science the subjective observer is part
of the reality under observation and, in-
deed, may change it in the act of observ-
ing it. And so the myth of the objective
neutral observer has been somewhat de-
moted in newer forms of science and is
similarly also being lost in hermeneutics.
The reader as subject also is a significant
part in the whole process. There is no in-
dependent, final, fixed meaning. And of
course, we are not the only readers of the
biblical text. There are also the original
readers to whom the text was first ad-
dressed; the later biblical readers who
collected these texts, edited them into
books, built the books into collections,
and built the collections into a canon; the
whole long chain of Jewish and Christian
readers down through the centuries since
the Bible reached its final form; and finally,
modern readers in multiple global con-
texts around our world today.
So, a reader-centred focus urges us to
take all these readers seriously. We need
to recognise that the meaning of the text
does relate to and cannot ignore who is
doing the reading and what they bring to
their reading from their own cultural back-
ground, presuppositions, assumptions,
and so on. (Nobody reads just as a blank
sheet; we always read with something else
in our minds.) We also need to take note
of where readers are readingthat is, their
position geographically (where they live);
their culture; their position within the
culture (whether at the top or the bot-
tom); their social, economic, and politi-
cal interests, and so on. All of these aspects
of the readers contexts will affect the way
in which the meaning is articulated and
applied. There is no such thing as con-
textless, presuppositionless exegesis or
interpretation.
How do we evaluate this reader-centred
approach? As before, there are positive
things to be said, first of all:
There is no doubt, I think, that fo-
cusing on the reader has facilitated fresh
ways of discovering the relevance of the
text in many modern contexts. The reality
of contextualised theology is now taken
for granted, provided we recognise that
we are all interpreting contextually, be-
cause all of us interpret in a particular
context! Western biblical interpretation
has no right to assume that all its insights
are the standard, while those from other
continents are contextualised. The West
is also a contextand not necessarily a
better or a worse context for understand-
ing and interpreting the text of the Scrip-
tures than anywhere else on the planet.
Recognizing this fact has led some-
what to the demise of Western hegemony
over exegesis and hermeneutics. We recog-
nise the relativity of all hermeneutics and
the fact that we all need one another. In
fact, for Westerners to hear the Bible in-
terpreted, understood, and preached by
African, Latin, or Asian brothers and sis-
ters in Christ, and vice versa, and then to
see the perspectives that others are bring-
ing are often very enriching experiences.
Attention to the context of the
reader(s) has unleashed the power of the
biblical text into contexts of human need,
conflict, or injusticee.g., in liberationist,
feminist, and other advocacy hermeneu-
tics. We may not always agree with where
such readers want to take us, but we can-
not deny the validity of reading the text in
and into such contexts and issues. Mean-
ing is affected by who you are and what
agenda you have. As Anthony Billington
once put it, If you are a feminist, pacifist
vegetarian, the text may show up differ-
ent meanings as you read it than if you
are a male-chauvinist, war-mongering car-
nivore.
There are, of course, dangers in an
unbalanced emphasis on the role of the
reader in determining the meaning of the
biblical text:
A reader-centred approach can de-
generate into pure subjectivism if it is not
carefully watched. It reverses the priority
of author intent as the determinant factor
in a texts meaning. In fact, in some cases,
reader response theory goes so far as vir-
tually eliminating the author altogether:
It doesnt really matter who said this or
what they meant by saying it; what mat-
ters is what it means to me. Thats all that
really counts. So the reader is prioritised
over the author, and the authority, there-
fore, lies not with the author or with the
text but with the reader, the readers self
and that, again, is very reflective of a post-
modern kind of worldview. One has to say
that it is not far removed either from some
popular forms of Evangelical Bible read-
ing, which arrogantly exclude any tradi-
tion of scholarly study of the text and are
content only to ask, What does this text
mean for me?
A reader-centred approach also
means, of course, that all sense of objec-
tive or external controls is lost. If there is
no assumption of some fixed or stable core
of meaning in the text itself deriving ulti-
mately from the authors intention, then
pluralism rules: there is no such thing as
a right or a wrong reading, a legiti-
mate or illegitimate readingsome may
be better than others, but it is difficult to
know who has the right to say so.
Effects on interpretation
How then is the interpretation of the
Bible affected by the religious plurality of
contemporary readers? How do the mul-
tiple cultural and religious contexts of
people reading the Bible today affect how
they understand its meaning? This of
course is a question as old as the Bible
itself. The Hebrew Scriptures were trans-
lated into Greek long before the New Tes-
tament was written, so that culturally and
contextually Greek-speaking people could
read them. A few examples will suffice to
illustrate how the reading of the Scriptures
is affected by the cultural and religious
pre-understandings of the readers.
The Islamic world
There are obvious difficulties in the
Bible for Muslims: God as Father, Jesus as
the Son of God, the story of the Conquest,
and the treatment of Ishmael. More subtle
difficulties include the biblical record of
the sins of the prophets, such as Abra-
hams lies, Moses murder, and Davids
adultery. These human failingsthings
which Jews and Christians accept as en-
couraging evidence of the humanity of the
Old Testament saintsare for Muslims
further proof that Christians have tam-
pered with the Bible.
Positive aspects of interpretation in the
Islamic world include the Arab/Islamic
appreciation of stories (cf. the work of
Kenneth Baillie). Parables are quite pow-
erful in this culture, and the parabolic
method is helpful in circumventing cer-
tain theological objections and blindspots.
The Hindu world
Some biblical language and imagery is
very open to misunderstanding within the
Hindu worldview, such as born again,
avatar/incarnation, abide in me, etc.
The apostles could freely use pagan
words that had different connotations in
the Greek world, such as theos, kyrios,
logos, soter, and mysterion, in order to
re-shape and use them for Christian pur-
poses. But there is the danger of liberal
Indian theologies that syncretise biblical
categories into the Hindu worldview and
then dissolve the vital distinctions.
African Independent
Churches (AICs)
Because of their practice of reading the
whole Bible flat (i.e., assigning equal
authority to all parts, with no regard for
historical development in the canon),
some AICs have picked out some very odd
and exotic aspects of, for example, Old
Testament ritual. They have then not only
continued these practices, but also exalted
them as biblical.
Sometimes, as an indirect result of
translation policies, young churches have
had only the New Testament for almost a
generation before the Old Testament be-
comes available. The Old Testament, com-
ing later, is viewed as superior (like
secondary education), so some Old Tes-
tament practices are regarded as privi-
leged. Furthermore, the long delay in
translating the Old Testament means that
sometimes the underlying worldview of
the traditional religion has not been chal-
lenged or replaced by a fully biblical one
encompassing creation, the fall, the his-
tory of salvation from Israel through Jesus,
and the eschatological hope of a new cre-
ation.
Conclusion
The thrust of my argument in this sec-
tion is that Evangelical missiology will have
to take as a major task in the 21
st
century
a fresh articulation of our doctrine of
Scripture. In doing so, we shall have to
take more account of the plurality (cul-
tural and religious) that is to be found at
every level of the hermeneutical process
in the world of the author; in the language,
idiom, and imagery of the text; and in the
contexts of the readers.
Religious Pluralism
Features and roots
It is not the facts, statistics, and chal-
lenges of the plurality of religions which
are at issue here. Obviously, it is a task for
practical mission strategy to address the
multiplicity of specific religious contexts
in which ambassadors for the Christian
gospel must witness. What the missiologist
must address is the challenge of the phi-
losophy of pluralism which presents itself
as a powerful and dominant response to
that religious plurality. Pluralism, briefly
defined, is the view that salvation/enlight-
enment/liberation is said to be a reality in
all major religious traditions, and no single
religion can be considered somehow nor-
mative or superior to all others. All reli-
gions are in their own way complex
historically and culturally conditioned
human responses to the one divine real-
ity (Netland, 1991, p. 26).
Elsewhere, pluralism is defined as the
belief that there is not one, but a number
of spheres of saving contact between God
and man. Gods revealing and redeeming
activity has elicited response in a number
of culturally conditioned ways throughout
history. Each response is partial, incom-
plete, unique; but they are related to each
other in that they represent different cul-
turally focused perceptions of the one ul-
timate divine reality (Race, 1982, p. 78).
Religious pluralism of the variety that
has emerged from the cradle of moder-
nity is primarily an epistemological plu-
ralism. That is, it has to do with the
question of how we can (or cannot) know
the truth-value of religious claims. It is
based on a key feature of the Enlighten-
ment transformation of Western think-
ingnamely, the cleavage or gulf that was
inserted into human knowing in the wake
of Descartes and Kant in particular. The
whole sphere of Western life and culture
was divided into two hemispherespub-
lic and private. The public world is the
world of so-called objective facts, which
are discovered by empirical enquiry and
by the application of reason by a detached,
neutral observer. The private world is the
world of subjective beliefs, personal mo-
rality, family values, religion, etc. In this
structural dichotomy, one can only really
know what is in the public hemisphere,
because knowledge has to be based on
scientific proof. Only that which can be
empirically proved can be taken as true
and therefore can be known. Everything
else is a matter of opinion or faith, but it
cannot be a matter of truth and knowl-
edge. Any appeal to authoritative divine
revelation is ruled out as a source of truth
and knowledge. Therefore, religion, since
it cannot be proved empirically and ra-
tionally, is removed from the arena of pub-
lic truth and relegated to the zone of
private belief.
Western culture thus embraced a du-
alism. On the one hand, there was a kind
of secular monisma commitment to the
sole objective truth of all things scientific
and rational. In that hemisphere, intol-
erance ruled: you dont argue with the
objective facts of science. On the other
hand, there developed religious plural-
ismthe refusal to accept that any single
set of religious beliefs could be proved to
be solely true. Since religious beliefs can-
not be known or proved by the exercise
of reason alone, we have to allow for a
variety of opinions. It is important to un-
derstand that this is an epistemological
form of pluralism. It does not assert that
there is no such thing as truth at all (that
is the more post-modern brand of onto-
logical pluralism). Rather, it limits the
boundaries of what can be known to be
true to the realm of materialistic science
and applied rationality. Then, by exclud-
ing all religious belief from any valid claim
to knowable truth, it argues that the only
valid stance in relation to conflicting reli-
gious beliefs is to allow the possibility of
some truth in all of them and to exercise
a tolerant pluralism.
Along with this epistemological plural-
ism goes that other fruit of modernitya
consumerist, supermarket approach to
everything at the popular level. In a su-
permarket, you dont look for the break-
fast cereal that is right or true. You just
choose what you like. The same goes for
religion and morality and all the values
that go with them. Since they fall into the
hemisphere in which objective knowledge
is said to be impossible in principle, you
just choose what suits you best.
Missiological response
The missiological task in relation to the
kind of pluralism that stems from moder-
nity roots has to be to attack those roots
themselves. That is, we must carry forward
the critique of Enlightenment modernity
assumptions that have made pluralism the
dominant philosophy of Western culture,
both intellectually and in popular plausi-
bility. Easily the most pioneering voice in
this task has been that of Lesslie Newbigin.
Along with other participants in the Gos-
pel and Culture Movement in Britain, he
has exposed the fallacies and false trails
of modernitys epistemological dichotomy
and arrogance.
9
He has shown that the
task for the church in Western societies,
where religion has been privatized and
marginalized by the dominance of scien-
tism and materialism, is to re-affirm the
gospel as public truth. By that he means
9
See Newbigin (1989, 1991, 1995). Another key work from the Gospel and Culture Move-
ment is Walker (1996).
that Christians must assert their claim that
the biblical story of Gods redemptive en-
gagement with the world he created is the
universal story, that it can be known and
affirmed as truth, and that it constitutes a
valid starting point for other truth-seek-
ing and knowing. We must reject the nar-
row, shallow reductionism that tells us we
can only know what we can discover
with our senses and demonstrate with our
rationality. We must get the claims of Chris-
tian truth back into the public hemisphere
from which modernity banished them.
Furthermore, we must point out more
aggressively that even scientific knowing
also starts out from some enormous faith
commitments. As Newbigin says, all know-
ing starts from believing something
in the world of science as much as reli-
gion. The Enlightenment dichotomies of
objective-subjective, public-private, and
knowledge-faith are built on very shaky
foundations.
Ironically, in confronting the false-
hoods of modernity, Christian missiol-
ogy now has an ally in the post-modern
critique that has arisen from the contra-
dictions of late modernity itself. Post-
modernity attacks the presuppositions of
modernity, just as many Christians do
(though many Evangelical Christians, in-
cluding many mission strategists, still op-
erate within paradigms profoundly shaped
by modernity). However, while post-
modernity certainly helps us to dispense
with the arrogant claim that scientific truth
is the only truth worth knowing or capable
of being known at all, it throws up what is
probably an even more serious challenge
to the Christian worldviewthat is, the
assertion that there is no ultimate or uni-
versal truth to be known about anything
at all, science included. When this post-
modern mindset comes to deal with reli-
gions, it moves beyond the epistemo-
logically based religious pluralism we have
just considered (we cannot know which
religion gives us the real truth, so we must
allow for something true in all of them
and seek the truth in dialogue together)
to a more ontological religious pluralism
(there is no universal truth, in religion
or anywhere else; what matters is not what
may or may not be universally true, but
what is locally or temporarily true for you;
religion is little different from therapy for
the selfif there is such a thing).
It seems to me that Evangelical missiol-
ogy will have to continue to tackle both
kinds of religious pluralismmodernity
based epistemological pluralism and post-
modern ontological pluralismwell into
the 21
st
century, since both forms will co-
exist during the era of cultural transition
we have entered.
Whats Wrong
With Pluralism?
10
Superficially, pluralism can seem plau-
sible and attractive. After all, it still talks
about God and is willing to keep Christ in
the picture somewhere, so what more do
you need? You are allowed to keep Christ
as the focus of your own religion, so long
as you make room for the other planets
in the religious solar system. Isnt that fair
enough? It also seems to relieve us of all
that worry about what will happen to
those who never hear the gospel of Christ.
They have their own religion which puts
them in touch with God, so thats all right
then too. And most of all, it fits so per-
fectly with the supermarket mentality
10
This section is substantially an extract from Wright (1997). In that volume, I seek to define
and critique the three major Christian responses to the reality of religious pluralityexclusivism,
inclusivism, and pluralismand to provide further biblical reflection on the uniqueness of Christ
in that context.
that characterizes the modern and post-
modern Western mind. However, un-
derneath all these attractive features,
pluralism has some major implications
that set it totally at odds with biblical Chris-
tianity and make it actually a particularly
dangerous philosophy for Christians to toy
with. My dominant criticisms are directed
at what pluralism does to our understand-
ing of God, Jesus, and the worship of
Christians themselves.
11
Pluralism reduces
God to abstractions
John Hick is one of the leading plural-
ist theologians. He has argued for what
he calls pluralist theocentrismthat is,
we should no longer put Christ or the
church at the centre of the religious uni-
verse, but only God. God is like the sun
at the centre of the solar system, and Chris-
tianity along with all the other religions
are like the orbiting planets, all attracted
by the gravity of the sun, but each in its
own unique orbit. However, one marked
feature of this Copernican revolution, as
Hick called it, is that the theos (god) who
is finally left at the centre becomes utterly
abstract. Clearly he cannot be identified
or named in terms of any particular deity
known within the different world faiths,
for they are all only partial responses to
this mysterious being. In fact, Hick is quite
insistent on this. Names like Yahweh,
Jesus, Vishnu, Allah, Brahman, etc., are
simply human cultural constructs by
means of which people within a particu-
lar religious community give expression
to their experience of the divine. What-
ever those believers may think or claim,
the names of their gods are not to be iden-
tified with the actual divine reality. (It is
important to realize that what pluralism
does to Christianity, it also does to all reli-
gions; none of them has access to the ulti-
mate truth about God as God really is.)
Those names or concepts found in the
various religions are like humanly con-
structed masks
12
by which the divine
reality is thought to be encountered by
devotees of those religions. But none of
them is ultimately true in the way their
worshippers claim. Thus, for example,
Hick (1992, pp. 130-131) says about the
Jewish view of God: The concrete figure
of Jahweh is thus not identical with the
ultimate divine reality as it is in itself but
is an authentic face or mask or persona of
the Transcendent in relation to one par-
ticular human community. He then goes
on to say that this is how he regards the
ultimate names of deity in other religions:
For precisely the same has to be said of
the heavenly Father of Christianity, of the
Allah of Islam, of Vishnu, of Shiva, and so
on.
13
So one finds that the sun at the cen-
tre is given other names, which are in
11
I am confining myself here to some fundamental theological issues raised by pluralism.
There are many other aspects in which pluralism is open to profound criticism and which are
tackled by other scholars (cf. Newbigin, 1989; Netland, 1991; Kirk, 1992; Carson, 1996).
12
Hick uses the term personae for this, which originally in Latin referred to the mask that
ancient actors wore. Thus, what the worshippers of a particular deity see as they contemplate
their particular god is not the divine reality as it really is in itself (the actor), but only the mask
as a kind of interface between the hidden divine reality (the actor) and the worshipper (the spec-
tator). This assumes, of course, that although the different religions have manifestly different and
grossly contrasting masks, it is the same actor behind all of them. Then Hick goes on to suggest
using impersonae for the non-personal understandings of the ultimate as found, for example, in
philosophical advaita Hinduism and Buddhism.
13
A fuller explanation of Hicks thinking in this area will be found in Hick (1989, especially
part 4, pp. 233-296).
fact not names at all but abstract undefi-
nitions. Ultimate Divine Reality is Hicks
favourite. Then you will often read of
Transcendent Being or even simply The
Real. And if you ask what this Being is
like, you will be told that you cannot know.
It is beyond description or knowing as it
is in itself. But all the religions have some
partial view of it through the lens of their
culturally particular religion.
By using this kind of language, you can
also avoid having to decide whether this
divine being is personal or impersonal.
This is very convenient, since that is pre-
cisely the point of conflict between, say,
Hinduism and Christianity, and even with-
in different schools of Hinduism. But the
language of the pluralists certainly tends
towards an impersonal view of deity.
There is little of the living warmth of the
biblical language of the personal charac-
teristics of God. Most ordinary people find
the abstract concepts of philosophers
rather difficult to understand and even
more difficult to believe in for their salva-
tion. As Newbigin (1995, pp. 165-167) has
put it so strongly, why should we have to
believe that an impersonal, indefinable
abstraction has any better claim to be the
centre of the religious universe than a
known person who stands revealed in re-
corded history? Why should such an ab-
stract philosophical concept be regarded
as a more reliable starting point for dis-
covering the truth and finding salvation
than commitment to a personal God in
Christ?
Pluralism diminishes Jesus
God or Christ at the centre?
The pluralists want us to be theocentric
(God-centred) but to give up being Christo-
centric (having Christ at the centre). The
trouble is that it seems impossible to do
this and stay within the framework of New
Testament faith. There are some scholars,
however, who try to drive a wedge be-
tween the fact that Jesus preached the
kingdom of God (i.e., a theocentric proc-
lamation) and the fact that the church
preached Jesus (thus shifting the focus to
a Christocentric proclamation, which then
became the churchs dominant position).
However, this will not do. Certainly Jesus
preached the kingdom of Goda very
theocentric thing to do. But the kingdom
of God, as preached by Jesus, centred on
himselfwho he was and what he had
come to do. In fact, it was precisely be-
cause he so persistently put himself at the
centre of his teaching about God and
about Gods kingdom that Jesus aroused
such hostility.
There was nothing at all scandalous
about simply being theocentric in Jewish
society! God was at the centre of every-
bodys religious universe in one way or
another. But for a man to claim that scrip-
tures concerning the future work of God
were fulfilled in himself, that he had power
to forgive sins, that he was Lord over the
Sabbath, that he was the Son of Man to
whom eternal dominion would be given,
and many other such claims was simply
blasphemyand these claims were indeed
reckoned to be blasphemous by his con-
temporaries. That was why they crucified
himnot for being theocentric, but for
putting himself in that centre where they
knew only God should be. Blasphemous
it certainly wasunless, of course, it was
true.
In the same way, the first Christians,
who were Jews and therefore strict mono-
theists, already lived in a thoroughly theo-
centric universe. They were shaped to the
core by the central affirmation of Jewish
faith: Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God,
the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God
with all your heart and with all your soul
and with all your strength (Deut. 6:4-5).
But with considerable struggle and often
at great personal cost, these believers de-
liberately put their contemporary, the man
Jesus of Nazareth, right at the centre of
that majestic Old Testament faith. They did
so every time they made the crucial affir-
mation, Jesus is Lord. That did not mean
they had given up or diluted their theo-
centrism. On the contrary, their faith in
God at the centre of the religious universe
was as strong as ever. But now it was filled
out, re-defined, and proclaimed in the
light of their encounter with God in the
person and action of Jesus, the Christ. So
Paul could write what is virtually an ex-
pansion of the great Jewish creed to in-
clude Jesus Christ alongside the creator
God: For us there is but one God, the
Father, from whom all things came and
for whom we live; and there is but one
Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all
things came and through whom we live
(1 Cor. 8:6).
The New Testament writings are a con-
stant reflection of the struggle by which
the God-centred faith of the Old Testament
was seen to be Christ-centred in reality.
This was not a perversion nor an exaggera-
tion born out of human hero-worship. It
was the calm conviction that Jesus of
Nazareth, in the light of his life, death, and
resurrection, was indeed the centre and
key to the whole redemptive work of God,
past, present, and future. He was at the
centre of their theocentric religious uni-
verse because he was Immanuel, no less
than God with us.
A relativized Jesus?
Following from the above point, it
seems to me that the pluralist view can-
not be reconciled with authentic Christian-
ity, because to relativize Jesus Christ is to
deny him. By relativizing Jesus, I mean
regarding him as only one among many
great religious figures through whom we
can know about God and find salvation.
It means regarding him as one of the or-
biting planets of world religions, not as
the one and only absolute source of life
and light as, for example, John 1 presents
him.
However, if the New Testament is taken
even as a reasonably reliable source, then
it is unquestionable that Jesus made some
astounding and absolute claims for him-
self. It is equally clear that his immediate
followers in the early Christian church
made similar claims concerning him, both
explicitly in their preaching and implic-
itly in their worship and prayer through
his name. So since biblical and historical
Christianity makes such affirmations about
Jesus, it follows that whatever kind of
Christianity is put into orbit around the
sun of ultimate divine reality, it is not
the Christianity of Christ and his apostles.
Jesus only for Christians?
Now pluralists will reply that Jesus still
remains central for Christians and that
nothing need change that. As such, they
say, Jesus is the distinctive Christian gift
to the inter-religious dialogue. But, we are
told, we should only come to the dialogue
table once we have renounced those ab-
solute claims to the uniqueness or finality
of Christ, for those claims are regarded by
pluralists as arrogant and intolerant and
therefore out of place in genuine dialogue.
Jesus may be decisive and authoritative for
those who have chosen to follow him
(Christians), but he need not be imposed
on others as unique or universal. Thus
Race (1982, p. 136) says, Jesus is deci-
sive, not because he is the focus of all the
light everywhere revealed in the world, but
for the vision he has brought in one cul-
tural setting. Jesus would still remain
central for the Christian faith. In other
words, the great New Testament affirma-
tion, Jesus is Lord, is reduced to mean-
ing, Jesus is Lord for us because we have
chosen to regard him as such; his Lord-
ship is relative to our acceptance of him.
It no longer means, Jesus is objectively
and absolutely the universal Lord to whom
alone we submit and to whom ultimately
all creatures in heaven and earth will bow.
A deluded Jesus
or a deluded church?
But even supposing we were to go
along with the pluralists at this point and
accept that Jesus is unique only in the
sense that he is relatively special for Chris-
tians but not the supreme Lord of all, we
then have to ask what kind of gift to in-
terfaith dialogue this relativized Jesus
actually is. If Jesus Christ was not God in-
carnate, if he was not the final revelation
of God and the completion of Gods sav-
ing work for humanity, if he is not the risen
and reigning Lord, then we are faced with
two possibilities: The first is that Jesus
himself was mistaken in the claims he
made concerning himself, in which case
he was either sadly deluded or an arro-
gant boaster. Certainly, if his enormous
claims were actually false, he would not
be a worthy religious figure whom we
could bring to the dialogue table with any
confidence. We would need to apologize,
not evangelize.
The second possibility is that the
church from its earliest period (including
the generation of Jesus own contempo-
raries, who were the first witnesses to him)
has grossly misunderstood him, inflated
his claims, and exaggerated his impor-
tance. Pluralists require us to accept that
the church throughout its history (until
its rescue by late 20
th
century pluralist
Enlightenment) has propagated, lived by,
and based all its hope upon a massive, self-
deluded untruth. A deluded Jesus or a
deluded church or boththis seems to be
the unavoidable implication of the plural-
ists insistence on relativizing Jesus.
The dismal results of this view are
quickly clear. A. G. Hunter, for example,
argues that Jesus was, in fact, not more
than human but was elevated to divine
status only by the church and was installed
in the Trinity only at the Council of Chal-
cedon. Somehow, Hunter (1985, p. 55)
simply knows that it was psychologically
and religiously impossible for Jesus [to
have claimed divinity], and it is historically
false to say that he did. When you can be
so confidently and dogmatically negative
about the historical Jesus, you have to
be equally negative and uncertain about
what value he has for faith. Hunter (1985,
p. 76) concludes: What emerges is that
though we are agreed that Jesus is at the
heart of our faith as Christians, it is hard
to find any clear consensus as to the pre-
cise delineation of his importance.
If such paralysed agnosticism is all we
are left with, is it worth contributing to
religious dialogue at all? Is that what rep-
resentatives of other world faiths want to
hear from us? If, as pluralists say, we have
to relativize Jesus before we can come to
the dialogue, then we had better not come
at all. All we have to bring with any integ-
rity would be a repentant confession that
we belong to a worldwide faith which
throughout the whole of its history has
had an illusion and a falsehood at its fun-
damental heart and core.
Pluralism renders
Christian worship idolatrous
Religious pluralists say that Jesus can-
not stand at the centre of the religious
universe. He cannot be equated or identi-
fied with the God (however described) at
the centre. We must not look at Jesus
from above, so to speak, as God incar-
nate, but rather see him as essentially one
of us (which he was, of course) and do
our Christology from below. There are
many shades of opinion among scholars
who prefer this approach, but in the end
what it means is that, whatever else Jesus
may have been, he was ultimately not
more than human. Certainly he was not
God incarnate in any ontological sense.
He may have been a vehicle or agent of
Gods activity for revelation and salvation,
but only as a man. That is, he may have
been one of those exceptionally special
human beings through whom the rest of
us can come to a deeper and clearer un-
derstanding of God, but the language
about his being of God, with God, or from
God is simply the understandable exag-
geration that gives voice to faith and ado-
ration and gratitude.
Many who take this view would agree
that Jesus was unique in some sense: for
example, in the depth of his own relation-
ship with God and the extent to which he
mediated God to others, including our-
selves. But they would see this as a unique-
ness of degree, not of essence. God may
have been very specially present and ac-
tive through Jesus of Nazareth, but Jesus
was not (and therefore is not) God. He
cannot stand at the centre of the religious
universe. Even in his uniqueness as de-
fined, he must go into orbit around the
centre along with other great religious fig-
ures who all have their own unique fea-
tures also.
The more I reflect on this view, the
more surprised I am at how reluctant its
advocates seem to be to draw the ultimate
conclusion from it, which seems quite in-
escapablethat is, that Christianity is and
always has been the worst form of idola-
try ever practised on earth.
14
The most
serious charge which Jews and Muslims
15
have levelled against Christians all through
the centuries would actually be true: we
have elevated a human being to the place
of God and have worshipped him there.
For that is what we do and what we have
been doing ever since the book of Acts.
We ascribe to Jesus honour and glory that
belongs only to God; we call on his name
in prayer as God; we call him Lord and
refuse to acknowledge any other; we claim
that through Jesus and Jesus alone God
has acted to save humanity and there is
14
Some pluralists are indeed prepared to say that the worship of Christ is actually idolatry,
though they carefully re-define idolatry in a positive light and tend to be very dismissive of how
the Bible talks of it. Wilfred Cantwell Smith (1987), for example, in a carefully argued re-assess-
ment of what, based on a pluralist understanding, actually constitutes idolatry, says that it should
only be used negatively when describing religious positions which regard themselves as ultimate
and then negate the value of others. On such grounds, For Christians to think that Christianity is
true, final, or salvific is a form of idolatry, if by that they mean to deny that God has also inspired
Islam, Hinduism, etc. Smith goes on to ask whether the figure of Christ served as an idol
through the centuries for Christians? and essentially answers that it has, but there is nothing
wrong with that, since the best meaning of idols in all religions is something earthly or material in
itself, which becomes the channel of transcendence. See Smith (1987) and also the comments of
Tom F. Driver in the same volume: I think it necessary to say that the idolization of Christlet us
call it christodolatryis not only possible but in fact frequent. Indeed I would go further and
say that there is even such a thing as an idolatrous devotion to God (pp. 214-215). I still prefer to
maintain a biblical understanding of the category of idolatry as meaning the action of giving
ultimate and divine status to anything or anyone that is not in reality the living Godmeaning
the God as revealed in the Bible, not the characterless abstract Transcendent of the pluralist
hypothesis. According to this understanding, the worship of anything or anyone other than God
as revealed in Christ is idolatry, but the worship of Christ himself as not merely the one through
whom we can see God, but ontologically God-in-humanity, is assuredly not idolatry.
15
Muslims are well aware of the implications of the pluralist developments in Christian theol-
ogy. A friend from Singapore has told me that The Myth of God Incarnate (Hick, 1977) is required
reading for Muslim missionaries. I was told by Indian Christian missionaries in India that even in
remote rural villages, Muslims can counter the Christian gospel with the riposte that even bish-
ops in the Church of England now believe what Muslims have always believedthat Jesus was
not really God and did not really rise again.
no other way; we apply to him the most
solemn scriptures that Israel used con-
cerning Yahweh; we sing to him songs of
worship and praise that were originally
sung to Yahweh and have made up book-
fuls of our own. All these things we have
done for 2,000 years but with no justifica-
tion at all, if the pluralists are right. For,
no matter how remarkable he was, no
matter what God did in and through him,
if Jesus was not more than a man, then
the whole Christian faith and all the gen-
erations of Christian worship have been a
monstrous idolatry.
Conclusion
So we arrive at the end of the plural-
ists road. At best, Christ becomes so
universal as to be of no real value except
as a symbol. At worst, he is exposed as an
idol for those who worship him and as
dispensable by those who dont.
The discussion above has been limited
to the internal Christian debate about the
plurality of religions and has not even
begun to focus on the challenges pre-
sented by the great world religions them-
selves to Christian mission and missiology.
Each of them would need a separate pa-
per, since the contexts they represent are
so unique. Obviously, Christian missiologi-
cal response to each of the great faiths will
remain a major challenge in the 21
st
cen-
tury. But Evangelical missiology will have
to continue to confront that brand of
Christian pluralism which undermines the
uniqueness of Christ and subverts the
challenge of the gospel from within.
Ethical Pluralism
Features and roots
We live in a world of ethical plurality
and confusion. Even in the West, it seems
a long way, both historically and cultur-
ally, from the apparent self-evident
truths of the American Declaration of In-
dependence, which included basic state-
ments about human equality and pro-
claimed ideals of life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness. Universal statements
of ethical rights and duties, such as the
various United Nations declarations on
human rights, command less respect, in
spite of continued lip service and the
moralizing of Western politicians.
On the one hand, such universal dec-
larations are challenged by countries and
cultures whose moral views come from a
radically different religious worldview
from the broadly Christianized context out
of which the U.N. Declaration of Human
Rights, for example, arose. Islamic states
have protested at being judged by moral
standards which they see as not founded
in the principles of Islam, especially since
the very nations which preach those
standards at Islamic countries are guilty
of manifest hypocrisy in their own moral
failures. Similarly, in India, militant Hin-
duism sees no ethical hindrance to its
exclusion of lower caste and non-caste
Indians from social participation or politi-
cal rights; the caste system, allied to the
religious philosophy of karma and re-
incarnation, provides plenty of ethical
justification for the status quo. This phi-
losophy, which turns up in the West as
somewhat outlandish but malice-free
views on the lips of Glen Hoddle, is the
religious worldview that undergirds the
oppression currently resurgent in the larg-
est democracy on earth.
On the other hand, universal moral
declarations are under challenge in the
cultures which produced them in the first
placewithin the West itself. In the post-
modern, post-imperial climate, any claim
regarding universally valid morality is re-
jected as cloaked imperialism. To say that
something is an absolute human right or
duty is simply to impose our cultural val-
ues on others. If there is no transcendent
authority behind morality, then we have
no right to choose one set of values that
appeal to us and insist that the rest of the
world abide by them. This is a problem
faced not just by Christians. Some West-
ern secular companies with a concern for
business ethics are conscious of the fol-
lowing dilemma, which I read in a secular
business magazine on an international
flight: When you are operating in a non-
Western country where accepted practices
clash with your own ethical standards
(e.g., as regards human rights violations
in working conditions, etc.), do you adopt
the view, When in Rome do as the Ro-
mans do, and call it cultural sensitivity
and respect for others (in which case you
will have a struggle with your own integ-
rity and conscience), or do you make a
fuss and insist on certain ethical standards
as a precondition of doing business at all
(in which case you may be accused of neo-
colonial imposition of Western cultural
values or, even worse, of missionary arro-
gance and intolerance)?
Again, the roots of ethical pluralism can
be traced both to modernity and to the
post-modern reaction.
Modern ethical pluralism
We recall that Enlightenment moder-
nity introduced structural dualismthe
division of life into public and private
hemispheres. This had the effect of con-
signing ethics as well as religion to the
hemisphere of privatized belief, as distinct
from public knowledge. Even if some
moral absolute did exist (as Kant contin-
ued to assert with his categorical impera-
tive), it could not be known by the only
mechanism capable of knowing anything,
autonomous reason. It could only be rec-
ognized and responded to through the
will. But what if human wills differ? Mo-
rality becomes merely a fragile matter of
social consensus, for as long as it lasts. And
if the consensus of will breaks down, then
morality will be determined, for good or
ill, by the most powerful will, or the more
sinister will to power that Nietsche en-
visaged. Since God is dead, then there
is no transcendent, revealed, and authori-
tative basis for ethics. In such a climate,
ethics either fragments into private value
preferences or succumbs to the tyranny
of might is right.
Part of modernitys attractiveness, how-
ever, was its optimism. The myth of inevi-
table progress that would follow on the
heels of scientific advance led generations
to believe that somehow things were get-
ting better and better. Human beings
could eventually achieve sufficient ethical
consensus to engineer a future that would
be both good and happy. The trouble was
that autonomous reason seemed capable
of generating widely conflicting ethical
visions, depending, it seems, on what sci-
entific approach one regarded as primary
or, to be more precise, what particular
scientific reductionism governed ones
view of the fundamental essence of hu-
manity.
What is the essential nature of human
life? Different life sciences and social sci-
ences came up with different answers
all of them partially true but inadequate
as full explanations of what it is to be
human. These answers then became the
basis for similarly inadequate ethical theo-
ries. Thus, biology produced a version of
ethics based on evolution. This itself bi-
furcated into a positive form, which en-
thused about our ability to control our
own evolution as a human species for
good, and a more cynical form, which as-
serted that if survival of the fittest is the
game, then everyone should try to be
among the fittest and, if possible, engineer
the genetic or genocidal non-survival of
the least fit. Biology also produced the
behaviourist ethic of the human zoo: eth-
ics is nothing more than socialized and
rationalized animal instincts. Psychology
reduced ethics to health or sickness of the
mind and replaced repentance with
therapy. Sociology reduced ethics to a
function of social interaction; Marxism, to
economic determinism, and so on.
Such ethical reductionisms stem from
modernitys insistence on analysing and
describing human life by means of the
same kind of allegedly neutral scientific
tools as were applied to the rest of the
material universe. They then tried to
come up with some account of the laws
governing human behaviour that would
be as universal as the laws of physics,
chemistry, or biology which appeared to
govern the universe.
Post-modern
ethical pluralism
The post-modern reaction has been to
reject the idea of any absolute and final
explanation of human reality, of any uni-
versal moral framework that can be epis-
temologically grounded in some objective
or scientific truth. Not only is there no
transcendent authority to provide ethical
universals (a denial common to modernity
and post-modernity); neither is there any
universal truth to be found in modernitys
pursuit of scientific objectivityin the
human and social sciences any more than
in the physical sciences. Modernity re-
jected transcendent authority but tried to
preserve some universal moral criteria.
Post-modernity rejects both transcendent
authority and the possibility or even de-
sirability of universal moral grounds. So
no ethical stance can be deemed final and
universal on the basis of any allegedly sci-
entific description of the human being.
Historical and cultural relativism pervades
human ethics as much as human religion.
As we noticed in the earlier discussion
of post-modernity, there are negative and
positive aspects of this feature of ethics in
a post-modern context. On the one hand,
there is a cynical nihilism at the more in-
tellectual end of the post-modern cultural
spectrum: If no culture has the right
answer to ethical questions, then why
bother wrestling with the questions at all?
All that counts in the end is the will to
power. It seems sometimes that ethics, not
just power, comes out of the barrel of a
gun. Or if we are too refined to impose
our will by might, there is always manipu-
lation by propaganda, persuasion, and
image-massaging. Never mind the ethics;
watch the spin.
On the other hand, there is the more
cheerful celebration of plurality that
comes at the popular end of post-modern
culture: lets not only respect, but also
enjoy the wide divergences of values that
are to be found in todays multi-cultural
society. Western soap operas often tackle
ethical issues in their story lines. The most
popular British soap, Eastenders, in re-
cent years has included racism, homo-
sexuality, AIDS prejudice, adultery, incest,
wife-battery, alcoholism, child abduction,
and murder. But the dominant impression
in responding to many of these situations,
especially the sexual ones, is a non-judge-
mental individualism (you just do what
is right for you; nobody can tell you oth-
erwise). The trouble is that multi-
culturalism as espoused, for example, in
Australia and Canada, generates an ethic
of political correctness which can be op-
pressive in its hidden absolutisms. It also
has no means of dealing with (or even
actually recognizing) the kind of paradoxi-
cal clash of values illustrated by the
Hoddle case above. As another British
commentator has said, Were all ethical
pluralists now until we meet a paedo-
phile.
Missiological response
The Christian missiological response to
ethical pluralism needs to start from the
same place as for religious pluralism
namely, by identifying and attacking the
roots. We must follow the same agenda of
critiquing Enlightenment modernitys rel-
egation of ethics to the hemisphere of
privatized belief, as Newbigin has so ef-
fectively done for religion. This has two
effects. First of all, we must firmly chal-
lenge the epistemological arrogance that
claims to outlaw all ethical matters from
the realm of genuine knowledge, on the
grounds that only scientific facts can be
regarded as objectively true. This reality
filter needs to be exposed as the decep-
tion it really is. Secondly, those ethical
stances that are based on the variety of
scientific reductionisms in relation to
human life also need to be challenged
whether biological evolutionism or be-
haviourism, psychology, sociology,
economics, or more recently, geneticism
as preached by Richard Dawkins. When-
ever we are told that human ethics is
nothing but , we should be on the
alert and expose the poverty of all at-
tempts to reduce human life to partial and
materialistic explanations.
In fact, I would urge that Evangelical
mission theology must address afresh the
question of our doctrine of humanity. At
the heart of so much of the fragmentation
in human societies today lies the loss of
human identity or the struggle (often vio-
lent) for identity to be recognized or
recovered. Where is it to be found? Mo-
dernity located human identity in the au-
tonomous rational self. Post-modernity
dethrones reason and goes on to decentre
and dissolve the self. What is there left that
is distinctly human, or are we left with only
the kaleidoscopic relativities of cultures
and histories? Culture and history enrich
human life and identity, but according to
Christian understanding they do not con-
stitute or exclusively define it. I believe
that 21
st
century Evangelical missiology
must address the question of what it
means to be human and must seek to
give a genuinely biblical answer. As we
observed in the section on religious plural-
ism, the 20
th
century battle over Christ-
ology and soteriology will doubtless con-
tinue. But if God became incarnate in
Jesus in order to save humanity, what was
it that he became in becoming truly hu-
man, and what is it that is saved through
his death and resurrection?
Returning to ethical pluralism, post-
modernity will certainly help us to chal-
lenge the dominance of scientific
reductionism, but unfortunately it also
presents an even more dangerous kind of
relativism at the ontological level. How
should we respond to the post-modern
assertion that there are simply no foun-
dations for any common human moral-
ity? Must we accept that uncontrolled
ethical variety is inevitable because of the
plurality of cultures and perspectives and
that there is no possibility of any stand-
ing ground outside all cultures, from
which anyone can have the right to adju-
dicate ethically between them?
A very interesting attempt to address
this problem from within the religious
pluralist camp has come from Paul Knit-
ter (1992, pp. 111-122). Recognizing the
strength of the anti-foundationalist case,
as expressed in the last paragraph, Knit-
ter asks if there is any way that the differ-
ent religions can overcome the impasse
of utter relativism, any way in which they
can find some common ground (even
though the term is out of favour). He be-
lieves it is important to do so, because of
the dangers of succumbing too easily to
post-modern relativism. He pin-points
two dangers: First, full-blown relativism
gives you no grounds to criticize even your
own culture, let alone other cultures, and
it produces an ethical toothlessness
brought about by the lack of any basis on
which to validly and coherently resist what
appears to be intolerable in other cultural-
linguistic systems. Secondly, it offers no
basis for moral resistance to naked power:
In arguing that we must simply rejoice
in plurality without ever allowing the pos-
sibility that some truth claims may prove
to have intrinsic or universal validity, post-
moderns allow the warning of Michael
Foucault to become reality: the verdict on
differing truth claims will be decided
not on any mutually reached judgments
(since they are impossible) but on the
basis of who has the economic or military
power. The criteria will be deter-
mined by those who have the dollars
or the guns (Knitter, 1992, p. 114).
Knitters answer to the dilemma is to
suggest that rather than looking in vain
for common ground at the start of the dia-
logue, the different religions should get
stuck into making a common response to
human problems. Then, hopefully, in the
process and praxis of making that re-
sponse, some patches of common ground
may emerge between them. He then iden-
tifies what he regards as the two most ur-
gent problems facing the world: human
poverty (the millions who because they
are deprived of such basic needs as food,
drinking water, shelter, and medical care
are prevented from living a human life)
and ecological damage (the victimized
planet earth which, as its life-giving and
sustaining gifts of air, water, and soil are
devastated and drained, becomes the do-
main of ever more human victims). He
goes on, I am suggesting that the reality
of suffering due to oppression and victim-
izationboth human and ecological
calls for a common response that can
become a common ground for cross-
cultural and inter-religious understand-
ing (Knitter, 1992, p. 118).
Knitter seems almost embarrassed by
the glimpse of an ethical universal lurk-
ing in such a proposal. So he backs off it
somewhat: One must be careful of speak-
ing of an ethical imperative to confront
such issues, since morality is so culture-
bound. And yet, it does seem evident that
today followers of almost all the religious
pathsfrom Eastern to Western to so-
called primal spiritualitiesare recogniz-
ing that their own spiritual traditions
require them to respond to the reality
of human and planetary oppression
(Knitter, 1992, p.119). But do they? It is
seriously questionable, I would argue,
whether most religions would take the
same view of human and planetary suf-
fering as Knitter does, and even more
questionable that within all religious tra-
ditions there seems to be a soteriocentric
core of concern for human well-being in
this world (Knitter, 1992, p.119, empha-
sis added).
So the weakness of Knitters proposal
is that it wants to find common ground,
while simultaneously denying that any
ground can be or has been provided by a
transcendent or trans-cultural source
such as the biblical revelation. Yet the is-
sues he chooses to see as primary and the
response he sees as needing to be made
to them are actually only ethical issues and
responses within certain worldviews (such
as Christianity). Even identifying the issues
to which we call for a response requires
standing on some ground.
Missiologically, however, in my view,
we can turn Knitters weakness into a
strength. We can certainly agree with his
identification of two major evils in todays
worldpoverty and ecological destruc-
tion. And we can certainly also challenge
and invite the wider non-Christian human
community to address them. However, in
doing so, we ought to make prominently
clear the Christian ground on which we
do so. That means telling the story, which
in the Christian worldview both explains
the problems in terms of humanitys re-
bellion against God and consequent frac-
ture of all relationships, including that
with the planet itself, and also proclaims
the redemptive action that God himself
initiated in the history of Israel and the
saving work of Christ. Indeed, we can go
further than a liberationist response, be-
cause the full biblical story illuminates
wider aspects and deeper roots of the
problems than the presenting symptoms
themselves. At the Rio de Janeiro Earth
Summit, it was said that the intense
green concern for ecological action was
an ethic in search of a religion. Yet the
Christian voice was muted, leaving the re-
ligion to be provided by the New Age
Movement.
Human and planetary oppression are
major examples, but they are only part of
the total spectrum of ethical issues that
societies will face in this new millennium.
The missiological challenge to our ethics
must be:
That we seek to show how a bibli-
cally grounded ethic is valid in theory and
works in practice.
That we also tell the story in which
that ethic is grounded and without which
it is empty moralism.
That we ensure that the telling of
that story preserves the central focus of
Jesus Christ.
We need, in other words, a missio-
logically framed and motivated ethical
engagement with the world. Such is the
plea of Andrew Walker (1996, p. 170) as
he urges Christians to remember and re-
tell the story of the biblical gospel, which
modernity has marginalized by its episte-
mological arrogance and which post-
modernity threatens to swamp by the way
it relativizes and equalizes all narratives:
Christian activism is not a question of
creating a programme for government: it
is about standing up in the public square
to be counted. Do the public know what
the Christian story has to say about moral
behaviour? Have we taken the time to tell
the story often enough so that people can
see that from it flow economic and social
consequences? Lesslie Newbigin appears
to be right about Christian witness. It is
because we have grown timid, lost faith
in the gospel, or even forgotten it, that
we do not rush forward for our voices to
be heard amidst the clamour of compet-
ing interests. We must avoid the vain temp-
tation to build another Christendom; but
equally we must not shirk our duty to stir
the conscience of our nations for as long
as they last.
Finally, the missiological challenge of
ethical pluralism is, of course, practical. If
we proclaim that the Christian ethical vi-
sion is distinctive and that it is grounded
in the true story of God, the universe,
human history, and salvation through
Christ, are we able to demonstrate that it
is so? The church, as Newbigin again so
effectively argued, must be the plausibil-
ity structure for the gospel and the ethic
that flows from it.
Concluding Challenges
What are the major issues for our mis-
siological reflection and work? Here are
some suggested questions arising out of
each of the main sections above.
Hermeneutical pluralism
1. How can a missiologically framed re-
shaping of the Evangelical doctrine of
Scripture better equip us to discern, ar-
ticulate, and apply the authority of the
Bible in the cultural plurality of the 21
st
century and especially in a world increas-
ingly affected by post-modernity?
2. How can we make room for the mul-
tiplicity of readers contexts in the global
hermeneutical community and especially
climb down off the pedestal of Western
dominance, without either surrendering
to subjectivism, relativism, and the loss of
any commitment to a stable core mean-
ing in biblical texts or substituting the
authority of readers/contexts for the au-
thority of the biblical text itself?
Religious pluralism
1. Are there ways in which Evangeli-
cal Christians can harness the energy of
post-modernity in its critique of Enlight-
enment modernitys arrogance, without
submitting to the ontological relativism
that comes with post-modernity?
2. Are there positive and gospel-
friendly categories/symbols/perspectives
within post-modern consciousness that
can be harnessed in order to re-concep-
tualize and communicate the uniqueness
of Jesus in the midst of religious plurality
and in polemical engagement with reli-
gious pluralism?
Ethical pluralism
1. What will a missiological approach
to ethics look like? How can we demon-
strate (intellectually and existentially) that
the Christian ethic is actually best, be-
cause it most closely relates to the way
things are, according to the biblical story
and revelation?
2. Is it our Christian task in the 21
st
century with its post-modern perspectives
to work out fresh ways to enshrine and
advocate our understanding of biblical
ethics, rather than simply repeating the
classical formulations of Western univer-
sal declarations?
3. What is a more biblical understand-
ing of humanity, which can go beyond the
reductionisms of modernity but avoid the
narcissism of post-modernity? What theo-
logical understanding of human/ethnic
identity can provide a missiology that
then generates appropriate missional re-
sponses to the fragmentation, anger, and
despair that seem likely to afflict increas-
ing numbers of human communities in the
21
st
century?
And finally
In training people adequately for mis-
sion in the 21
st
century, we shall be han-
dling young adults who are themselves
culturally and probably intellectually
shaped by post-modernity, yet whose edu-
cation and worldview has largely been
shaped by the paradigms of modernity,
and whose future ministry may well be
in cultures that are as yet effectively pre-
modern. How can we prepare them ad-
equately to understand the cultural
identity crisis they themselves are living
through, as well as the one they are head-
ing into? Missionaries in the 21
st
century
will need to be the Christian and cultural
equivalent of Olympic triple-jumpers.
References
Best, S., & Kellner, D. (1991). Postmodern
theory: Critical interrogation. New York:
Guilford Press.
Brueggemann, W. (1997). Biblical Theological
Bulletin, 127, pp. 4-8.
. (1997). Theology of the Old Testament:
Testimony, dispute, advocacy. Minneapo-
lis, MN: Fortress Press.
Carson, D. A. (1996). The gagging of God:
Christianity confronts pluralism. Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of mo-
dernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Hick, J. (1989). An interpretation of religion:
Human responses to the transcendent.
London: Macmillan.
. (1992). A religious understanding of
religion. In D. Cohn-Sherbok (Ed.), Many
mansions: Interfaith and religious intol-
erance (pp. 122-136). London: Bellew.
Hick, J. (Ed.). (1977). The myth of God incar-
nate. London: SCM Press.
Hunter, A. G. (1985). Christianity and other
faiths in Britain. London: SCM Press.
Kirk, J. A. (1992). Loosing the chains. London:
Hodder & Stoughton.
Knitter, P. (1992). Common ground or com-
mon response? Seeking foundations for
interreligious discourse. Studies in Inter-
religious Dialogue, 2, pp. 111-122.
Netland, H. A. (1991). Dissonant voices: Reli-
gious pluralism and the question of truth.
lishing Co.
Newbigin, L. (1989). The gospel in a pluralist
society. London: SPCK.
. (1991). Truth to tell: The gospel as
public truth. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B.
. (1995). The open secret: An introduc-
tion to the theology of mission (2
nd
ed.).
lishing Co.
Race, A. (1982). Christians and religious plu-
ralism: Patterns in the Christian theology
of religions. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
Sampson, P., Samuel, V., & Sugden, C. (Eds.).
(1994). Faith and modernity. Oxford, En-
gland: Regnum.
Sine, T. (1999). Mustard seed versus McWorld:
Reinventing Christian life and mission for
a new millennium. Crowborough, En-
gland: Monarch.
Smith, W. C. (1987). Idolatry in comparative
perspective. In J. Hick & P. F. Knitter (Eds.),
The myth of Christian uniqueness: Toward
a pluralistic theology of religions (pp. 53-
68). Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
Van Gelder, C. (1996). Mission in the emerg-
ing postmodern condition. In G. H. Huns-
berger & C. Van Gelder (Eds.), The church
between gospel and culture: The emerging
mission in North America (pp. 127-133).
lishing Co.
. (n.d.). Shaping ministry in a post-
modern world: Building bridges with the
gospel to a changed context. Unpublished
manuscript.
Walker, A. (1996). Telling the story: Gospel,
mission and culture. London: SPCK.
Wright, C. (1997). Thinking clearly about the
uniqueness of Jesus. Crowborough, En-
gland: Monarch.
Wright, N. T. (1992). The New Testament and
the people of God. London: SPCK.
Chris Wright, born
of missionary par-
ents in Belfast, North
Ireland, obtained
his doctorate in Old
Testament economic
ethics from Cam-
bridge University in
1977. Ordained in
the Church of En-
gland, he spent sev-
eral years in pastoral
ministry. For five
years he taught at the Union Biblical Semi-
nary, Pune, India, as a missionary with the
Anglican mission agency Crosslinks (formerly
BCMS), of which he is now Honorary Presi-
dent. In 1988 he returned to the U.K. as Di-
rector of Studies at All Nations Christian
College, the largest Evangelical mission train-
ing institution in Europe. He was appointed
Principal there in September 1993. He has
written several books, including Knowing
Jesus Through the Old Testament (Marshall
Pickering and Inter-Varsity, 1992) and Think-
ing Clearly About the Uniqueness of Jesus
(Monarch, 1997). His lifes passion is bring-
ing to life the relevance of the Old Testament
for Christian mission and ethics. He and his
wife Liz have four children, two of whom are
now married.
101
7
Evangelical
missiology:
peering
into the
future
at the
turn
of the
century
Samuel
Escobar
HE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN mission during the 20
th
cen-
tury could be summarized in the words of Latourette as
the story of advance through storm. Thinking especially
about Evangelical missions, Ralph Winter has used the ex-
pression unbelievable years for the explosion of American
missionary activity during the 25 years that followed World
War II. As we come to the start of a new century, there are
clear signs that a new age of missions has come, to be marked
by the new face of global Christianity and the engagement of
the churches of the Southern hemisphere in the fulfillment
of the Great Mandate and the Great Commission. There was
an old way of doing mission developed during the age of the
European empires and the United States era of Manifest
Destiny. It has become obsolete, even though its patterns
endure to the point of being imitated by Third World agen-
cies. At the close of my first paper (see chapter 3), I outlined
the missiological recovery of biblical patterns for mission that
will be developed in this paper.
I define missiology as an interdisciplinary approach to
understand missionary action. It looks at missionary facts
from the perspectives of the biblical sciences, theology, his-
tory, and the social sciences. It aims to be systematic and
critical, but it starts from a positive stance towards the legiti-
macy of the Christian missionary task as part of the funda-
mental reason for the churchs being. A missiological
approach gives the observer a comprehensive frame of refer-
ence in order to look at reality in a critical way. Missiology is
a critical reflection on praxis, in light of Gods Word. One
could say that in that regard a significant portion of the writ-
ings of the Apostle Paul is missiological in nature. Think, for
instance, of 2 Corinthians and the way in which Paul refers
T
to his own missionary practice, pointing
to Old Testament teachings as well as the
living revelation of God in Jesus Christ
through the Spirit. The Spirit-inspired
missionary acts of Jesus, Paul, and the
apostles, as well as their Spirit-inspired
reflection on their practice, are authorita-
tive for us in a way in which no other post-
apostolic missionary practice or reflection
is authoritative.
As the Spirit drives Gods people to
missionary obedience today, we have the
light of Gods inspired Word to continu-
ally check and evaluate our actions. David
Bosch (1993, p. 177) has very aptly re-
ferred to the critical spirit in which the
missiological task is to be approached:
if we wish to reflect on biblical foun-
dations for mission, our point of depar-
ture should not be the contemporary
enterprise we seek to justify, but the bibli-
cal sense of what being sent into the world
signifies. I would add that theology, his-
tory, and the social sciences are useful as
tools for a better understanding of Gods
Word and of contemporary missionary
action, but only the Word is inspired and
always fertile to renew the church in mis-
sion. Moreover, there is another proviso
from Bosch (1993, p. 177) which we must
take into account: however important
single biblical texts may [seem to] be, the
validity of mission should not be deduced
from isolated sayings but from the thrust
of the central message of Scripture.
During the last quarter of the 20
th
cen-
tury, Evangelical missiologists embarked
on a concerted effort to reflect on the
massive experience of Evangelical mis-
sionary activity. Honest evaluation of mis-
sionary activism in light of Gods Word,
theological truth, and new missionary
challenges becomes an effort to envision
new models of missionary obedience. In
this paper, I will summarize developments
in Evangelical missiology during the sec-
ond part of the 20
th
century, outlining
three trends that have developed during
this period. I will then outline a trinitarian
direction in which I think the missiological
agenda should be pursued in order to
meet the challenges posed by the kind of
developments in the church and in the
world that I have outlined in my first pre-
sentation.
Two cycles of Protestant mission devel-
oped during the 20
th
century. Before World
War II, mainline Protestant denominations
played a key role both in the practice of
mission and in the theologizing about it.
It was a period still marked by significant
activity from European as well as North
American churches and by theological
debate about the nature of the Christian
mission and the identity of the young
churches that were growing in Africa, Asia,
and Latin America. After the War, there was
a decline of traditional Protestant activity
and a marked growth of activity and influ-
ence from conservative Protestant agen-
cies in the United States. There was also
an explosive growth of faith missions and
parachurch agencies that spread mission-
ary concepts, along with methodologies
that reflected American cultural values and
mores. Through massive use of Christian
media, theological institutions, and mis-
sionary conferences, its influence was felt
not only in countries receiving missionar-
ies but also in the old sending countries
of Europe.
I think it is important to acknowledge
the fact that new generations of mission-
aries without an adequate historical aware-
ness or biblical training were condemned
to repeat the mistakes of the past. It be-
came necessary for theologians to embark
anew in the search for a missiological re-
flection. This is what historian William H.
Hutchison (1987, p. 176) has called fa-
miliar debates in an unfamiliar world. As
an Evangelical, I find comforting the fact
that the explosion of Evangelical mission-
ary activity after 1945criticized by mis-
evangelical missiology: peering into the future 103
siologists from the previous half of the
centuryprovided a bulk of new practice,
on the basis of which it was possible to
reflect and formulate new theories. Com-
menting on critical remarks from missiol-
ogist R. Pierce Beaver, Dana Robert (1994,
p. 146) has described the situation in
which a renewed effort has come at the
level of scholarship from the missionary
activity of conservative Evangelicals: The
sectarian evangelicals that Beaver had
excoriated in 1964 reached such a level of
institutional maturity and ecclesiastical
dominance that critical historical analysis
became possible and necessary. At the
same time, I also find sobering the remark
of Joel Carpenter (1990, p. 131) pointing
to the Evangelical isolation from previous
missionary practice and experience: When
a post-fundamentalist, neo-Evangelical
theological movement appeared in the
1950s and 1960s, it virtually had to rein-
vent Evangelical missions theology.
Missiological reflection has experi-
enced sustained growth in both quantity
and quality because of the widening and
deepening of its agenda, the growing dia-
logue of different traditions, and the emer-
gence of missiologists from the younger
churches of Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
Evangelicals kept a very focused mission-
ary activity, even at periods in which such
activity declined in other sectors of Chris-
tendom. Their reflection was made pos-
sible in part by the new developments in
theological scholarship within the Evan-
gelical camp and by the growth towards
maturity of Evangelical churches in those
lands that used to be called mission fields.
Towards the end of the third quarter of
the 20
th
century, Evangelical missiological
reflection gathered momentum, and the
1974 Lausanne Congress became a rally-
ing point to promote Christian mission but
also to reflect about it. The Lausanne Cov-
enant became at the same time a summary
and an agenda.
Background of
Missiological Developments
Among Evangelicals
Within the second half of the 20
th
century, we can place events such as the
birth of World Evangelical Fellowship, the
growth of an American Evangelical mis-
sionary vitality, the development of the
World Council of Churches and its even-
tual merge with the International Mission-
ary Council, the Vatican II Council, and
the increasing growth and recognition of
the Pentecostal Movement. I will refer spe-
cially to the Lausanne Movement because
of the missiological trends it synthesized
and sparked.
Lausanne was preceded by three vig-
orous Evangelical Movements following
World War II. First, there was the renewal
of mass evangelism that reached public
notice with Billy Graham in Los Angeles
in 1949. Some classic elements of revival-
istic Protestantism, combined with the use
of mass media, shook the dormant reli-
gious routine of people, especially in the
big cities, first in North America and then
in Europe. The type of evangelistic orga-
nization represented by Billy Graham put
in evidence the fact that in those coun-
tries there was a new awareness of spiri-
tual needs and a religious vacuum that was
not being filled by the routine life of insti-
tutionalized Christianity. Second, there
was a renewal of serious Evangelical schol-
arship in biblical studies and theological
reflection, following a renewal of Evangeli-
cal university life in Europe and especially
Great Britain. This was related to the Evan-
gelical student work of InterVarsity, that
had managed to keep together mission-
ary zeal and concern for theology and
scholarship. Third, strong Evangelical
churches and movements had emerged
around the world, connected to Protes-
tant missionary work of the pre- and post-
World War II streams of missionary fervor
and activity from Europe and North
America. Independent faith missions
had played an important role in this emer-
gence, representing a new generation that
threw itself with great vigor into the task
of planting churches, translating Scripture,
and reaching the restless masses of the
Third World through evangelism.
These three movements exemplify the
type of Evangelical churches, missionary
organizations, and denominational re-
newal groups that find a way of express-
ing their concern for Christian unity and
cooperation in alliances such as WEF or
the Lausanne Movement. Their variety also
explains the tensions that develop within
those alliances or umbrella movements,
which sometimes are unable to contain
them. The volunteerism which is the ge-
nius of Evangelical life and mission is a
key factor in understanding these devel-
opments. The faith mission type of mis-
sionary activity contributes to the rise of
vigorous Evangelical churches in the Third
World, which are independent and have
no connection with the historic Protestant
denominations. Ecclesiology is undefined
in these independent churches. Their par-
ticipation in Evangelical alliances brings
them into contact with Evangelicals inside
the mainline churches. The encounter is
mutually enriching, but it also accounts
for a long and difficult process of theo-
logical dialogue and definition. There is a
dialectical interaction between the vital-
ity that comes from these movements at
the grassroots and the direction and stimu-
lation that the alliances themselves pro-
vide. In order to understand Evangelical
missiological developments, both the
promise and the precariousness of this
interaction have to be appreciated, and its
historical significance has to be evaluated
theologically.
The three movements mentioned
above converged in the Berlin 1966 World
Congress on Evangelism, convened under
the leadership of Carl F. H. Henry, to cel-
ebrate the 10
th
anniversary of the maga-
zine Christianity Today. Henry was a
theologian and journalist who had articu-
lated with clarity the theological agenda
for an Evangelicalism that wanted to dis-
tance itself from the Fundamentalist trap.
As editor of Christianity Today, he was in
contact with a new generation of Evangeli-
cal scholars that were not afraid to dia-
logue in the academic world and had gone
beyond the narrow anti-intellectualism of
fundamentalists. This scholarship, how-
ever, was matched by an evangelistic and
missionary thrust and a global perception
that Billy Grahams ministry had made
possible.
The vision of the Berlin congress was
summarized in its motto, One Race, One
Gospel, One Task. One important fact
about Berlin is that Evangelicals acknowl-
edged and accepted the validity and sig-
nificance of the Pentecostal Movement.
The follow-up congresses after Berlin were
platforms of convergence not only for re-
affirming Evangelical truth, but also for
sober consideration of the spiritual needs
of the world. The pragmatic concerns of
Evangelicals from North America and the
theological and missiological acumen of
European Evangelicals were matched by
the restless sense of mission of Evangel-
icals in the young churches of the Third
World or among the oppressed minorities.
The agenda of the ongoing reflection had
to make room for the burning questions
of those who were witnessing to their faith
in Jesus Christ within situations where the
ferment of nationalism, social upheaval,
and ideological conflict were testing the
theological depth of both Evangelical and
non-Evangelical missionaries and churches.
The Berlin follow-up regional congresses
in Singapore (1968), Minneapolis (1969),
Bogot (1969), Ottawa (1970), Amsterdam
(1971), and Madrid (1974) were steps in
the building-up process that culminated
in Lausanne 1974. Because of this preced-
ing process, Lausanne was not the missio-
logical and theological monologue of
European or North American Evangelicals,
but a brotherly global dialogue of a com-
munity that had grown beyond expecta-
tions all over the world: a dialogue in
search of ways of obedience to the mis-
sionary imperatives of Jesus, our Savior
and Lord.
The Lausanne Covenant expresses this
unique missiological moment. Precisely at
the point in time in which Evangelical
Christianity was joyfully aware of its glo-
bal dimension, it also became painfully
aware of its serious shortcomings. Liber-
ated by its missionary thrust from the
bonds of sterile fundamentalism, Evangeli-
calism was able again to rediscover the
holistic dimensions of the Christian mis-
sion that are clearly presented in the Bible.
The Lausanne Covenant restates convic-
tions that are characteristic of Evangelical-
ism. It starts with a trinitarian confession,
a statement about the authority of the
Bible, and an expression of Christological
conviction (LC, par. 1-3). At the same time,
the Covenant expresses repentance for
what was wrong or missing in the way in
which Evangelicals had been accomplish-
ing their missionary task.
I think it possible to summarize in four
points the direction of the process of the
Lausanne 1974 event, as well as the con-
tent of the Covenant it issued. They ex-
press a forceful challenge to adopt a new
form of missionary practice for world evan-
gelization and a corresponding call for
new theological formulation.
First, there was a commitment to a con-
cept of holistic mission that retains the
Evangelical emphasis on proclamation of
the gospel of Jesus Christ while also de-
scribing the kind of missionary presence
it requires, and the call to discipleship and
incorporation into the church (LC, par. 4).
Inherent in this is self-criticism of the type
of dualistic spiritualization that had come
to be prevalent in the practice of Evangeli-
cal missionaries. Mission relates to every
area of human need. For the majority of
Evangelicals, however, holistic mission has
evangelism as a key and primary compo-
nent: In the churchs mission of sacrifi-
cial service evangelism is primary (LC,
par. 6).
Second, there was the call for coopera-
tion in the mission taskbetween church
and parachurch, mainline and Evangeli-
cal, Pentecostal and Reformedbased
solely on the missionary passion shared
in the Lausanne event and the basic theo-
logical consensus reached in the Covenant
itself. The sheer magnitude of the task of
world evangelization, along with the scan-
dal of sterile division and competition
among missionary agencies, demanded a
new attitude. The sense of urgency of
reaching those still unreached even makes
room for the type of concern that had been
underlying the call for a moratorium
(LC, par. 7, 8, 9).
Third, and closely related to the previ-
ous point, was the awareness that in the
post-imperial era in which we live, the
missionary and the theological tasks have
a global dimension. Christians and mis-
sionaries from the European and North
American regions, once strongholds of
Evangelical faith in the past, had to ac-
knowledge the spiritual decline in those
regions and the rise of new thriving
churches in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
Thus, neither imperialism nor provincial-
ism could be tolerated.
Fourth was the commitment to con-
sider seriously the context of mission. Is-
sues such as culture, education of leaders,
spiritual conflict, and persecution were
addressed (LC, par. 10-13). The need was
recognized for an evaluation of the social,
ideological, and spiritual struggles that
surround and condition the missionary
enterprise, in order to design a relevant
type of discipleship for our own times.
From Lausanne I
to Lausanne II in Manila
After the Lausanne Congress, Evangeli-
cal missionary action was more visibly ac-
companied by a process of reflection and
clarification. A series of consultations was
sponsored by the Lausanne Committee,
with the participation of missionaries,
pastors, mission executives, and missiolo-
gists from World Evangelical Fellowship,
Latin American Theological Fraternity,
Fuller School of World Mission, World Vi-
sion International, Evangelicals for Social
Action, and many other Evangelical bod-
ies. These gatherings became the platform
in which practitioners and theoreticians
of mission engaged in the task of doing
theology together, at a global scale. In
one of the first of those consultations, an
agreement was reached and a commit-
ment expressed: We should seek with
equal care to avoid theological imperialism
or theological provincialism. A churchs
theology should be developed by the com-
munity of faith out of the Scripture in in-
teraction with other theologies of the past
and present, and with the local culture
and its needs (Willowbank Report, 1978).
Some Evangelicals (notable among
them is Johnston, 1978) became very criti-
cal of the kind of missiological and theo-
logical agenda expressed by the Covenant.
Others tried to narrow and reduce the
Lausanne Movement to a fundamentalistic
program. For some, it was impossible to
accept the commitment to globalism and
respect the legitimacy of Third World con-
cerns and challenges.
1
In spite of all these
objections, between Lausanne I in 1974
and the second conference sponsored by
the Lausanne Committee, Lausanne II in
Manila in 1989, a good degree of mission-
ary activity and reflection was sparked, en-
couraged, oriented, or fostered by the
Lausanne Movement. The balance of co-
operation and global dialogue achieved
was very delicate and fragile, and in many
instances it almost came to breaking
points. However, it was kept, thanks to the
maturity and diplomatic ability of Evan-
gelical statesmen such as John Stott,
Leighton Ford, Emilio Nez, Bishop Jack
Dain, Gottfried Ossei-Mensah, Dick Van
Halsema, and others like them. As the date
for Lausanne II approached, several mis-
sionaries and theologians, especially in the
Third World, expressed apprehension
about the direction that the movement
seemed to be taking. They detected a
mood of retreat from the territory gained
in 1974 to narrower and safer positions.
They perceived what appeared as an ef-
fort to avoid controversial issues and
speakers, and a tendency to use Lausanne
II as a marketing launch for missionary
packages devised in North America.
2
Lausanne II was held in Manila, Phil-
ippines, July 11-20, 1989, 15 years after
the first conference. Chris Sugden and
Valdir Steuernagel (1990) have interpreted
this second event in the pages of Trans-
formation.
3
Robert T. Coote (1990) wrote
an excellent interpretative chronicle of the
event in the International Bulletin of Mis-
sionary Research. From my own perspec-
1
The best study of this aspect of the post-Lausanne process is the Ph.D. dissertation of Brazil-
ian missiologist Valdir Steuernagel (1988).
2
As an example of this perception, Ren Padilla, who was a speaker at Lausanne I, did not
accept the invitation to Lausanne II. See his editorial comments in Padilla (1989).
3
This issue also contains the text of several presentations and documents from the Lausanne
II Conference.
tive, in Lausanne II we had a clear dem-
onstration that at grassroots level, across
the world, significant progress has been
made in the practice of mission following
the agenda of Lausanne I. Voices like those
of Caesar Molebatsi from South Africa,
Valdir Steuernagel from Brazil, Peter Kuz-
mic from Yugoslavia, and Jovito Salonga
from the Philippines could not be barred
from the platform. But there were also
hundreds of practitioners of holistic forms
of mission sharing their experience, their
joys, their pain, their frustration, and their
hope in seminars and workshops. How-
ever, this progress in the application of
Lausanne I has come in tension with Evan-
gelical forces that seem committed to pull
the movement backwards, towards mission
styles of the Cold War era and imperial
marketing of theological and missiological
packages created within the frame of the
present North American society.
Three Missiological Trends
I think that in the Lausanne II process
through the most recent years we have
seen the development of three different
missiological schools or approaches cur-
rently present in the Evangelical world.
They have gone their own parallel ways
within the Evangelical Movement, and it
would benefit greatly the cause of mission
if they could interact adequately. This is
especially important as a new missionary
thrust develops in the churches of the
Third World, which are in search of mod-
els for their participation in the global
missionary task of the coming decades.
However, the Lausanne consensus has
been a fragile platform, and constructive
interaction has not been easy and some-
times seems impossible. Coexistence has
not developed into cooperation. Given the
urgency of the tasks ahead and the grow-
ing scarcity of resources, we should try our
best to have a real dialogue and come to
new forms of cooperation. Here I offer an
outline of the three missiological ap-
proaches that I see at work.
Post-imperial missiology
This is the missiology coming from
Evangelicals in Great Britain and Europe,
and it is characterized by a clear post-
imperial stance. By this I mean an aware-
ness that the imperial domination they
used to exert is gone and new patterns of
relationships have developed. For this
missiology there are two sources of seri-
ous questions about mission: on the one
hand, the decline of Christian churches
in Europe and their loss of influence on
shaping values and attitudes in their soci-
eties, and on the other hand, the emer-
gence of new forms of Christianity in the
Third World.
The practice and the theory of mission
have to deal with these facts as part of the
new frame of reference for mission. Con-
sequently, missiological research and re-
flection have moved in at least three
directions. First, there is a renewed search
for biblical patterns to correct and illumi-
nate contemporary mission activity. The
field was pioneered by John Stott (1967,
1975) in his biblical studies about the
Great Commission and his definition of
key words such as salvation, conversion,
evangelism, dialogue, and mission. An-
other systematic contribution that focused
on evangelism came from Michael Green
(1970), in a book that summarized the
findings of contemporary scholarship
from the perspective of an evangelist.
Other Evangelical contributions exploring
the New Testament material have impor-
tant missiological consequence as they
clarify the relevance of New Testament
ethical teaching (especially Yoder, 1972)
or social practice (a good summary is given
in Tidball, 1983). Missionary practice, es-
pecially its social and political dimension,
has been the source of the questions
brought by these scholars to the explora-
tion of the biblical material, and there has
been a significant growth of scholarship
around the world.
4
The second direction taken by this
missiological approach has been the criti-
cal work of writing and interpreting the
history of missionary activity, taking very
seriously the ambiguities of the Western
imperial enterprise and trying to detach
missionary obedience from it. This view
of history uses critical insights from the
sociology of knowledge and the sociology
of religion. However, it does not reduce
missionary history to a form of class
struggle or imperial advance, as some lib-
eration theologians do.
5
Missiologists
from the Ecumenical Movement that are
taken seriously by Evangelicals, such as
Max Warren (1967) and Stephen Neill
(1966), pioneered this effort of missio-
logical clarification. An excellent method-
ological introduction was provided by
Roger Mehl (1970, especially chaps. I, II,
and 8), himself a theologian and a soci-
ologist, and some valuable Evangelical
contributions have been added recently.
6
One important consequence of this
approach has been to clarify the degree
to which missionary ideas and practices
were influenced by the social context from
which missionaries came. In this way, it is
possible to distinguish the biblical content
of their teaching from the trappings of
their class attitudes and their national
idiosyncrasies. This is especially helpful as
a generation of leaders in the younger
churches give themselves to the theologi-
cal task of contextualizing the Christian
faith in their own cultures. The contribu-
tion of Max Warren (1967) in his analysis
of the British missionary movement was
very valuable in this regard. American
missionary anthropologist Jacob Loewen
(1975) has been one of the most consis-
tent scholars in his use of insights from
anthropology to evaluate critically the
missionary enterprise from North America.
The third direction of this missiologi-
cal exploration is the visualization of the
future of mission as a global task in which
the churches of the North Atlantic world
enter into creative patterns of partnership
with churches in the Third World. In rela-
tion to this, Andrew Walls (1996) has ex-
plored the missiological significance of
what he calls the massive southward shift
of the center of gravity of the Christian
world, and the theological consequences
that such a shift has for the self-image of
churches in both North and South. Excel-
lent introductions to mission from this
perspective have been written by Maurice
Sinclair (1988) and Michael Nazir-Ali
(1991). What is distinctive of the partner-
ship proposed by this missiology is that
the Third World churches are seen as
agents and originators of a missionary ef-
fort and a missiological reflection that is
valid in its own right. They are not simply
being asked to join the missionary enter-
prise devised in a mission center of North
America or Europe. This point becomes
especially important because the mission-
ary agenda in the Third World cannot
avoid the issues linked to Christian mis-
sion and social transformationissues
such as human rights, the socio-political
4
The field was pioneered by E. A. Judge (1960) and followed by authors as diverse as Wayne
Meeks, Alan Kreider, and Derek Tidball.
5
This kind of reductionism was expressed, for instance, in the WCC-sponsored Declaration
of Barbados, which caused an uproar in the 1970s. See International Review of Mission, July
1973, and my discussion of this matter in Escobar (1978).
6
See Stanley (1990) and Carpenter & Shenk (1990). These books are truly historical essays
and go beyond the nave chronicles or memories that we commonly call mission history.
consequences of missionary action, the
ideological use of the Christian message
for political aims, and the religious sanc-
tion for contemporary forms of economic
or cultural colonialism.
What characterizes this missiology is
that the traditional Evangelical missionary
zeal is matched with a disposition to take
courageously the lessons of history and
explore Gods Word using the best tools
of biblical scholarship at the service of
mission. More than a closed package that
is to be protected from the tough ques-
tions that come from life, mission theol-
ogy is grounded on basic convictions, but
it is also an open enterprise so that mis-
sionary practice is open to correction. One
could also say that missionary practices of
British and European agencies tend to
express these convictions and that agen-
cies like Tear Fund, South American
Missionary Society, Overseas Missionary
Fellowship, or Latin Link try to shape their
policies according to biblical principles
more than mere pragmatic considerations.
Managerial missiology
The distinctive note from the missiol-
ogy that has developed especially around
the cluster of Evangelical institutions in
Pasadena, California, connected to the
Church Growth School and movements
such as the AD 2000 and Beyond Move-
ment, is the effort to reduce Christian
mission to a manageable enterprise. Ev-
ery characteristic of this missiology be-
comes understandable when perceived
within the frame of that avowed quantify-
ing intention. Concepts such as people
groups, unreached peoples, 10/40
window, adopt a people, and territo-
rial spirits express both a strong sense of
urgency and an effort to use every avail-
able instrument to make the task possible.
As a typical school of thought coming from
modern United States, the quantitative ap-
proach is predominant and the pragmatic
orientation well defined. One way of
achieving manageability is precisely to re-
duce reality to an understandable picture
and then to project missionary action as a
response to a problem that has been de-
scribed in quantitative form. Missionary
action is reduced to a linear task that is
translated into logical steps to be followed
in a process of management by objectives,
in the same way in which the evangelistic
task is reduced to a process that can be
carried on following marketing principles.
Movements that express this approach
proliferated as we were approaching the
end of the century. Organizations and
strategies using the year 2000 A.D. as a
date to complete evangelization were
given prominent publicity during the
Lausanne II gathering, in which an array
of arresting but mystifying statistics were
offered in highly promoted packages (see
Coote, 1990, pp. 15-16). The use of statis-
tical information in order to visualize the
missionary task, as well as of key dates in
order to motivate missionaries, is not
something new in the history of missions.
The famous Enquiry written by William
Carey in 1792 in order to promote Protes-
tant missions devoted a good number of
pages to statistical charts about the popu-
lation of the world and the religious affili-
ation of the peoples. In preparation for
some of the great missionary conferences
of our century, similar statistical informa-
tion was compiled in order to communi-
cate the nature of the missionary effort that
was required and to promote a sense of
urgency about it.
Within managerial missiology, statisti-
cal analysis was used first as a way of mea-
suring the effect of missionary action, in
an effort to reduce the lack of clarity that
surrounded it and the fuzziness in the tra-
ditional way of defining and evaluating it.
This evaluative methodology was at the
service of a narrowly defined concept of
mission as numerical growth of the
church, coupled with an insistence about
the unfinished evangelistic task among
those that had not yet heard or accepted
the message of the gospel. Donald McGav-
ran was the champion of this position,
which he presented in contrast to more
inclusive definitions of mission that were
predominant, especially in the conciliar
Ecumenical Movement. In one of his
last writings, McGavran (1989, p. 338)
posed the dilemma very clearly: In short,
is mission primarily evangelism, or is it pri-
marily all efforts to improve human exist-
ence? His choice is clear: Winning many
to the Christian life must be the dominant
concern of all Christians. All those engag-
ing in missiology need to be all things to
all people in order to lead some to be-
lieve in Christ and receive everlasting life.
Once that is done, then limitation of popu-
lation, feeding the hungry, healing the
sick, developing just forms of government,
and other steps toward the better life will
become much more possible and more
permanent (McGavran, 1989, p. 340).
Extreme forms of managerial missiol-
ogy as we know it may have not been what
McGavran intended to develop, but it
came to happen in any case. Some acts of
verbal communication of the gospel, such
as distribution of the printed page, hours
of broadcasting through radio or TV, mas-
sive gatherings for evangelism, and groups
of new believers organized into churches,
are all activities that can be counted and
registered. It is not difficult to see how
such a narrowed-down concept of mission
has given birth to a managerial approach
to the missionary task. It is at this point
that this missiology has been subject to
severe criticism, because it has yielded to
the spirit of the age. It is interesting that
as the influence of market economy ideas
becomes pervasive in society, authors from
this movement are writing now about mar-
keting the church.
Anyone who has engaged in mission
in the Third World or among the poor in
the First World knows that the neat dis-
tinction established by McGavran is arti-
ficial. It was good for debate against
exaggerations, but it does not function in
practice. In the United States or in Europe,
middle class churches can keep a neat dis-
tinction between spiritual needs and so-
cial needs, and they can specialize in the
former. In most African American or His-
panic churches of the U.S. or in churches
of immigrants in Europe, such distinction
is impossible. On the other hand, there
are some aspects of missionary work that
cannot be reduced to statistics. Manage-
rial missiology has diminished those as-
pects of missionary work which cannot be
measured or reduced to figures. In the
same way, it has given predominance to
that which can be reduced to a statistical
chart.
The second important note that re-
flects managerial missiologys origins is
the pragmatic approach to the task, which
de-emphasizes theological problems,
takes for granted the existence of adequate
content, and consequently majors in
method. An enterprise that presupposes
that the theoretical questions are not im-
portant will be by force anti-theological.
It is the kind of process that demands a
closed view of the world, in which the
tough questions are not asked because
they cannot be reduced to a linear man-
agement-by-objectives process. This sys-
tem cannot live with paradox or mystery.
It has no theological or pastoral resources
to cope with the suffering and persecution
involved many times in mission, because
it is geared to provide methodologies for
a guaranteed success. However, only cat-
egories like paradox, mystery, suffering,
and failure can help us grasp something
of the depth of the spiritual battle involved
in mission. In this way, an important as-
pect of the history of missions is either
silenced or underestimated, because it
would not fit the mathematical categories
of so-called church growth.
The pragmatic bias accounts also for
the reductionist theological foundation of
this missiology. If the missionary effort is
reduced to numerical growth, anything
that would hinder it has to be eliminated.
If the struggle for obedience to God in
holistic mission involves costly participa-
tion in the processes of social transforma-
tion, it is simply eliminated. The slow
process of development of a contextual
theology for a young church tends to be
considered inefficient and costly, and it is
easy to substitute prepackaged theologies
translated from English. Efficient educa-
tional techniques like extension have
been developed within the frame of mana-
gerial missiology, but there has not been
much success in the production of con-
textual textbooks. Charles Taber (1983, p.
119) points to the Evangelical origins of
the theological presuppositions of the
Church Growth School, but he proves that
its foundation is a narrowed-down ver-
sion of the evangelical hermeneutic and
theology.
In the third place, the strong influence
of the American functionalist social sci-
ences on managerial missiology accounts
for an important deficiency when we come
to the transformative dynamism of the
gospel. The structural-functional model of
cultural anthropology is based on a static
view of the world for which, as Taber
(1983, p. 119) says, Cultural givens take
on permanence and rigidity; it suggests
that whatever is endures. This cannot help
but undermine the hope of transforma-
tion which is central to the gospel. Peru-
vian missiologist Tito Paredes (1986) has
developed this critical point, showing how
the way in which managerial missiologists
read Scripture is affected by this socially
conservative approach, which takes them
to reductionist understanding of the gos-
pel and Christian mission. Harvie Conn
(1983) has studied the development of the
missiological thought of Donald McGavran
in relation to this area, especially the con-
cepts about discipling and perfecting as
phases and moments of the missionary
process.
Proponents of this missiology that en-
tered in a global dialogue after Lausanne
1974 have worked critically to develop the
best of its insights. On the other hand,
Conn suggests that McGavrans evolution
and self-correction have not been always
adequately noticed or followed by his stu-
dents and defenders. As an insider in the
movement, Arthur Glasser (1986) pro-
vided a brief and clarifying evaluative
chronicle. Some anthropologists of this
school, especially Alan Tippett (1987),
Charles Kraft (1979), and Paul Hiebert
(1986), worked patiently in a clarification
of methodologies from the social sciences
as they are applied to missiological work.
Missiologist Charles Van Engen (1991) has
worked systematically in an effort to in-
corporate key concerns from the Church
Growth School into a full-fledged theol-
ogy of the church in mission.
A more recent movement that embod-
ies in an extreme form all the characteris-
tics we have outlined above is the so-called
Spiritual Warfare Movement. While no one
would deny the reality of spiritual life and
the spiritual battles involved in mission-
ary work, this American-based movement
provides maps and statistics of demons in
cities and regions. It majors in offering
methodologies for which there is no bib-
lical or theological basis, and it handles
Scripture in an arbitrary way. It comes in
packages of literature, video, songs, and
methodologies that are being propagated
with the best use of marketing techniques.
The Evangelical Missiological Society has
provided a careful theological and bibli-
cal evaluation of this movement (Rom-
men, 1995).
The enthusiastic fervor and the mili-
tancy of some proponents of managerial
missiology, as well as the great amount of
material and technical resources with
which they promote their cause, has cre-
ated a suspicion about motivation, espe-
cially in the Southern hemisphere. The
idea that an accumulation of material re-
sources is bound to produce certain ef-
fects has reflected itself in the constant
preoccupation with augmenting the mis-
sionary force quantitatively, without much
debate about the quality of that mission-
ary action. The suspicion of some Third
World Christians is that they are being
used as objects of a missionary action that
seems to be directed to the main objec-
tive of enhancing the financial, informa-
tional, and decision-making power of
some centers of mission in the First World.
The first rule of missionary life is that
embodied in the model proposed by the
Lausanne Covenant of emptying our-
selves, and there is a right to suspect mo-
tivation. However, that is precisely the
aspect that cannot be grasped by simple
statistical analysis. Properly speaking,
more than a missiology, this is a method-
ology for mission, and if it limits itself to
that realm, accepting the need to enter
into dialogue with theology and other
missiologies, it could make its valuable
contribution to mission in the third mil-
lennium.
A critical missiology
from the periphery
From the lands which used to be mis-
sionary territories, a new missiology has
started to develop and is letting its voice
be heard. Lausanne I was characterized by
the openness to hear from that new re-
flection, at the same time contextual and
engaged. We could say that the basic thrust
of this missiology is its critical nature. The
question for this missiology is not how
much missionary action is required today
but what kind of missionary action is nec-
essary. And the concern with quality links
naturally with the questions about the
social dynamism of the gospel and that
transformative power of the experience of
conversion to Jesus Christ.
What characterizes Evangelical churches
in the Third World, especially in Africa,
Latin America, and Asia, is their evangelis-
tic and missionary dynamism. And that is
clearly reflected in the missiology that
comes from them. None among the pas-
tors, missionaries, and theologians from
the Third World that spoke at Lausanne I
or Lausanne II proposed a moratorium of
evangelization or a concept of mission that
would deny the priority of announcing the
message of salvation in Jesus Christ as
Savior and Lord. Most of them, however,
would agree about the need to distinguish
between the gospel and the ideologies of
the West, between a missionary action
patterned by the model of Jesus Christ and
one that reflects the philosophies and
methodologies of the multi-national cor-
porations. Probably the Latin Americans
Ren Padilla and Orlando Costas are the
theologians that have done more to pro-
vide a solid biblical foundation to the two-
fold missiological approach of Evangelicals
from the Third World: the criticism of ex-
isting patterns of mission and the proposal
of a missiology that corresponds to the
missionary challenges of the day.
Costas (1983) approach was Evangeli-
cal in its inspiration and emphasis, and
he tried to formulate basic missiological
concepts that would incorporate some in-
sights from liberation theologies as well
as others from church growth methodolo-
gies. His holistic concept of church growth
is an excellent summary of his efforts to-
wards a synthesis that could be commu-
nicated and implemented at the level of
the local church. His missiological explo-
ration into biblical themes is specially valu-
able in his posthumous work, Liberating
News (Costas, 1989). His study of the sig-
nificance of the ministry of Jesus in Gali-
lee and from Galilee provides a paradigm
for mission from the Third World that he
describes as a model of contextual mis-
sion from the periphery. In light of it,
Costas (1989, p. 67) believes that, The
global scope of contextual evangelization
should be geared first and foremost to the
nations peripheries, where the multitudes
are found and where the Christian faith
has had the best opportunity to build a
strong base. Many historical examples as
well as the tremendous dynamism of
churches in Africa and parts of Asia and
Latin America today prove his point and
mark some guidelines for the future of
mission, not so much as churches adopt
managerial plans from the North, but as
they develop their own missionary proj-
ects that express their genius and ethos.
Padilla also offers a missiological reflec-
tion that is especially committed to take
seriously the biblical text. His most com-
plete proposal thus far is in his book Mis-
sion Between the Times (Padilla, 1985).
Padilla finds in the biblical text solid
ground for a concept of the gospel and
Christian commitment, in which the so-
cially transformative dimensions are un-
avoidable. Conn (1983, p. 85) thinks that
Padillas dealing with issues like the ho-
mogeneous unit principle provides a
powerful model of exegetical interaction
with the church growth paradigm and an
articulate example of the way in which
these questions ought to be approached
from a biblical-theological perspective.
What this example offers to missionaries
is an exploration into the depths of the
social significance of the basic Christian
truths. Precisely it is this kind of Evangeli-
cal depth that is missing in managerial
missiology and that makes sense to those
who minister in the name of Jesus Christ,
in the midst of poverty and with the pain
of social transitions.
Three collective volumes contain some
of the missiological contributions from
Evangelical theologians of the Third World
to the ongoing dialogue, with special ref-
erence to the relation between mission
and social transformation. A careful con-
sideration of their content will show that
this missiological concern is not some-
thing added artificially to what otherwise
would be purely evangelistic emphasis. It
is a concern that comes from the demands
of both the evangelistic and the pastoral
activity which these practitioners of mis-
sion cannot avoid. What is at stake every
day and every week in the ministry of these
men, be it in the ghettos of North Ameri-
can cities or in the dusty roads of Latin
America, Asia, and Africa, is their credibil-
ity as messengers of Jesus Christ. Thus a
renewed Christology is essential for their
mission (Samuel & Sugden, 1983), as well
as the way in which churches can respond
to human need (Samuel & Sugden, 1987)
or proclaim Christ among those that have
not come to saving knowledge of him
(Samuel & Hauser, 1989).
Contributions from missiologists like
Kwame Bediako and David Gitari in Africa
or Vinay Samuel and David Lim in Asia to
the above-mentioned volumes posed spe-
cial questions in the area of the relation-
ship between gospel and culture and the
way in which Evangelicals rooted in the
context of non-Christian cultures will deal
with their historical memory and their own
religious past. From the Catholic context
of popular religiosity and syncretism in
Latin America, these questions have a dif-
ferent twist in the work of men like Tito
Paredes and Key Yuasa. In all these con-
texts, the religious experience cannot
avoid reference to its social conditioning
and its social impact. As militant social
scientists put missionary work in the Third
World under the microscope of their re-
search, missiologists have to come to
terms with the lights and the shadows of
a missionary enterprise made up of hu-
man frailties and ambiguities. The missiol-
ogist in the Third World cannot avoid the
evaluative questions not only for the de-
fense of missionary work as it stands to-
day, but also for the formulation of a
missionary strategy for the coming de-
cades.
Trinitarian Missiology
In the final section of this paper, I want
to outline some notes of a trinitarian
missiology that may give us clues in rela-
tion to the challenges of the future. Evan-
gelical missiological reflection has been
strong in its Christology, because Evangeli-
cals in mission have usually been Christo-
centric in their spiritual life and their
concept of mission. I have the conviction
that the times call for a new understand-
ing of the Triune God as we think about
mission in light of Gods Word. This is not
to detract from a Christ-centered stance
but to look at our Lord the way Scripture
presents him in relation to the Father and
the Spirit. I will refer to several documents
that have been produced by conferences
and consultations, because many times
they reflect the consensus of practitioners
and missiologists as a result of exercises
in dialogue. Missiology is the reflection of
the people of God, not only of bright, spe-
cialized scholars.
Gods mission
in all of Scripture
Because Evangelicals have the highest
regard for the Word of God, they see the
Bible as the norm for faith and practice. It
is therefore the norm for our way of think-
ing and acting in mission. Documents such
as the Lausanne Covenant and those pro-
duced by working groups and consulta-
tions of the World Evangelical Fellowship
in dialogue with different Christian inter-
locutors reflect this biblical conviction
(Stott, 1996; Meeking & Stott, 1986;
Schrotenboer, 1987). In all these docu-
ments, the concept of mission is grounded
on Scripture, both Old and New Testa-
ment: Mission arises from the self-giving
love of the Triune God himself and from
his eternal purpose. From Scripture
comes the conviction that the arrival of
the messianic Kingdom through Jesus ne-
cessitates the announcement of the Good
News, the summons to repentance and
faith, and the gathering together of the
people of God.
This effort to find the missionary im-
perative in the great lines of Gods reve-
lation in both Testaments is part of an
ongoing rediscovery of the missionary
theme that runs through the Bible. Here
we come to a point Evangelicals must ac-
knowledge: they themselves have a long
way to go in terms of deepening their un-
derstanding of the biblical basis of mis-
sion, in order to establish its validity not
on isolated sayings but on the general
thrust of biblical teaching. As an Evangeli-
cal from Latin America, I have found es-
pecially significant the fact that Catholic
scholars have produced books that have
become standard works in the field of the
biblical basis of mission. South African
missiologist David Bosch (1993, p. 178)
referred to this reality in an eloquent com-
ment: One might even say that by and
large, Catholic biblical scholars are cur-
rently taking the missionary dimension of
Scripture more seriously than their Prot-
estant counterparts.
In the WEF Perspective (Schrotenboer,
1987) there is also a note of self-criticism
about this point: We must acknowledge
that often we have also set our Evangeli-
cal traditions above Scripture. In many in-
stances our lip service to biblical authority
contradicts the predominant place we give
to our denominational and historical bag-
gage. With this note comes also an im-
portant commitment to enter into a global
inter-Evangelical dialogue to better under-
stand the biblical teaching on missions:
The time has come for Evangelicals
around the world to work together in a
contextual hermeneutics that will benefit
from the rich expressions of Evangelical
faith that are now taking root in so many
nations and cultures.
Some of the more difficult dialogues
and debates within the Evangelical Move-
ment are related to the corrective role of
Scripture in relation to missionary prac-
tice. I have referred to the missionary strat-
egy known as Spiritual Warfare developed
in relation to the Church Growth Move-
ment. At a time in which there is a resur-
gence of religiosity in many parts of the
world, Spiritual Warfare has contributed
to a renewed awareness of the spiritual
dimension of the missionary task. The
Lausanne Covenant had a clear reference
to it: We believe that we are engaged in
constant spiritual warfare with the princi-
palities and powers of evil (LC, par. 12).
However the Spiritual Warfare Movement
has taken extreme and confusing direc-
tions. The Lausanne Committee (1992)
issued a statement warning about this de-
velopment and recommending some an-
tidotes: There is a danger that we revert
to think and operate on pagan worldviews
or on undiscerning application of Old Tes-
tament analogies that were in fact super-
seded in Jesus Christ. The antidote to this
is the rigorous study of the whole of Scrip-
ture always interpreting the Old Testament
in the light of the New.
The return to Scripture in Evangelical
missiology, especially to the New Testa-
ment patterns, means a continual redis-
covery of how mission was carried on by
the pre-Constantinian church. Sometimes
the understanding of this may not give
adequate regard to historical develop-
ments. This lack of historical awareness
mixed with Evangelical zeal may account
for some ways of doing mission that may
well be labeled as proselytism. Dialogue
has to make room for understanding this,
as one of the joint groups working on the
issue of proselytism came to acknowledge,
affirming that most persons engaged in
proselytism do so out of a genuine con-
cern for the salvation of those whom they
address (quoted in Robeck, 1996, p. 6).
The Christological
center and model
McGrath (1995, p. 65) has reminded
us recently that the Evangelical stance is
radically Christ-centered. He relates this
to the high view of Scripture to which
Evangelicals are committed: Christology
and scriptural authority are inextricably
linked, in that it is Scripture and Scrip-
ture alone that brings us to the true and
saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. One
could describe the development of Evan-
gelical missiology after Berlin 1966 as the
search for a new Christological paradigm.
Traditionally, the Great Commission of
Jesus Christ in Matthew 28:18 had been
the motto of Evangelical missions, stress-
ing the imperative of Jesus command to
go and evangelize the nations. In Berlin,
John Stott started his Bible expositions
with the Gospel of John and emphasized
that in it we have a model for mission (As
my Father hath sent me), as well as a
missionary imperative (even so send I
you). Many came to agree with Stott
(1967, p. 39) that although these words
represent the simplest form of the Great
Commission, it is at the same time its most
profound form, its most challenging and
therefore its most neglected.
The Christological paradigm of mission
found in the Gospels is incarnational and
is marked by a spirit of service. Its roots
are in the message of prophets such as
Isaiah as well as in the theological elabo-
ration of the Christology of Paul, Peter,
John, and other apostolic writers. It came
to be understood as a corrective to Evan-
gelical triumphalism, and consequently
taken very seriously by Evangelicals around
the world (see, for instance, Padilla, 1976;
Samuel & Sugden, 1983). From the shift
of attention to the Johannine version of
the Great Commission came a new appre-
ciation of the humanity of Jesus Christ and
the importance of his incarnational style
of mission. This may be an adequate
source for evaluation and self-criticism
within the Evangelical missionary enter-
prise. One finds it as a theme in the
Lausanne Covenant and as a hermeneuti-
cal key in several documents produced
later on by the Lausanne Movement and
WEF.
Ren Padilla (1982) has expressed well
an Evangelical perspective recovered from
a fresh reading of the Gospels: Jesus
Christ is Gods missionary par excellence,
and he involves his followers in his mis-
sion. As we find it in the Gospels, Jesus
mission includes fishing for the king-
dom, or, in other words, the call to con-
version to Jesus Christ as the way, the
truth, and the life. It is this conversion to
Jesus which stands as the basis upon
which the Christian community is formed.
Mission also includes compassion as a
result of immersion among the multi-
tudes. It is neither a sentimental burst of
emotion nor an academic option for the
poor, but definite and intentional actions
of service in order to feed the multitude
with bread for life, as well as bread of life.
Mission includes confrontation of the
powers of death with the power of the Suf-
fering Servant, and thus suffering be-
comes a mark of Jesus messianic mission
and a result of this power struggle and of
human injustice. Through creative contex-
tual obedience, Jesus mission becomes a
fertile source of inspiration. It contains the
seeds of new patterns being explored to-
day through practice and reflectionpat-
terns such as simple lifestyle, holistic
mission, the unity of the church for mis-
sion, the pattern of Gods kingdom as
missiological paradigm, and the spiritual
conflict involved in mission.
Within the Evangelical missionary
stance, the theme of imitatio Christi was
given a missiological dimension, and one
could say that in the case of Latin America
there were in this process some conver-
gences with certain forms of liberation
theology. For Evangelicals, however, it is
clear that biblical Christology also includes
an unequivocal reference to the atoning
work of Jesus Christ on the cross and the
need of every person to respond to it.
There cannot be an imitation of Christ in
the biblical sense without a new birth. In
response to liberation theologians who
would stress the socio-political dimension
of the death of Jesus, Padilla, for instance,
accepts the truth based on examination
of the texts of the Gospels that the death
of Jesus was the historical outcome of the
kind of life he lived, and that he suffered
for the cause of justice and challenges us
to do the same. But a warning is neces-
sary, because: Unless the death of Christ
is also seen as Gods gracious provision
of an atonement for sin, the basis for for-
giveness is removed and sinners are left
without the hope of justification salva-
tion is by grace through faith and noth-
ing should detract from the generosity of
Gods mercy and love as the basis of joy-
ful obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ
(Samuel & Sugden, 1983, p. 28).
Here we can appreciate better an
Evangelical conviction that distinguishes
Evangelicals from others (Catholics, for in-
stance), as we see in the section on the
biblical basis of mission in the ERCDOM
Report (Meeking & Stott, 1986). First we
find a summary of agreements and dis-
agreements in a crisp sentence: While
both sides affirm that the pilgrim church
is missionary by its very nature, its mis-
sionary activity is differently understood.
It goes on to explain the Vatican II defini-
tion of the church as sacrament of
salvation the sign and promise of re-
demption to each and every person with-
out exception. It then states that most
Evangelicals have a contrasting position:
The church is the beginning and antici-
pation of the new creation, the first born
among his creatures. Though all in Adam
die, not all are automatically in Christ. So
life in Christ has to be received by grace
with repentance, through faith. With
yearning, Evangelicals plead for a re-
sponse to the atoning work of Christ in
his death and resurrection. But with sor-
row, they know that not all who are called
are chosen (emphasis added). This con-
viction is then reflected in missionary ac-
tivity: Evangelization is therefore the call
to those outside to come as children of
the Father into the fullness of eternal life
in Christ by the Spirit, and into the joy of
a loving community in the fellowship of
the church.
This call to conversion is crucial for
Evangelical mission. Personal encounter
with Jesus Christ changes people radically,
and there is a component of moral trans-
formation in this concept of conversion.
As an historian observed, in the Evangeli-
cal revival of John Wesley we could see
both the pessimism about human nature
characteristic of Calvins biblical anthro-
pology and the optimism about divine
grace from Evangelical Arminianism that
matched it (Rupp, 1952). I would say that
this balanced but tense vision has been
one of the marks of Evangelical mission-
ary and evangelistic efforts. There is power
in the blood of Jesus Christ to regenerate
persons by the power of the Holy Spirit.
This conviction was forcefully restated in
1988 by a joint group of WEF and the
Lausanne Committee (Hong Kong Call,
1992, p. 264): Conversion means turn-
ing from sin in repentance to Christ in
faith. Through this faith believers are for-
given and justified and adopted into the
family of Gods children and heirs. In the
turning process, they are invited to the cru-
cified and risen Christ by the Holy Spirit
who prompts them to die to the sinful
desires of their old nature and to be liber-
ated from Satanic bondage and to become
new creatures in him. This is their pas-
sage from spiritual death to spiritual life,
which Scripture calls regeneration or new
birth (John 3:5).
Because mission involves frequently a
transcultural action, it is important to be
alert against forms of evangelism and con-
version that appear more as the imposi-
tion of foreign cultural patterns on the
receptors of the gospel. The Lausanne
Covenant had a warning reminding us
that, Missions have all too frequently ex-
ported with the gospel an alien culture,
and churches have sometimes been in
bondage to culture rather than to Scrip-
ture (LC, par. 10). The Hong Kong Call
(1992, pp. 264-265) offers a more specific
reminder: There is a radical discontinu-
ity in all conversions, in the sense that the
convert turns from darkness to light and
from the power of Satan to God (Acts
26:18). However, it also tries to make
clear that: Conversion should not de-
culturise the converts. They should re-
main members of their cultural
community, and wherever possible retain
the values that are not contrary to biblical
revelation. In no case should the converts
be forced to be converted to the culture
of the foreign missionary.
The radical Christocentrism of Evan-
gelicals accounts also for their stance in
relation to other religions. The WEF Per-
spective (Schrotenboer, 1987) uses strong
language when it criticizes syncretistic
practices. At Lausanne II in Manila (1989),
Canon Colin Chapman, who had been a
missionary among Muslims, acknowl-
edged the fact that Evangelicals had still
much to learn in their understanding of
how the Bible deals with the issue of reli-
gion in general. The question has become
more urgent in recent times, in view of
the increase of religiosity in the West and
the tension between growing pluralism on
the one hand and fundamentalisms on the
other hand in many parts of the world.
The way ahead is being opened by the
work of theologians from those parts of
the world where the encounter with other
faiths is part of the daily life of the mis-
sionary and the Christian community.
Asian and African Evangelicals are contrib-
uting to a better understanding of the
uniqueness of Jesus Christ. There is firm-
ness in their Evangelical conviction, but
there is also an awareness of the dangers
of Western triumphalism that may have
tainted Evangelical positions in the past.
Thus, for instance, Vinoth Ramachandra
(1996, p. 275), an Evangelical from Sri
Lanka, examines critically the missiological
approach of three Asian Catholic theolo-
gians: Samartha, Pieris, and Pannikar.
Then he offers a careful development of
orthodox Christology in dialogue with
religions and modernity. From his Chris-
tology comes a position that avoids arro-
gance: This kind of theological position,
which seeks a biblical balance of confi-
dence and humility, defies classification
under the customary categories of exclu-
sivist, pluralist, and inclusivist, where
Christian views on the world religions are
concerned.
During the most recent decade in Latin
America, there has been much pastoral
and theological work (and very little dia-
logue) in the area of popular religion
among both Catholics and Evangelicals.
On the one hand, there is the effort of the
Catholic Church to understand critically
the syncretistic forms of Christianity, es-
pecially among the indigenous peoples,
what is now being called the Indian face
of God. On the other hand, there is the
existence of popular forms of Protestant-
ism that have grown beyond all expecta-
tions. Anyone familiar with the situation
of the continent knows that the question
of popular religiosity does not only have
a pastoral angle but also a political one,
which may be the source of most serious
disagreements.
A Methodist theologian who has in-
sisted on affirming his Evangelical stance,
Jos Mguez Bonino (1997, p. 120), has
written recently, challenging Latin Ameri-
can Evangelicals to take seriously the is-
sue of other religions. He believes that a
trinitarian Christological focus can serve
as our guide. We must not separate the
Jesus Christ of the New Testament from
the Word that was from the beginning
with God and was God, and he invites
us to see in human experiences the pres-
ence of that Word and that Spirit. This is
not to give in to paganism but rather to
confess the One without (whom) not one
thing came into being(John 1:3). His
Evangelical warning comes then loud and
clear: It is no less true, however, that
Christian theology cannot disengage the
Word and the Spirit of God from the flesh
of the son of Maryof his teaching, his
message, his life and his death, his resur-
rection and Lordship. It is there where we
can find the marks of the authentic Word
and Spirit of the God of the covenant. By
the yardstick of the presence of God in
Jesus one measures all presumed presence
of that God in human history.
The power of the Holy Spirit
Since Anglican missiologist Roland
Allen, former missionary in China, pub-
lished his book The Spontaneous Expan-
sion of the Church in 1912, the question
of a return to New Testament patterns of
mission has been pursued in Protestant
missiology. Allen started with method-
ological questions but soon found that he
also had to give serious consideration to
the presence and power of the Holy Spirit
in mission. Actually, he was returning to a
key point in the practice and theology of
both Pietists and Revivalists in the history
of missions. It was an important theme for
Evangelical champions of missions linked
to the Holiness Movements, with persons
such as A. B. Simpson, A. J. Gordon, and
A. T. Pierson. In the second part of the 20
th
century, the growth of the Pentecostal
Movement, which had had a strong mis-
sionary thrust from its inception, even-
tually forced the question from the
missiological level into the realm of his-
torical and biblical studies. The Pentecos-
tal Movement in itself became a vast field
for research (Dempster, Klaus, & Petersen,
1991).
The understanding of the initiative of
the Holy Spirit in relation to mission has
been enriched by the contributions of
several Evangelical scholars. Their works
provide a solid foundation for a better un-
derstanding of the Evangelical practice of
mission.
7
In his book Pentecost and Mis-
sions, Harry Boer (1961) reminded us that
the use of the Great Commission as the
imperative motto for Evangelical mission-
ary work was actually a relatively recent
development. The biblical pattern stresses
the presence and power of the Holy Spirit
in the life of the church as the source of
missionary dynamismnot a new legal-
ism, but the free and joyous expression
of a renewed experience of Gods grace.
Here we have a better key to understand
what may be the source that inspires the
spontaneous missionary thrust in Evan-
gelical missions and churches around the
world.
As has already been noted, there are
many types of Pentecostals within the
Evangelical ranks of both WEF and the Lau-
sanne Movement. However, the acknowl-
edgment of their specific contributions as
movements inspired and empowered by
the Holy Spirit was not easy to accept by
other Evangelicals. In this area we have
witnessed significant advance in recent
years. An important section in the
ERCDOM Report (Meeking & Stott, 1986)
is given to the work of the Holy Spirit in
mission, and it is one of the sections in
which there are also significant points of
agreement among Catholics and Evan-
gelicals. At the same time, it is surprising
how very little space is given to the work
of the Holy Spirit in the WEF Perspective
(Schrotenboer, 1987). In contrast with
this, the Summary Reports of the 1995
consultation of the WEF Theological Com-
mission about Faith and Hope for the
Future are permeated by a trinitarian af-
firmation and confession of faith and hope
in the work of the Holy Spirit (WEF Theo-
logical Commission, 1997).
At the end of my previous paper, I re-
called the fact that Evangelical missions
in our century were more inspired by the
Wesleyan revivals and the Moravian pio-
neers of mission than by the 16
th
century
magisterial Reformers. The dynamism that
nurtured missionary Protestantism came
from renewal movements that emphasized
personal, living faith and disciplined life
rather than confessional conformity. Not
that intellectual understanding of ortho-
dox faith was not important. Men like
Wesley or Zinzendorf were theologically
articulate. But it was their living experi-
ence that enabled them to abandon old
church structures that were obsolete and
gave them creativity in developing new
structures for mission. In this they were
open to the movement of the Spirit. After
Lausanne, Howard Snyder has been the
missiologist who has contributed more to
our understanding of this relationship
between spiritual renewal and new pat-
terns of missionary action which is part of
our Evangelical heritage.
7
I think of Harry Boer (1961), John V. Taylor (1973), several works by James D. G. Dunn, and,
more recently, Gordon Fee (1994).
I quote again Brazilian missiologist
Valdir Steuernagel (1993): Mission under-
stood in pneumatological language is one
act with two steps. It is first to perceive
the blowing of the Spirit and the direc-
tion from which it comes. And then it is
to run in the same direction to which the
Spirit is blowing. Some Evangelicals like
myself think that discernment of the blow-
ing of the Spirit requires an open attitude
and sensitivity, which acknowledge that
behind those things that appear as some-
thing new and unusual, the strength and
vigor of the Spirit may be at work. The act
of obedience demands creativity in order
to shape new structures that will be ad-
equate instruments for missionary action
in a particular historical moment.
In Pauline missionary practice we find
this pattern. Pauls Christology is the de-
velopment of pastoral, doctrinal, and ethi-
cal teaching that stems from the fact of
Christ. Paul elaborates his Christology as
he responds to the needs and the ques-
tions of churches which were born from
the Spirit and which showed evidence of
new life, but which had not yet articulated
their belief in a meaningful way. The re-
cipients of these letters were people who
had grasped the Lordship of Christ and
whose eyes had been opened by the Spirit
to see the glory of God in the face of Jesus
Christ, but they did not have yet a clear
Christology. What we have in the world
today are churches in which people may
repeat weekly the minutiae of a Christo-
logical creed but who do not have the new
life in Christ that the Spirit begets. On the
other hand, we have growing churches
where there are the signs of the power of
the Spirit at work, but where a basic theo-
logical task is necessary, along the lines of
what Paul did in his ministry.
Evangelical theology has been an effort
to keep both a missiological thrust and
faithfulness to revealed truth. Our empha-
sis has not been in a continuity expressed
by an earthly hierarchical institution, but
in a continuity made possible by Gods
Word revealed to human beings. In all the
crossing of missionary frontiers, and in all
the efforts at contextualization, Evangeli-
cal missiology has stressed a continuity of
faithfulness to the Word. In the contem-
porary situation, we also need to pay heed
to what Emil Brunner (1953, p. 47) wrote
at the middle point of the 20
th
century: It
is not merely a question of the continuity
of the wordthe maintenance of the origi-
nal doctrinebut also of the continuity
of a life; that is life flowing from the Holy
Ghost. The fellowship of Jesus lives un-
der the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; that
is the secret of its life, of its communion
and of its power.
I hope and pray that this missiological
conference called by the Missions Com-
mission of WEF may become one of the
foci where Evangelicals looking at mission
in the 21
st
century may experience an en-
counter of the continuity in truth and the
continuity in life, for the glory of God.
References
Boer, H. R. (1961). Pentecost and missions.
lishing Co.
Bonino, J. M. (1997). Faces of Latin American
Protestantism. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Bosch, D. (1993). Reflections on biblical mod-
els of mission. In J. M. Phillips & R. T. Coote
(Eds.), Toward the 21
st
century in Chris-
tian mission: Essays in honor of Gerald
H. Anderson. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Brunner, E. (1953). The misunderstanding of
the church. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster
Press.
Carpenter, J., & Shenk, W. (Eds.). (1990).
Earthen vessels. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Conn, H. M. (1983). Looking for a method:
Backgrounds and suggestions. In W. R.
Shenk (Ed.), Exploring church growth (pp.
79-94). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerd-
mans Publishing Co.
Coote, R. T. (1990, January). Lausanne II and
world evangelization. International Bulle-
tin of Missionary Research, 14(1), pp. 10-
17.
Costas, O. E. (1983). A wholistic concept of
church growth. In W. R. Shenk (Ed.), Ex-
ploring church growth (pp. 95-107). Grand
Co.
. (1989). Liberating news. Grand Rap-
ids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
Dempster, M. A., Klaus, B. D., & Petersen, D.
(Eds.). (1991). Called and empowered:
Global mission in Pentecostal perspective.
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers.
Escobar, S. (1978). Christian mission and so-
cial justice (ch. 3). Scottdale, PA: Herald
Press.
Fee, G. D. (1994). Gods empowering presence:
The Holy Spirit in the letters of Paul. Pea-
body, MA: Hendrickson Publishers.
Glasser, A. F. (1986). Church growth at Fuller.
Missiology, 14(4), pp. 401-420.
Green, M. (1970). Evangelism in the early
church. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerd-
mans Publishing Co.
Hiebert, P. G. (1986). Anthropological insights
for missionaries. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Book House.
The Hong Kong call to conversion. (1992).
Evangelical Review of Theology, 16(3), pp.
262-270.
Hutchison, W. H. (1987). Errand to the world:
American Protestant thought and foreign
missions. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Johnston, A. P. (1978). The battle for world
evangelism. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House
Publishers.
Judge, E. A. (1960). The social pattern of Chris-
tian groups in the first century. London:
Tyndale Press.
Kraft, C. (1979). Christianity in culture. Mary-
Lausanne Committee on World Evangelization.
(1992, August 27). Lausanne Committee
issues statement on spiritual warfare.
World Evangelization Information Service
(Press release, p. 3).
Loewen, J. A. (1975). Culture and human val-
ues: Christian intervention in anthropo-
logical perspective. Pasadena, CA: William
Carey Library.
McGavran, D. (1989). Missiology faces the lion.
Missiology, 17(3), pp. 338-340.
McGrath, A. (1995). Evangelicalism and the
future of Christianity. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press.
Meeking, B., & Stott, J. R. W. (Eds.). (1986).
The Evangelical-Roman Catholic dialogue
on mission 1977-1984. Grand Rapids, MI:
Mehl, R. (1970). Sociology of Protestantism.
Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press.
Nazir-Ali, M. (1991). From everywhere to ev-
erywhere: A world view of Christian mis-
sion. London: Collins.
Neill, S. (1966). Colonialism and Christian
mission. New York: McGraw Hill.
Padilla, C. R. (1985). Mission between the
times. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co.
. (1982). Bible studies. Missiology, 10(3),
pp. 319-338.
. (1989, December). Mision y compro-
miso social. Misin, Buenos Aires, 8(4), pp.
120-121.
Padilla, C. R. (Ed.). (1976). The new face of
evangelicalism. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-
Varsity Press.
Paredes, T. (1986). El evangelio en platos de
barro. Lima, Peru: Ed. Presencia.
Ramachandra, V. (1996). The recovery of mis-
sion. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co.
Robeck, C. M., Jr. (1996, January). Mission and
the issue of proselytism. International
Bulletin of Missionary Research, 20(1), p.
6.
Robert, D. L. (1994). From missions to mission
to beyond mission: The historiography of
American Protestant foreign missions since
World War II. International Bulletin of
Missionary Research, 18(4), p. 146.
Rommen, E. (Ed.). (1995). Spiritual power and
mission: Raising the issues. Pasadena, CA:
William Carey Library/Evangelical Mission-
ary Society.
Rupp, E. G. (1952). Principalities and pow-
ers: Studies in the Christian conflict in his-
tory (pp. 76-93). New York: Abingdom
Cokesbury.
Samuel, V., & Hauser, A. (1989). Proclaiming
Christ in Christs way: Studies in integral
evangelism. Oxford: Regnum Books.
Samuel, V., & Sugden, C. (Eds.). (1983). Shar-
ing Jesus in the Two Thirds World. Grand
Co.
. (1987). The church in response to hu-
man need. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerd-
mans Publishing Co.
Schrotenboer, P. G. (Ed.). (1987). Roman Ca-
tholicism: A contemporary Evangelical
perspective. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House.
Sinclair, M. (1988). Ripening harvest, gather-
ing storm. London: MARC.
Stanley, B. (1990). The Bible and the flag.
Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press.
Steuernagel, V. (1988). The theology of mis-
sions in its relation to social responsibil-
ity within the Lausanne movement.
Chicago: Lutheran School of Theology.
. (1993). Obediencia missionria e
prtica histrica: Em busca de modelos.
So Paulo, Brazil: ABU Editora.
Stott, J. R. W. (1967). The Great Commission.
In C. F. H. Henry & S. Mooneyham (Eds.),
One race, one gospel, one task (Vol. 1).
Minneapolis, MN: World Wide Publications.
. (1975). Christian mission in the mod-
ern world. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity
Press.
Stott, J. R. W. (Ed.). (1996). Making Christ
known: Historic mission documents from
the Lausanne Movement 1974-1989. Grand
Co.
Sugden, C., & Steuernagel, V. (1990, January
March). Transformation, 7(1).
Taber, C. R. (1983). Contextualization. In W.
R. Shenk (Ed.), Exploring church growth.
lishing Co.
Taylor, J. V. (1973). The Go-between God. Phila-
delphia, PA: Fortress Press.
Tidball, D. (1983). An introduction to the so-
ciology of the New Testament. Exeter, UK:
Paternoster.
Tippett, A. R. (1987). Introduction to missiol-
ogy. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library.
Van Engen, C. (1991). Gods missionary
people: Rethinking the purpose of the lo-
cal church. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House.
Walls, A. F. (1996). The missionary movement
in Christian history: Studies in the trans-
mission of faith. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis
Books.
Warren, M. (1967). Social history and Chris-
tian missions. London: SCM Press.
WEF Theological Commission. (1997, Janu-
ary). Faith and hope for the future. Evan-
gelical Review of Theology, 21(1), pp. 5-40.
Willowbank Report. (1978). In J. R. W. Stott &
R. T. Coote (Eds.), Down to earth studies
in Christianity and culture. Grand Rapids,
MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
Yoder, J. H. (1972). The politics of Jesus. Grand
Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans.
Samuel Escobar
and his wife Lilly
are Peruvians. From
1959 to 1985, they
were missionaries
among university
students in Peru,
Argentina, Brasil,
Spain, and Canada,
under the Interna-
tional Fellowship of
Evangelical Students. Samuels missiological
thinking developed as reflection on praxis in
evangelism and through mission conferences
such as the Urbana Missionary Convention,
CLADE I Bogota (1969), and Lausanne (1974).
Samuel was a founder of the Latin American
Theological Fraternity and served as its presi-
dent (19701984). He has an earned Ph.D.
from Universidad Complutense, Madrid,
Spain, and an honorary D.D. from McMaster
University, Canada. He is an ordained Bap-
tist minister. Presently he teaches at Eastern
Baptist Theological Seminary in Wynnewood,
Pennsylvania, during the fall and serves the
rest of the year as Consultant for Theological
Education with Baptist International Minis-
tries, based in Lima, Peru. He and Lilly have
a daughter who teaches in Spain and a son
who works as agricultural economist with
MEDA in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
123
8
Learning
from
Escobar
and
beyond
Valdir
Steuernagel
T WAS MY FIRST TRIP ABROAD, and I was about to turn
22 years old. Catching a bus in Southern Brazil, at a city
called Porto Alegre, and aiming to reach Buenos Aires, I had
24 hours to become acquainted with some words in Span-
ish. With a dictionary in hand, I tried my best.
Arriving in Buenos Aires, I still had before me an over-
night train journey. I spent the night sitting on the floor of a
crowded train car. But reaching that small town called Villa
Maria was exciting, and I was looking forward to the month-
long training program. It was there that I first met that smil-
ing character and loaded book man called Samuel Escobar.
As I respond to Escobars paper, I would like for us to keep
a mental image of him before us. His ready smile would call
us to participate in the present reflection and discussion.
And his long bibliographical notes would tell us that he con-
tinues to be a loaded book-man who certainly does his home-
work!
At his age, Escobar no longer needs to carry all those
books along, throwing them on the table, as he did in Villa
Maria and quite impressing a young fellow like me. And I
can tell you, he did impress me! More than that, he helped
to transform me. From that time on, my eyes and ears have
been wide open to learn from him and to try to follow in
some of his footsteps.
A few years had passed by, and Villa Maria was a distant
memory. Now I was about to turn 25. This time I was in
Lima, Peru. To me, Samuel Escobar had become a more fa-
miliar figure and had grown in stature. After all, he had spo-
ken at that Mecca event called Lausanne 1974. He had done
it meaningfully, and those of us from Latin America were
proud of him. And there I was, close to this statesman. It
I
was there that Samuel departed from his
notes for a while and did some personal
sharing of life experience. Profound life
sharing, I would say.
Emerging from Lausanne as a world-
wide Evangelical figure, he was also a
beaten human being. He had been ap-
plauded and criticized, and he saw him-
self being evaluated and judged from here
and there. Looking at those Evangelical
tendencies and pressures, he was asking
the key questions about the really impor-
tant and substantial things in life. And
there he was, telling us that he had known
the Evangelical machinery from within. He
had seen it, so to speak. And after having
seen it, he concluded that this was not
what he wanted, what he was dreaming
about! His desire, he told us, was to be
known by the Lord. To have his name writ-
ten in Gods book, as Scripture tells us.
Can you imagine the scene? Can you
picture our lost and puzzled faces, usu-
ally hungry to receive yet one more bib-
liographical reference? But here we were
witnessing a very human confession and
sharing a very real moment in life. Samuel,
I suspect, did not imagine how much he
impacted me that day by his open and
vulnerable life-sharing. There I was being
confronted with the really important
things in life! That experience Ive never
forgotten.
And there is a third vignette. Not a story
really, but an observation. The fact is that
Samuel knows my wifes name. He recog-
nizes her and calls her by name. The other
day he sent me a picture of the three of us
when we were together in Guatemala. Its
something small, but actually quite impor-
tant. Do we know one anothers spouse
and childrens names?
Starting With Conclusions
As I looked into the task of respond-
ing to Samuel Escobars paper, I began to
remember him and some of the oppor-
tunities I had to get to know him and to
be influenced by him. And this I would
say is very important: By approaching the
themes of his paper, Evangelical Missiol-
ogy: Peering Into the Future, I suggest
that besides sharing ideas, it is equally im-
portant that we also tell stories and share
our lives. Therefore, Id like to outline
some conclusions at the beginning of this
response.
The important things should come
first. We might somehow be well known,
and some people at Iguassu might be quite
important. A few books might have been
translated into several languages, and
someone might be a must author of to-
day. His/her name may be in every bibli-
ography and in the program of every
missiological consultation. But all of this
means so little if God has difficulty know-
ing how to spell our names and if our
friends dont know our spouses name.
They might not even know if we are mar-
ried or if we have children.
If the truly important things come first
with us, then our greatest desires will
point us in the direction of God: Please,
Lord, write my name into that book of
yours! And if Jesus tells us that yes, our
name is there, lets walk away smiling and
embrace one another, sharing those things
that matter the most in life.
I have seen some of Escobars older
friends calling him Sammy. But this is not
something for me. I cannot step in and
say something like, Come on, Sammy.
But I do consider him a friend. If he ever
comes to Curitiba, I would like to host him
at my home. My wife and I would open
the kitchen door for him, invite him to
have a cup of coffee at the kitchen table,
and ask the boys to clean their room for
him to sleep there.
Good missiology is made at the kitchen
table. Meaningful missiology is made in
learning from escobar and beyond 125
the context of relationship. Should we not
confess that so much of our missiology is
library-made, and so many of our consul-
tations are head-encounters? Relationship-
building is an essential part of our journey
towards tomorrow.
Have you had the opportunity to meet
Samuel a few times? It looks as if he is al-
ways humbly smiling. First, it must be
said that it is not easy to find a good smile
in some of our consultations. We might
find some smiling, but so often it is a kind
of well behaved smiling. And what we
find very often is bibliographical serious-
ness in an attempt to show off our intel-
lectual achievements.
Is it possible to look into the challeng-
ing issues of our times with a sense of
grace? Is it possible to smile while walk-
ing towards our gegenber, enriching our
lives and task? And would it be possible
to do some laughing as we look into the
mirror, not taking ourselves too seriously?
Our aim should be to be known for hum-
bly smiling while embracing our task
and walking together into the future. We
should be enjoying life and building up
meaningful relationships.
I still remember how excited and chal-
lenged I was when I returned from my first
meetings of the Latin American Theologi-
cal Fraternity. And I must tell you that I
was quite impressed by some of those fel-
lows knowledge, by the number of books
listed in their bibliography, by the depth
of their discussions, and by the size of their
behindafter all, it was not in vain that
they sat for so many hours. With them, I
learned that to be a responsible Christian,
a meaningful citizen, and a somewhat
good theologian meant hard work.
There is no other way to do missiology
today and tomorrow. But I noticed also
that they were good friends and enjoyed
a good meal together.
Advancing Through
Storm Once More
At the beginning of his paper, Escobar
recovers Latourettes expression advance
through storm by describing the history
of Christian mission in the 20
th
century.
And by using Eric Hobsbawns categories,
we could say that it was mission in a short
century in between the two world wars.
Escobar also recovers Ralph Winters ex-
pression unbelievable years when he
describes the growing presence of the
North American missionary movement,
especially after World War II. But even
though Winter looked specifically at the
increasing impact of the North American
missionary movement, I could say the
same about the Brazilian church, which is
my church. Especially the latter decades
of the 20
th
century were, to us, unbeliev-
able years that were characterized by three
trends.
First, we saw the emergence worldwide
of a strong evangelistic focus and advance.
This movement generated, in some places,
substantial church growth. Thus, the church
became significantly bigger and stronger.
Second, we saw the church not only
grow in numbers but also become much
more universal. The church can now be
found on every continent and every po-
litical nation. It is a global church whose
numbers are expressive, for we have cre-
ated a worldwide movement. One of the
consequences of this development is that
the church is less white and more like a
mosaic of colors, races, tastes, and lan-
guages. Another consequence has been
the emergence of a new and hetero-
geneous missionary movement. Some
decades ago, according to Andrew Walls,
every missionary was North American un-
til identified differently. But today the
missionary movement is much more in-
ternational in its outlook, if not yet global
in its philosophy.
Third, there has been the emergence
of a theological trend that tries to say that
our particular cultures and geographies
will help to determine our perception and
understanding of reality and truth. There-
fore, every theology must be contextual
and should reflect its own local flavor. As
a consequence, the import/export busi-
ness of theology must be questioned, and
in its place we must create an open arena
where we all share in the creation of Chris-
tian theology.
Creative Tensions
Those were unbelievable years, and so
many of us had the privilege of being ac-
tive witnesses to them. Yet this was not a
clean and straightforward process. The
tensions and difficulties could be seen in
different places. I had the opportunity of
seeing them as I did my research on the
Lausanne Movement. It would even be
possible to outline some of the tensions
that were building up during that second
half of the century.
First, it could be said that mission had
to be re-worked, as it moved away from
the old colonial era and point of reference.
What then emerged was a heavily domi-
nated North American mission initiative.
Escobar will say that in later years that
trend could be called managerial mis-
siology, strongly determined by the cul-
tural values of North America: practical
and efficient, technical and result ori-
ented. And the motto lets just do it be-
came a key slogan of this initiative.
However, as the church experienced
growth, visibility, and activity outside of
the North American and European setting,
new theological and missiological voices
began to emerge. And, in Escobars words,
a critical missiology from the periphery
began to question the system, raising its
hand and wanting to be a part of the mis-
sion awakening and initiative.
But it has to be said, secondly, that this
tension and development cannot be un-
derstood apart from the North-South para-
digm. And the poor South, when it saw
that the rich North was calling all the shots
and controlling the game and playing
field, said that it also wanted to play in
the game and not serve the role of the ball
boythe one who chases after the ball
when it goes off the field but who never
plays on the field with the team. This ten-
sion, which could very often be seen ideo-
logically along political and theological
lines, became quite evident in the pro-
longed discussions on the tension of evan-
gelism vis--vis social action. A lot of
people were hurt, walls were built, paper
was used up, and adrenaline was ex-
pended in a discussion that so very often
impoverished the gospel itself.
Thirdly, we could say also that our di-
visions along ecclesiastical lines were quite
evident. Old churches were struggling to
survive, new churches were emerging, and
competition was the name of the game.
The movement surrounding the issue of
the Holy Spirit, labeled Pentecostal or
charismatic, brought such new and nec-
essary life and vitality, while at the same
time generating too much division and
misunderstanding in too many places.
Those were, in fact, unbelievable years!
And they also became equally unbeliev-
able when viewed from the opposite side.
At the latter part of the century, Lesslie
Newbigin began to ask the puzzling but
legitimate and necessary question: Can
the West be converted? The former har-
vest place for mission had become pro-
foundly secular and was crying out for new
and meaningful ways to communicate the
gospel. Some stormy resistance could be
seen there, and it was raining heavily on
our heads. We again need to say, Lets
advance through storm! That is, after all,
the only way to do mission.
As we move into a new century, I share
the conviction that we need to reposition
ourselves and to work once again on the
agenda. Lets celebrate the unbelievable
things God has done, recognize the open
doors and the heavy storm all around us,
while we search for paths of obedience in
our generation.
Facing This Generation
With Joy!
Returning to Brazil after four years of
study in the U.S., I thought I had by then
filled up a good deal of my mental stor-
age room. After all, I had been studying
for four years and should have learned
something! But then I noticed that while
I was gone the agenda had changed, and
I was left alone with my already-filled
mental storage room. Moving one step
further, I came to the conclusion that even
I was getting tired of my own discourse. I
had worked on the relationship between
evangelization and social responsibility,
and I should have grasped the issue at
some depth. But examining the challenges
of my new time, with the emergence of a
new generation, a new environment, and
new questions, I felt somehow empty
handed and realized that I had to go back
and do my homework.
Samuel says in his paper that missiol-
ogy is an honest evaluation of mission-
ary activism in light of Gods Word, and
we would all agree with him. But he also
alludes to the fact that new models of
missionary obedience should be a result
of a good and necessary perception of new
missionary challenges. Samuel himself has
been addressing that issue as he talks
about the new missionary frontiers.
I would stress that one of the tasks of
missiology is to read the signs of the times.
When describing the men armed for
battle who came to David at Hebron
(1 Chron. 12:23), the writer describes the
men of Issachar as being those who un-
derstood the times and knew what Israel
should do (1 Chron. 12:32). From within
the church and looking into the always-
present, new missionary challenges, mis-
siology should be able to help us to
understand the times and respond with
a sense of vocation and service.
I return to my own story in this mo-
ment of my life. I had to recognize that I
had done my doctoral studies in the twi-
light of that high season of the study and
hermeneutical centrality of ideology, and
of the dreams of social and political revo-
lutions. Coming back to Brazil in a time
of significant and worldwide changes, I
had to face a new reality: the Berlin wall
had come down; the ideological situation
was changing; the Enlightenment crisis
was overwhelming society. The younger
generation was asking different questions
and using a new language; meanwhile, the
church was becoming much more prag-
matic and market oriented. Doing my
homework again, I had to try to under-
stand my new times and try to spell out
some of the frontiers that I saw emerging.
It is impossible here to address fully
the challenges of our times. First, because
they are quite complex and multiform.
Second, because the task of doing this
goes beyond one persons capacity, and
the job needs both a team and an inter-
disciplinary approach. Third, because to
do that goes far beyond the limits of this
paper. But Evangelical missiology has to
spell out the key distinctives, characteris-
tics, and challenges of this emerging era.
Therefore, by simply highlighting some of
those distinctives, I want to say that I am
impressed by their magnitude and con-
cerned with the map of challenges of our
time. May I try to outline what I see emerg-
ing and, in part, what I see that is already
among us?
The map of challenges
Is there a friend around? The search
for relationship in an environment of lone-
liness.
I am all alone, without a father or
a mother. The crisis of the state.
Democracy with disenchantment.
The political crisis and the imposition of
chaos and disintegration.
Is there any work for me, please?
The emergence of professional Darwin-
ism. The changing work market.
The security crisis in an environ-
ment of fear. The absence of frontiers.
Tell me what your price is! The su-
premacy of the market.
Lets buy a new one. A discarding
mentality.
The nature of todays conflict. The
fight over resources and the law of destruc-
tion.
The savage urbanization process
and the absence of sanctuary. Urbanism is
a mindset.
From communication to propa-
ganda. Everything, after all, is a question
of good marketing.
Instant poverty and the intensifica-
tion of vulnerability. Destitution can hap-
pen in hours.
Ethics and the new challenges. Are
there any limits for bio-ethics?
How do you feel about it? The pre-
dominance of the subjective and intuitive.
The re-emergence of idolatry. The
irruption of the religious and of mysticism.
Christendom is dying. Should we
cry or laugh?
Just to enumerate those characteristics
and challenges is overwhelming. And I
would not even begin to comment on any
of them. But we cannot just stop at those
dimensions. We also have to look at the
church as a part not only of our own real-
ity but also as a cultural and even political
factor in so many of our societies. We
should start first with a prophetic analysis
of our own culture and ecclesiastical
home. In prophetic terms, it is impossible
to look out there and not look at what
we are as the church.
The Mirror
Called Our Church
But the church is quite complex and
varied as well. It can be so different from
one cultural setting and tradition to an-
other. However, I dont want to pass over
the difficult task of looking into the mir-
ror and sharing a little of what I see. What
I want to share are some of the yellow and
red lights that I see as I look into that mir-
ror called our church. In fact, we should
try to build a bridge between some of the
characteristics of our time and some of the
present marks of the church. We will con-
clude that the church is also a child of our
times, struggling with the call to be dis-
tinctly different as it faces the pressure to
conform to the surrounding culture. Let
me, once more, share a mere outline of
concerns about the direction I see the
church heading into. And I can only do
this from my own perspective, which is
shaped by a Christianized environment
and a growing church.
1. The church is being viewed through
the lenses of progress and success. Within
this view, the church must always grow and
be bigger tomorrow than it is today.
2. The church is understood accord-
ing to the criteria of numbers and a politi-
cal as well as marketing perception of
space to be occupied.
3. The church tends to be managed
from a business and bureaucratic ap-
proach. The church is being run as a cor-
porationsmall or large.
4. There is a tendency to view worship
according to a showtime mentality.
5. There is a challenge and an invita-
tion to communicate the gospel as a pro-
paganda tool in a war of communication.
6. There is an insistent presence of the
theology of prosperity, as a by-product of
the law of the market, with an emphasis
on individualism, well-being, and success.
7. The school of spiritual warfare is
prominent, with its mystifying and magic
emphasis of reality and of the Christian
faith itself.
8. There is danger of the emergence
of a new type of charismatic Constantin-
ianism, as well as of an Evangelical syn-
cretism.
Finding Ways to Walk
Into the Future
As we proceed with an analysis of the
present and some of the tendencies and
challenges of tomorrow, it is important to
remember that we must resist the temp-
tation to dream nostalgically about a ro-
mantic past that has never existed. There
should be a sense of peace and celebra-
tion about the privilege of being called by
God to live today. We are challenged to
walk today, stretching out towards tomor-
row, seeking to obey Gods calling, and
also drinking from the fountain of service.
In his address at the synagogue in
Pisidian Antioch, Paul finds himself heavily
involved in a mission enterprise. He obvi-
ously wants people to believe in Jesus. In
his contextual discourse, Paul goes
through the history of salvation and men-
tions King David on two occasions. At one
point he says that David served Gods
purpose in his own generation (Acts
13:36). This word has been a source of
challenge and encouragement to me,
pointing to the task of serving God in ones
own generation. In fact, every generation
is called by God to serve him in his or her
own moment of historyrejoicing in
Gods calling, understanding the times,
and facing the challenges as they create
conflicts, hardships, and opportunities.
At another reference to David, Paul
mentions him as a man according to Gods
heart and obedient to his will. He refers
to God, saying, I have found David, son
of Jesse, a man after my own heart; he will
do everything I want him to do (Acts
13:22). This is a very caring and touching
statement. It is worthwhile to seek to fol-
low and aim for Davids example.
We have transformed missiology into
a science and mission outreach into an
activity. There is high value in these ac-
complishments. We have to have a good
foundation, based on necessary and accu-
rate information. We also have to be prac-
tical, knowing how and when to do
mission. But lets never forget that the
voice of God wants to reach our heart.
Knowing and doing must be surrounded
by a spirituality of the heart whereby we
know to whom we belong and what God
wants us to do. The voice of God gives
meaning and direction to our life. By con-
quering our heart, God enables us to walk
out into the world with the conviction of
being embraced by God and, therefore,
embracing others.
By going back to Acts 13 and encoun-
tering Paul and his companions at the
synagogue, it is possible to hear the rul-
ers of that synagogue calling to them and
meaningfully saying, Brothers, if you have
a message of encouragement for the
people, please speak(Acts 13:15). To be
involved in mission is not only to speak.
It also refers to the art of positioning one-
self and waiting for the right questions to
come. The right questions echo the search
for meaning and a longing for salvation.
In our days, we certainly need a message
of encouragement for the people.
Road Signs
to Look Out For
Therefore, to be continuously working
on an Evangelical missiology of today and
tomorrow means to intentionally follow
the heart of God, to willingly serve him in
this generation, and to sensibly hear the
verbal and non-verbal questions of today.
In order to do these things, I would like
to try once more to outline an agenda that
will address some of the road signs of to-
day, as I see them.
1. We need to rescue the centrality
of the Word of God based on a herme-
neutics of enchantment. To value and
stress the centrality of the Word of God is
part of our tradition. In the recent past,
we have even developed some fighting
skills concerning the nature and charac-
ter of the Word of God. Today, however, it
is possible to notice that the reference to
Gods Word becomes a kind of hermeneu-
tic of cosmetics, whereby the important
thing is to feel good and to have fun. We
need to rescue the centrality of Gods
Word. This, however, has to be done based
on a hermeneutic that will take us to Gods
heart and captivate our own hearts.
2. We must constantly look out of
the window and face the missionary
task of the church. Being constantly chal-
lenged to be involved in mission is a part
of the task of the church and a sign of its
health. But lets not forget that this is the
task of the whole church called to serve
Christ in the whole world. Therefore, the
church is called always to be involved in
mission. Look out of the window; witness
what is going on, hear the cry for help,
and discern the questions of salvation in
order then to share Christ.
3. We must always emphasize our
commitment to evangelism and must
re-invent how we do it. Isnt there always
the temptation to skip over evangelism in
the agenda? The trend of accommodation
is always one of the churchs key tempta-
tions. Evangelism, therefore, must be the
conscious decision of each group in each
generation at every place, because evan-
gelism is the entrance point in the open
door of salvation.
4. We need to rediscover the role
of the community in the life of the
church. It looks as if the church is becom-
ing bigger in so many places. It is even
fashionable to be part of a megachurch.
And the risk of anonymity always sur-
rounds such a church; people will come
and go without being noticed (and they
sometimes dont even want to be no-
ticed!). Some of these groups are trying
to break the cycle by talking about home
churches or by embracing other attempts
to put people together in small groups.
These days, the word community is not
used very much, but the church has to
help recover it. It is at the level of com-
munity that people and situations become
real. God always wants to know about the
real things. To experience community is,
therefore, part of the nature of the church.
5. We must not avoid the path of
martyrdom. Sacrifice is an absent word
in the vocabulary of our days. Well-being
is a must category in our consumer so-
ciety and mentality. The church runs the
risk of being an extension of such a men-
tality. But we need to recover the convic-
tion that there is no Christian life without
sacrifice, and martyrdom is always a pos-
sibility in a witnessing context. But mar-
tyrdom is not a category in itself. It goes
hand in hand with a search for meaning
that overcomes a traditional sense of be-
longing.
6. We must commit to relationship
rather than hierarchical submission
and administration. The church needs
to be relational, and mission involvement
and practice need to be born out of and
to point to relationality. Hierarchy and
even administration are being put under
some level of suspicion and need to be
understood as being instruments of ser-
vice. We need hierarchy and we can use
good administration, but the aim is to
build relationships with God and with
each other.
7. We need to relearn how to say
NO and how to spell out the word
justice. I come out of a tradition where
I was taught to say NO and to spell out
a clear claim for justice. An indifferent and
silent church was seen as a weak church,
a compromising church. But when the
Berlin wall fell down and everything be-
came so monolithically capitalist and prag-
maticso market, success, and image
orientedthe word justice seemed to
disappear from our vocabulary. The pro-
cess of doing theology was affected. The
church followed the market so much that
it did not know how and/or did not want
to say NO. But it is time to breathe
deeply, to practice saying NO again, and
to search for justice intensively. There is
no other way to be the church than by
serving God and people, and by doing so
with justice.
8. We need to be part of a reshap-
ing process of state and politics, as a
step of missionary obedience. Even as
the word justice tended to disappear
from our vocabulary, all of us witnessed
the state running out of ideological mo-
tifs and becoming utterly pragmatic. The
political system fell into a deep credibility
crisis. Many had the clear perception that
the state and the political system were
having a very hard time adapting to an-
other time and to new challenges. They
even continued to dance to the melody of
yesterday. But the young people, many
poor communities, and part of the intelli-
gentsia were asking for another tune in
order for their dance to find some rhythm
and meaning to life.
This is a dangerous time of philosophi-
cal and political emptiness, where the
church does not have the luxury of being
silent or simply following the dance of the
marketplace. The church must be a cre-
ative force in society, joining efforts with
others who want a political system that is
able to hear and to respond to the claims
of today, especially the claims of the poor.
9. We need to allow local initiatives
to replace centralized activities. Not
only is the state dancing according to the
tune of another time, but the church with
its structures and traditions is also. It has
not been easy for the church, including
mission agencies, to acknowledge struc-
tural crises and the weakening influence
of centralized pronouncements. Some-
times the church continues to embrace a
mega-discourse, issuing pronouncements
here and there, without noticing that there
are so few people paying attention to what
is being said.
One of the signs of our times is that
this is a season of local initiative. People
want to own and personally participate.
They dont want, for example, just to give
money to some distant agency. They want
to go where their money goes and want
to know the people they are helping. This
is a time of partnership and participa-
tionwhich should be celebrated.
Poetry Walking
Alongside Prose
I had never suspected that I could and
would, someday, write some poetry. This
wasnt me, I thought. I was only trained
to write proselogical and systematic sen-
tences. So I studied and did theology, bor-
rowing the framework, concepts, and
language from philosophy and later from
social sciences. But in the process we all
became too abstract, elitist, dry, and dis-
cursive.
However, in the recent years of my life
journey and accompanied by friends, I
discovered that I could write some poetry.
Even if it was only poor poetry, it was very
important. It challenged me to do theol-
ogy with my heart and take my soul, my
feelings, and my intuition seriously. I still
write prose as you can see, but not only
prose and not only as I once did.
I share the awareness that we still need
good theology written in prose. But we
need more poetry in order to become
more human, to take our soul seriously,
and to talk meaningfully in our days and
to our people and cultures. In order to
do that, we need not only to do our home-
work in systematic ways. We need to learn
how to do poetry and to recover the art of
telling stories.
Never forget the small things, because
life goes on. I first dealt with the idea of
smallness when looking into the Ana-
baptist tradition, where purity and com-
mitment were more important than
numbers and growth. Largeness was even
put under suspicion. Then economy came
into the picture with Schumachers (1975)
famous book Small Is Beautiful, with a
whole new setting of possibility coming
into view. But lately it was Eugene Peterson
who brought it to my attention by once
again pointing out that life consists so
much of the small things. Small things that
make such a significant part of our every-
day life. Washing, cooking, greeting, and
that same meal-time table talk that occurs
everyday: How was school today? Mom
is still sick! A good theology knows how
to integrate the small everyday aspects of
life, and a good spirituality is for table talk.
The end of all things is near. Lets not
forget it. Not too long ago we were inun-
dated by sermons about eschatology. I was
even running away from that issue and
from a tendency to be categorized in this
or that eschatological box. But today it is
difficult to find someone talking about the
end of all things. Now we are much more
concerned about giving people tools for
well-being and success in the here and
now. Much of our eschatology has become
materialized; one measures Gods bless-
ing by getting a new car.
I share the conviction that we need to
recover the eschatological dimension of
the gospel. We must re-visit our approach
to hope that is shaped today mostly in
material terms. By recovering eschatology,
we allow it to shape our life in such a way
that we see ourselves and are recognized
by others as incarnational citizens of Gods
future, the first fruits of the kingdom to
come.
As I come to the end of this conversa-
tion with Samuel Escobar, I would like to
thank him for his paper and to walk with
him in the way he concludes it:
Missiology is inspired by the Triune
God.
All Scripture is pregnant with Gods
mission.
To do mission is to focus on Christ
and to be inspired by his model.
Lets be blessed and challenged by
the power of the Holy Spirit.
And lets receive Gods hug as we
peer into the future.
References
Schumacher, E. F. (1975). Small is beautiful:
economics as if people mattered. New
York: Harper & Row.
Valdir R. Steuer-
nagel is married to
Sileda Silva, and they
have four grown chil-
dren. A Lutheran pas-
tor, he is also the
director of the Centro
de Pastoral e Misso in
the city of Curitiba,
Brazil. He completed
his doctoral studies at
the Lutheran School of Theology, Chicago, Il-
linois, with a concentration in missiology. Au-
thor of a number of books in Portuguese,
Spanish, and English, he has provided lead-
ership for many years to the Latin American
Theological Fraternity. He is the current Chair
of World Vision International.

Global Missiology For The 21 Century

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Global Missiology For The 21 Century

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Global Missiology For The 21 Century

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the main topic of discussion in the text?

What challenges does Escobar bring up in his conversation with Steuernagel?

GLOBAL

. 1973, 1978, 1984 by the International Bible Society. Used by permission

You might also like