mission & evangelism:
International Review of Mission
IRM October 2002 - Guest Editorial by Andrew Williams
TOWARD THE FULLNESS OF LIFE
For over a decade now, since David Bosch’s Transforming Mission, we have all believed that we are in a kairos of missiological paradigm shift. I say kairos because I believe it is a God-inspired moment. It is as though the missiological world is groaning as it awaits the birth of some new paradigm to take us forward. Yet we also know that in this postmodern world we can no longer expect a new “meta-narrative” to answer all our questions. Therefore, we try to piece together this jigsaw so that the picture of some new mission thinking for our time may be revealed.
The papers which form this edition of the International Review of Mission are from a consultation held in London, England in April this year. The meeting was convened by the World Council of Churches' Commission on World Mission and Evangelism (CWME) and three historic mission agencies: the Council for World Mission (CWM), the United Evangelical Mission (UEM), and the Cevaa, Community of Churches in Mission, and took as its theme "Towards the Fullness of Life: Intercontextual Relationships in Mission". Participants grappled with the reality of our contemporary world, particularly the impact of globalization, but maintained, as a starting point, that in this contemporary world the mission of the church is to receive, celebrate, proclaim and work for the "fullness of life" in Christ. In him, we are called "to be reconciling and healing communities", says the working title of the next WCC conference on world mission and evangelism (2005).
All over the world, churches struggle to make the gospel relevant to each specific context, thus manifesting the richness of God's gifts. They also strive to embody their given unity in Christ by allowing space for dialogue between contextually relevant mission practices and theologies. Such "intercontextual" relationships need to refer to the increasingly common global context, which challenges all peoples in ways that we have only begun to grasp.
Further description on how the consultation came about is included in the final report, which also gives some summaries of the papers included here, as well as recommendations for the four sponsoring organizations to follow up.
I thought the consultation was a great success. There was some concern that no earth-shatteringly new ideas had emerged from the event, but it must be remembered (and as the final document points out) that the event itself was new! Here was a gathering sponsored by the CWME with CWM, Cevaa and UEM, and attended by a host of other invited ecumenical guests talking about important mission issues. This was not just an academic event but a meeting of mission bodies concerned about “people-centred” mission. Therefore, both academics and practitioners attended. Such networking is valuable in itself but I also believe the goals of the consultation were met, especially that of clarifying themes for the 2005 WCC conference on world mission and evangelism.
I believe new insights emerged from the consultation. Preman Niles’ phrase, “the people of God in the midst of all God’s people”, should begin to enter the ecumenical vocabulary; it is the most helpful formula to emerge that describes a potentially new orientation for the church. Musa Dube’s syllogism that a)HIV/AIDS is found in the church, b)together, every member of the church constitutes the body of Christ, therefore, c)Jesus has AIDS was at first shocking to us, but then the logic began to sink in. The AIDS pandemic is a theological and missiological crisis for our time. Allan Anderson’s contribution on Pentecostal approaches to faith and healing and his reminder that “the main attraction of Pentecostalism in the third world is still the emphasis on healing” was important. A gospel that promises solutions for present felt needs is one of the reasons for the growth in Pentecostalism. The mainline churches may have neglected this aspect of mission for too long and we must now learn anew from the Pentecostals. Lee Hong Jung’s contribution on networking, which came as a response to the sub-theme on “New Models of Mission Relationship and Partnership”, sparked a creative discussion in one of the small groups on the image of nets and webs. Developing all these new ideas and images will be our work in the future.
The three mission agencies who co-sponsored the event have a history of being willing to change to meet new challenges. All of the agencies have reformed themselves from their previous incarnations into more global, sharing partnerships. But is it yet enough? They all continue to look at their structures to find better ways to serve the mission of God.
It seems clear to almost everyone who reflects on mission today that the traditional patterns of the world missionary movement are long overdue for a radical overhaul. The world church has changed. Numerical and spiritual strength are no longer the significant marks of the church in the West, or North, or first world. Indeed, such places are themselves mission frontiers. The world has changed and Westerners can no longer pose as teachers or civilisers chosen by God to enlighten those in darkness, for we know that the darkness is also within. The map of faith itself has changed with the growth of fundamentalism and the emergence and expansion of fringe groups, as well as through the Pentecostal/charismatic movement's continued dramatic impact on mainline churches.
Yet the churches of the West have not found it easy to recognize the potential end point of their historic missionary activity, or of mission agencies. Their great work, accomplished with sacrifice, love and toil, was to introduce the Christian message and the Christian community to new places. This was a work blessed by the Holy Spirit, despite all the human limitations of the process, so that today the church is in every land. The calling for this century is therefore different. It is to do with a global family of churches (in which none of them has paternal rights) which share their gifts and resources so that each may witness more fully and faithfully among its own people. Thus the great biblical themes of mission and unity come together.
Can we find a new way forward? What we may have to look for is an ecumenical replacement for the mission agency pattern, which is still basically that planned by 19th century Christians. A little boldness is required. We must applaud CWM, Cevaa and UEM for having the courage to open themselves to scrutiny. However, I hope that we do not lose everything formulated in the 20th century, for I agree with the Rev Stuart Vogel of New Zealand who once said, “No thinking sensitive Christian can dismiss the concept of partnership. It is at the heart of modern mission, and without it mission is heartless.”
This suggests that we cannot neglect this concept, nor easily replace it. If it is to have real meaning, however, it must be reclaimed and by our actions we must reinvest it with new integrity.
Not every aspect of the consultation can be encapsulated in the papers included in this edition of IRM. The worship, the small group discussions, the informal mealtimes and coffee breaks created space for dialogue and friendships to be formed. In the end, for me, what matters is not the volume of paper produced but the quality of our service in mission. It is not what we say but what we do. Some presenters reminded us of Jesus’ words sent back to an enquiring John the Baptiser: “Go and tell John what you hear and see: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news brought to them. And blessed is anyone who takes no offence at me.” This reminds us that some action must issue from our talking and that this will be our most credible witness to God’s mission.
Andrew WILLIAMS
Rev. Andrew Williams, a minister of the Uniting Church in Australia, is the Secretary, Personnel and Training, in the Council for World Mission. He previously worked in several parts of Australia, and most recently in Sydney, where he was the Secretary for World Mission in the New South Wales Synod of the Uniting Church.
POST SCRIPTUM
I wish to express my thanks to Rev. Andrew Williams not only for his excellent cooperation in organizing last April's consultation with me, but here in particular for his thorough, careful and detailed work on this issue of the International Review of Mission and for the guest editorial with its most relevant reflections. Since Andrew wrote the editorial, the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches (WCC) has agreed that the working theme for the next world mission conference should be “Called in Christ to be reconciling and healing communities”. The Central Committee also accepted in general the plans for the preparation of the conference, on the basis of a document prepared by the Conference Planning Committee of the Commission on World Mission and Evangelism (CWME)1. Some of the now confirmed main thematic streams of the preparation process for the conference are directly linked to, or based on the common consultation between CWME, Cevaa, CWM and UEM that is documented in this IRM. This is particularly true for issues related to identity in changing contexts and plurality, as well as for the work on health and healing.
As a consequence, this issue of IRM can be considered the first official preparatory document for the next world mission conference of the World Council of Churches (WCC).
It must be remembered, of course, that the London consultation was itself based on earlier dialogues, such as the one on health and healing in Hamburg2 in 2000 and the common consultation of Cevaa, CWM and UEM in Wuppertal also in 20003.
IRM will be a major communication tool for the dissemination of missiological papers, reflections and documents in preparation for the world mission conference.
As editor, I invite you to reflect on experiences and on theological insights that you have with regard to reconciling mission and evangelism, and I encourage you to share your insights with IRM. We are ready to publish relevant papers, insofar as they follow the usual IRM guidelines and editorial policy.
Jacques MATTHEY
NOTES
1. The relevant sections of the paper prepared by the
CWME Conference Planning Committee are reproduced in the documentation
section.
2. “Health, Faith and Healing”. IRM
Vol. XC Nos. 356/357, January/April 2001.
3. A full document of 69 pages was published by the three
organizations in A4 format. It is entitled “Communities of Churches
in Mission”. A joint consultation of CEVAA, CWM and UEM, February
01-05, 2000, Wuppertal, Germany.
The part which was adopted as final report was published in IRM
Vol. LXXXIX No. 353, April 2000, pp. 217 – 228.
cf. also Kai Funkschmidt’s thorough analysis of the recent history
of Cevaa, CWM and UEM in the last issue of IRM (July 2002).
An overall view of attempts to modify international partnership relations
and structures had been published in IRM Vol. LXXXVI