Review of Michael W. Goheen's,
Introducing Christian Mission Today: Scripture, History and Issues (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2014).
Michael Goheen, theological director and
scholar-in-residence in missional theology at the Missional Training Center in
Phoenix, among other posts, has written an excellent introduction to mission
studies today. In one volume, he covers biblical and theological reflection on
mission, historical and contemporary reflection on mission, and current issues
in mission today.
The book has a clear, logical structure,
introducing the reader to the field of mission studies, and then establishing a
biblical, theological, and historical framework for mission thinking and
practice. Goheen writes lucidly and brings the fruit of his immense reading to
the task. Choice quotes from key students of mission adorn the pages as
sidebars.
In his introduction, Goheen argues that
the broadening of the concept of mission in 20th century was a
positive development that challenged a modernistic mindset in the contemporary
missiology that was also seriously bound up with the colonial project. Keen to
learn from scholars across the ecumenical spectrum this new understanding of
mission has emerged by way of four definitions:
- WCC, Mexico City, 1963—‘witness
in six continents’;
- the mission of the church as
rooted in the mission of God;
- replacement of the paradigm of
expansion with one of ‘communication’—“Mission is witness in life, word and
deed” (26); and
- the “whole Church taking the
whole gospel to the whole world”, as expounded by the Lausanne movement
(26-27).
This new paradigm of mission, Goheen
argues, has also been prompted by significant global realities and megatrends
including the collapse of colonialism, globalization—“the spread of the modern
Western story of economic progress around the world” (21), urbanization,
staggering social and economic problems—“The primary problem driving poverty,
hunger and the growing gap between rich and poor are unjust structures—corrupt
governments, inequitable global markets, worldwide arms race, structural
consumerism, massive third-world debt, and more” (22), soaring population, a
resurgence of religions, and tectonic shifts in Western culture. In my
judgment, Goheen’s analysis of global woes is simplistic. I am not convinced
that there really was much of a retreat of religion in the first place and
religion may have some big part to play in the other woes of the globe, not
simply unjust economic structures.
Biblical and Theological Reflection on Mission
In part one, Goheen analyzes Scripture as
a narrative record of God’s mission. It is the story of God’s mission in the
Bible that should drive our theology of mission today: “The church today is to
carry out its mission in a manner that is consistent with the forward impetus
of the first acts while at the same time moving toward and anticipating the
intended conclusion” (70).
On this basis Goheen constructs both a theology
of mission and a missional theology. Mission is defined in terms of the triune
work of God: “The church takes its role in the loving mission of the Father to
restore the creation as it is accomplished in the kingdom mission of the Son
and realized to the ends of earth in the power of the Spirit” (77). “The church
is missional, and mission is ecclesial” (79).
Goheen, who did his doctoral research on
the missional theology of Lesslie Newbigin, agrees with the latter’s distinction
between missional dimension and missional intention: “Because the Church is the mission there is a missionary dimension
of everything that the Church does. But not everything the Church does has a
missionary intention” (Lesslie Newbigin, One
Body, One Gospel, One World: The Christian Mission Today [London:
International Missionary Council, 1958], 43-44, quoted in Goheen, 82-83). There
is a distinction, therefore, says Goheen, after Newbigin, between mission
(without the s) and missions (with the s), the latter being “particular
enterprises within that total mission of the church” (85).
Furthermore, reflecting on the work of Harvie
Conn and David Bosch, Goheen concludes that Third World theologies as opposed
to First World theologies may bring a dynamic to global theologizing because
they are missionary theologies (88).
Historical and Contemporary Reflection on Mission
In part two, Goheen assesses various ways
of viewing the history of missions. The traditional Western story of gospel spread
through the Roman Empire, the Christianizing of Europe, and the expansion from
Europe to the world followed by ecumenical partnership of the worldwide church
and the focus on unreached peoples needs to be supplemented with other
perspectives.
Andrew Walls has noted the way the gospel
has diffused across cultural boundaries through history and how this has both
deepened and enriched the church. David Bosch constructed his study of
missiology around a framework of six paradigms provided by Hans Küng . The
Anabaptist Alan Kreider offers a correction based on the centrality in
Christian history of Christendom. Goheen opts for a modified Kreiderite
framework of four paradigms: early church, Christendom, Enlightenment,
Ecumenical. I am not convinced that this is the best way to divide it up:
Enlightenment is a cultural paradigm within the structure of Christendom and the
ecumenical movement is surely just as affected by the Enlightenment as
Evangelicalism, which doesn’t even get a paradigm suggesting that it is
completely captive to the Enlightenment paradigm.
Goheen is nuanced in his handling of the
paradigm of Christendom: “In Christendom the church attempted to bring the
levers of cultural power under the lordship of Christ, but too often it
sacrificed the critical and antithetical edge of its engagement” (131). He
quotes Leithart thus: “The church was able, through example and exhortation,
to infuse the evangel into the very structures of civil order, so as to render
them more just and compassionate. For planting the seeds of that harvest, we
have Constantine to thank” (131). Christendom, therefore, should be viewed
positively (as well as negatively), as it ensured the culture of Europe (and
its offspring) were heavily influenced for good by the gospel. This is an area
that demands more discussion but Goheen’s book is an introductory text so one
shouldn’t be too critical.
Goheen rounds off part two with a
whistle-stop tour of the global church. An
otherwise helpful chapter is weakened by the omission of the growth of the
church in previously resistant environments, such as Islamic societies, and the
phenomenon sometimes referred to as insider movements. The insistence on framing mission today as 'Christian' is inadequate, given that so many, especially of the world's religious mega-traditions may have a high regard for Christ but a low view of the Christian community.
Current Issues in Mission Today
In part three Goheen builds on his
theological and historical foundations by turning his attention to a number of
hot contemporary issues.
In chapter 6 he identifies the debate
over holistic mission as “... an important thread of the historical interaction
between [the ecumenical and evangelical] traditions of mission” (227), arguing
as others have that “[b]etween 1865 and 1930 a ‘great reversal’ took place in
the Evangelical church that reduced the missional calling of the church to
verbal proclamation of the gospel” (228). “Two dimensions of the church’s
mission—word and deed—were abstracted from their original context of the
full-orbed mission of the church. Each was given a life of its own. This forced
a choice about which of the two has priority...” (232). Goheen avoids the
debate over priority (Stott), centrality (Chester), or ultimacy (Wright)
presumably because he sees it as falsely dichotomistic.
In chapter seven, on contextualization,
Goheen argues that in seeking to delineate the relationship of gospel and
culture we need to avoid both the extremes of ethnocentrism and relativism, and
those of syncretism and irrelevance.
On the translation model of
contextualization Goheen argues that, “There is a problem, though, with the
view of revelation: it is primarily propositional and informational. Revelation
is considered to be truths or doctrines that transcend culture and history.
This is indebted to the Greek view, which sees truth as unchanging ideas, as
opposed to a biblical view, which sees truth as bound up in events within
history” (284-85). Goheen also questions whether a kernel/husk model can be
plausible: “Can the gospel be so easily separated from its cultural form?”
(285). Tricky hermeneutical issues indeed.
Goheen continues his review of
contextualization by contrasting the translation model with the anthropological
model. In my opinion he handles this simplistically: “The translation model
stresses the message to be contextualized, while the anthropological model
stresses the culture into which the message is to be contextualized” (285). Can
these models really be neatly distinguished in this way? In our interactions
with our culture, Goheen argues rightly that faithful contextualization will
both seek to find a place for the gospel within a culture and seek to critique
that culture.
In chapter eight Goheen applies the issue
of contextualization to the development of a missiology of Western culture,
drawing heavily from the work of Lesslie Newbigin. Goheen argues convincingly
that the faithful posture of the church in the West towards its culture should
be that of missionary encounter and expands of three tasks as delineated by
Shenk:
- theological task that
“faithfully articulates the gospel of the kingdom” (300)
- ecclesiological task that
“explores the missional identity of the church”
- cultural task that “probes the
story and fundamental assumptions of Western culture”
Do these tasks really belong to three
distinct categories? Although these are three important tasks I don’t see how
they can be distinguished in this way without leading to confusion.
Goheen asserts that, even though the
church in the West has lost its pivotal position in society, it “is not as
marginalized as the early church; in fact, it holds a great deal of cultural
power. This cannot be dismissed as Christendom” (313). In the books of Romans
and Revelation we see different angles on the way the church should respond to
its context – both Roman Empire but different times. The Anabaptist and
Liberation traditions are more in line with the Revelation tradition than the
Romans tradition. Goheen’s concern with these movements is that the church is
not yet as marginalized as the church was in Revelation (315). It is a pity
that more was not said here by way of biblical
critique of these movements.
In seeking to analyse the relationship of
religion and culture, Goheen reports four ways that this has been attempted. Working
on Conn’s religious core paradigm, he offers a diagram that is identical to one
that I have come up with independently (319). This is an area that demands much
more work. I think Goheen is on the right track but perhaps still too heavily
influenced by Enlightenment views of religion.
In chapter nine Goheen moves on to
discuss a missionary encounter with world religions. Goheen’s book came out too
early to include interaction with Dan Strange. Like Strange, Goheen argues along
the lines of ‘subversive fulfilment’, but in arguing for “an uncompromising
call to conversion” he clearly does not appreciate the social dynamics within
which many people and communities of the world would understand this (338). Contra
Strange, Goheen has a better
appreciation of the difference between religion and religions: “God’s
revelation + a corrupted response + various historical circumstances =
particular religion” (354).
Goheen shows a lack of appreciation for
the particularities of empirical cultures in his contrasting of ‘Allah’ with
the ‘God of Abraham’ (358). How is it that a fine scholar can be ignorant of
the fact that the God of Abraham in Arabic is,
in fact, ‘Allah’! Such blunders undermine the value of a book like this. It is
hoped that evangelical missiologists would work harder to catch up with scholars
in religious studies. The latter may well be working in an antithetical
paradigm but the better ones have at least done their empirical homework
better.
In chapter ten on urban mission, Goheen covers
the importance of cities for mission and outlines a theology of mission for the
city. Some references in this chapter are surprisingly old and there is no
reference to Keller’s Center-Church
or Conn and Ortiz, Urban Ministry: The
Kingdom, the City & the People of God, the latter of which is over a
decade old. Goheen argues for a careful use of social sciences: “The church’s
use of the disciplines of social science that will equip the church must not be
held captive by the secular bias of today’s sociological and anthropological
disciplines. Instead, faithful Christian study of the city will take seriously
the category of religion as a foundational, integrating and directing power”
(392).
In chapter eleven Goheen covers, in short
compass, a number of important issues relating to missions (with the s), which,
argues, should be focussed on witness to the gospel where there is none or
where it is weak (402). He points out that by the mid-20th century
the “cross-cultural task of taking the gospel to places or peoples where it had
not been heard was in danger of being obscured” (401) by the expanding
understanding of missions. Drawing on the work of Newbigin again, Goheen argues
for a careful distinction between mission, missions, and cross-cultural partnership:
Mission “is a comprehensive term that is synonymous with the way many use the
term ‘witness’” (402). But not all cross-cultural mission work is missions.
Rather, after Newbigin, he contrasts missions with cross-cultural partnership
(403). “Thus, we define missions not by its cross-cultural nature but rather by
the focus of creating a witnessing presence to the gospel in a place or among a
people where it is nonexistent or weak” (ibid.). This distinction avoids two
mistakes (404): 1) the colonial idea of equating missions with geography; and
2) the missional church movement idea of diminishing the need to take the
gospel to places where it is unknown, in which “mission has swallowed up
missions”. I think this is the weakest
chapter in the book betraying, perhaps the author's lack of significant cross-cultural
missions experiences. Here are a few of the issues:
- On UPGs Goheen is ill-informed
on India. He recognizes that the situation is complex but likens it to China
(416). In fact, it is a lot more complex than China due to caste and religion.
He also points to K. S. Singh’s volume on the Scheduled Tribes as if this
represents the people of India whereas in fact it is but one of many volumes.
- On non-Western ‘national missionaries’
Goheen is dreadfully naive: they “carry no Western baggage, are often more
effective at evangelism, and know the culture and language of the people they
are trying to reach” (430). (See my blog posts on this issue here and here.)
- On tentmakers Goheen recognizes
their advantages and comes close to realizing the categorical confusion the
concept expresses—“they establish a Christian presence as a professional and a
witness to the gospel in life and word, which should be the reality of all
Christians”—but doesn’t pursue it (431). Surprisingly nothing is included on
the phenomenon of business as mission (BAM)—another confusing concept (see my earlier post here).
- On short-term missions Goheen
adduces some very old statistics (1979) (432) and while recognizing some of the
pitfalls is not nearly cautious enough (434).
- On mission structures, Goheen
follows Engel and Dyrness, Changing the
Mind of Missions approvingly (422-25). Although the latter helpfully highlights
some important issues in missions today it is ultimately far too crude to be helpful.
(See my article on missions structures here.)
Overall, this is a very good introduction to mission thinking. Though not without issues, Goheen's book is to be commended for its lucid handling of some often complex theological issues and for doing so in a way that does not dampen missionary zeal.
Favourite Quotes
“If we see that the breakdown of
education stems from the lack of a compelling narrative to give it meaning, and
we believe that only the Bible can offer that kind of narrative, then our
participation in education cannot help but refer to the gospel” (245).
“The ’acids of modernity’ have had a
destructive impact on the Christian faith in the West, and there is no reason
to think that the same thing will not happen in non-Western churches. ...
[e]ven though the Western church has slipped in terms of its global influence,
it still maintains a significant leadership role in the global mission of the
church. It seems that ‘”modern” Western culture will continue to strengthen its
grip on the life of human communities everywhere and—therefore—Christian
churches that have so long accepted a syncretistic co-existence with the
“modern” worldview will continue to bear the prime responsibility for
articulating the Christian message for this particular culture. That remains a
task which calls for the best intellectual and spiritual energies we can bring
to it’” (297, quoting Lesslie Newbigin, “The Christian Message versus ‘Modern’
Culture,” in Mission in the 1990s (eds.
Gerald H. Anderson, James M. Phillips and Robert T. Coote; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1991), 26.)
“The faithful posture that the church
must take within any cultural context is that of a missionary encounter” (298).
“... the myth of a neutral secular or
pluralistic society is powerful. A neutral culture poses no danger to the
gospel but supposedly offers a level playing field for all faith commitments.
However, this recognizes neither the deeply religious foundational beliefs of
the West nor the threat that they pose to the public witness of the faith. ‘The
idea that we ought to be able to expect some kind of neutral secular political
order, which presupposes no religious or ideological beliefs, and which holds
the ring impartially for a plurality of religions to compete with one another,
has no adequate foundation.’ The humanistic faith of the West is a powerful religious faith that brooks no rivals.
But it has a smiling face: it offers peace, privilege, prosperity and a place
in the sun to those who will accept its terms for life in the public square. In
this way it domesticates al other religious claims and simply relegates them to
a private sphere with the promise of tolerance” (299, quoting Lesslie Newbigin,
Trinitarian Doctrine for Today’s Mission (1963;
repr., Carlisle: Paternoster, 1998), 46).
“The empirical religions are the
historical answers that certain communities collectively give to God’s
creational revelation” (353).
“[E]ach religion is a total unity with a
pulsating and orienting core. This central religious impulse throbs in every
aspect of a religion and binds it together in organic unity. An orienting core
is a directing religious motive that animates a religion and gives shape and
meaning to all of its elements. It is like a heart that pumps its religious
lifeblood into each part” (355).
“... a missionary approach will involve
both a sympathetic, insider approach to religions and a critical, outsider
approach” (356).
“[M]issions is not simply another aspect of
the total mission of the church, standing alongside others. Rather it is the
ultimate redemptive-historical horizon of the whole missionary task that
provides perspective and direction. The horizon of missions ensures that the
whole life of the church is missional. Mission without missions is an emaciated
and parochial concept” (405).
Errors
- ‘growth of about 1.8%’ should
be ‘annual growth rate of about 1.8%’ (24)
- ‘religions’ should be
‘religious’ (24)
- ‘not’ should not be there (120)
- phenomena should be phenomenon
(149)
- reference to Gary Ginter
without a citation (431).
In this volume, Scott Moreau, my former Professor
of Intercultural Studies at Wheaton College and editor of Evangelical Missions Quarterly, has analyzed a vast body of
literature on contextualization. Moreau’s purpose in this book is to
produce an evangelical supplement to Stephen Bevans’s map that outlines models
of contextualization across the theological spectrum (1985; 1992; 2002) (13).
To do this he takes a phenomenological approach that is descriptive rather than
prescriptive (21) and uses the metaphor of mapping to convey his project to his
readers. For the most part the author gives attention to missiologists rather
than biblical scholars or theologians.
