EMQ » April–June 2019 » Volume 55 Issue 2
By Chris Pullenayegem
To answer the question, I think it’s wise to first ask more questions. The title is loaded with assumptions. Asking questions and wrestling with the answers is a good way of unpacking the issues it raises. Questions such as:
- Who is asking the question?
- Of whom is it being asked?
- What is global mission?
- Who has defined and given meaning to the term global mission?
- What is the operating paradigm?
- What is valid and by whom is validity assessed?
- What metrics are used and are these valid?
- Were these metrics ever valid?
- Are the principles guiding global missions different than those for local missions?
- How do these principles align (or not) with biblical principles concerning mission?
Of course, we cannot attempt to answer all of these questions in this limited space; however, I will leave it to the reader’s integrity and curiosity to delve further. My presentation at the Future Fit consultation used a particular lens: global (western) missions from the perspective of one who was missionized (my term). This presentation was not made in a vacuum. I warned that it would be both uncomfortable and disruptive—but was given permission to be both by the keynote speaker.
I’d like to examine this question within a particular frame: Western mission is a paradox. Paradoxes are not bad in themselves. They are situations that bring together contradictory features or qualities. For example, the Christian concept of the cross is a paradox. Paradoxes are what they are. Sometimes they are tensions that must be manager and, at other times they just state concepts in total opposition to each other. I leave you with five such paradoxes.
These paradoxes are offered in humility and a desire to help us understand how Western mission has shaped Christianity and the world. This objective/subjective approach is a reflection and challenge for us to critically re-examine our strategies and motives around mission. It is my hope that it will inspire critical thinking and provoke thoughtful discussion. There are three caveats that preface this article. One is that these are entirely my opinions and not representative of any group of people. The second is that I have spent more time critiquing the problematic elements, assuming that readers are familiar with the beneficial aspects of the gospel. The third is that this is not an academic paper. It is not meant to be. It is a biblically-based personal reflection of the questions being posed.
Paradox 1: Gospel of Freedom—Culture of Control
Culture and the gospel often go together. Freedom (from sin) and by association the social implications of human evil proclaimed by the gospel was accompanied by the shackles of Western culture. So, a gospel that was supposed to bring freedom and hope became, to some, an instrument of control, of subjugation and of cultural domination.
Portuguese, Dutch, and British colonists brought their own brand of Christianity to Sri Lanka over a period of 450 years. Yes, Jesus offered freedom from the bondage of Satan and his minions. Many turned from other gods to following the one eternal God. But together with this offer of hope and new life was the exertion of control and power that led to a country dominated by colonizers for more than four centuries.
Control came in many forms, many not at first easily recognized as such. Money, position, power by association (with a person or family of prominence) were ways of controlling the indigenous population. Colonizers burned books and ancient records in the hope of obliterating local culture. Western dress codes were introduced to ensure conformity. Western morals were imposed, totally ignoring local mores. And those who resisted were punished.
Even after the colonization period was officially over and countries such as Sri Lanka gained their independence, Western missions and Western non-governmental organizations still exerted control. They continued to bring a Euro-centric version of the gospel—in many instances completely ignoring the local culture and context. To this day, the white man retains social, cultural, and economic capital in these countries, and often has more access and influence to government and other institutions than his local counterparts. This is a sad but undeniable reflection of the long-lasting effects of colonial oppression.
Consequently, the good news of the gospel has too often—and often legitimately—been seen as foreign and oppressive to the host culture. It also became associated with permissive aspects of the culture of the West. In my earliest recollections of my sister’s dolls, Jesus and his apostles were white (pinkish actually) with blue eyes. Combined with the cultural influences expressed in the media and in books, Christianity was, and still is, often associated with a morally bankrupt Western culture. This does not in any way excuse the cultural values of the East—it’s just the reality. That is why a spouse-beating Christian may be regarded morally superior to a beer-drinking Christian.
Paradox 2: Transformational Gospel—Transactional Relationship
Missions proclaims a transformational gospel based on the concept of grace. But the way it was lived out was transactional in nature, based on the principle of contract.
God’s grace is free and unconditional. Period. Unfortunately, the carriers of this same good news used religion as a way of extracting loyalty and exerting control. Promise of work for those who converted and a change of name to signal a change of loyalty were some ways Christian colonizers exchanged the benefits of their religion to extract the obedience of the indigenous people.
As colonizers established their religious institutions and stamped their authority on the land, it became clear that alignment with (i.e., converting to) the white man’s religion and way of life opened up vast potential for personal advancement. Employment opportunities and education prospects were carrots that were dangled tantalizingly before the locals. Simultaneously, dire consequences were threatened and enforced for those who wouldn’t bite. One way of commanding loyalty and securing allegiance was by change of identity (i.e., name change). Changing one’s name to reflect that re-orientation is why there is a disproportional percentage of Portuguese/Spanish names than indigenous Sri Lankan names in the local telephone directory. However, this transactional nature of western missions is not relegated to history. Consider, for example, the post-tsunami missionary efforts of a Western mission organization that was expelled for trying to exploit the plight of vulnerable tsunami victims, requiring that locals accept a Bible as a condition of receiving food relief.
Paradox 3: Incarnational Gospel—Detached Missions
The Logos came and lived among us. What was supposed to be an organic, natural and incarnational movement became quickly encapsulated into a programmatic enterprise. The Great Commission that was given to ALL disciples became the prerogative of a specialized few. The “as you live and move about” of the Great Commission came to be interpreted as “go into the rest of the world,” which birthed a missionary movement that needed people with specialized training, funding, institutional support and organizational infrastructure. Fortunately, although the Western mission movement is still robust, it has moved beyond being a Western enterprise to a networked global strategy. However, in its specialized format, it seems to have hijacked the original concept of the Great Commission, which in itself is problematic as a description of a specific mandate given by Jesus to all believers.
Built into the commandment in Matthew 28 is the concept of being incarnational. The Go in the Greek really means as you are going which in turn implies the idea that carrying out the work of discipling is carried out in one’s normal and everyday spheres of living.
I have the highest respect for those missionaries who have sacrificed their lives and worldly comforts to incarnate themselves into an entirely foreign culture. They learned the language, familiarized themselves with the culture and very often died in their host countries in the pursuit of discipling the nations. However, in many other instances, the religion that missionaries carried was mostly foreign to the locals—or even hostile to them. It never got to wear local clothes. To this day, unfortunately, many mission programs only serve to strengthen the colonial status quo.
The term short-term missions is actually a misnomer and should be renamed or reviewed. Any initiative that does not have in its DNA a strong emphasis on the incarnational nature of the gospel and its mandatory cultural adaptation is in my opinion, an incorrect or at the least a skewed interpretation of the Matthew 28 mandate. Ironically, missionaries who go out with the intent of changing the world often find that the world has changed them.
This line of reasoning makes even more sense in today’s world, which is witnessing increasing animosity and closedness to Western influence, especially Christian influence. Strengthening and equipping local believers (the local church) who can then carry out Jesus’s mandate seems the most logical and strategic alternative. I believe the term Great Commission has outlived its meaning. We need a term that gets us back to the original intent of the words of Jesus—one where He calls the whole church (His body) to disciple, teach, and baptize as they locate themselves in the environments and spheres of life where they have been placed.
Paradox 4: Holistic Gospel—Compartmentalized Delivery
Depending on particular denominational variations, missions can lie anywhere on the spectrum between evangelism and social justice: all parts of a whole with biases towards and specialization in one of more of them. Often the gospel is presented in a linear manner with emphasis on personal salvation and delivery from hell with issues of justice and care for God’s creation tagged on to give it a measure of authenticity. Sadly, churches in the missionized world were often built on these Western organizational lines of specialized ministries, and in the process lost the opportunity to contextualize the gospel in ways that would complement a naturally holistic way of living.
One doesn’t have to look too far back into history to see this false dichotomy being played out. How do people who claim to be transformed in their relationship to God turn their backs on the poor or ignore calls for just and righteous governance to be instituted? It’s been the perennial thorn in Church’s flesh (i.e., actually living out the gospel), and yes, it’s not going away anytime soon—all this while Jesus himself modeled the perfect way of gospel living.
In Matthew 9, after a long description of a day in the life of Jesus including healing, teaching, driving out a demon and raising someone from the dead, Jesus’s ministry is summed up in verses 35–36: Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness. When he saw the crowds he had compassion on them … Jesus embodied the gospel. No compartmentalization, no nuancing or presenting distorted priorities. He just simply lived it in all its holistic and complete essence. Why can’t we? Is it because it is inconvenient or uncomfortable? Or, is it because we have never questioned the assumptions that drive our fragmented behavior and thinking? Of course, western mission is not fully to blame for this—but it has aided in its perpetuation.
And now, it has taken root in a more recent phenomenon: that of diaspora communities doing missions and sending mission teams back to their countries of origin. More diaspora-led missions have this same compartmentalized missions delivery system built right into their DNA. Once again money, and with it control and influence, present a well-disguised version of the same paradox, which in my mind is doubly harmful. Yes, people are being saved; but that is only part of the gospel, isn’t it?
Paradox 5: Me!
Here’s the kicker—I’m a product of western missions, however flawed, now completing the circle by migrating to and living in the west. Thousands of others like me are here because of the vision of Western missionaries and non-governmental agencies.
I’m a fourth generation Christian (from a Hindu background), whose faith was one that was brought, taught, and passed down by Western missionaries. I attended a church that was built by a South African missionary who died an untimely death from malaria. But that same church also didn’t welcome indigenous populations until they had no one else to invite. The music was Western as were the church traditions. To this day, preachers wear suits or a full robe (cassock) notwithstanding normal temperatures of 30°C, while the local attire is more appropriate to the climate. I end my list of paradoxes with this because not everything is as bad as I painted it. The good and the bad travel together, which is the nature of a paradox.
Will the paradigm shift?
My guess is that it will not, at least not as long as the power and control is with the West or with Western-minded missions organizations. Money talks. It often dictates how mission is done in local contexts. It also commands the shortest route because of the need to report back to mission funders who are in many ways controlled by a budget. It is my belief that money has negatively influenced the ‘how’ of mission in the developing world. Maybe by 2025, when the number of Christians in China is expected to outnumber those in the United States, it may change—or maybe not!
Budgets and plans go together. Mission agencies require results (i.e., programs that produce results). In many cases the number of believers and churches planted are the required results.
The implications are that:
- The hard and long work of incarnational mission work is short circuited
- Relationship-building is sacrificed on the altar of expediency and efficiency
- Conflict escalates due to perceived “flow of funds” by other organizations and communities
- It precipitates an ongoing state of dependency
Does it (the paradigm) need to change?
The following is not a list of binary, either/or factors. They are more like ends of a continuum. They signal a shift that I hope will characterize mission organizations and efforts of the future.
| Western missions past | Western missions future |
| Institutionalized | Organic |
| Programmatic | Incarnational |
| Centralized | Networked |
| Uni-directional | Multi-directional |
| Pro forma | Adaptive |
| Specialist-focused | Lay-resourced |
| Teaching | Learning |
| Silo-ed (evangelism, diaconal, justice, etc.) | Holistic and integrated |
| Outcome-focused | Process-based |
| Centralized power | Shared power |
For those courageous missionaries who are aware of these tensions, and are working at mitigating or eliminating them, I write a word of encouragement. To others who are disturbed by the reality of what I’ve said, I pray for courage. For all of us, I pray for grace.
So, is the current paradigm of Western mission valid? Will it be allowed to shift? The answers, my friends, might be blowing in the wind for a while.
Chris Pullenayegem is a Canadian of Sri Lankan origin who grew up in a multi-religious and multi-ethnic environment and brings a useful perspective into his work in the Canadian context. He has academic background in law, psychology, and change leadership. Being strongly rooted in reformed theology, Chris brings wisdom, knowledge, and skills in assisting congregations discover and fulfill their God-given role, especially in rapidly changing environments. Chris is a musician and loves the outdoors.
