EMQ » July – Oct 2024 » Volume 60 Issue 3
[mepr-show rules=”100329″ unauth=”message”] This content is shown only to authorized members. It is hidden from everyone else.
Special Article Preview
This article of Evangelical Missions Quarterly (EMQ) is a publicly accessible preview. Join Missio Nexus or subscribe to get access to all articles!
Mutuality in Missiology
Summary: Mutuality can be a powerful concept in missiology. It captures a sense of how Christ came to us in his earthly ministry, emptying himself to serve others. Using the word mutuality in missiology requires a different definition than what we find in other areas of interest. Mutuality can inform and speak into our approach to missions and is already being used in various ways by those taking the gospel into new cultures and places.
By Ted Esler
The word “mutuality” has been rising in usage in missiological discussion. It is also being utilized more in conversations surrounding male/female relationships and race. Because issues of critical theory are pressing against a biblical worldview, mutuality as a word has the potential to be used without a centered, common understanding.
Academics have not written much on the topic of mutuality. In 2013, Marcus Dean wrote about the relationship between Westerners and non-Westerners in a paper published by the journal, Missiology.[i] He wrote that defining mutuality is aided by looking at other disciplines such as politics, personal relationship theory, and medicine. This was necessarily helpful in 2013 because the topic of mutuality was, “not widely studied in missions, nor is it a significant factor in our individualistic Western culture.”[ii]
In 2024 a different approach is needed. Mutuality as a term is being used in numerous spheres. This list would include teacher/student relationships, race and racism discussions, and male/female relationships (particularly in marriage). These are all appropriate uses in their context, but a deeper understanding is needed for how the gospel is communicated across cultures.
A Missiological Definition
In the context of missiology, mutuality occurs when the proclaimer of the gospel honors the image of God in the recipient and seeks a reciprocal relationship. The elements of this definition are (1) proclaimer and recipient (the gospel must be transmitted), (2) honoring of the image of God, and (3) seeks reciprocal relationship.
1. Missiological mutuality recognizes that there is a proclaimer and recipient.
The gospel is a message. Jesus spoke of the need for a proclaimer of that message. Without communication, however it might happen, the possibility of evangelism does not exist. Yes, God can use other methods and means of communicating the gospel, but these are not under the purview of the proclaimer. A missiological definition of mutuality must recognize that the proclaimer is making truth claims to the recipient.
This is in contrast to common applications of mutuality. There is a limit to mutuality in that we understand the proclaimer to have something that the recipient does not. A mistake that might be made in pursuing mutuality would be to deny this reality. Doing so will lead to an emptying of the gospel message.
The command of Jesus to proclaim the gospel assumes that there is a need for special revelation to be shared by Christians to those outside of the kingdom. In pursuing mutuality, we cannot lose the saltiness of the gospel message by placing identification with the lost above their need to hear and understand the gospel.
2. Mutuality honors the image of God in the recipient of the gospel message as well as the damage created by the fall.
The language of “image of God” used in the creation story has many implications for missiology. This is what Schell calls the “representational aspect” in which we are to represent aspects of God, however lacking that might be.[iii] This should place a great weight on us to be the sort of representatives which glorify him.
Unfortunately, missions history is tainted with accounts of oppression, harmful colonialism, slavery, boarding school abuses, cultural dominance and erasure, and similar acts. These mirror the fallenness in societies at large and do the opposite of what an image bearer should be communicating about God’s kingdom. As proclaimers bringing the gospel message, we must begin by understanding human nature as God puts it forward, always aware of each person’s true nature as created in God’s image.
Our common humanity is reflected in Adam. The fall, in which we all share, was met with a solution in the second Adam, Jesus. All people live under this same reality and thus we share a common, mutual plight. Mutuality emphasizes this common thread of human nature, not just the image bearing reality of our creation but also the image destroying fall. It sees the need for a Redeemer that stands above human nature and the effects of the fall on culture.
3. Mutuality requires a reciprocal relationship between the proclaimer and the recipient.
Mutuality requires us to reconsider how we have entered other cultures. Instead of coming with an assumed position of power, something other than the gospel to offer, or insights that transform outwardly, we can empty ourselves and come in the form of a servant.
Learning about the recipient’s culture and worldview will have an impact on the proclaimer, but it does not compare to placing yourself in a position of service and dependency. I have personally experienced dependency on those to whom I was sent to proclaim the gospel. To be dependent on others is a powerful relationship building tool. When the proclaimer is served by the recipient both will have a deeper understanding and identification with the other.
This aspect of mutuality is one reason why the influence of Jesus has reverberated through history. In an era where kings considered themselves God, Jesus (truly God) sets his kingship aside and reveals an upside-down kingdom. He washed the feet of his disciples. He forgave his enemies. He healed, he prayed for, and he loved those around him. The contrast with the non-mutual relationship of the kings of his era is astounding.
Jesus became a baby, wrapped in swaddling clothes such that he would not injure himself and scratch his own eyes and face. He became dependent on the family into which he was placed. He was like us, and we see in him ourselves. Today we no longer revere kings, but this same dynamic of mutually respectful relationships is honored and revered by most, if not all, cultures. It is one reason why so many secular people say they like Jesus, but not the church.
What Missiological Mutuality is Not
Because mutuality is being defined outside of missiology right now, it is also helpful to understand what it is not. In a missiological sense, mutuality is not:
- About male/female relationships. Issues surrounding how cultures understand and practice sexuality are missiological issues. Mutuality as a word can certainly apply to these relationships but not in the narrower understanding and application within the transmission of the gospel message.
- Addressing racial or ethnic divisions. While racism can be seen as a universal human sin, racial history in the US has overshadowed conversations about mutuality. This reveals the dominating influence of US missiology on the global church. Despite the fact, for example, Brazil was the destination of close to ten times the number of slaves, slavery discussions are mostly from a US-centric place. Mutuality must be pulled from this context. For example, issues of caste in India are bigger challenges for mutuality than racism. Thus, mutuality must be seen as a universal itself, above regionalized societal issues.
- Primarily concerned with Western/non-Western power relationships. This is where polycentrism has been a particularly helpful concept. Much of the conversation about polycentric missiology has been focused on the shifting dynamic of the Western missionary movement considering its growing Global South counterpart. Mutuality impacts leadership but is more expressed in all cross-cultural interactions.
- Partnership. In the partnership model, both sides define their “win” through partnership with each other. Where interests overlap, there is motivation to partner. Mutuality is not concerned with the “win” for oneself as a condition of relationship. Thus, mutuality is looking for the “win” in the other person regardless of the advantages to oneself.
Erasing the differences we have with others. While core ideas of what it means to be a person (the imago Dei ideas noted above) are universal, mutuality does not ignore cross-cultural differences. The hand is not now a foot[iv] to express mutuality. Recognition of the differences between people often leads to deeper and more meaningful mutuality.
How Mutuality Informs Our Missiology
Philippians 2:5–8 captures the idea of mutuality in the ministry of Jesus: “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross” (ESV).
What we see in this passage is Jesus, though able to assert equality with God, willingly set aside his right to do so to be a servant to others. He took extreme measure, becoming a man (though never laying down his true nature as God) and humbled himself for the sake of others to the point of death.
In becoming human, Jesus accepted limitations that he did not have as God. His true glory was hidden and his “omni” attributes were not independently exercised (all knowing, all present, and all powerful). In practicing mutuality, proclaimers of the gospel can similarly set aside advantageous attributes to more fully have a reciprocal relationship with those to whom they are called.
Having a posture of mutuality will change our view of the “other.” A greater emphasis on what we have in common with others changes our assumptions as we enter into relationship with them. This is a contrast from an anthropological position which seeks to understand another culture in an objective way. In a model of mutuality, the proclaimer knows that the encounter will change their own understanding of God, themselves, and the world.
Just as we serve others as we share the kingdom with them, so we also open ourselves up to being served by them. This implies a vulnerability in which the proclaimer and recipient partake in the relationship as equals or perhaps in an unequal way, with the proclaimer having a dependency on the recipient culture.
Institutionalization or power via organization, wealth, race, and other means is replaced by a reciprocal relationship dynamic. It is important to note that we do not always choose to operate from a position of power. Instead, power can be projected by virtue of a variety of factors over which we may not have control. This means that the proclaimer might need to work at removing these barriers to a relationship which is reciprocal.
The body, as described in 1 Corinthians 12, can fully express itself when relationships are mutual. These make possible the dynamic of John 13:34–35, in which the relationships between believers become the markers of the kingdom for those watching from the outside.
This is just a short list of items that a proclaimer of the gospel might consider as they pursue serving others in a mutual relationship.
Mutuality in Contemporary Practice
Mutuality has already begun to change missiology. The “disciple making movement” (DMM) methodology is a step in this direction. In traditional missionary outreach, the role of the pastor as teacher and preacher puts the proclaimer in a position of leadership from the beginning of the church planting process. DMM teaches that missionaries are better coaching nationals and allowing them to lead from the beginning. The recipients of the gospel are therefore able to lead and influence the church from the beginning of its inception. The missionary is a coach and does not presume a position of authority over the church, making this method of ministry more mutual.
Bible translation is undergoing substantial change as the focus shifts from sending Bible translators toward indigenous models of translation. By empowering national church leaders, translations are created by native speakers. As they take ownership of the process of translation, the relationship with traditional Bible translation organizations is more reciprocal.
Fikkert and Corbin’s When Helping Hurts: How to Alleviate Poverty Without Hurting the Poor… and Yourself[v] is another example of greater mutuality in outreach. A primary concept is understanding poverty through the eyes of the poor, in which poverty is seen as having psychological and sociological roots. Outsiders who want to help often think it is a material or wealth problem. Thus, their first inclination is to provide material assistance.
By first understanding and identifying with the poor, those seeking to provide help can avoid projecting their view of the situation onto the poor. This learning requires a level of mutuality that relief and development agencies had not practiced before. This concept is a part of the “community health and education” movement and has had significant impact on missions outreach.
Mutuality can Renew Missiology
Mutuality has the potential to redefine missiology for a new generation. The deconstruction of missions as Western colonialism is profoundly impacting younger people’s perception of missions. There will be no “next generation” of missionaries if this critique is not met with theologically infused alternatives that reflect a change in how missions is conducted. It is not enough to simply acknowledge past wrongs (though this is necessary). A paradigm of mission more closely aligned with Jesus’ ministry is needed to renew our sense of Jesus command to take the gospel to the nations.
Mutuality provides that theological and practical framework. It reorients gospel proclamation in ways that better reflect Jesus’ own ministry. Because it is rooted in how we, as people, are created, it transcends both historical and contemporary issues in missiology. Jesus did not come wielding institutional or political power. Instead, he came as a person with little social status. People identified with him, reflecting mutuality. This is a powerful contrast to how the world operates and, indeed, missions itself has operated. Mutuality unmoors the missionary from taking a position of power relative to those they are seeking to reach.
This missiological renewal can only happen, however, if the truth claims of the gospel are not lost. Jesus saw people as needing salvation. There is a temptation to gloss over the lostness of others as we press into mutuality. The Bible reveals that there are some in the kingdom, and there are some outside the kingdom. Mutuality cannot be used as a means for uplifting the imago Dei without also recognizing the reality of the fall.
Ted Esler (tesler@missionexus.org) is the president of Missio Nexus, an association of agencies and churches representing hundreds of mission agencies and churches. Ted worked in the computer industry and then served in the Balkans during the 1990s. He then held various leadership roles with Pioneers. He was appointed the president of Missio Nexus in 2015. He is the author of The Innovation Crisis. Ted has a PhD in intercultural studies (Fuller Theological Seminary, 2012).
[i] Marcus W. Dean, “Mutuality and Missions: The Western Christian in Global Ministry,” Missiology: An International Review 41, no. 3 (2013), https://doi.org/10.1177/0091829613489.
[ii] Dean, “Mutuality and Missions,” 274
[iii] Justin A. Schell, The Mission of God and the Witness of the Church (Short Studies in Biblical Theology), ed. Dane Ortlund and Miles V. Van Pelt (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2024), 29.
[iv] 1 Corinthians 12:12–27.
[v]Steve Corbett and Brian Fikkert, When Helping Hurts: How to Alleviate Poverty Without Hurting the Poor … and Yourself (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2014).
EMQ, Volume 60, Issue 3. Copyright © 2024 by Missio Nexus. All rights reserved. Not to be reproduced or copied in any form without written permission from Missio Nexus. Email: EMQ@MissioNexus.org.
