EMQ » July–September 2020 » Volume 56 Issue 3
By Marian Stewart
The advent of the COVID-19 worldwide pandemic has curtailed the traditional model of international cross-cultural missions as air travel has effectively ceased and social gatherings of ten or more people have been banned. In the face of this, the traditional modus operandi has all come to a screeching halt.[1] These are inimical to the new paradigm of ‘social distancing.’ Additionally, the priorities of many have understandably shifted from participating and supporting missions to the development of a ‘bunker’ mindset focusing on self-preservation in the face of the onslaught of an invisible enemy.[2] Christian missionaries, sending churches and mission agencies would do well to reflect on the international cross-cultural models that have become a part of conventional praxis with a view to revisiting these methodologies, and rethinking their strategies.
When one reflects upon the biblical model as demonstrated by Jesus and His early disciples, one notices that there were consistent demonstrable practices that seemed to predominate mission activity. There was an itinerant and geographical dimension to the mission ministry, and there was effective discipleship, which resulted in multiplication. The basis of the motivation for missions was the relationship of the missionary with God, which in turn impacted his relationship with all those to whom he ministered. The evangelist, in sharing the gospel message, was willing to adapt and contextualize the message to reach those who needed to hear it,crossing cultural barriers and at the same time challenging the idolatry that was present.[3]
The objective of this article is to examine three core factors that impact the efficacy of the declaration of the message of the good news: the model, the motivation, and the method. It is hoped that this consideration will help encourage future thinking regarding the development of methodologies for evangelism and discipleship in the international cross-cultural mission context. The first step is to be reminded of the message.
The Message
The message is the Good News, the Gospel of the kingdom of God: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent, and believe the Gospel” (Mark 1:15).[4] The message is clear: God has opened a way for humankind and all of creation to be redeemed and restored to His original design and purpose through Jesus Christ (John 3:16). The mandate for followers of Christ is to share this Good News (Matthew 28:19–20). Despite the many attempts to manipulate, modify, obfuscate, and even obliterate the message over the centuries, the Gospel has prevailed, and the truth of this message continues to be shared.
The Model
Jesus and His early disciples provide us the model(s) for delivering the message of the Gospel. Biblical scholars generally agree that Jesus set a tone and format that suited the culture that prevailed during His earthly ministry, and the disciples followed suit. Even a cursory reading of the Synoptic Gospels reveals not only the teaching, but the itinerant nature of Jesus’ ministry (Matthew 8:20; Luke 9:58). Indeed, one can surmise that an itinerant life could be counted as a part of the cost of following Jesus. Even Jesus’ instructions to the twelve disciples when he sent them out two by two reflected a peripatetic style — “They set out and went from village to village, preaching the gospel” (Luke 9:6; Matthew 10:9–15, Mark 6:8–11). The geographical dimension of mission is key to the broader vision of the mission intention.[5]
There was also effective discipleship. James Samra identifies discipleship as “the process of becoming like Christ.”[6] In the Gospels, this was based on physical proximity and entailed following Jesus—not just metaphorically, but also literally. Those who would be his disciples would become like him (Mark 1:17–18; Luke 14:27, 33). In the rest of the New Testament, discipleship involved “the concept of imitation” and was applicable whether the object of imitation was physically present or not.[7] This idea is readily captured in the Apostle Paul’s admonition to the churches in Thessalonica (1 Thessalonians 1:6) and Corinth (1 Corinthians 11:1). The book of Acts, which provides a bridge between the Gospels and the rest of the writings in the New Testament, reflect the extent to which there was effective discipleship (Acts 1:8). When Jesus departed and the disciples received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, they proceeded to “turn the world upside down” (Acts 17:6).
The Motivation
Today, the degree to which the accomplishment of the Great Commission is deemed to be biblically successful, based on the preceding model, has been mitigated by a feel-good factor rather than the extent to which there has been effective discipleship.[8] This feel-good mindset is a primary motivating factor for missions, which when mixed with the vestiges of the messiah-syndrome of the colonial era, is at odds with the concept of effective discipleship. In the case of Africa, the vision of this continent as impoverished, with an inability to take care of, and sustain itself propagates an ideological trend that has been widely advocated since the 1970s.[9] This trend has seen the primacy of horizontal relationships (relationships with men) over the vertical relationship (relationship with God).[10] This is demonstrated when one believes that the nature of one’s relationship with God hinges on a successful relationship with men, rather than the nature of one’s relationship with men being influenced by one’s relationship with God.
This subtle shift has fostered a sense of personal satisfaction that so many seem to strive for in the mission experience. The ‘feel-good’ factor arises out of the giving of oneself because one needs to be needed. One might experience the greatest sense of feeling needed when, for example one is in the most impoverished places among the poor. The rationale tends to be: “God has given me so much. I am so blessed. I need to give to others.” While in itself, this is a laudable objective, one must guard against what C.S. Lewis calls a perversion of “Gift-love.”[11] The perversion arises in that Gift-love becomes a type of love in which one “… needs to give; therefore needs to be needed.”[12] Lewis further states:
But the proper aim of giving is to put the recipient in a state where he no longer needs our gift. We feed children in order that they may soon be able to feed themselves; we teach them in order that they may soon not need our teaching. Thus, a heavy task is laid upon this Gift-love. It must work towards its own abdication. We must aim at making ourselves superfluous. The hour when we can say “They need me no longer” should be our reward. But the instinct, simply in its own nature, has no power to fulfil this law. The instinct desires the good of the object, but not simply; only the good it can give itself. A much higher love—a love which desires the good of the object as such, from whatever source that good comes—must step in and help or tame the instinct before it can make abdication. And, of course it often does. But where it does not, the ravenous need to be needed will gratify itself either by keeping its objects needy or by inventing for them imaginary needs. It will do this [even more] ruthlessly because it thinks (in one sense truly) that it is a Gift-love and therefore regards itself as ‘unselfish.’[13]
The result can be a debilitating dependency of the recipient on the giver, which nullifies the intent of the Great Commandment (Matthew 22:36–40; Mark 12:28-31; Luke 10: 25–27), and the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19–20; Mark 16:15–16; Luke 24:46–49; Acts 1:8).
As we observe the model set by Jesus and his early disciples, there is also a sense of contextualization in the delivery of the Gospel message. Contextualization is defined as “the valid application of Scripture in any time-space context so that biblical truth is practiced, demonstrated, formulated, or communicated with no change in content or meaning, in the cultural, linguistic and mental patterns of that context.”[14] The Gospel of John, as well as the example of Paul at the Areopagus both point to the Gospel taking on a cultural shape (Acts 17:16–34). At the same time, we understand that contextualization does not mean syncretism.[15] Rather, the goal of mission and the contextualization of the gospel is to cross cultural barriers, while challenging the idolatry “… at work in every culture.”[16] Byang Kato addresses the importance of contextualizing which, when properly understood, relates to “making concepts or ideas relevant in a given situation.”[17] Today, we are in the throes of the COVID-19 pandemic. How do we contextualize the Gospel in this given situation?
The Method
How has the model observed in the Bible translated into methods that have become the foundation for mission practice, especially since the advent of the so-called ‘Modern Missions Movement’ of the eighteenth century?[18]
Michael Goheen states “Missions is not simply cross-cultural work. It strategically targets places and people groups in the world who have never heard the good news, and establishing a witness in their midst with the goal of bringing into existence a Christian church.”[19] He further argues that missions is not the same as cross-cultural partnerships.[20] Missions, or the missionary task, is taking the Gospel to parts of the world that had never heard it. Perhaps, this definition falls short of the complete objective of the Great Commission. Many missionaries focus on the evangelism (proclamation of the Good News) but negate the discipleship component of the Great Commission. “Teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” includes engaging in the difficult and sacrificial work of investing one’s life into that of another (Matthew 28:20).[21] Given the historical connotations aligned with international cross-cultural missions, and colonialism, a fresh understanding of missions “that sees mission as taking the gospel in life, word and deed—in, to and from every continent” that is aligned with cross-cultural partnership is necessary for the practice of effective mission in the twenty-first century.[22]
It is widely known that how people receive the Gospel informs how they proclaim it. For example, if persons made professions of faith at a Gospel Crusade or conference, through one-on-one evangelism, or other method—that will be the preferred method of evangelizing others. The method used by missionaries in sharing the Gospel will tend to be the same way that the recipients will share it with others. Sub-Saharan Africa in general, and Liberia in particular, has and continues to receive missionaries who come ostensibly to evangelize.[23]
Relationships are at the core of evangelism and discipleship, and to be effective in both aspects of the Great Commission, a strong, personal relationship with God, the Author of the redemption of mankind is a pre-requisite. The primacy of this relationship can be fostered and nurtured through the exercise of spiritual disciplines.[24] The exercise of the spiritual disciplines will impact relationships with others. The principle of the preeminence of the relationship with God over the relationship with men is reflected both in the Old Testament in the listing of the Decalogue (Exodus 20:1–17), as well as in the New Testament (Matthew 22:36–40). During this time of COVID-19, Christians have an opportunity to return to the practice of the spiritual disciplines. This is where digital technology and social media have proved to be helpful as pastors and ministry leaders utilize these resources to disseminate and exchange information both synchronously and asynchronously.[25] Bible reading apps, Bible study materials, prayer and devotional materials, and prayer support are readily available.[26] Using the worldwide web, the local church can reach the ‘whole wide world.’ Indeed, “the use of web-based technologies to share sermons and other teaching components with attendees and non-attendees has exploded in recent years” according to a multi-year study.[27] It is evident that relationships can be built that do not require physical proximity.
In the face of the problem of curtailed international cross-cultural missions, which has been based on proximity, one can consider the following questions: “Has this kind of evangelism weakened our discipleship from the outset? Has our evangelism become all about programs? (Emphasis added).”[28] It is not sufficient to simply repeat the methods of the past and hope that we can continue to be effective in the mission endeavor. This is especially true in the era of the Coronavirus—COVID-19. With the advent of lockdowns, quarantines, states of emergency, and the present and anticipated reduction in international travel worldwide, missiologists and missionaries have an opportunity to consider “what will future methodologies of international cross-cultural missions look like?”
Conclusion
The advent of COVID-19 has provided the Christian missionary, sending churches and mission organizations an opportunity to evaluate and review the international cross-cultural models that are utilized in international cross-cultural mission ministries. Measuring the biblical model, motivation, and method of evangelism and discipleship against one’s own practice, may help the contemporary missionary to see that the way forward requires developing a new or renewed vision for international cross-cultural missions. However, clarity does not equate to ease. It will be exceedingly difficult to adjust and think ‘outside of the box.’ May God provide insight, wisdom and clarity to those who press on to continue to fulfill the Great Commission through international cross-cultural missions in these last days.
Marian Stewart (D.Min) is a graduate of Luther Rice College and Seminary and serves as a missionary in Liberia, West Africa. In addition to evangelism and community health education, her ministry focus is helping Christian hospitals and other organizations in the mission field reinforce their Christ-centered vision and mission focus through Christian leadership development and staff engagement.
Notes
[1] These include crusades, revivals, street evangelism, camps, sport evangelism, vacation bible schools (VBS), Christian movie outreaches, medical evangelistic mission, among others.
[2] The Oxford English Dictionary defines bunker as “a reinforced underground shelter, typically for used in wartime.”
[3] “Introducing Christian Mission Today STR Interviews Dr. Michael Goheen,” Southeastern Theological Review (STR) 06, no. 1 (Summer 2015): 43.
[4] All Scripture passages are from the Holy Bible, New King James version, unless otherwise indicated.
[5] “Introducing Christian Mission,” 31.
[6] James G. Samra, “A Biblical View of Discipleship,” Bibliotheca Sacra 160, no. 638 (April 2003): 220.
[7] Samra, “A Biblical View,” 223.
[8] The feel-good factor can be described as that which causes a feeling of personal happiness and well-being.
[9] Jim Harries, “‘Material Provision’ or Preaching the Gospel, Reconsidering ‘Holistic’ (Integral) Mission,” Evangelical Review of Theology 32, no. 3 (2008): 258, citing Christopher Little, “What Makes Mission Christian?” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 42, no. 1 (January 2006): 78–87.
[10] Harries, “‘Material Provision,’” 258.
[11] C.S. Lewis, A C.S. Lewis Treasury (New York: Harcourt Brace and Company, 1988), 35.
[12] Lewis, Treasury, 36.
[13] Lewis, Treasury, 36.
[14] Elizabeth Mburu, African Hermeneutics (Plateau State: HippoBooks, 2019), Kindle E-Book, Loc. 1767, citing Jack Willsey, “Essays in Biblical Hermeneutics” (Northwest Baptist Seminary, 2004).
[15] Mburu, Hermeneutics.
[16] “Introducing Christian Mission,” 43.
[17] Byang H. Kato, “Contextualization and Religious Syncretism in Africa,” Biblical Christianity in Africa: A Collection of Papers and Addresses, volume 2 of Theological Perspectives in Africa (Accra: Africa Christian Press, 1985): 23.
[18] The “Modern Missions Movement” is traditionally thought to have commenced with William Carey, the father of modern missions who went to India in 1793. The first missionary from the United States was a black man named George Lisle, who went to Jamaica, West Indies, from the United States in 1784—ten years before Carey went to India (Davis 2002).
[19] “Introducing Christian Mission,” 31.
[20] “Introducing Christian Mission,” 31.
[21] The motivation behind this endeavor is referenced in the previously cited example of C.S. Lewis’s Mrs. Fidget. C.S. Lewis, A C.S. Lewis Treasury (New York: Harcourt Brace and Company, 1988), 36.
[22] “Introducing Christian Mission,” 31.
[23] As at 2010, 63% of the population on the continent are professing Christians and almost 86% of the population in Liberia, for example identifying as Christians, http://www.globalreligiousfutures.org/countries/liberia#/?affiliations_religion_id=0&affiliations_year=2010®ion_name=All%20Countries&restrictions_year=2016; and http://www.pewforum.org; also Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, http://www.assets.pewresearch.org.
[24] Richard J. Foster’s book Celebration of Discipline identifies twelve spiritual disciplines, delineated into three categories: inward disciplines (meditation, prayer, fasting, and study); outward disciplines—inward realities resulting in outward lifestyles (simplicity, solitude, submission, and service); corporate disciplines (confession, worship, guidance, and celebration).
[25] David R. Dunaetz, “Evangelism, Social Media, and the Mum Effect,” Evangelical Review of Theology 43, no. 2 (2019): 143.
[26] Pauline Cheong, “Religion and the Internet: Understanding Digital Religion, Social Media, and Culture” Religion and American Cultures: An Encyclopedia of Traditions, Diversity and Popular Expressions, ed. G. Laderman and L. Leon (Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, 2014).
[27] Cheong, “Religion and the Internet,” citing Scott Thumma and Dave Travis, Beyond Megachurch Myths: What We Can Learn from America’s Largest Churches (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2007).
[28] “Introducing Christian Mission,” 35.
EMQ, Volume 56, Issue 3. Copyright © 2020 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.
