guest posting by Thomas Brauer of the Barnabas Initiative
A word...
There's a word which gets thrown about to describe dominant modes of thought, or structures of behaviour - that word is "Paradigm". And I love that word. Not just the way it sounds (talk about a money word!), but what it describes. Tucked neatly between Paradiddle, and Paradise, the Canadian Oxford Dictionary gives three uses for Paradigm, but I'll list only the first two.
In 1962, Thomas Kuhn coined the term (now used ad-nauseum) "Paradigm Shift" in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. As we likely all know, paradigm shift refers to the significant changing of dominant world views, patterns of behaviour or of belief, or understandings of structures, systems or approaches. Despite the now rampant use of the term, paradigm shift is still helpful, as it is a concise and direct way of speaking of dramatic theoretical or perceptual changes.
And paradigm shift is just as useful in our discussions of the changing face of Mission in the Church, as it was for Kuhn in his discussion of the changing face of science. Indeed, in one the great missiological histories, David Bosch uses the term directly in the subtitle. That book is, of course,Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission, (1991, Orbis Books). It is from one of Bosch's chapters that the discussion following will stem...
...but first, a little personal recent history.
Of late, I've been having a lot of conversations with people about Mission and the Fresh Expressions movement (for obvious reasons). And guaranteed, in 80% of those conversations, the subject of the Great Commission comes up. You know the great commission, don't you? Matthew 28:18ff, "Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." (NIV) Now it's not a problem that the great commission should come up, it's just that I'm not certain that it is the most helpful text on which to hang our missional hats any longer, at least not in mission to a post-modern context. And so I say this, in these conversations, and the look of shock and horror that often greets me makes me fear that I've somehow accidentally trodden on someone's kitten. So I thought it time to explain a little more formally why I'm not certain that the Great Commission is the best "biblical paradigm" for mission to most of the contemporary West, and what, instead, I believe is becoming a more dominant paradigmatic text for our time and place in mission history. Now back to David Bosch.
Eras of mission...
Bosch is a very helpful fellow. By taking the paradigmatic approach to analyzing the history of missiology, he has been able to condense 2000 years of mission into eras, and to analyze those eras in terms of dominant approaches and theories of mission. And he has done this, in one short section of the book, by scripture verse. That is to say, Bosch has looked at the historical paradigms of mission, and attempted to understand them in light of missional verses of the Bible (pp. 339ff.). Now Bosch is the first to say that in not all cases are these paradigmatic biblical texts necessarily widely known or publicized as the raison d'etre of mission of the day. In some cases, these texts speak to the nature of the way in which mission was carried out, and were applied in hindsight, but in either case, it is a helpful exercise. I've taken the liberty of condensing his work into the following handy-dandy table.
Though dominant among evangelicals in the late 19th century, and throughout the 20th century, the Great Commission by no means has been the universal directive of mission in Christendom. I believe that it was particularly appealing to the 'modern era' evangelical Church because it was a clear, concise directive, an order from on high, and a signally efficient rule by which to measure one's missional activity. One HAD to be in favour of such-and-such a mission endeavour because it was Jesus' last command!
A new era in mission in the West...
However, I think we're entering a time when the Great Commission will no longer be the dominant scriptural paradigm for mission in the West. Under the Great Commission model, the approach taken (no fault of the verse, this is just how people tended to do it) tended towards one of "Make 'em Disciples, get 'em in the pews," and the job was done. Being made a disciple was taken care of by the simple repetition of something like "the sinner's prayer", and (maybe) baptism. Then you were done, and the missional endeavour moved on to the next heathen down the block. I'm certainly using hyperbole here, and most would never believe this is what they were doing in mission. However, I have witnessed just this approach to mission more often than I care to count. And it wasn't always bad. In the modern era western world, this approach worked well. People were looking for a way to be that was clear, and understandable. If you were already a Christian, you knew you needed to make disciples and have them baptized. If you were not yet a Christian, but were being 'courted' by a mission, you knew that you were being invited to leave behind one way of life (which was bad) for another way of life (which is good), and you knew that you had a clear choice to make.
Sadly, it don't work like that no more. Society has changed, and the world view of most people in the contemporary West no longer supports the existence of a clear and concise good/bad split to life. Rather, most see all ways of being on a continuum, and most people don't believe that extremes of Good and Bad are achievable - "all things have good to them, and all things have bad to them, so what's the fuss?" might be the cry of this age. Just look at the prevalence of the colloquial phrase "It's all good!" The missional paradigm of the modern era, rooted on the Great Commission, was one of bringing in. Making disciples. It was about an outward action with an inward focus - that is to say, the Church reached out to the non-Christian in order to bring them into the Church.
However, we are now solidly in the post-modern era, and this approach is no longer acceptable in the eyes of the people the Church would seek to reach. The missional paradigm of this era is (will be?) one of going out. What is being sought by contemporary society is an inward action with an outward focus - which is to say that the missionary to the contemporary western society looks to live out the transformed life of Jesus Christ for themselves, and finding that life of transformation within, they also find themselves compelled to reach out to others in a way which expresses Christ within them. In this way, the contemporary westerner will at once witness a new way of living, and respect the missionary for living it out. This will be attractive, but the non-Christian will be drawn to the person of Christ first, not to the Church. Mission in this context is almost entirely relational, and avoids (almost entirely) the call to believe certain statements of truth (this is a stage which may come much later, just not at the initial stage of mission). Here, mission becomes a way of being, not a way of speaking or doing.
A new scriptural paradigm...
What then is the scriptural paradigm that matches this new mission context, and new mission approach? Well, I believe we've come full circle back to the patristic era, and we are once again missioning under John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten son...." This is about the incarnation, and about the divine sacrifice. Meeting people exactly where they are in their need, and sorrow, and joy, and excess, and being willing to die for them, to give up ourselves for them. This is only possible if we are ourselves living the transformed life of Jesus Christ. Unless we, the individuals, the women and men of the Church, are willing to be transformed by Christ, and to live out that life in the midst of the people with whom we share our society, then we will have nothing to say to that society. No longer are people willing to listen to us talk at them ABOUT Jesus. They are willing, though, to witness us live with them IN Jesus. People will now reject being considered "disciples in waiting", they want simply to be individuals to be loved to the point of incarnation and sacrifice. Mission in the contemporary West can no longer understand the world as being made up of 'believers' and 'no-believers' where we behave differently depending on to which group the person we encounter belongs. Mission in this context requires only one way to live, and that is to live for Christ to the point of dying to all else, no matter to whom we are speaking, or for whom we are serving. It is now for us to get out and live it.
Lesslie Newbigin says something very similar. He doesn't cite John 3:16 as the text with a greater missional pedigree than Matthew 18:18-20, but instead cites John 20:21 as the text that motivated missions far before Matthew 28 did: John 20:21 reads "As the Father has sent me, so I send you."
I think the resulting notions of mission pretty much line up with what is said here in last paragraph, that of being sent, of self-giving as a form of life, etc. John 20:21 does make the connection between the life of Jesus and the life of the Christian community much stronger, however.
What I find most extraordinary about this is that Newbigin was saying this 20+ years ago.
Posted by: Preston Parsons | March 06, 2009 at 01:45 PM
Preston - Newbigin certainly is a good resource for this. I think the notional of "incarnational mission/ministry" is central. It was the model/foundation of much of the stuff I did on campus when I worked in university ministry. And I think it is something which we need to recover as a church. I find that there is at least a slight shift from "showing Christ" to "being Christ", if I can use that imagery. I'd like to work out more what that is supposed to be for my own life.
Posted by: joseph | March 07, 2009 at 12:26 PM
One of the most helpful chapters I've found in Newbigin is in the classic "The Gospel in a Pluralist Society." In it he is critical of the "save individual sinners for Christ" model of mission as well as the "what is God doing in the world" model. He comes up with a third term that preserves the saving power of Christ as well as social transformation.
Newbigin always grounds mission within the worshipping community, and is thus critical of mission that is too individualistic, as weel as the one that is at signficant risk of becoming disconnected from the reality of a people gathered to worship. In our diocese we are very much working with the "what is God doing in the world" model, and my own desire do move into something based in the ecclesia has ticked off some, I think. But this model makes us into crows, flying off after every shiny thing. We really do lose the discernment of the church, and leave discernment to the world, us hopping on whatever wagon looks like it's going somewhere. (Yeah, two metaphors . . .) I think the result of a missional theology of "what is God doing in the world" is all around us.
That combined with a simple disregard for mission.
In defense of Matthew 28:18-20 as missional text, by the way, is the portion on teaching. It strikes me that in post-Christendom we can hardly rely on the culture to teach Christian doctrine, or the Bible, on the basis of belief. MY sense is that teaching the faith, within and without the church, is more important than ever.
Posted by: Preston Parsons | March 07, 2009 at 04:08 PM
Are people "teachable" (in the best sense, not the patronizing sense - if one grants the distinction)? I wonder if that is one of the shifts which has occured. It reminds me of a story, which might turn into a rambling post.
Posted by: joseph | March 07, 2009 at 10:29 PM
Preston and Joseph - excellent and helpful comments, both. Thanks for helping me clear up my thinking here.
@Preston - I find it interesting that I was at one time skeptical of Newbigin, only because I attached to him the label of "post-modern." I'm finding it endlessly amusing how now I have learned to embrace my own inner post-modern, and to pursue the good in that world-view. I now very much say yeah to much of what Newbigin has to offer.
I also find your warning of the potential dangers of the "what's God doing in the world" model of mission to be both helpful, and challenging as that is language I use myself. I wonder though if a possible solution to the danger of which you warn is what in the Fresh Expressions movement is referred to as "double listening" (though why they don't call it tripple, I don't know - but that question will be clear in a moment). In double listening, one is actively pursuing what God is already doing in His imminence. This, then is not simply looking for what is 'good' in the world and following it, but looking for God's presence and action and joining that. In order to discern this, one must be listening both (hence "double") to the culture's needs, resources, and direction, AND to the traditions, structures, and teachings of the Church catholic. This listening is done through observation, study, and above all, prayer and participation (hence my question about triple listening). The hope is that if we are listening to the Church catholic, the cultural context, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, then our discernment of "What God is doing in the world" is likely to be sound, helpful, and potentially transformative. What do you think? Would this still lead to the kind of Magpie syndrome you warn against?
My hesitation with Newbigin's emphasis upon the worshiping community is that the non-churched and de-churched of the world aren't and can't be there. Moving away from mission as overly individualistic to one that is community focused is essential, I agree. But (and I'm not sure if Newbigin goes as far as I'm going to suggest for the sake of better understanding) if we focus only upon the worshiping community then how can we understand how to "be Christ" with those members of our community who have no access to worship? And isn't an essential element of Mission being Christ for them and among them?
@Joe and Preston - as for the whole teaching thing I lean more to Preston's defense of the Great Commission than to Joe's counter challenge. I absolutely think that people are teachable, but not by us. I too am thinking of a story which might take too long here, but I believe that if we BE Christ, and we know Christ, and we live Christ and others come to Christ through that being, knowing and living, then they are being taught, and will be guided by the Spirit to learn of the doctrines of the faith. Teaching now is, I believe, a thing which happens more and more by invitation, and less and less by presentation. If I make myself available to teach as I live Christ in the midst, then others may invite me to engage in that teaching. If I present myself as the teacher from without, then others are more likely to reject my teaching as irrelevant and without understanding of their context - regardless of whether that is true or not.
So Joe, are people teachable? I think both yes and no. Yes, if they invite that teaching, no if that teaching is imposed. Perhaps 'twas ever thus, but maybe now a little more so than in the past? What do you think?
Posted by: Thomas Brauer | March 07, 2009 at 11:26 PM
This certainly would help with the magpie syndrome. But our internal discourse about what it is to be the church catholic has become so degraded and corroded that what I see is missional talk about what God is doing in the world without a catholic and scriptural foundation. That is, from where I sit, at least. Hence the importance of teaching the faith *ahem*.
I'm not sure that your reading of Newbigin is fair. He does find strong emphasis upon the community at worship as a body being sent. The disciples at prayer are the ones sent as the Father sends Jesus. To build with Newbigin, the body participating in the sacraments becomes the divine life given and sent for the sake of the world. Without worship, as we would be without a body, we lose our orbit. (Similarly worship of the one sent can become extraordinarily "precious" when we are not engaging in work for the good of the world . . .)
Joe: can you flesh out your notion a little bit more?
Posted by: Preston Parsons | March 11, 2009 at 11:37 AM
I think that you are right, Preston, in the notion that our "catholicity" has become corroded. To put it bluntly, there is sometimes a failure to remember that what God is doing in the world is the church. Now God can and does do things in the world beyond the "church", but if Christ is the head and the church is the body, then certainly the church (in the world) is what God is doing.
I see a connect with Michael Spencer's comment that we are raising a generation of Christians who know nothing about their faith except what they feel about it. Perhaps what I mean is not so much that people are "unteachable" (in the best sense) but that our methods of pedagogy needs to shift, or at least adapt to the state of the students. What that may look like I don't yet know.
Posted by: joseph | March 11, 2009 at 10:41 PM