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.
1. (noun) an example or pattern followed; a typical instance.
2. (noun, in Philosophy) a mode of viewing the world which underlies the theories and methodology of science etc. in a particular period of history.
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.
Recent Comments