A balanced diet, a balanced economic portfolio, a balanced lifestyle – we are constantly challenged to keep many things in our lives in balance, for the sake of health and sanity!  What about doing missions in the local church?  There are so many options today to be involved in cross-cultural, evangelistic and compassionate ministries – not to mention the demand for missions dollars from hundreds of worthy causes – that missions committees or global missions teams have to make difficult decisions concerning the limit and range of their church’s participation.

For a variety of reasons, some mentioned in a previous article, the scope of “missions” in our churches today has broadened far beyond the traditional understanding. While affirming the missional thrust of churches who strive to be involved in God’s mission both locally and globally, I would also like to challenge churches to not neglect the task that has defined missions through the centuries: taking the gospel to those who have not heard.  In this article, evidence for this focus in the modern missions movement (from Wm. Carey through to the present) is presented along with the concept of the “Acts 1:8 portfolio,” which is a helpful structure for churches to assist them in fulfilling the mandate God has given to participate in his mission.

The Modern Missions Movement: to the unreached

The desire to take the gospel to those who have not heard and who have no access to the gospel except through the initiative of an outsider reflects the apostle Paul’s description of his ministry concern in Rom 15:19-21.¹ This perspective has been a defining characteristic of the modern missions movement and played an important role in setting priorities for missionaries and missions agencies.

Ralph Winters helpfully divides the modern missions movement into three eras:  The first era (1792-1910) he entitles “To the Coastlands”.  Initiated to a large extent by the efforts of Wm. Carey, this was the beginning of mission societies who sent missionaries to lands where the gospel was unknown.  The second era (1856-1980) was characterized by a movement inland to “the unoccupied fields,” again reflecting the desire to contact those who had no previous exposure to the gospel.  The third era (1934-present), which Winters calls “To the Unreached Peoples,” is characterized by an increasing sensitivity to those barriers to the gospel beyond geography and the focus on people groups with distinct ethnic identities.  These groups require an outside source in order to be exposed to the gospel message.²

10,000 people groups = “final frontier of missions”

Even though the unreached have been the primary focus of traditional missions, this should not be confused with the comprehensive missional responsibility of the church. At the beginning of the modern missions movement the unreached lived in the majority of the world, the concern for them in the western protestant churches was relatively small and, due to the lack of a missions effort, there were few successes in cross-cultural ministry that needed strengthening.  However, because of God’s gracious actions and the sacrifice of missionaries through the past few centuries, this is no longer true.  Now, with the shift of Christianity to the south and east, it is estimated that there are only 10,000 people groups remaining that are unreached.³ This has been called the “final frontier of missions” and while “there is a great need for thousands of new missionaries to reach them,”⁴ the vast percentage of people in the world now live within “reached” contexts.  It is the 10,000 people groups that are identified as the concern of traditional missions in order to complete the mandate in accordance with the spirit of the apostle Paul’s ministry and his desire “not to build on another’s foundation.” In this understanding of missions, the end of the task is in sight, the course has been mapped.  For example, Wycliffe has initiated Vision 2025 which states, “By 2025, together with partners worldwide, we envision Bible translation in progress for every language that needs it”⁵ – a key component towards the completion of the traditional missions mandate to reach the unreached.

Traditional Missions as one part of the Missional task of the church

But while the end of traditional missions can be postulated, it is not the only missional responsibility of the church. The apostle Paul consistently completed his task of establishing a group of believers and then moved on, even when the vast majority of people in that area were unsaved. Why? Because with the establishment of a church, an internal witness to carry on the gospel mandate had come into existence. Following this pattern, traditional missions is understood as the initiative of the church on the outside crossing boundaries to those inside a people group. But when that initiative bears fruit, God’s mission⁶ has only just begun, for then the missional responsibility shifts to the church on the inside of the people group.  In fact, the larger missional task facing the church today is the growth of the kingdom among those people groups who do have a gospel witness, not to mention the needed re-establishment of the gospel in places where people have turned away from their parent’s faith.  Churches and mission agencies rightly consider these tasks as part of their missional responsibility, even though they move beyond the traditional focus of missions.

This distinction between … missions … and the broader missional task … is not one of importance

This distinction between the narrowly defined traditional task of missions – the church on the outside reaching across ethnic boundaries – and the broader missional task of the newly formed church on the inside, is not one of importance or even of priority when speaking of participating in God’s mission. God’s concern is for the whole world.  Influencing others locally or globally for God’s kingdom is equally a part of God’s mission, whether or not it is classified as missions.  Affirming the reality that all levels of participation in God’s mission are equally valid and important reflects the spirit of the apostle Paul when he spoke of being called to the Gentiles, while Peter was called to the Jews (Gal. 2:7,8).  Separate ministries, both are equally valid and needed, but it is only the former that is traditionally referred to as “missions.”

Assessing your Missional Portfolio

A helpful way to understand these concepts is to use Jesus’ vision of the expanding impact of the gospel in Acts 1:8 as a “portfolio”⁷ for local church involvement in God’s mission: “you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” Using this model, the traditional understanding of missions parallels the final element in Acts 1:8, “the ends of the earth,” the pioneer extension of the kingdom to those people who have no access to the gospel.

“Samaria” can refer to cross-cultural partnerships with established churches who welcome support in needed areas, such as leadership development or ministries of compassion. The people group is “reached” – the believers have taken up their missional task – but the consolidation and expansion of previous missions efforts requires outside involvement.  Both “Samaria” and “the ends of the earth” can also be identified by the boundaries that must be crossed in order to participate in God’s mission, including boundaries of culture, language, identity, geography, misinformation, prejudice, values, and worldview, as well as psychological and socio-economic barriers.

“Judea” describes regions and people outside of the immediate influence of the local church, but because of a common identity through shared culture, language and history, the primary boundary is geographical.  In order to provide a lasting impact in this area, churches often join forces, e.g., the Fellowship of Evangelical Baptist Churches of Canada (FEBCC), to cooperate in joint ministries such as planting churches.

“Jerusalem” refers to the local missional task of an established church.  It includes all the ministries, individually and collectively, that affect the people who come in contact with the members of that church.  Even as Paul expected the churches he planted to expand the kingdom where they were, so this is a major responsibility of local church members in their daily relationships.⁸

The challenge of the Acts 1:8 portfolio approach for churches today is to play a strategic role in each of these four areas. At the same time, it is neither necessary nor helpful to closely define the borders between these four areas of concern.  The borders will be fuzzy and porous, and some ministries may span more than one area, making it impossible to precisely categorize them. The key is to be involved in what God is doing in the world, while recognizing that God’s mission encompasses the whole world. What is needed is a comprehensive missional agenda with a diversified portfolio, so that each church can participate in God’s mission close to home while not neglecting traditional missions: Jesus’ vision for the ends of the earth.

Unlike today’s economic portfolios, your missional portfolio is guaranteed to produce eternal dividends!

Mark spends part of his time coaching churches for effective involvement in missions.  If you are interested in taking advantage of this, please contact him via the Contact Me form.  If you would like to leave a comment, please use the “comment” link at the bottom of this article.

____________________
• 1 For further explanation of how the apostle Paul’s ministry relates to missions see the article, “If every activity is “missions,” how do we set priorities?“
• 2 Winters, Ralph. 1981. Four Men, Three Eras, Two Transitions: Modern Missions in Perspectives on the World Christian Movement: 253-261. see especially the chart on p. 259.
• 3 A 2006 update from Jason Mandryk of Operation world divides the unreached people groups as follows: Muslim 4100, Hindu 2700, Tribal 2000, Buddhist 1000, Others 600. See “State of the Gospel” download at http://www.operationworld.org/index.html
• 4 Wilson, Nate. Motivations for Missions in http://www.globaltribesoutreach.org/articles.php?id=7. Accessed Dec 21, 2008.
• 5 http://www.wycliffe.ca/aboutus/vision2025.html. Accessed Dec 21, 2008.
• 6 As defined in “If every activity is “missions,” how do we set priorities?” God’s mission “refers to his gracious acts within history to bring redemption to the world.”
• 7 I was introduced to this helpful terminology from 1615 missions coaching material. See http://www.1615.org/about/
• 8 See Significant Conversations for a helpful way to support believers in this role.

It is so easy to become distracted! Whenever I come home from my Bible translation trips, I have a number of chores waiting for me.  Unfortunately, I often find myself jumping indiscriminately from one task to another so that a lot of chores are half-done and nothing is properly completed.  For example, if I set out to mow the lawn I will discover that the lawnmower shed is a mess.  So I begin to organize the shed and notice some old plants that should go into the compost. On the way to the compost I see some tools lying outside, so I put down the plants and pick up the tools to put them away.  As I do, I notice that one of the tools belongs to a neighbor and I set off to return it. Walking across the lawn, I see that it is somewhat overgrown and so I make a mental note to mow it….

Working out the direction and priorities in missions in our churches can feel similarly overwhelming.  A missions program used to be fairly simple for the average church: commission a missionary for overseas ministry, send money to their missions agency and pray.  Today the complexity of the world has changed things.  Global has merged with local, simple relationships have morphed into complex networks, information is ubiquitous and communication instantaneous.  I asked my daughter how many countries she is connected to on Facebook, and she instantly gave me about 10 country names, from South Africa to Germany to Pakistan.  People are involved with other ethnic groups on a daily basis, face to face as well as through the variety of media available today.  When traveling on a city bus, I am amazed by the realization that, ethnically speaking, I am usually in the minority.

An all-encompassing view of Missions

Opportunities for involvement in outreach abound.  Short term missions teams travel to many needy places in the world. Churches are often made up of more than one ethnic group, encouraging a network of significant cross-cultural engagement in the broader community.  Moreover, the diverse ways to be involved are more than we can handle, from World vision appeals on television, to feeding the homeless, to supporting the development of water filters in Pakistan. In such a context, the potential for missions includes so many different activities that the diversity and demand is overwhelming.

Furthermore, if an activity such as constructing a church building in Haiti, or providing a home for the poor in Mexico, is “missions,” isn’t that “missions” status also appropriate for helping out with the construction of a church building in Canada, or even participating in a local Habitat for Humanity project?  In this way of thinking, any service to God that impacts people becomes our involvement in missions.  But if so, what distinguishes missions from other activities of the church?  Is it time, cost, geography, commitment?

what distinguishes missions from other activities of the church?

Over the past few decades the common understanding of missions in our churches has broadened dramatically beyond the traditional emphasis to include almost any worthwhile and impacting project that focuses on those who are not yet believers.  Every believer is challenged to “be a missionary right where you are,” and the recognition that missions is now “from everywhere to everywhere” encourages people to consider any activity with an evangelistic or compassionate focus as “missions.”

In light of this major shift of what constitutes missions, it is important to remind ourselves what missions has been traditionally understood to be and why that task was given priority.  Otherwise, it is possible that we may become so distracted by the many opportunities to do good that we miss out on an important aspect of what God is doing, and fail to continue the work that missionaries have faithfully struggled for through the years. Stephen Neill warns us that “if everything is missions, then nothing is missions.”¹ By intentionally maintaining the traditional thrust of missions within the broader and more encompassing missional emphasis we experience today, the danger inherent in that warning can be avoided.

“What do you mean by that!” – Definitions

As I will argue below and in a following article, traditionally missions has been primarily understood as the effort to bring the gospel to those who have no access to it within their context.  As noted above, it seems unlikely that the word “missions” can be reserved for this narrow understanding.  My purpose in presenting these articles is not to rescue one particular term, but to ensure that churches have the opportunity to consider the traditional focus of missions as one of the priorities in their overall missions program.

God’s mission (singular) refers to his gracious acts within history to bring redemption to the world. “A careful reading of both Old and New Testaments reveals that God himself is the subject of mission. We have here to do with Missio Dei, God’s mission.”²

An unreached people group is an ethnic group with a distinct identity “judged to have inadequate Christian resources to evangelize itself.”³ For example, the Sindhi people of Pakistan, among whom our family lived and worked for 14 years, is one of the largest unreached people groups in the world.

The missional task of the church is broader than the traditional missions mandate

Missional refers to the response by the church to partner with God in his mission by bringing the message of salvation to those outside of his kingdom.⁴ Traditional missions, as I will argue below and in the follow-up article, is a subset of this missional orientation. The missional task of the church is broader than the traditional missions mandate and encompasses all efforts to support, maintain and extend the kingdom of God.

Although many definitions of missions do not make the distinction that I am proposing,⁵ I believe that acknowledging traditional missions as one aspect of the missional task of the church will help alleviate some of the frustration and confusion felt by missions committees and global missions teams as they seek to prioritize their missions program.

Paul’s mission to those who have not heard

In a previous article, the “apostolic” appointment in the New Testament was proposed as the foundational biblical concept to understand missions – the “sending” of chosen messengers beyond the boundaries of the local church for the purpose of extending the kingdom of God.  In this article some of the distinctives traditionally used to define missions will be examined from the writings of the apostle Paul. As he has been considered the prototypical missionary,⁶ his perspective on his role provided an important biblical foundation to the modern missions movement.

As a missionary of the gospel of Christ, Paul provides a description of his responsibility to fulfill the Great Commission (Mt 28:19,20):

… through the power of the Spirit of God… I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ. It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation. Rather, as it is written, “Those who were not told about him will see, and those who have not heard will understand” (Rom 15:19-21).

Paul’s desire was “to call all the Gentiles (Gk. ethne) to faith and obedience for [Christ's] name’s sake” (Rom 1:5).  That is, his priority to fulfill his calling was to preach the gospel wherever faith in Christ was non-existent among a people group (ethne).  From those who responded, communities of believers were established who, in turn, became witnesses to the gospel within their own context.  Paul also took steps to see that they maintained spiritual vitality by visiting them again and writing to them, and he expected that they would carry on the missional mandate that he had inaugurated.  That is, his work as a “sent one” (apostle) was the beginning of an expansion of the gospel which those new believers would complete.  This is evident in his expressed pleasure in the people of God at Colossae because “the gospel is bearing fruit and growing throughout the whole world- just as it has been doing among you since the day you heard it and truly understood God’s grace” (Col 1:6).

[Paul's] work as a “sent one” (apostle) was the beginning of an expansion of the gospel

By “his personal example and through his teaching, Paul constantly reminded the churches of their apostolic calling. They had been sent by God into the world to reach beyond their local neighborhoods with the gospel. Their task was to bring into God’s kingdom the nations for which Christ died and which had yet to acknowledge him as their king.”⁷

The following article will explore the way Paul’s focus on missions was worked out in the modern missions movement (from Wm. Carey to the present), and then propose a way to maintain this concern within a broader missional portfolio of the local church.

Mark spends part of his time coaching churches for effective involvement in missions.  If you are interested in taking advantage of this, please contact him via the Contact Me form.  If you would like to leave a comment, please use the “comment” link at the bottom of this article.

____________________




• 1 Quoted in Bosch, D.J. 1991. Transforming Mission: Paradigm shifts in theology of mission. Maryknoll: Orbis, 115.
• 2 Bosch, David. 1981. Witness to the world in Perspectives on the World Christian Movement,  59.
• 3 Mays, David. Missions Stuff II, ACMC 2002:7.
• 4 For a fuller exploration of the missional implications for the local church see the CCI Missional articles.
• 5 For example David Mays provides the following two definitions: “Mission is the intentional crossing of barriers from Church to non-church in word and deed for the sake of the proclamation of the Gospel”  (Stephen Neill) and “When a person is ‘sent out’ beyond the borders and influence of the local church to make disciples, that is missions”  (Woody Phillips), from Let’s Define Missions in Missions Stuff II, ACMC 2002:5.
• 6 For example, note the title of Roland Allen’s influential book first published in 1912, “Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours?”
• 7 Glasser, Arthur. 1981. The Apostle Paul and the Missionary Task in Perspectives on the World Christian Movement,  132 (emphasis mine).

A fuzzy understanding of Missions

I have a saying on my screensaver by Joseph Jourbert: “Words, like eyeglasses, blur everything that they do not make clear.”  This is true for Bible translation – which is the reason the quote appeals to me – but it is also true for the word “missions.” For some, the word is loaded with passion and purpose.  Missions, in the plural, refers to God’s mission to bring redemption to the world and a heart for missions is the positive response to Jesus’ invitation to participate in what God is doing (Mt 28:19-20).  Unfortunately, for many in our churches, missions is a word somewhat “fuzzy” in meaning.

Throughout the first two eras of the modern missionary movement, beginning with William Carey in the 18th century and ending sometime in the latter half of the last century, the definition of missions was clear: missions was the job of missionaries who traveled overseas with a lifetime commitment to bring the gospel message to those who had never heard.  The role of missions committees in the churches was to support the missionaries in their task, and the distinction between missions and other ministries in the church was clear.  However, times have changed.  Short term mission teams abound, the world and its variety of religions has come to our doorstep, and the west has been recognized as a legitimate “mission field.”  In the midst of such change and diversity, churches have become somewhat unclear in distinguishing missions from the other ministries in the church.  Indeed, at times, the distinction has been deliberately downplayed in order to encourage every believer to be a “missionary” wherever they are.

Is missions one aspect of what the church does, or is it inclusive of all church activities?  Does any and all interaction with those who are not believers constitute missions, or only particular ministries?  Should donations to the denomination headquarters, church planting efforts in our own province, local evangelism efforts or training for teens to reach their peers all be considered legitimate items on the missions budget? Or is there something distinct about the nature and purpose of missions that determines which ministries can be considered missions?  For example, consider the following.  Which do you think should be classified as missions?

• Youth summer ministry in downtown Vancouver
• Teaching a class at a seminary in Korea
• Rescuing girls from prostitution in Bangkok
• Gospel outreach to local First Nations
• The Alpha program
• Billy Graham crusade in Vancouver.
• Youth for Christ camp ministry in Venezuela
• Leadership training at Northwest Baptist Seminary
• Leadership training at a seminary in Singapore
• Awana
• Young Life youth ministries
• Feeding the homeless in the Lower Mainland
• Church planting in interior BC
• A Punjabi church plant in Lower Mainland
• Church planting in Australia
• Church planting in Japan
• Community Fun Day at your local church

If everything is missions, then nothing is missions

Stephen Neill warned, “If everything is missions, then nothing is missions.”¹ If we are unclear concerning the task of missions to which God has called us, it is very easy to lose sight of the primary purpose of missions.  Without insight into the reason for missions, it is impossible to strategize and prioritize effectively.  We can become busy with many things, but miss out on what is essentially missions. So what are the appropriate criteria by which we can determine what is legitimately “missions”?

Missions is initiated by those who are “sent”

In his book, Loving the Church, Blessing the Nations, George Miley provides an important biblical distinctive that qualifies missions and distinguishes it from other ministries in the church.  Through an examination of 1 Co. 12:28 he relates missions to the role of apostolic leaders who are to “blaze the trail, to pioneer, to initiate kingdom breakthroughs into new areas, and to lay foundations on which others can build. When it comes to extending the reign of God on earth, they … go first.”² God has appointed apostles to the church for the purpose of advancing his kingdom.  They are the “sent ones” who to open the way for the gospel.

This is illustrated in Acts 13:2-4, recounting an incident that occurred in the church at Antioch.

While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” So after they had fasted and prayed, they placed their hands on them and sent them off. The two of them, sent on their way by the Holy Spirit, went down to Seleucia and sailed from there to Cyprus.

set apart for a distinct task that is fulfilled beyond the boundaries of the church

The distinction between other ministries of the church and missions is clear in this passage.  The church at Antioch had a responsibility to be Christ’s witness in their local context, but they are also given the opportunity to affirm with the Holy Spirit that some are set apart for a distinct task that is fulfilled beyond the boundaries of the church.  That is, Paul and Barnabas are sent out to initiate the kingdom in a context where the church has no influence.  The church does not directly benefit or grow numerically through this process.  On the contrary, they sacrifice their “best and brightest” in order to see God’s work become established and grow among a group separate from themselves.

initiate the kingdom where it would not otherwise occur

This understanding of missions does not necessarily require geographical distance, but it does require the appointing of individuals to the task of “stepping beyond” the boundaries of the local church’s influence in order to initiate the kingdom where it would not otherwise occur.  Based on this understanding of missions, I believe that is it helpful for churches to make a distinction between their task of local outreach and evangelism, and their role in missions.  Consider the following statements:

outreach is making an impact where you live
missions is making an impact by intentionally
stepping beyond where you live.

“Evangelism is church growing where it is,
missions is church going where it isn’t”³

Outreach is what the church does
by existing within its context
Missions is what the church does
by initiating beyond its context

This is just one of a number of parameters that are helpful for members of missions committees to keep in mind as they fulfill their responsibilities to lead their church in missions.  In the following article other biblical images and concepts that clarify missions will be explored.

Mark spends part of his time coaching churches for effective involvement in missions.  If you are interested in taking advantage of this, please contact him via the Contact Me form.  If you would like to leave a comment, please use the “comment” link at the bottom of this article.

____________________
• 1 Quoted in Bosch, D.J. 1991. Transforming Mission: Paradigm shifts in theology of mission. Maryknoll: Orbis, 115.
• 2 Miley, George. 2003. Loving the Church, Blessing the Nations: Pursuing the Role of Local Churches in Global Mission. Waynesboro: Gabriel, 94.
• 3 Quoted in Mays, David. Missions Stuff.

A youth pastor expressed his perspective on short term missions, “It is 100% an opportunity to have a time of intensive discipleship with those participating.  Whatever they are involved in, including the people they are serving, is a secondary consideration.”

Both of these anecdotes indicate a narrow and truncated view of missions that needs correcting.  Important elements of spiritual development in people’s lives are undermined when crucial aspects of missions are neglected.  In the first case, completing and affirming the experience through appropriate debriefing was required.  In the second case, the extreme statement of the youth pastor bypassed the primary reason for any missions effort: the needs of the receptor community.

Short term missions trips have several positive aspects, not the least of which is hands on exposure to cross-cultural missions work which increases the desire to be involved in what God is doing worldwide.  Nonetheless, there are negative aspects that can result in more harm than good.  This article features advice from FEBInternational personnel about short term missions presented with the desire that our churches’ efforts in short term missions be legitimate, effective and rewarding.

I.  Support missions, not simply cross-cultural experiences. 

The aim of Missions is gospel transformation in the lives of individuals and communities.  Cross-cultural experiences that are legitimately “missions” will maintain this as the central goal.  This demands a high level of spiritual commitment and maturity on the part of the participants that will ensure true spiritual love and concern when relating to others. When Jesus sent out his short term mission teams (Luke 9:1-6 and 10:1-12), they were given tasks that demanded a high level of commitment in representing Christ and his message and they were expected to minister in significant ways.

For those who are not yet ready to represent Christ cross-culturally, there are steps that can be taken to prepare for a cross-cultural encounter.  For example, a good test for young people is to be involved in the SEMP program (Students Equipped to minister to their Peers).  Once that has been successfully completed, involvement in a local or inner city ministry will stretch and prepare the individual for ministry and demonstrate their desire to serve.  Such a process proves the sincerity of the participant and can weed out those who may have ulterior motives of experiencing another culture that outweighs their desire to be involved in missions.

II. Fewer is better.

Besides the pragmatic aspects of providing for a large number of people, there are a number of other advantages to limiting the number of those involved.  When people travel individually or in pairs in order to be involved in missions, they fit much more easily into existing missions work.  They are more likely to develop relationships across cultural barriers because they do not have a large “safe” group shielding them from uncomfortable situations.  Individuals who are willing to travel abroad are more likely to consider career missions since they tend to be more open to experiencing the unfamiliar.

There is a common misunderstanding that all Christians should have cross-cultural missions experience.  Although all are chosen by God to bring about gospel transformation in and through their lives, not all are equipped for or capable of handling the adjustments, stresses and complications of cross-cultural life and ministry.  A goal of the church that wishes to be effective in missions is to discover those few gifted for such relationships and lifestyles and expose them to short term missions so that their ministry skills and passion can be developed.

It is more feasible for fewer people to stay longer, thus increasing their exposure and effectiveness.  When the focus is on impact in missions rather than on experiencing another culture, those who are less gifted in cross-cultural ministry have an opportunity to sacrifice by remaining home so that others can have a more impacting ministry.

III. Training and debriefing are Crucial

If a person merely wants to experience the excitement of a hospital operating room, their presence is sufficient.  However if that person would also like to operate and take a scalpel in their hand, they better have some training first!  Similarly, representing the Lord Jesus Christ cross-culturally is serious business.  Great harm can be done to the gospel through insensitive and incautious comments and actions.  Appropriate training can lead to experiences that not only advance the kingdom, but result in a positive and developing vision of what God can accomplish.  Moreover, an evaluation of the experience from the perspective of those with more insight and understanding can lead to greater personal growth and enhanced ability to serve in the future.

IV.  Keep Career Missions the preferred option.

Short term missions continues to play an effective role in the global effort of spreading the gospel worldwide.  However, the cultural and linguistic demands of cross-cultural ministry require the church to maintain a focus on career.  It takes years for missionaries to function effectively in another language and to learn how gospel transformation will result in contextualized churches and theology.  Thus organizers of short term mission trips must ensure that their efforts both promote and enhance career missions efforts. Such an emphasis keeps the challenge of missions at the forefront and contributes to the development of those individuals who may be called to devote their lives to such a task.

When done right, short term missions trips are not viewed as an end in themselves, but an integral part of the God’s mission to the world.  Lives are changed on both sides of the cultural divide and those called by Christ are encouraged towards further development and missions commitment

I was recently talking with a colleague who voiced a concern about the expanding understanding of missions in some of our more missional churches.  The missions committee at his church expressed the desire to incorporate local evangelistic and social efforts under the broad umbrella of  “missions.” My colleague was afraid that when local ministries are considered as “missions,” the focus, support and emphasis on foreign missions efforts will be diluted. 

Is this fear valid? If missions is defined so broadly that it encompasses all the church exists to do and more, will this not result in the demise of missions as traditionally understood?  Will the concept of foreign missions cease to exist?  Is the term “missionary,” as a word describing the international minister of the gospel, in danger of becoming archaic and obsolete?  By describing everything as “missions” are we in danger of undermining support for international missions?  The World Council of Churches removed evangelism as a separate focus because it understood that evangelism was integral to all work done in Christ’s name. However the result, according to some, was that evangelism disappeared for the most part from their efforts.  Could foreign missions face a similar fate in our evangelical churches?

A New Perspective in Missional Churches

Foreign missions has traditionally been one of the sacred elements of the evangelical church.  I have heard people quote the percentage of church giving devoted to foreign missions as a significant criterion to measure the spiritual vitality of a congregation.  Missions has been viewed as the responsibility of dedicated individuals who are sent as an extension of the church which limits local involvement to prayer, financial support and accountibility. 

But now the missional church movement calls congregations to view their setting as a mission field.  A new buzz word, “glocal” (combining “local” and “global” concerns), underlines the validity of all efforts to bring gospel transformation into the world, eliminating geographical distinctions from the definition of missions.  Instead a new definition can be described as aligning ourselves with God’s mission in the world for the sake of his glory.  Chaplaincy, local centers ministering to abused women and Christian soccer camps are all given equal status with foreign missions as participants in God’s mission to the world.  But what are implications for traditional missions agencies?  Is this trend to be welcomed or resisted?

Benefits of the New Definition for the Church

I would argue that this move to view local efforts as much a part of missions as the missionary sent overseas is not only appropriate, but should be encouraged.  The benefits will not only be seen in revitalizing the local church in missional thinking, but also can serve to sharpen the focus of missions organizations.

This trend revitalizes the local church by recognizing that geographical parameters are no longer valid for defining missions. Because God’s mission is global, the local church is situated within a mission field and is required to face that responsibility with the same dedication expected of mission organizations.  Moreover, this view validates all missional efforts no matter the setting.  The visitor to hospital shut-ins is recognized along side of the church planter in Pakistan as being a part of bringing in Christ’s kingdom.

Furthermore, commitment to missions does not occur without involvement. Limiting the local church’s mission participation to prayer, giving and accountibility – as vital as these have been and will continue to be – undermines the development of the passion to be involved in what God is doing.  People, in general, are not satisfied with following traditional patterns, but require a vision that grips their heart.  Involvement both locally and globally is accessible and is a key factor in developing that vision.

Benefits of the New Definition for the Mission Organization

This challenge of competition for church support and resources is actually a healthy environment for those of us involved in mission organizations.  Rather than seeking to maintain foreign mission priority, we would do far better to promote and adapt to this new reality.

First, it challenges us to define our specific role in being a part of God’s mission.  It encourages a more integrative and holistic perspective of working together with the local church. Significance and transformational impact become the factors which validate our partnership with churches and draw the attention and commitment of those who desire to do God’s will, rather than merely historical or traditional ties.  Rather than competing with local ministries for resources, mission agencies must become a part of the church in ways that enhance those ministries and integrate the focus of international missions with the concerns of the local church.

Second, it challenges missions organizations towards accountibility.  Local churches sense a responsibility towards their local ministries due to their proximity and involvement.  When cross-cultural ministries are considered a part of the essence of a church’s existence, it will be prepared to take a greater role in overseeing and evaluating the significance of the work of a mission organization.

Our mission organization, FEBInternational, has much to offer churches nationally and around the world in cross-cultural expertise, organizational support and evangelistic commitment, as well as providing significant models of culturally sensitive church structures and leadership development.  Open partnerships in missional churches with local ministries and concerns will provide a forum to communicate the importance of our ministries as well as opportunity to both benefit from and contribute to local churches’ efforts in being a part of God’s mission to the world.

The Partnership Trend

Stemming from a college professor’s interest in his international students, members from a local church began to build relationships with families from that people group.  Some of the church members went on to minister full time to these people in their homeland.  While there they facilitated visits from other members of the church who came short term to serve and to pray.  Both at home and in the land of this people group, the church is focused on being part of God’s mission through direct ministry partnership rather than simply remaining supporters of a mission agency’s vision. (1)

In an article outlining effective missions outreach for churches, Geoff Tunnicliffe (2) notes the trend of many churches to connect to their ministry partners relationally. Rather than focusing on giving to missionaries based on a sense of obligation to missions, commitment is developed through direct contact with those serving cross-culturally and through involvement in their ministry.  Also these churches have a balanced concern for both local and global outreaches, integrating the two as part of one essential vision rather than as two separate enterprises in competition for attention and resources.  In addition, churches and agencies are seeking to develop partnerships for the purpose of fulfilling their mandate for missions and inviting the other to participate with them at fundamental decision making levels.

Important Adjustments for Agencies

If this trend is an accurate indication of the direction many churches are headed, then mission agencies must make an important adjustment in order to develop and maintain support from these churches.  Rather than seeking to develop a vision and ministry that is presented to churches for their endorsement, the agency must develop these together with churches in order to ensure commitment.  Rather than convincing churches to support their ministry emphasis and strategy, the agencies must serve churches by providing the tools and means so the individual church’s missions emphasis can be fulfilled. Rather than viewing the agency as the workers and the church as the supporters, both agency and church must be active participants from the inception of the planning to the fruition of the vision on the field.  Unless there is hand ons participation by the church, there will be little buy-in of the ministry.

The mission organization that seeks to be church oriented will help their churches move from supporters to participants.  They will work with the individual churches to help them develop a vision and strategy so that they actually become part of the missions experience and take part in making ministry decisions that affect the missionaries’ work and the mission agency’s focus.  The goal is to move people from awareness and support to ownership.

Building Ownership Leads to Commitment

Denominational loyalty is dying and along with that support for denominational agencies.  Non-denominational agencies struggle even more as people’s willingness to commit to a name or an organization wanes. Approaching a church for support relegates the agency to simply one voice among many and where there is no direct relationship, any sense of obligation on the part of the church member will be limited.

Rather than despairing of people’s lack of loyalty and concern, it needs to be recognized that this problem may very well result in a greater solution.  A powerful missions vision with the potential of impacting people can only be developed in the context of the church and it is the desire of many agencies to move in this direction.  Such a vision cannot be transplanted from a missions organization to a congregation through a brochure and 10 minute presentation on Sunday morning.  It must be developed through interaction with the church with a focus on the church’s vision and passion and involvement.

This change requires a greater flexibility within mission agencies than has been evident in the past.  They must subordinate their concerns to the missions vision of the local church and be committed to lend their expertise and organizational system for the benefit of the church’s missions mandate.  Fields and candidates would be evaluated with the church’s participation and input, rather than in the agency’s boardroom.  All promotional materials and contacts with churches would be designed with the view of building ownership rather than soliciting support. 

Mission Agencies as Educators

Mission agencies would need to reeducate the church concerning its role in missions so that the congregation can move to the next level of involvement.  For example, when a church approaches an agency concerning candidate they would like to have accepted by that agency, the first step is not to evaluate the candidate, but to meet with church representatives concerning the church’s role in world missions. (3)  The church would be challenged to become participants rather than merely supporters and senders. The agency would present itself as a facilitator of the church’s missions effort, rather than taking sole responsibility for the candidate and requesting support.  The ministry and requirements for the missionary would be worked out according to the perspective and needs of the church.  If the church is unable to financially support the person completely, a strategy of enlisting other churches as partners would be required.  People would be appointed to work with the candidate and the agency throughout the application and support raising process and beyond.  Other church members may need to be sent to the field with the candidate to assess the appropriate ministry and to provide input and support.

Such a church oriented focus changes the agency’s role from overseeing the field and candidate in place of the church to working with the church in such oversight. This does not lessen the agency’s responsibility, but increases it to proactively and creatively incorporate the church in the process. Agencies can no longer say to the churches, "Help us in our missions efforts." Instead they must say, "Let us partner with you in your missions efforts."

_______________
• (1) Camp, B.K. & Livingood, E. 2002. Design Your Impact Workshop. Dana Point: Dual Reach. p. 7.
• (2) Tunnicliffe, G. Church Strategies for Missions in Faith Today, July / Aug 2002. p. 29.
• (3) This is the purpose of the Design Your Impact Workshop.

Field, Candidate and Church oriented Missions Agencies

Field Oriented Agencies

It may be possible to trace an historical development among North American sending agencies from being "field oriented" to becoming "candidate oriented" and now shifting to a "church oriented" initiative. A traditionally field oriented sending agency actively looks for new fields of involvement, but does not involve candidates or churches at a partnership level in decision making.  Through this efficient but top-down process the sending agency arranges all the details concerning the missions opportunity. The vision, the evaluation of resources, strategizing and ministry emphases are solely the domain of the agency and representatives are sent to the churches to promote the project as a worthy of their finances and to recruit candidates so that the vision can be fulfilled. Although the churches may be called to "partner" with the sending agency through prayer and financial support, this is not a true partnership because the agency monopolizes the decision making process. The role of the church is to support the program of the sending agency.

Candidate Oriented Agencies

A candidate oriented approach focuses on the desire and vision of individuals who wish to be involved in missions. Candidates are evaluated primarily on the basis of their call to missions, and only secondarily to their ability to fulfill a need in a specific field.  The sending agency’s recruitment strategy is individualistic and relies on a number of institutions (e.g. Bible Colleges) and programs (e.g. Urbana) outside the church to locate potential candidates.  The enterprise may be initiated by a church which desires to send a particular member into missions. The sending agency accommodates this desire by considering the vision of the church and candidate as an indication of the Spirit’s guidance for the mission.  Nonetheless the church’s role remains one of recommending candidates to the agency, which accepts them according to the agency’s own criteria and agenda. The vision and gifts of the candidate along with the needs of the field are given high priority in forming the missions strategy.  This comes closer to a true partnership with the candidate because the priority is to place them where they can find ministry fulfillment and thus the overall ministry focus is developed cooperatively with the candidate.  However, the church maintains a supporting rather than a partnership role in the process.  The sending agency serves the churches by accepting their members as missions personnel and by providing the system and organization to place them successfully on the field.

In both these scenarios churches can be compared to stockholders who have made an investment of resources.  The agency, like a secular company, is dependent for its solvency upon the stockholders, but maintains its sovereignty over the purpose, direction and decision making process.

Church Oriented Agencies

A church oriented sending agency, on the other hand, will seek to enter into a true missions partnership with individual churches.  Rather than presenting a project or proposing a candidate to be supported, the agency works with the church so that the church moves beyond awareness and support to ownership and active involvement. The church is brought into the process of developing the vision, evaluating the resources, strategizing and ministry emphases.  The missions program belongs to the church which participates with the agency in the decision making progress rather than being limited to an evaluative and responsive role. Instead of helping churches understand how to be aware of, pray for and contact the agency’s missionaries, the agency becomes a resource so that the church can responsibly fulfill its missions mandateand the church’s missionaries can be effective.  From beginning to end the churches are assisted in making those informed decisions which will impact the direction towards which that missions effort will unfold.

The Design Your Impact Workshop is a seminar designed to help people "shape a strategic missions focus to fit your church’s DNA." (1) The goal is for churches to recognize that partnership in what God is doing in the world can be more than prayer and financial support.  "A strategic focus will use gifts a church never knew it had.  Over time, such churches develop a growing core of people who have been on site, or hosted visitors here, or got excited as they watched their children or friends return from on-site [sic] visits.  And now they pray for individuals by name.  They send gifts with the next team.  They look for additional ways to help.  Missions is no longer a program or an offering.  It’s God’s call to this church to make an eternal impact on one particular corner of the world for His glory." (2)

In the next article creative ways for the church to work in partnership with a sending agency for the purpose of being actively missional in a global sense are explored.

_______________
• (1) Camp, B.K. & Livingood, E. 2002. Design Your Impact Workshop. Dana Point: Dual Reach. subtitle.
• (2) ibid. p. 25.

It was only a decade ago that common wisdom for finding support for missionaries said, "Forget the churches and focus on individual contacts."  Some missions organizations even encouraged their members to use the churches as a means for raising individual support.  In this way they sometimes managed, often to the irritation of church leadership, to obtain a commitment from the church budget as well as significant contributions from individual members of the church.

Missions thinking about church and sending agency relationships is experiencing a significant about face on this issue.  Rather than viewing churches as a source from which the resource needs of the sending agency can be met, many agencies are inviting churches into a true partnership of missions. Rather than merely supporting missions through the sending agency, churches are becoming directly involved doing missions with the aid of the agency. Moving beyond participation through prayer and financial support, some churches are becoming proactive and "hands on" in cross-cultural efforts both locally and around the world. 

These churches work with a missions agency to develop a missions vision and strategy, and as a result play a primary role in determining the direction and ongoing focus of the missions effort. They explore ways of becoming involved, ranging from providing full time overseas workers to sending specialists who can meet specific needs to reaching out locally to the same ethnic group.  The church develops a global missions consciousness and responsibility resulting in a partnership within which there is direct involvement in appropriate cross-cultural ministry.  The sending agency facilitates this ministry of the church and through education, organization and expertise ensures that the church’s vision and mission mandate is fulfilled.  In a sense, sending agencies are maturing as they move from being an "arm of the church" to become mentors of the church in providing opportunities for effective cross-cultural ministry according to the expressed vision and desire of the church.

A Bus or a Garage?

To illustrate the significance of this change, consider the following metaphor.  "Candidate oriented" missions agencies are like a company that runs a bus.  The bus runs from house to house (churches) seeking passengers (candidates) who can ride on the bus and thus maintain the purpose of the bus.  The passengers may maintain identity with their houses, but primarily their function is tied in with the direction the bus is going.  Although the passenger may decide whether or not to get on the bus, it is the bus driver (the directors of the mission), who determines the route.  This is a very efficient and effective means of transportation, especially if the bus driver is competent, the passengers are appropriately seated and the residents of the houses support the bus.   The problem comes when the residents no longer relate to the bus and thus lose interest in where the passengers are going.

Church oriented" missions agencies run a garage.  They seek partnership with the residents of the houses in order to assist them in maintaining a well run car (missions program).  They provide the expertise, the tools and the organization whereby the residents may fulfill their goal of having appropriate transportation.  The workers at the garage provide the guidance in knowing where the car should go, but the residents of the house have ownership of the car and direct its course.

Changes Fueling the New Direction

The societal changes facilitating this shift of the church towards true partnership in missions are many:

1. The ease of travel and the affluence of the west allows people to enter another cultural setting with minimal time and effort.
2. The popularity of short term missions teams has awakened churches to the possibilities of active involvement.
3. Opportunities for hands-on involvement that create ownership gain a better response than appeals for commitment to an organization or missionary.
4. Due to the overwhelming number of legitimate charities and the over saturation of the North American viewer to the needs of the world, the motives prompting generous giving must go beyond compassion and duty to a sense of personal responsibility for a particular missions focus.
5. The role of the missionary has changed significantly over the years from the uniquely called sacrificing pioneer to being part of team which diminishes the role of the heroes and provides support for the timid yet capable.
6. Some churches, disgruntled with the "hands-off" approach of some mission agencies, have pioneered their own missions effort.

A New Day?

It may be premature to declare a new day for western missions effort, but this trend has potential to reinvigorate the church’s call to mission.  In the past missions was divided into the "goers" and the "senders".  Now the locus of missions in not only overseas but in every place where people live and work.  The distinction between "goer" and "sender" has diminished in importance as all who are called to Christ are also called to mission. "Going" is not only defined geographically but in terms of involvement – and it begins with the church.

The next two articles will continue to explore this development.  In the second article "church oriented" missions organizations are contrasted with "field oriented" and "candidate oriented" organizations.  In the third article implications for churches and sending agencies are investigated.

Is the Role of Christian Mission to bring Justice?

Surely part of being heralds of the kingdom of Christ should involve confronting such evil and promoting more just structures.  Some believe that the primary role of Christian mission is to bring justice through transforming social structures.  One missiologist promotes a sociopolitical element in Christian mission which views the affirmation "Christ is Lord" as "both a faith statement and also a political credo which leads inescapably to political choices and tasks" (Saayman 1991:11). He views missions as both proclaiming the news and setting the captives free and there is therefore "no incompatibility between mission and politics" (1991:13).  He further argues that an apolitical or politically neutral perspective is impossible because it "often turns out in practice to be supportive of the status quo" (1991:4).  It is on the basis of this argument that he states "the gospel does not empower only to change people, but [it] empowers the Christian community specifically to change oppressive structures" (1991:114, italics author). 

This view is partly in reaction to a traditional emphasis on the personal and spiritual aspect of mission which assumes that the essence of missions is the conversion of individuals to Jesus Christ.  Such an emphasis only secondarily or derivatively looks for social change as an aspect of missions.  However, concern for injustice and oppression causes some to express the Christian faith not so much in terms of a personal, spiritual reality, but as a community force that acts politically to initiate those structural changes that bring all of society closer to an ideal community of justice and mercy, that is, closer to the kingdom of God.

Missions is the Transformation of People

While a balanced view of missions must take both these concerns seriously, caution must be expressed when the personal element is displaced by an emphasis on impersonal structures.  It is true that individual, personal salvation is only authentic when there is corresponding action on the community level, confronting sin and injustice in all its forms.  However the transformation of temporal social structures is neither the goal nor the means of missions.  The kingdom of God is only advanced through the transforming of people, who are eternal, and their beliefs which are reflected in their actions towards one another.  This does not ignore structures, for structures are a tangible reflection of the legitimacy of the faith of a community, but it recognizes that change begins and ends with people’s personal beliefs.

The NT is consistent in addressing heart issues first and foremost (e.g. Mt. 22:37-40).  By removing racism from peoples’ hearts, the basis for apartheid crumbles.  By removing sexism from peoples’ hearts, the basis for gender discrimination vanishes.  Jesus did not attack structures or institutions, he did not speak against structures and institutions, and he did not try to establish structures and institutions.  What he was concerned about was the personal relationship of individuals with God and with others (e.g. Mt. 28:21ff).  Although the church in the first century was surrounded by unjust political and social structures, Jesus did not address them (to the chagrin of many of his followers).  This was not because the church was powerless, for that is never an excuse to ignore evil, but because this is not the way of Christ in removing injustice.  Structures only function as people establish and run them.  They are only destroyed when people destroy them.  The means of opposing an unjust system must involve a spiritual change of heart for there to be permanent and effective change.  A change in structure can help curtail the incidence of abuse and promote an environment within which values of justice are reinforced, but there are always ways for the avaricious to circumvent safeguards for selfish and unjust gain.  Therefore the aim of Christian mission is ultimately not to overthrow or replace unjust structures, but to change the hearts of those who desire to profit from injustice.  To try and shortcut this process is to fail.  For example, where liberation theology contributed to revolution, such as in Latin America, the "situation hardly changed.  Repression just took on new forms" (Bosch 1991:445).

"God’s Terrible Insistence on Human Freedom"

There is also the danger of overriding personal freedoms for the sake of a social utopia.  We must take G. K. Chesterton’s famous adage seriously of "God’s terrible insistence on human freedom," and be careful that we do not seek justice along any path of injustice.  We cannot fight oppressors using their weapons and forcing people to do things against their will.  Love does not force its will upon another.  We need always to look for "a way of engagement which is motivated by love, compassion and concern rather than hatred for the enemy which must inevitably lead to destruction" (Cochrane et al.1991:78).  This is not ignoring the need for opposing injustice but recognizes the "need for both personal renewal by God’s spirit and resolute commitment to challenging and transforming the structures of society" (Bosch 1991:408).  The Christian praxis of liberation must always be one of working from the inside out so that structures crumble like the Berlin wall in 1989 – because people on both sides were tearing it down.

In the incident cited above, the decision was made not to pay the "fee" to the governor.  The money was given back to the churches and mission organizations who surreptitiously distributed the funds via their own private channels.  There was no compromise with the wicked and those suffering were helped.  Nonetheless, I wonder if we could have done more to raise a prophetic voice decrying the political and cultural structures that provide the opportunity for such abuse.  "Stop your noisy songs; I do not want to listen to your harps.  Instead, let justice flow like a stream, and righteousness like a river that never goes dry" (Amos 5:23,24)

Liberation Theology

One of the most influential theologies of mission in recent times has been liberation theology which is based on a quest for justice.  The theological support for this is very strong, not only in the OT prophets’ stress on social justice, but also in Jesus’ own proclamation concerning his mission of liberation for the oppressed (Lu 4:18-21).  In contrast to a social gospel which preaches a gospel of lifting ourselves up and becoming our own salvation by our own efforts, the cross of Christ "is at the very center of liberation theology" (Bosch 1991:439).  With liberation theology, the "suffering servant" is the rallying cry of oneness and the focal point for seeking liberation from injustice and evil. God’s concern for the poor is well founded in both the OT and NT with an emphasis suggesting "that the poor were an all-embracing category for those who were the victims of society" (ibid.:436, my italics) rather than a simplistic socioeconomic statement concerning relative standards of living. Jesus’ approach to the "poor and needy" (i.e., us) was to enter into our suffering through the incarnation and show solidarity with the oppressed. He delivered us from oppression by taking the evil upon himself.  Liberation theology calls Christians to do the same.

This perspective is to be commended in its reaction against a comfortable Christianity that can somehow be satisfied with spiritual experience while ignoring the discomfort of others.  Christianity must provide the answer to injustice and evil in order to be ultimately true.  If, instead, the church gives the answer that Christianity cannot deal with this need, or (worse) that Christianity perpetuates an injustice or contributes to the pain, then Christianity is viewed as insufficient to meet the needs of life. 

Liberation in Christ

At the same time, deliverance from social oppression does not equal liberation in Christ.  Although the poor do inherit the kingdom of heaven, the kingdom is not to be equated with social structures because it is a reality that can exist in the midst of all societies.  The kingdom is a immanent reality ("the kingdom of God is among you" – Lu 17:21) of which one expression is the transformation of society.  But that one expression is not to be equated with the kingdom.  The kingdom of God was ushered in with evil structures present and has continued to exist and grow in the presence of unjust structures throughout history.

Our true standing in Christ and our humanity is specifically not dependent upon a standard of living and political rights.  The "good news" is not that people become truly human by being delivered from social oppression, but the truth that in the midst of their suffering they are truly human in Christ.

When Jesus spoke of the "blessed" state of the poor he referred to those who have had the illusion of wealth, security, independence and status stripped away to reveal the true nakedness of humanity without God.  The kingdom of God does not automatically include those who are disadvantaged socioeconomically or those living under the oppression of racism or patriarchy, but rather all those who have realized that life is only found in God and not in human structures and the illusion of independence.  It is this "impoverishment" of the rich that is to be a focus of mission so that they too can share in the blessing of the poor.  The suffering Christ brings us in contact with reality that transcends the difficulties of this life, whether or not the social ills are alleviated.  While social ills must be addressed by the church, in God’s gracious economy they also serve to lift our focus to new heights.  It is the situation of the poor which promotes humility, dependence and openness to the Spirit along with a desperate hope in God.

Fighting Injustice

What the liberationists have contributed is a prophetic call that liberation in Christ must work to bring social transformation.  Spiritual complacency that accepts an unjust status quo can never be God’s intention.  We abuse our standing in Christ and view others as less than human (and so put ourselves "liable to the hell of fire" – Mt 5:22) when we either actively or passively contribute to others’ oppression.  The fact that humanity and reality of life in Christ is possible regardless of one’s sociopolitical situation, does not absolve the church from the mission obligation of fighting injustice.

On the front wall of our baptist church in Shikarpur, Sindh is a photograph of a Catholic priest. A few years ago he shocked Christians in Pakistan and around the world when he committed suicide in the Pakistan parliament by shooting himself with a pistol. He committed this act – an unforgivable sin in the Catholic church – to protest a law that was condemning innocent Christians to imprisonment and death. His extreme act of solidarity for the Christian community and his commitment to justice as expressed through his death was greeted with awe and admiration by the Christian community. His willingness to take on himself the sin of suicide for the sake of justice for people he loved was a powerful sermon that lives on in the hearts of the Pakistani Christians. While suicide cannot be commended, his sacrifice for others positively impacted the church.

We must be careful about how injustice is to be fought.  An assumption that justice is achieved through the passing of laws or by socioeconomic development of the poor is naive. While compassion and a commitment to justice drive us to stand by the oppressed, mere deliverance from social oppression or the raising of one’s standard of living is insignificant if the result is a moving away from those attributes that Christ desires in us all.  The liberation the poor fundamentally require is the development of their relationship with the "suffering servant" within their own context.  Only on this foundation can transformation occur in ways that meet their physical, social and spiritual needs in a holistic fashion, without diminishing those attributes that Jesus commended. "Doing justice" (Mic. 6:8) is neither Christian spirituality or a dogmatism that ignores those who are oppressed, nor is it the concept that without liberation from oppression here and now, life cannot be experienced to the full. True enjoyment of life is found in Christ, not in our circumstances, and it is this life in Christ that drives us on to seek liberation for all.

_______________
• Bosch, D.J. 1991. Transforming Mission.  Paradigm shifts in theology of mission.  Maryknoll: Orbis.