“
Response to Charles Van Engen’s
“‘
Published in “Featured Article” www.GlobalMissiology.org April 2011
I. BACKGROUND
Ed Stetzer and David J. Hesselgrave co-edited the 2010 book MissionShift: Global Mission Issues in the Third Millennium . They invited a total of fifteen missiologists, theologians, and practitioners to engage in conversation on the confusion that has arisen over the meaning and concepts of the terms "missional" and “contextualization” in the 21st century and the way forward. The design of the book was to have three grand essays (by three leading missiologists: Charles Van Engen, Paul Hiebert and Ralph Winter) for others to respond and it took two years to accomplish their goal. Below is the purpose statement of the book, in the words of David Hesselgrave[2]:
When Ed Stetzer and I agreed to co-edit
the book MissionShift: Global Mission Issues in the Third Millennium,
our aim was to produce a book that would be truly representative of evangelical
mission thinking in
Ed Stetzer took advantage of modern media by using his website
http://www.edstetzer.com/2011/01/monday-is-for-missiology-missi-1.html to engage others in on-going conversations on
topics generated from the book. An assortment of the responses can be found at
the following links:
Ø
http://justinpeter.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/missionshift-mission-of-the-church
Ø
http://geoffsnook.blogspot.com/2011/01/missionshift-essay-1-and-geoff.html
Ø
http://cachute.blogspot.com/2011/01/missionshift-discussion.html
Ø
http://jeffandwendy.wordpress.com/2011/01/17/hesselgraves-and-stetzers-mission-shift-part-one/
Ø
http://www.missiologist.com/?p=928
Ø
http://friendsclass.blogspot.com/2011/01/missionshift-part-1.html.
Ø
http://pastorricky99.blogspot.com/2011/01/missionshift-blog-conversation.html
Ø
http://missmartishouse.com/2011/01/17/missionshift/
Ø
http://mrclm.blogspot.com/2011/01/mission-shift-pt-1-stetzer-and.html
Ø
http://aaronallison.com/2011/01/17/missionshift-part-1/
Ø
http://viewfromthecorner.typepad.com/blog/2011/01/mission-missional-missionshift.html.html
Ø
http://tinyurl.com/missionshiftglenwoods1
Ø
http://questquality.com/ministryinthemarketplace/?p=351
Ø
http://lifeandafewotherdetails.blogspot.com/
Ø
http://www.lancecrawford.com/?p=353
Ø
http://futuristguy2.wordpress.com/2011/01/17/missionshift-and-paradigm-shifts-1/
Ø
http://seanpease.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/mission-shift-essay-one/
Ø
http://pastormarty-reflections.blogspot.com/
Ø
http://gfunkduke.blogspot.com/2011/01/missionshift-discussion-week-one.html
Ø
http://tumblr.com/xlz1at8ueb
Ø
http://cupandcross.com/index.php/paradoxes-in-missions-part-1/
Ø
http://pastormarty-reflections.blogspot.com/2011/01/missionshift-part-deux.html
II.
INTRODUCTION
I was invited to respond to
the first grand essay “Mission Defined and Described” (Hesselgrave and Stetzer 2010:1-29) by Charles Van Engen and my
response was published as “chapter 4” entitled,
““Mission” and Missio Dei: Response
to Charles Van Engen’s “‘Mission’ Defined and Described” (Hesselgrave and Stetzer 2010:41-50) in the book, MissionShift:
Global Mission Issues in the Third Millennium (Hesselgrave and Stetzer 2010, hereafter referred to
as “MissionShift.”
For the benefit of the
readership of www.GlobalMissiology.org,
extensive quotations from Chuck’s article are provided below. The thesis of Van
Engen’s grand essays is as follows:
The purpose of this essay is to offer a brief historical overview of some ways in which the Christian church has defined “mission” down through the centuries and to demonstrate how the various definitions have influenced the thought and practice of the Christian Church’s ministries in the world. In this sense this essay addresses the PAST of what has traditionally been termed “missions” (Hesselgrave and Stetzer 2010:7).
Van Engen used the scenario
of “Global Outreach Task Force” of a local church chaired by Gloria who engaged
in a conversation with him on the words “mission” and “missionaries” – two of
the most misunderstood words in the vocabulary of North American churches
today” (Hesselgrave and Stetzer 2010:8).
Van
Engen then went on to provide Gloria an extensive historical account on the
shifting meaning of the word “mission” through out different periods of the
church. Towards the end, Van Engen offered Gloria his suggestion, quoted
extensively below:
A possible way forward in defining mission for the twenty-first century might involve an attempt to describe what a missional church would look like. I can suggest on way to go about that.
With
the term missional, I emphasize the essential nature and vocation of the church
as God’s called and sent people. A missional ecclesiology is biblical,
historical, contextual, praxeological (it can be translated into practice), and
eschatological. With reference to the church, the term see the church as the
instrument of God’s mission in God’s world. Following L. Newbigin and others, a
church that is missional understands that God’s mission calls and sends the
church of Jesus Christ, locally and globally, in the power of the Holy Spirit,
to be a missionary church in its own society, in the cultures in which it finds
itself, and globally among all peoples who do not yet confess Jesus as Lord.
Mission is the result of God’s initiative, rooted in God’s purposes to restore
and heal creation and to call people into a reconciled covenantal relationship
with God.
Thus, if a church is missional, it will be:
§ Contextual: A missional church understands itself as part of a larger context of a lost and broken world so loved by God.
§ Intentional: A missional church understands itself as existing for the purpose of “following Christ in mission.”
§
Proclaiming:
A missional church understands itself as intentionally sent by God in mission
to announce in word and deed the coming of the
§ Reconciling: A missional church understands itself to be a reconciling and healing presence in its contexts, locally and globally.
§ Sanctifying: A missional church understands itself as a faith community gathered around the Word preached, thus personally living out its truth and serving as a purifying influence to society.
§ Unifying: A missional church understands itself as an embracing, enfolding, gathering community of faith, anxious to receive persons into its fellowship.
§ Transforming: A missional church is “the salt of the earth” (Matt. 5:13), a transforming presence as the body of Christ in mission, called to be, embody, and live out in the world the following biblical concepts of mission, among others: koinonia, kerygma, diakonia, maertyria, prophet, priest, king, liberator, healer, sage.
Such a conception of a missional church would need to take into consideration the interrelationship of what Bosch calls the church’s “mission intention” and the church’s “mission dimension” (Hesselgrave and Stetzer 2010:24-25).
As a conclusion, Van Engen
proposed to Gloria his long definition for the word “mission”
I’ve been working on that for about 40 years now. Thus far in my own search for a definition, I have arrived at the following tentative attempt: “God’s mission works primarily through Jesus Christ’s sending the people of God to intentionally cross barriers from church to nonchurch, faith to nonfaith, to proclaim by word and deed the coming of the kingdom of God in Jesus Christ through the Church’s participation in God’s mission of reconciling people to God, to themselves, to one another, and to the world and gathering them into the church, through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ, by the work of the Holy Spirit, with a view to the transformation of the world, as a sign of the coming of the kingdom in Jesus Christ.” (Hesselgrave and Stetzer 2010:27)
My response to Charles Van
Engen’s essay is organized in the following order: observation, evaluation, and
suggestion. I shall endeavor to offer an alternative definition which is brief
but more holistic, better reflects the Trinitarian impetus for mission that he
had included.
III.
OBSERVATION
Van Engen is to be credited
for having achieved the stated purpose by providing “a historical overview” of
how the term “mission” has been defined, and he has successfully demonstrated
how variations of this definition have impacted the thought and practice of the
Christian Church.
Purpose and Presentation
The format of the
presentation is quite creative and realistic. It begins with his meeting with
the Global Outreach Task Force of a local congregation on a Sunday afternoon
and closes with his attempt to answer Gloria’s question: “So, how do you define
mission?” By using this device the author avoids the typical dry and boring
historical narration, and provides a sense of realism in dealing with the
questions, including details of place, personnel, and process.
Definition and Description
The entire essay chronicles
the changes in the understanding and practice of “mission,” drawing from the
author’s 40 years of experience in teaching, research, and publication. It
describes the shift of emphasis in the conception and implementation of
“mission” throughout the centuries. The author’s review of varying definitions
of the term “mission” by mission statesmen, scholars, and mission leaders is
clear and to the point. The diachronic description of the practice of “mission”
by various groups of different periods is both interesting and helpful.
Emphasis on the Institutional Dimension of
In his essay, however, Van
Engen has a tendency to focus more on the institutional dimension of “mission”
at the expense of the individual dimension. The author is very conscious of the
difference in these two dimensions, as indicated by the illustrative samples
below:
- the reference to H. Venn’s “more institutionalized
perspective” (p. 12);
- the extensive quote of J. Scherer’s comments on
“church-centrism” (p. 15);
- the reference to D. McGavran versus the World Council of
Churches in terms of “the departure from a church-centric view” (p. 18).
IV.
EVALUATION
An evaluation is provided in
light of the author’s awareness of two dimensions of Christian mission, that
is, “individual” and “institutional.”
Over-correction of Evangelical Emphasis on
Individual/Spiritual Salvation
In the review on W. Carey
and the Student Volunteer Movement of section #4, the author observes that for
about 150 years, up until the 1960’s…Protestants who used the “Great
Commission”…assumed the following: That salvation is individualistic…personal
relationship with Jesus Christ…new individual converts (pp. 10–11).
This is the only portion in
the entire essay that deals with the individualistic aspect of “mission.” The
rest of the paper deals with the institutional aspect of “mission.” This
institutional focus of “mission” is clearly shown in the last section
(“Defining ‘Missional’ and ‘
Theological Understanding of “
It is good and proper that the
author begins with word studies (Greek and English) and continues with
exegetical work on key texts (e.g., Matt 28:18–20; Luke 4:43; John 20:21). Yet
the author does not unpack the theological significance of these passages for
his readers. Instead of being true to the texts that are trinitarian—and
despite the fact that the author does cite some key trinitarian texts (Matt
28:18–20; Luke 4:43; John 20:21)—the author limits the theological
understanding of “mission” to “The Sender is Jesus Christ, whose authority
defines...Christian mission” (p. 7).
Thus the richness of the
theological foundation of “mission” being trinitarian has been reduced to
merely being Christocentric. This runs counter to the contemporary trend in
missiological and theological literature that is richly trinitarian in
orientation. Significantly, trinitarian missiological studies have entered into
the mainstream of theology as evidenced by contemporary theologians such as C.
LaCugna, D. Coffey, E. Jüngel, E. Johnson, J. Bracken, J. Moltmann, L. Boff, L.
Newbigin, R. Jensen, and Y. J. Lee. This trend has also impacted the theology
of Christian missions, stimulating it towards a new trinitarian orientation.
I have provided a brief
bibliography of these recent publications at the end of this chapter.
Hopefully, the works I have selected are sufficient to show a trend towards
trinitarian orientation in missiological and theological studies. Yet Van
Engen, though citing many Scripture references to the Trinity, unnecessarily
limits the theological understanding of “mission” to “The Sender [who] is Jesus
Christ, whose authority defines...Christian mission.”
V.
SUGGESTION
One of the most outstanding
features of this essay is the author’s repeated references to missio dei (pp. 12, 14, 15, 20, 21, 25)
in key places.
Missio Dei of the Trinity and Christian Missions at Two Levels
In light of these multiple
references, this reviewer would like to use Figure 1 to explain “The
Interactive Relationship within the Trinity and Beyond”. Figure 1 shows the two
realms (divinity and humanity with dotted line in between) converging by the
interaction of the Trinity, the interactive pattern of the triune God (missio dei) at two levels: the personal,
individual Christian; and the institutional church.
Van Engen cites trinitarian
texts; but unnecessarily reduces missio
dei to being Christo-centric only, and “mission” is reduced to becoming the
“missional church” at the institutional level. In addition to the needed
emphasis on the individual career missionary, there is also a personal
dimension of Christian mission for all believers. For example, while the
apostle Paul was a key figure in the spread of the gospel (obeying the Great
Commission) in the book of Acts, his conversion, calling, and commission had
much to do with the “little mission” that God had entrusted to a relatively
unknown figure of the Bible, Ananias (Acts 9). Yes, the “missional church” in
REALM INTERACTIVE LEVEL RELATIONSHIP FATHER SON HOLY SPIRIT
DIVINITY §
self-existing §
infinite, §
transcendent §
perfect Individual Christian Institutional
Church macro level
micro level
Figure 1
The Interactive Relationship within the Trinity and Beyond
NOTE: references cited in Van Engen’s essay:
A –
Luke 4:43;
B –
John 14:16;
C –
John 16:17;
D –
John 20:21; Acts 13:2
Figure 1 can help correct
the unbalanced treatment in Van Engen’s essay and rectify its reductionistic
tendency. Figure 1 clearly portrays the complexity of divine and human realms
converging plus the dynamic interaction of the triune God with personal human
beings and the institutional Christian church. Figure 1 also shows the more
holistic understanding of Christian mission to be inclusive of individual
Christians (at the micro level) and institutional church (at the macro level as
marked by dotted line). From the point of this reviewer, it is apparent that
Van Engen’s institutional focus is an over correction of the individualistic
characteristic of Christianity and mission in the Western tradition. In this
case, it is not a matter of “either-or” but “both-and” at two levels.[3]
Definition of “
The title of the article is “Mission Defined and Described,” yet
the entire piece has the “missional church” as the only focus. “Mission” is
broader in scope than the “missional church.” The Christian mission cannot be
accomplished apart from individuals obedient to the Great Commission. The
personal dimension of “mission” somehow escaped Van Engen’s attention. He does
a good job describing mission historically, but fails to define “mission”
holistically and realistically.
Towards the end of the
article, after providing a diachronic review of the description and definition
of “mission,” Van Engen makes the following observation: “A cohesive,
consistent, focused, theologically-deep, missiologically broad and contextually
appropriate evangelical missiology has not yet emerged for this new century.”
Then, at the conclusion, in his response to Gloria’s quest for a definition of
“mission,” Van Engen proposes one that is eight-lines long but which does not
measure up to the criteria he himself provides. I propose the following
definition as an alternative, believing it to be closer to the above criteria
and more true to the title of “Mission Defined”:
“Mission” is the Christian (individual) and
the church (institutional) continuing on and carrying out the missio dei of the triune God at both
individual and institutional levels, spiritually (saving souls) and socially
(ushering in shalom), for redemption,
reconciliation and transformation.
This definition is a better
alternative for several reasons. First, it is shorter in length but more
comprehensive in scope. Second, it is holistic and balanced instead of being
reductionistic. Third, it is enriched by the trinitarian orientation rather
than impoverished by being merely Christo-centric in emphasis. Fourth, it truly
reflects the essence of the key texts Van Engen cites. Fifth, it includes
spiritual and social aspects of Christian mission in general and particularly
in the missions of redemption, reconciliation, and transformation. This
proposed alternative definition is hopefully more “cohesive, consistent,
focused, theologically-deep, missiologically broad and contextually
appropriate.” It is hoped that this definition can lead to the emergence of an
“evangelical missiology…for this new century.”
BIBLIOGRAPHY ON THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MISSIOLOGY AND TRINITARIAN STUDIES
Boff, L. Holy
Trinity, Perfect Community. Trans. P. Berryman. Maryknoll: Orbis, 2000.
Originally published in Portuguese Santisima
Trindade e a Melhor Communidade, 1988.
Cunningham, D. These Three are One: The Practice of Trinitarian Theology. Holden:
Blackwell, 1998.
Feenestra, R. J. and C. Plantiga Jr., eds. Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement.
Notre Dame: University Press, 1989.
Foust, T. F., G. R.
Hunsberger, J. A. Kirk, and W. Ustorf, eds. “Trinitarian Missiology:
Greene, C. J. D. “Trinitarian Tradition and the Cultural
Collapse of Late
Modernity.” Pages 65–72 in A Scandalous
Prophet: The Way of
Gunton, C. E. The One, The Three and the Many. God, Creation and the Culture of
Modernity.
________. The Promise of Trinitarian
Theology, 2d ed.
Hoffmeyer, J. F. “Should Christianity Be Missionary? The
Missional Trinity.” Dialog: A Journal of
Theology 40
(Published Online 12/17/2002): 108–11.
Holmes, S. R. “Trinitarian Missiology: Towards
a Theology of God as Missionary.” International
Journal of Systematic Theology 8 (2006) 1: 72–90.
Horrell, J. S. “In the Name of the Father,
Son and Holy Spirit: Constructing a Trinitarian Worldview.” <http://www.bible.org>
(accessed 11/26/2005).
________. “Toward Clarifying a Biblical Model
of the Social Trinity: Avoiding Equivocation of Nature and Order.” Global Missiology (January 2004).
<http://www.globalmissiology.net> (accessed
2/16/2005).
Kimel, A. F., ed. Speaking the Christian God. The Holy Trinity and the Challenge of
Feminism.
LaCugna, C. M. “God in Communion with Us—the
Trinity.” Ed. C. M. LaCugna. Freeing
Theology: The Essentials of Theology in Feminist Perspective.
Lim, D. S. and S. Spaulding. Sharing Jesus in the Buddhist World.
Moltmann, J. The Trinity and the Kingdom.
Newbigin, L. The Open Secret: An Introduction to the Theology of
Peters, T. God as Trinity: Relationality and Temporality in Divine Life.
Philip, T. V. Edinburgh to
Piper, J. Let
the Nations be Glad! The Supremacy of God in Missions.
Rahner, K. The Trinity. Trans. J. Donceel.
Rahner, K. The Trinity. Trans. J. Donceel. With introduction, index, and
glossary by C. M. LaCugna. In Milestones
in Catholic Theology.
Ross, L. The
Word Made Flesh: Towards an Incarnational Missiology. University Press of
Schmidt-Leukel, P. “
Smith, R. A. “The Trinitarian Covenant in John 17.”
Global Missiology (Trinitarian Study)
January 2005 <http://www.globalmissiology.net>
(accessed 2/16/2005).
________. “Tritheism
and Christian Faith.” Global Missiology (Trinitarian Study) October 2006 <http://www.globalmissiology.org>
(accessed Jan. 2009).
Van Engen, C., D.
Wan, E. “Missionary pneumatology: towards an
understanding of spiritual dynamics in missions from a trinitarian
perspective.” Paper presented at the Evangelical Theological Society meeting,
Jackson, MS. November 21–23, 1996.
______. “Theological contribution of
Sino-theology to global Christian community.” Chinese Around
the World. July 2000.
______. Christ for the Chinese: A Contextual Reflection.” Chinese Around the World. November 2000.
______. “Practical
contextualization: A case study of evangelizing contemporary Chinese.” Chinese
Around the World. March 2000:18-24.
_____.
“Theological contribution of Sino-theology to global Christian community.” Chinese
Around the
World. July 2000.
____. Sino-Spirituality: A Case Study of Trinitarian Paradigm”. Global Missiology. Oct. 2003.
Wan, E. and M. Hedinger. “Understanding ‘Relationality’ from a Trinitarian Perspective.” Global Missiology (Trinitarian Study) January 2006 http://www.globalmissiology.org (retrieved Jan. 2009).