I missed an important missions meeting last week in Texas. Some of the thoughts I sent in (instead of coming) have to do with the missions of the future:
The period of Modern Missions (1890-1990) got off to a bad start. It developed without regard for history or geography. The previous 1700 years of missions was dismissed because it was too Catholic or too Eastern.
Modern missions was influenced by the explorers who were seeking new worlds to conquer, trading companies who were trying to make a profit from other countries, the infatuation of technology and progress that was marking the emerging industrial revolution, and the new “societies” of elite people.
Modern mission structures borrowed from military terminology, corporate culture and global commercialism. But we are living in a post-imperial, post-colonial, post-modern, post-western world in which people dont trust corporate culture and are terrified by terms such as “reaching” and “targeting”. We need a new way of doing missions AND a new way to talk about it.
Do I hear an "Amen"?
COMMENT: From FK of USA
"Andrew, I agree with what you're saying. I also think that, often, we substitute one set of cliches or misguided terminology for another set of equally unfortunate ones."
FK, thanks for your thoughts. A little background would help. What stimulated that thought was a conversation that we were having that day. The team from Lucerne, Switzerland ( a fantastic group of wise and humble men) challenged the new believers in Prague to "take" their city. Many of the Czechs were new believers (one was baptised that night in our bathtub) and had never heard military language used in terms of evangelism before. Obviously it led to some tension.
The spiritual seekers here (and probably everywhere in the post-911 world) dont want to be "won", "taken" or "reached" and it is an insult to tell them they are someone's "target group."
I do not find these terms in the Scriptures used in the same way.
I told the Swiss team that the language of warfare and wrestling (to the death) are appropriate for dealing with evil spirits but when taken into evangelism, it can lead to some nasty miscommunication. Conquest theology from the book of Joshua should not be the source of strategy and vocabulary for our missions.
I suggested to the team from Switzerland that their city had never been "taken" and they did not see the negative ramifications of being captured, abused, raped, stripped of power and dignity, and forced to labor under a foreign entity. Prague has been "taken' many times and each time has left scars and painful memories. The Russians came in with tanks. This is not the mental picture I wanted them to hold as we talk about what God wants us to do in the blessing of this city.
I agree - we need better words. I suggested that "rescuing" is a better word, since the city and its people once belonged to God and we are delivering back to God what should be his.
I also like the anaolgy in the Sleeping Beauty - - that she had a spell put on her by an evil witch and was in a state of sleep. A kiss awoke her to reality and the identity of who she really was. It is the kiss of Christ that awakens the city into consciousness and into its redemptive identity.
I met John Dawson a few years ago. We had a very long and great discussion about cities and nations. He wrote a good and well known book called "Taking Our Cities For God." But a few years later, he wrote another called "Healing America's Wounds" which I felt was more the heartbeat of God and the way to approach cities that have been abused.
A book came out 2 months ago called "The Nations Called" by Pieter Bos. His approach is also one of God wooing the nations and cities back into relationship with him. I like that flavor a whole lot more and feel it could open the door to a new vocabulary that takes us back to Genesis 12:1-12 - that through us, all the families of the earth will be BLESSED.
The period of Modern Missions (1890-1990) got off to a bad start. It developed without regard for history or geography. The previous 1700 years of missions was dismissed because it was too Catholic or too Eastern.
Modern missions was influenced by the explorers who were seeking new worlds to conquer, trading companies who were trying to make a profit from other countries, the infatuation of technology and progress that was marking the emerging industrial revolution, and the new “societies” of elite people.
Modern mission structures borrowed from military terminology, corporate culture and global commercialism. But we are living in a post-imperial, post-colonial, post-modern, post-western world in which people dont trust corporate culture and are terrified by terms such as “reaching” and “targeting”. We need a new way of doing missions AND a new way to talk about it.
Do I hear an "Amen"?
COMMENT: From FK of USA
"Andrew, I agree with what you're saying. I also think that, often, we substitute one set of cliches or misguided terminology for another set of equally unfortunate ones."
FK, thanks for your thoughts. A little background would help. What stimulated that thought was a conversation that we were having that day. The team from Lucerne, Switzerland ( a fantastic group of wise and humble men) challenged the new believers in Prague to "take" their city. Many of the Czechs were new believers (one was baptised that night in our bathtub) and had never heard military language used in terms of evangelism before. Obviously it led to some tension.
The spiritual seekers here (and probably everywhere in the post-911 world) dont want to be "won", "taken" or "reached" and it is an insult to tell them they are someone's "target group."
I do not find these terms in the Scriptures used in the same way.
I told the Swiss team that the language of warfare and wrestling (to the death) are appropriate for dealing with evil spirits but when taken into evangelism, it can lead to some nasty miscommunication. Conquest theology from the book of Joshua should not be the source of strategy and vocabulary for our missions.
I suggested to the team from Switzerland that their city had never been "taken" and they did not see the negative ramifications of being captured, abused, raped, stripped of power and dignity, and forced to labor under a foreign entity. Prague has been "taken' many times and each time has left scars and painful memories. The Russians came in with tanks. This is not the mental picture I wanted them to hold as we talk about what God wants us to do in the blessing of this city.
I agree - we need better words. I suggested that "rescuing" is a better word, since the city and its people once belonged to God and we are delivering back to God what should be his.
I also like the anaolgy in the Sleeping Beauty - - that she had a spell put on her by an evil witch and was in a state of sleep. A kiss awoke her to reality and the identity of who she really was. It is the kiss of Christ that awakens the city into consciousness and into its redemptive identity.
I met John Dawson a few years ago. We had a very long and great discussion about cities and nations. He wrote a good and well known book called "Taking Our Cities For God." But a few years later, he wrote another called "Healing America's Wounds" which I felt was more the heartbeat of God and the way to approach cities that have been abused.
A book came out 2 months ago called "The Nations Called" by Pieter Bos. His approach is also one of God wooing the nations and cities back into relationship with him. I like that flavor a whole lot more and feel it could open the door to a new vocabulary that takes us back to Genesis 12:1-12 - that through us, all the families of the earth will be BLESSED.
