Finally

Four months of a class is so much longer than it seems.  It does not matter whether the class is boring or interesting, heavy or light, early morning or late afternoon: I am always amazed by what I have learned when I get to the end of a course.  This one is no different.  Of course, this topic happens to be the intersection of my two great academic interests, which certainly lends itself to an easy absorption, but I feel like I have a strong footing in Nazarene mission history. 

That being said, I almost laughed out loud when I came across the article I’m blogging about today.  For much of this class, the underlying question has been that of how missionaries are really supposed to work in the ever-evolving world.  We understand that Christianity is not our religion that we are bringing to them, it is a global religion that is owned by everyone who wants a piece.  We have also discussed topics like the merits (or lack thereof) of intentional living without direct evangelization.  So, it was pretty hilarious to me to come across an article (a “Guest Editorial” by the Administrative Assistant of the Department of World Missions) that basically says everything we (or maybe I) have drawn conclusions on (like sometimes building relationships is more important than making converts, or intentional living is just as much missionary work as preaching) are completely wrong. 

This author lays out three questions in which he sets up factors in missionary work that I believe are not diametrically opposed- you can have both exist at the same time.  However, because of the way he sets up, there is no room for both to be victors.  This is rather problematic.  The three “battles” are:

1.Dialogue vs. Conversion: Apparently, “Dialoguers” believe that simply building relationships is the best way to be a missionary.  On the other hand, those interested in conversion are actually good missionaries who want to save souls. 

Come on guys!  We can dialogue and convert!  These two are not mutually exclusive!

2. Presence vs. Proclamation: So, presence is the idea of living a Christian lifestyle among non-Christians.  Proclamation is formal preaching.

Shouldn’t we be able to be present in a way that “proclaims” our faith?  Yeah. I think we can.  And if you’re chosen to be a missionary in this way, your mission work shouldn’t be discounted.

3. Humanization vs. Redemption: Humanization, the author claims, is freeing people from the terrible oppression too often faced by our brothers and sisters (famine, poverty, under-education).  Redemption is, in a short description, “getting right with God.”

Again I say, can’t we do all of these things?  They are not mutually exclusive, and, indeed, I think they are all mandated to us. 

This was an interesting last issue to be able to examine.  It was good to be able to think critically about the kinds of issues and still see them from a perspective of 40 years ago.  In the 70’s, missionary practices were really beginning to swing around thanks to a developing consciousness of the effects of colonization as well as the effects of globalization.  These ideas have only continued to develop and refine themselves into the missionary practices we see in use today.