Advanced Missiology: How to Study Missions in Credible and Useful Ways

Introduction

The purpose of this book is to help you integrate multiple academic fields in order to increase your understanding of how Christianity spreads across cultures.

Missiology has become quite complex as it has incorporated numerous academic fields (e.g., theology, education, psychology, international development, and so on). While nobody could possibly become an expert in all these fields, those who desire to carry out credible and original studies of missions must be familiar with the people and ideas that have shaped missiology. They must also understand how these ideas actually impact missionary strategies. Regrettably, missiologists have not always explicitly connected their abstract theories to the task of making disciples across cultures. We have produced this book to address that gap between theory and practice. Each chapter shows how numerous theories, sub-fields, models, and strategies of missiology ultimately facilitate the Great Commission.

Since this book critically examines foundational missiological theories and models, it does not particularly serve as an introduction to missiology. A number of high-quality introductory texts are already available, including those written for a popular audience

¹

as well as some seminal missiology texts.

²

Some recent introductions to missiology are fairly technical and original, including Bosch’s discussion of the paradigms of mission,

³

and Tennent’s missiology from a Trinitarian perspective.

⁴

Other introductions are written from a more denominational perspective

⁵

or from an ecumenical posture.

⁶

What we have found lacking is a book that shows how missiologists have actually generated academically credible theories that are useful for those missionary-practitioners who are making disciples across cultures.

While this is not an introductory text, readers will come across a number of widely circulated methods and theories of missions throughout the book, as we critically examine the ideas that have shaped missiology.

What to Expect from the Chapters

Chapter 1 challenges the conventional wisdom that missiology stands on three legs (theology, social sciences, and history). I suggest that the weaknesses of the three-legged stool compel us to develop a better model that demonstrates how the upsurge of interdisciplinarity has drastically expanded missiology to incorporate a widening set of disciplines. The model, missiology like a river serves as a guiding metaphor throughout the rest of the book. Readers should use the metaphor to recognize what stream of missiology they are comfortable swimming in, and the areas in which they have yet to get their feet wet. Hopefully the book will inspire you to dive in to the other currents of missiology with which you are less familiar.

In chapter 2, readers will come across the common missiological argument that a thread of mission(s) runs throughout the Bible.

⁷

But rather than simply recounting this compelling theory, I discuss its weaknesses and suggest an alternative approach toward missiological theology. This approach relies on examples of how missionary-theologians have tackled theological questions as they make disciples across cultures. Readers will learn to look to Scripture for answers to tough questions about the way Christianity spreads across cultures.

Likewise, instead of tracing the lives of canonical figures of mission history in chapter 3, as many introductions to the history of missions do, I have developed a missiological historiography that incorporates six criteria for examining history from a missiological perspective. I show how histories of missions can help us implement lessons from the past in our efforts to make disciples across cultures.

Again, rather than simply introducing the study of culture in chapter 4, I have examined how missiological anthropologists have actually used specific studies of social organization, mythology ritual, etc., to further missiological theories and strategies. You will learn to exegete cultures so the gospel can have a deep impact as you bring it across cultural boundaries.

Chapter 5 is unique because, even though many Christian universities place missions under the rubric of intercultural studies, almost no scholars have delineated what intercultural studies is actually comprised of. And few texts have explained how intercultural studies is distinct from anthropology. In this chapter, I outline the parameters of intercultural studies and show how missiologists have made intercultural studies useful for making disciples across cultures.

In chapter 6, Julie Martinez and I discuss how theories of economic development impact missionary work. In the twentieth century, evangelicals had a difficult time balancing social action, on the one hand, and the mandate to teach about Jesus, on the other. The development of holistic (or integral) missions helped resolve that conflict. But the solutions related to hunger, oppression, health inequality, and other physical and social ills are still highly complicated. And missiologists are not agreed on the way to address these needs. The chapter should help readers to apply sustainable community development strategies which result in spiritual and physical transformation.

In chapter 7, educational missiologists Leanne Dzubinski and Rebeca Burnett describe how missiologists have incorporated theories from education—a less frequently studied tributary that informs our discipline. They discuss what missiologists have learned about formal and non-formal education as a missionary strategy throughout the world. This chapter should equip cross-cultural disciple-makers to teach them all Jesus has commanded by utilizing culturally relevant educational strategies.

In chapter 8, I define cross-cultural discipleship. Readers will critique multiplication models for evangelism and church planting.

In chapter 9, I introduce well-known models and theories that are idiosyncratic to the field of missiology. I show how missionary-practitioners have tested these models on the ground; and I bring out some of the deficiencies of these models.

Chapter 10 shows how the task of making disciples is connected to all sorts of things missionaries do, including church planting, teaching in higher education, teaching English as a second language, translating the Bible, and so on. Readers will not be engaged in all of these various efforts, but they should be able to draw from these various missionary strategies to ensure their own cross-cultural work holistically teaches them to obey all that Jesus commanded.

Chapter 11 looks at global trends that will be shaping the mission field in the future. We need to know what issues have been addressed over the past decades, so we don’t reinvent the wheel. Readers should identify missiological issues that have been neglected, or ones that have been saturated. We need to be aware of current pressing issues so our missionary methods stay relevant.

Profiles of Missiologists

A unique feature of this book is the sidebars entitled Missiologist Profiles. These are not profiles of famous missionaries; rather, they are appraisals of theoretical contributions by scholars (many of whom served for long periods as missionaries) who influenced the science of missions. In compiling these profiles, I have included the educational background of these missiologists 1) in order to show the wide array of fields that have influenced missiology, and 2) because this information is, at times, not easily available in biographical sketches of missiologists. Some may wonder how I selected the men and women that end up in this missiological hall of fame. I have had to rely on my own experience in missiology to develop a canon of important missiologists—but I also received feedback from missiologists across the country, regarding who should be on the list. I wish that the profiles represented more ethnic and gender diversity in the field; and I regret omitting many who did not make the cut in the list of profiles. Each semester I have my students suggest names of influential missiologists, and their own lists reveal that many more men and women have left a profound mark on the discipline.

Defining Models and Theories

The way academics in any field make an impact on the world is by developing theories about the way the world works. Practitioners develop models for best practices, sometimes by incorporating those theories, and sometimes in ignorance of those theories. The following chapters show how missiology makes use of theories and models from other disciplines like theology, anthropology, history, development, education, and intercultural studies.

For the sake of clarity, I will refer to theories as descriptive explanations of the way the world works. And models are prescriptive ways for doing things. Note that both models and theories may have titles, and they can both be expressed in propositional sentences. For example, the theory of functional substitutes was expressed with the proposition that if a newly Christian community omits a cultural practice, adherents will fill the void created by that omission with a substitute (see chapter 4).

The word theory is sometimes misunderstood to mean an untested hypothesis. But in the social sciences (where missiology often occurs), theories are not hypotheses. Whereas hypotheses are articulated before research is carried out, theories in the social sciences are grounded in data that is gathered from the field. Hiebert defined theories as limited, low-level systems of explanation that seek to answer specific questions about a narrow range of reality, using perceptions, concepts, notions, causation and the like.

⁸

These systems of explanation are discovered through prolonged study of people in their social contexts.

The word model can also be confusing. Some people use models the way I use the word theories in this book. Geertz recognizes this ambiguity when he describes two types of models: models of and models for.

⁹

Models of are representations of how the world does work (that is, they are descriptive). For example, a model of a combustion engine shows how the cams and pistons and drive shaft work together. On the other hand, models for are prescriptive and pragmatic; they are road maps for how things should be done to reach certain ends. For example, Hiebert’s critical contextualization

¹⁰

(described in chapter 9) is a model because it is prescriptive for how the church should contextualize the gospel. To avoid confusion, I only use the word model to refer to prescriptive ways for doing things.

Theories that Influence Missiology

Hiebert noted that theories have been constructed in three ways: Early modernist theories were reductive, looking for the simplest explanatory facts.

¹¹

Malinowski’s biological functionalism

¹²

(chapter 4) was a reductive theory, reducing all of human culture to seven basic biological and psychological needs. Other theories are stratified, compartmentalizing aspects of human culture. For example, some Christians accept Christianity as a private matter for personal illumination, but turn to a materialistic worldview to explain scientific matters, and to a secular approach for public policy. Today, scholars have moved away from reductive theories; yet Christian thinkers are also unsatisfied with the compartmentalization that is endemic to stratified theories. So Hiebert advocated a third approach of building theories, called the systems approach. This approach recognizes that humans are impacted by multiple interacting systems: biology, economic, political, supernatural, etc. Each of these systems has only partial explanatory scope. For instance, people may convert to Christianity because the Holy Spirit tugs at them; but their conversion is also partly explained by their social networks, or the improvements they expect in their lives.

Researchers generate theories first by collecting data to answer a research question, and then by making sense of that data. Sometimes theories describe multiple viewpoints, experiences or attitudes of a certain group of people (e.g., female missionaries, or Muslim background believers, or missionary kids). These theories assign labels to a handful of categories which summarize the multiple perspectives and experiences. I refer to these theories as categorizing theories. Below are some examples of categorizing theories that are discussed in this book:

1.Beliefs about the destiny of the un-evangelized can be categorized into three camps: Universalists, Inclusivists and Exclusivists (chapter 2).

2.Christian missionary efforts have gone through six paradigm shifts (chapter 3).

3.Societies can be divided into three taxa: tribal, peasant, and industrial (chapter 4).

4.Some societies are more hierarchal, some are more egalitarian (chapter 5).

5.Theories about community development focus on macro-economic level, eg., theory, or at the grassroots level, eg., transformational development (chapter 6).

6.Missionaries used formal and non-formal education to make disciples (chapter 7).

7.Responses to the gospel can be categorized in six ways, along a spectrum (chapter 9)

Sometimes theories try to explain a phenomenon or to make a statement about the way things are, such as the following theories that will be discussed in this book:

1.Missionary activity is rooted in God’s nature as a God who sends (chapter 2).

2.Female missionaries tend to have a relational-based missiology (chapter 3).

3.Myths are used as a means of social control (chapter 4).

4.Symptoms of culture shock include withdrawal and complaining about the host culture (chapter 5).

5.Wealth is created when entrepreneurs add value to material resources (chapter 6).

6.Teachers model their own spiritual lives to their students (chapter 7).

7.Western missionaries often ignored the role of demons, ghosts, and spirits; therefore, practitioners of folk religions continued shamanism, even after becoming Christianized (chapter 9).

Models that Influence Missiology

Practitioner-scholars develop models to make academic theories useful in the real world. Such models are best practices that emerge from empirical research. Some examples of models are discussed in this book include:

1.The incarnation is a model for missionary activity; or the book of Acts as a normative model for church planting; or the representational model of evangelistic witness (chapter 2).

2.The history of missions should be studied in ways that reveal best practices for making disciples across cultures (chapter 3).

3.Missionaries should replace pagan rituals with functional substitutes (chapter 4).

4.Missionaries should know their role within the host culture, and should behave according to those roles (e.g., patron, or expert leader) (chapter 5).

5.Communities should participate at each stage in development projects (chapter 6).

6.Missionary training should involve experiential learning (chapter 7).

7.Missions should focus on the most unreached peoples of the world between 10 and 40 degrees north latitude (chapter 9).

8.Missionaries should start businesses that actually generate income, rather than using business as a platform for missions (chapter 10).

In addition to adopting theories from other disciplines, missiologists have generated many of their own theoretical explanations and models. Chapter 9 discusses widely distributed theories and models that were formulated specifically in the field of missiology.

Theories and models in any discipline have a sort of half-life and eventually may even become discredited.

¹³

Missiology is not immune to this—the models and theories in this book have all been contested; some theories and models have outlived their usefulness, while others have a longer tail life.

¹⁴

Students of any discipline are not exempt from having to learn the genealogy of these theories. And in order to be conversant in missiology, one must be familiar with the development of thought in the fields on which missiology draws. Some theories and models reverberate for decades, and spawn new theories that are useful for the next generation of practitioner-scholars (I return to this point in chapter 11).

Move Into Action, Further Research, Reflection, and Review

Each chapter has action points, ideas for further research, as well as reflection and review questions.

It is my hope for this book that readers will gain tools to make their own mark on missiology, all for the sake of making disciples across cultures.

1

. Goheen, Introducing Christian Mission Today; Moreau et al., Introducing World Missions.

2

. Bavinck, Introduction to the Science of Missions; Pentecost, Issues in Missiology; Tippett, Introduction to Missiology; Verkuyl, Contemporary Missiology.

3

. Bosch, Transforming Mission.

4

. Tennent, Invitation to World Missions.

5

. Terry et al., Missiology.

6

. Verstraelen et al., Missiology.

7

. Van Engen et al., Announcing the Kingdom; Wright, Mission of God.

8

. Hiebert, Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues,

35

–

37

.

9

. Geertz, Interpretation of Cultures,

93

.

10

. Hiebert, Critical Contextualization.

11

. Hiebert, Gospel in Human Contexts,

129

–

31

.

12

. Malinowski, Scientific Theory of Culture and Other Essays.

13

. Arbesman, Half-life of Facts.

14

. Nehrbass, Half-life of Missiological Facts.

Chapter 1

The Multiple Disciplines of Missiology

¹⁵

Seven of Jesus’s friends had been fishing all night, with nothing to show for their efforts. Perhaps the lake had been over-fished. Maybe the bait was old. Or the fish were too savvy for the strategies and methods that the disciples were using. Jesus told them to try it a new way—cast the net on the other side of the boat (John 21:6). Maybe Jesus’s new tactic was anti-climactic; but the results were drastic! That’s what missiology is supposed to do: inspire those of us who have always been fishing on one side of the boat to cast a net in a different way. Maybe that means learning new pedagogies, or studying cultural theory more, or revisiting missionary history, or learning from global theologies. This chapter outlines numerous ways you can start casting your net more broadly.

Below, I begin by briefly working out a definition of missiology; then I explore five limitations of the commonly promulgated three-legged stool metaphor, which errs in suggesting that the academic disciplines within missiology are static and finite in number, containing firm boundaries between each of them. It also erroneously implies that these disciplines exert a unidirectional influence on missiology. And while a stool has legs of equal length, scholars are not likely to ascribe equal prominence to each of the fields that influence missiology.

To better understand the role of interdisciplinarity within the study of Christian missions, I will suggest the image of missiology as a river. This dynamic and expanding metaphor remedies the limitations of an inert stool, and allows for a meta-theoretical framework for describing the fluid and expanding nature of the discipline. To develop this metaphor, I will discuss emerging theories of interdisciplinarity, which have received little notice from missiologists; and I will uncover some of the dangers of casting such a broad interdisciplinary net. I argue that it is not the use of theology, social sciences, and history that lends missiological significance to a study; instead, it is the use of an interdisciplinary approach for the sake of making disciples across cultures that describes how missiology is done (see below for a more expanded discussion on the definition of missiology). In critiquing metaphors of the discipline of missiology, I desire to help emerging scholars of Christian missions find where they best fit within the discipline. They should cast their net ever more broadly, while standing firmly in their own area of expertise.

Defining Missiology

Just as a definition of Christian missions has been elusive and hotly contested over the years, scholars have had difficulty pinning down exactly what missiology is. As the study of Christian missions advances, it incorporates countless disciplines, ranging from biblical exegesis to cultural anthropology, to computational linguistics, to the use of psychology in member care and cultural adjustment, and so on. The advantage of this broad influence is that scholars of missions can draw on their diverse academic backgrounds and interests as they apply their understanding of the missio Dei to their contexts. However, the ever expanding net that missiologists cast may lead to the same problem that Stephen Neill warned about when it comes to defining missions: If everything is missiology, then nothing is missiology.

¹⁶

To avoid this crippling ambiguity, we must answer, What is the nature of interdisciplinarity within missiology? What common denominator brings these disciplines together? How can an academician specialize, and yet be interdisciplinary at the same time? What is the relationship between academic theories of missions and the actual practice of Christian missions? And at the very foundation of all these questions, we must settle on a definition of the discipline: What is missiology?

To define missiology, we may start with the definition offered by a scholar who has done more than any other to shape the discipline. Alan Tippett defined missiology as the academic discipline or science which researches, records and applies data relating to the biblical origin, the history . . . the anthropological principles and techniques, and the theological base of the Christian mission.

¹⁷

Tippet’s definition is an early instance of the trifecta of theology, anthropology and history, with theology made prominent. Missionary strategies (techniques) are also mentioned. We can also detect in Tippett’s definition an earlier, more basic definition of missiology as simply the science of Christian missions.

While Tippett’s definition is seminal, I suggest that it is unhelpful to leave the word missionary or missions undefined in a definition of missiology. Instead, we should aim to actually flesh out—concisely—the essence of these terms. While many definitions of Christian missions have been offered, for the sake of parsimony, I begin with Scherer’s pithy definition as the church’s endeavor to cross boundaries.

¹⁸

I maintain throughout this book that missiology is the use of academic disciplines to bring the church across cultural boundaries for the sake of making disciples.

This brings us to one other limitation in Tippett’s definition: Missiology has moved far beyond the confining threefold taxonomy of theology, history, and the social sciences. So I would broaden a definition of missiology significantly to the utilization of multiple academic disciplines to develop strategies for making disciples across cultures.

Depicting Missiology

Once we have a basic definition of missiology, we can begin searching for a metaphor that depicts how the study of Christian missions is actually done. Missiologists have typically organized the discipline around three intersecting academic fields: theology, history, and anthropology (or more broadly, the social sciences).

¹⁹

Some have likened missiology’s dependence on three major disciplines to a stool that stands on three legs.

²⁰

While the stool metaphor is helpful in naming the big three disciplines, it has numerous limitations.

To begin with, scholars of missions who have expertise in other areas like education

²¹

or mission strategy

²²

argue that the stool actually stands on a fourth leg. However, it is debatable what exactly that fourth leg should be, since scholars are tempted to emphasize the importance of those disciplines in which they have extensive professional experience. And if we added more legs to the stool, Olson and Fanning’s model of missiology would stand on five legs (which they call dimensions): history, theology, anthropology, demographics, and strategy.

²³

How many more legs can be added to the stool before it becomes something else altogether? While we know that missiology is by nature interdisciplinary, we have had difficulty delineating the disciplines that are especially in or out.

It is also difficult to find a metaphor that depicts how theory relates to practice in missiology. Justice Anderson’s tripartite equation was reminiscent of the three-legged stool, but incorporated a space for strategy: The theology of mission plus the history of mission comprise a philosophy of mission (approaches) which will, in turn, lead to cross-cultural strategies.

²⁴

Baker turned the three-legged stool metaphor on its figurative head by suggesting that the stool is inverted like a top: Theology, history, and anthropology are situated above the much more prominent part: the seat of the stool.

²⁵

The seat, where these legs meet up, is mission strategy. However, the more we tweak the stool metaphor to make it describe missiology, the more suspicious we become of its usefulness as a heuristic device.

Below, I will explore five limitations of the stool metaphor. The point is not so much to decry the metaphor itself, but to see how exposing these limitations can bring to light the true richness of the interdisciplinary nature of missiology.

Limitation 1: Stool Legs Are Distinct, Static and Separate

A significant limitation of a stool metaphor is that furniture is solid, stationary, and unchanging. The legs of a stool are distinct, and do not touch each other. Reducing missiology to a short list of static disciplines creates artificial boundaries, and excludes other fields that are also influential. For example, the line between history and anthropology is often blurred in ethnographic studies, as a society’s past tends to shape its cultural makeup. Or to take another example of these fuzzy boundaries between disciplines: No theology can be developed without a theory of humankind—that is, without combining theology and anthropology. Baker pointed out the fuzzy boundaries between disciplines in the study of Christian missions when he argued that history, theology, and anthropology are metonyms for the continually expanding array of disciplines and sub-disciplines such as ethnohistory, ethnotheology, and ethnodoxology.

²⁶

Missiology is not static; it has been shaped over the years by needs, trends, shifts, and paradigms. Rather than limit the academic disciplines that feed into the study of Christian missions, we need to emphasize the dynamic and expanding nature of missiology.

Limitation 2: Stool Legs Are of Equal Length (or Prominence)

Now that the distinct lines between the stool’s legs have been blurred, the length of each leg is also called into question. A stool fails if one of its legs is longer than the others. But missiologists recognize that the equal weight should not be given to each academic sub-field. What they do not agree on is which leg is prominent.

Most missiologists would agree that theology has a leg up on the other fields. Missiological anthropologist Paul Hiebert argued that missiology must be built on theology—but not just any theology; rather, it must embrace a theology that has mission at its core.

²⁷

To keep theology prominent, Pentecost’s image of missiology places theology at the hub of a wheel, and our various other academic pursuits are the spokes that stem out of the hub.

²⁸

While some missiologists give prominence to theology, ironically, theology classes make up only a small percentage of the curriculum in schools of missions or intercultural studies. Bible and theology courses make up on average 21 percent of the required curriculum for doctoral degrees in missiology at six well-known Christian universities in the USA, with a minimum of 13 percent and maximum of 38 percent.

²⁹

Just as theologians would argue that the discipline should occupy a prominent role in the study of Christian missions, anthropologists are trying to secure their influence in missiology. Anthropology is in crisis in academia, and the role of anthropology in seminaries is increasingly contested, for fear that secular ideas about humanity from the social sciences will have a corrupting influence. And more broadly, the social sciences, in the minds of many theologians, should not be allowed a dialogue partner role.

³⁰

Twenty years ago, Hesselgrave concluded that evangelical missiologists have a fascination with the social sciences as he compared the use of social sciences, theology and history in the conciliar International Review of Missions (IRM) to those in Evangelical Missions Quarterly (EMQ). Four percent of articles in IRM were historical, 15 percent were theological, and 1 percent were based on social sciences. In contrast, 1 percent of articles in EMQ used historical inquiry, 7 percent were theological in nature, and 6 percent relied on the social sciences.

³¹

The role historians have to play in missiology is also ambiguous. Is the study of history an end in itself, or is it only useful insofar as it provides insights about failures, successes, and paradigm shifts in Christian missions? While evangelicals have not neglected theology, they have a short memory (they have neglected history) and have had what Corwin called a love affair with [cultural] research and analysis.

³²

With such an emphasis on research in the social sciences, some feared that missiology was actually becoming de-theologized.

³³

Interestingly, the origin of the three-legged stool analogy is related not only to interdisciplinarity but to questions about giving prominence to a specific discipline. Throughout the twentieth century, the metaphor of a three-legged stool was typically ascribed to Reformation leader Richard Hooker. Hooker developed an Anglican hermeneutic that leaned on Scripture, reason, and authority (or tradition):

Be it in matter of the one kind or of the other, what Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that the first place both of credit and obedience is due, the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after this the Church succeedeth that which the church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason overrule all other inferior judgments whatsoever.

³⁴

Some historical theologians challenge the notion that Hooker developed such a three-legged hermeneutic that would give Scripture, reason, and authority equal weight. Instead, Hooker and most other reformers envisioned a hierarchy or chain of command, with Scripture at the top. Reason and tradition are also essential for guiding our lives, but are subservient to Scripture.

Missiologists employ a similar chain of command for developing the study of Christian missions; but there is disagreement about what is at the top of the chain. The stool metaphor does not adequately capture the way in which disciplines are weighted or given prominence.

Limitation 3: Stool Legs Do Not Represent a Recursive Process

Our understanding of missiology must also reflect the interplay between theory and practice. If we think of theory as legs on which to stand, or as ideas that funnel down to strategy, we fail to recognize the recursive interaction between theory and strategy. In reality, our theories are shaped by real experience; so there is, as Baker put it, a feedback loop.

³⁵

The field experiences of missionaries are continually applied to missiology to refine theory and strategies. Missiologists pine for a scenario where the study of Christian missions not