Missiology

(A. Scott Moreau, Revised Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 2001)

Missiology generally refers to the formal academic study of all aspects of the missionary enterprise. Inherent in the discipline is the study of the nature of God, the created world, and the Church as well as the interaction among these three. To study that interaction, of necessity it combines insights from the disciplines of biblical studies, theology, and the social sciences. Being identified with the missionary task, however, it must go beyond each of these disciplines to engage not only in understanding but in effecting change as part of the missionary endeavor.

The foundations for missiology are the biblical and theological roots. This, however, does not reduce missiology to a subset of theology. Rather, it merely shows the necessity of theological foundations for the discipline. The human contexts of missionary work, including the social, historical and religious settings, provide the ever-changing structure. Understanding this structure requires deep engagement in the social sciences, including but not limited to anthropology, communication, economics, education, history, linguistics, political science, psychology, and sociology. Because of the ever changing nature of human contexts and missiology's ongoing involvement in those contexts, Bosch is right in stating, "There is no such thing as missiology, period. There is only missiology in draft." (Transforming Mission, p. 498).

Historical Considerations. While mission activity and thinking have been part of the church since its inception, formal study of mission did not emerge until the middle ages. The earliest known efforts include more than three hundred works by Raymond Lull (c. 1235-1315) and his development of a missionary training school at Majorca in 1276. Other Catholic proto-missiologists include José de Acosta (1540-1600), a Jesuit author who was a missionary to Peru and Mexico, Thomas à Jesu (1564-1627), a brilliant Carmelite, who wrote On Procuring the Salvation of All Men (1613); and Lorenzo Brancati (1612-1693), a Franciscan who developed a systematic work on the spread of the faith. Catholic missiological reflection, after this promising beginning, slowed significantly during the 18th century.

On the Protestant side, it was the Dutch who provided the early stimuli. Hadrianus Savaria (1531-1613) proposed an apostolic type of ordination for missionaries entering service. In 1618 Justus Heurnius (1587-1651) published a treatise warning the Dutch East India Trading Company of the dangers of pursuing riches while neglecting the gospel. Shortly thereafter, at the request of the Company, a missions seminary curriculum was developed at the University of Leiden. The Company allowed the school to operate for only twelve years; the graduates were apparently too well trained to silently comply with Company policy!

Gisbert Voetius (1589-1676), professor at Utrecht and a student of Catholic mission writing, provided the first systematization of Protestant mission theology. Johannes Hoornbeeck (1617-1666), Voetius' student, argued that the church needed to be training and sending out missionaries, citing Catholic examples. The great Moravian missionary thrust arose in part as a result of the influence of these early Dutch thinkers.

In the eighteenth century, among the many important precursors of contemporary missiologists are August H. Francke (1663-1727), evangelist-theologian Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), mission entrepreneur William Carey (1761-1834), and eminent theologian Friedrich D. Schleiermacher (1768-1834). Franke established a missions curriculum at the University of Halle in the early 1700s. Edwards' revival preaching and theological works, in which he brilliantly investigated conversion and revival, provided important foundations for the discipline. Carey's An Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathen (1792) refuted the Reformers' position that the Great Commission was only for the Apostles and proposed the establishment of mission societies. Schleiermacher proposed integrating mission study into the discipline of practical theology, which offered a niche within the theological academic curriculum.

In the United States, Samuel Mills' (1783-1818) tireless efforts promoting both missions and missionary associations such as the Society of Inquiry on the Subject of Missions (founded in 1811) provided an important foundation for the acceptance of missiology. Princeton University appointed Charles Breckenridge to the position of Professor of Practical Theology and Missionary Instruction in 1836, the first such position in the world (though it lasted only until 1839). That mission was attached to practical theology demonstrates the influence of Schleiermacher's earlier proposal.

In continental scholarly circles it was Karl Graul (1814-1864) who vigorously sought to establish a place for the formal study of mission as an accepted academic discipline. Graul died before his goal was accomplished. Only three years after his death came the appointment of Alexander Duff (1806-1910), who returned from India to accept the position of chair of evangelistic theology at New College in Edinburgh in 1867. This was the first full appointment exclusively in mission studies ever established. In Germany, Carl H. Plath (1829-1901) worked hard to establish missiological appointments in German universities. However, it was Gustav Warneck (1834-1910), the Protestant "father of missiology," who established missiology as an accepted academic discipline. This was formalized in his appointment to the first full professorship of missiology at the University of Halle beginning in 1896. Among the many accomplishments of Warneck the work that stands out is his multi-volume Evangelische Missionslehre (subtitled "An Attempt at a Theory of Missions"). In Germany missiology was further enhanced when Deutsche Gesellschaft für Missionswisenschaft (German Society for Missiology) was organized in 1918.

On the English speaking side, missionary statesmen and promoters Henry Venn (1796-1873), Rufus Anderson (1796-1880), and Roland Allen (1868-1947) wielded great influence. Venn and Anderson independently developed the theoretical foundation for indigenous church development known as the three-self formula, in which they advocated that churches be self-propagating, self-governing, and self-supporting. Their model and its variations continue to significantly influence contemporary missiology. Allen's Missionary Methods: St. Paul's or Ours (1912) is still used today in mission classes in North America.

Catholic missiological efforts were restimulated during the 19th century at least in part due to the surge of Protestant mission work. The controversial Johann B. Hirscher (1788-1865) was the first Catholic to integrate mission within practical theology. Robert Streit (1875-1930) laid the foundation for the systematic study of mission by initiating Bibliotheca Missionum, a bibliographic journal of mission-related writings. He was also influential in Joseph Schmidlin's (1876-1944) appointment in 1910 as professor of mission science at Münster. Schmidlin's impact came through his career of writing, lecturing, and establishing missiological journals, research institutes, and organizations. Though he is appropriately accorded the title of "father and founder of Catholic missiology," his life and work were largely influenced by Warneck.

In American Protestant circles, the Student Volunteer Movement, begun in 1886, exercised great influence. Though largely a pragmatic venture, it produced not only many scholars who worked in missiological circles but also was part of the seed bed of the whole ecumenical movement through which twentieth century missiology has been so heavily influenced. As a result of the pressure of these and other student-movements, lectureships were founded and positions in mission and missiology were established. In contrast to the Europeans, Americans were pragmatic, focusing on training and promoting mission more than on developing an academic discipline. This ethos continues in American missiology and is seen, for example, in the contemporary emphasis on planning and management, the numerous strategies for world evangelization, and the focus on developing tools to facilitate the accomplishment of objectives.

By 1910 and the Edinburgh World Missionary Conference, only three full mission professorships existed. As a result of the work at Edinburgh and the influence of the International Missionary Council (organized in 1921), that number increased steadily over the century. The Kennedy School of Missions at Hartford was founded in 1911, the International Review of Missions (IRM; the "s" was dropped from "Missions" in 1969) started publication in 1912, and Union Theological Seminary (New York) began a mission department in 1914, the same year Princeton added a mission chair. Since the early 1940s, other professional associations of missiology have been formed, including the Fellowship of Professors of Mission (launched from a series of discussions around 1917 and constituted in 1940), the American Professors of Mission (1952), the Association of Evangelical Professors of Mission (AEPM; 1965), the International Association for Mission Studies (1972), the American Society of Missiology (ASM; 1973), and the Evangelical Missiological Society (1991; formed out of the AEPM). Important contemporary American Protestant missiological journals in addition to IRM include Evangelical Missions Quarterly (1964); Missiology (1973; incorporating Practical Anthropology, started in 1954), International Bulletin of Missionary Research (1977; started as Occasional Bulletin of Missionary Research in 1950), and International Journal of Frontier Missions (1984).

Catholic missiologist Louis Luzbetak declared that the discipline "came of age" in 1975 when the ASM was admitted into the Council on the Study of Religion. Since then there have been major educational developments, especially in evangelical institutions. One recent directory lists over 200 North American institutions offering more than 1250 mission courses, further evidence that missiology is now established as a full academic discipline.

Concerns within Missiology. Missiology has three central concerns: the identity or nature of mission, the goal of mission, the means or method of mission. Each of these will be examined briefly in turn.

The Nature of Mission. In this century, missiologists have engaged deeply in debate over the nature of mission, including both the what and the why. At least until the late nineteenth century, even though North American missiology was more pragmatic and European missiology more theological and philosophical, both shared a common view of the nature of the mission of the church as the task which the Church was uniquely called and fitted to do: reaching those who had not heard of Christ with the good news. This was certainly not limited to simply preaching the gospel, as the innumerable mission-founded hospitals, schools, and clinics still functioning in much of the world testifies.

From the late 1800s on, however, the rise in theological liberalism, the early world missions conferences and the resulting ecumenical movement, two world wars fought largely among "Christian" nations, and the death of political colonialism provided overwhelming impetus for a continual examination of missionary assumptions and paradigms. Space allows the presentation of only five of the more significant developments which arose within the ecumenical movement. Their impact on evangelical missiology will also be noted.

First, the demise of colonialism exposed the implicit assumption that the direction of missions was only from the West to the rest of the world. The concept of the "white man's burden" was rejected, and the missionary enterprise was acknowledged as both to and from all six continents. Partnership and globalism came to the forefront as new ways to view the mission task.

Second, mission was no longer seen as being limited to what the Church is doing. Rather, mission was what God was doing in the world both through and outside of the church to communicate salvation. In 1934 Karl Hartenstein coined the term missio Dei to express this, though it did not gain general acceptance until theWorld Council of Churches 1952 Willingen Missionary Conference.

Third, focus shifted from the work of Christ on the cross to the incarnation as the starting point for mission. For some ecumenicals, a combination of a universalism and rejection of the biblical teaching on Hell required a new focus for missionary engagement, and the incarnation became that focus. With the doctrine of the virgin birth problematic, it was the attitude of the theological concept of the incarnation that was more important than the historical reality. That God became as one of us was the new foundation which replaced the outmoded idea of the need for a savior from sin and Hell.

Fourth, advocacy of a "missiology from below" was articulated. Built on the theological assertion of the preferential treatment of the poor by God, mission was to no longer to be seen "from above," whether that be God looking down on the world, the West looking out at the rest, or the saved looking at the lost. Rather, the view of the oppressed was to be the starting point for mission reflection.

Fifth, and most recently, pluralistic and post-modernist challenges to the uniqueness of Christ and the Christian message have had an ever deepening impact on missiology and mission. Even though pluralism in its most radical post-modern expressions has the potential to bring the demise of the entire missionary enterprise, voices of its advocates are becoming increasingly popular in conciliar circles. The impact of this trend on the nature and scope of ecumenical missiology deserves close scrutiny in the coming decades.

How have these developments affected evangelical missiology? Generally evangelicals still hold to the integrating core of reaching the lost for Christ. At the same time, the shifts in the broader missiological discussion have impacted evangelical thinking. Biting critiques of ongoing Western neo-colonial attitudes, the emergence of significant non-Western evangelical missiologists such as Kwame Bediako, Bong Ro, and Samuel Escobar, and the rise of a huge missionary movement from the non-Western nations have contributed to an acknowledgment that we are indeed in an era of "mission on six continents."

Missio Dei as a term used in evangelical circles, though not as broadly as in ecumenical discussion and without the loss in focus on the Church as the means God has established for missionary work. Evangelicals have also recognized the validity of the incarnation as a paradigm for mission. While we cannot lose our emphasis on the work on the cross at the heart of mission without losing our evangelical distinctiveness, there is also a need to integrate within mission the necessity of an incarnational lifestyle and attitude.

Though debate continues over the theological validity of a preferential option for the poor, evangelicals working among the marginalized have championed seeing mission from the perspective of the down-trodden. In a parallel discussion, recent evangelical debate has also focused on the relationship between social concern or action (often called the cultural mandate) and evangelism. While some define mission as evangelism and distinguish it from the cultural mandate, others maintain that mission involves their inextricable intertwining. There is also debate of the meaning and extent of the cultural mandate which is reflected in the variety of evangelical perspectives on ecology and the environment, relief and developmental work, social justice issues, and the necessity for and means of accomplishing change in unjust social structures.

Finally, there has been increasing leaning towards inclusivistic pluralism even in evangelical circles. Multiculturalism as a whole has rightly exposed our implicit ethnocentrism and other biases. However, to move to a full-blown religious pluralism is to lose any uniqueness we have as a faith. Such a move is an unacceptable compromise of the clear biblical teachings of Christ, let alone established evangelical distinctives. It is this trend which will probably generate the most significant debates among evangelical missiologists for the foreseeable future. At stake is the very heart of the meaning and practice of the mission enterprise.

The Goal of Mission. The fact that mission has a goal reminds us that the discipline of missiology can never be an end-in-itself. It will always have the purpose of not only understanding mission but of undergirding the missionary task. In light of the debate over the nature of mission, it is understandable that proposals for the goal of mission vary widely. For many within ecumenical churches the goal is the promotion of justice and freedom in human societies and institutions. Recently evangelical mission agencies have been promoting the planting of a church movement among every people group as the goal. Others promote holistic approaches which see church planting as only part of the picture of enabling people to live humanely in their social settings.

Whatever the ultimate answer to this question, we do well to remember John Piper's admonition that mission was from the beginning intended to be only a temporary activity. It naturally follows that missiology is only a temporary discipline. When worship of God in Christ is complete, then the need for mission and missiology will be gone.

The Method of Mission. This third concern of missiology especially engages the study of people in their social, historic, and religious contexts. The method of mission, of course, will depend on the nature and goal of mission. For example, if the nature of mission is missio Dei, and the goal of mission is just human societies, then the method for mission will revolve around historic, economic, social, and political agendas. Alternately, if the nature of mission is to celebrate Jesus as only one of the many possible ways to God, then the method will be dialogue in which the goal is to simply learn how to celebrate differences, and evangelism will either be redefined or discarded altogether.

If, however, as evangelical missiology continues to maintain, the nature of mission is the human responsibility to serve as ambassadors of Christ in communicating the message he commissioned to the church, then we will seek to discover appropriate means of entering new cultures, sensitively and competently communicating the good news and meeting the needs of the whole person. This is to be done without surrendering to a pragmatism which only evaluates methodologies in light of their success. Rather, they must be examined in light of their fidelity to the appropriate principles found in Scripture.

Finally, missiology should not only study the method; as an intentional discipline it must actively lead to engagement in the missionary task. While for some this assertion will too closely echo North American pragmatism, missiology that does not lead to engagement in mission does not distinguish itself as a discipline separate from a simple comglomeration of theology, biblical studies, history, and social sciences. Understanding the task must lead to engagement in the task, or missiology loses its distinctive nature as a discpline.

Conclusion. As Bosch noted, missiology inherently involves the crossing of frontiers, the entrance (or, as the case may be, the reintroduction) and establishment of the truth of the good news among the peoples created by God. The Church is essentially a missionary enterprise of God, and every member of the Church is to be engaged in that enterprise. Therefore, until all have been given the opportunity to worship God in spirit and truth, missiology cannot be relegated to the fringe or be seen as having relevance only to cross-cultural Christian workers. Rather, it is a critical discipline for all Christians in all cultures at all times.

Bibliography: D. J. Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (1991); Concise Dictionary of the Christian World Mission, Dictionary of Christianity in America; W. R. Hogg, "The Teaching of Missiology," Missiology 15:4 (1987):487-506; H. Kasdorf, "Missiology as a Discipline in Historical Perspective," pp. 219-38 in Reflection and Projection: Missiology at the Threshold of 2001, ed. H. Kasdorf and K. W. Müller; O. G. Myklebust, The Study of Missions in Theological Education (1955); New Catholic Encyclopedia; E. C. Pentecost, Issues in Missiology: An Introduction (1982); J. Piper, Let the Nations Be Glad; J. A. Scherer, "Missiology as a Discipline and What it Includes," Missiology 15:4 (1987): 507-522; A. Tippett, Introduction to Missiology (1987); C. Van Engen, Mission on the Way: Issues in Mission Theology; J. Verkuyl, Contemporary Missiology: An Introduction (1978); F. J. Verstraelen, A. Camps, L. A. Hoedemaker, and M. R. Spindler, eds., Missiology: An Ecumenical Introduction (1995).