This is my reflective review of Bosch, David J. Transforming Mission : Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission Maryknoll , N.Y.
There is apparently a new framework for understanding
mission in the world. Bosch calls his framework the “emerging ecumenical
paradigm of mission” (p. 8). It is this paradigm that he attempts to describe
in part three of his book. He lays the groundwork for his discussion in
chapters 10 and 11 by surveying the postmodern perspective, but he specifically
breaks out the elements of the emerging ecumenical paradigm in chapter 12.
Almost as a postscript he ironically poses the question as to what really
defines mission in his final chapter. However, his macro-definition in chapter
13 helps to clarify his arguments in the previous three chapters.
Bosch
characterizes the postmodern movement as basically a reaction to modernism’s
enlightenment with its elements of rationality and industrial progressive
thought. The ideologies of the last century are rejected, and so has any
absolutist approach to mission. Now, mission is in flux with an emergent
paradigm that lends more toward the priority of unity and mutual tolerance. Missiologists
must therefore answer this call for relevance if we wish to engage in dialogue
with current thinkers.
For Bosch, mission has become
transitional, and the individual elements that make up this new paradigm are
many. He in no way implies that these elements are complementary or exclusive,
but together they are held in a creative tension of sorts. Bosch tasks modern
missiology with understanding this creative tension and pushing its agenda into
a cross-cultural dialogue. I agree with the changing nature of missiology, and
I believe missiologists of all schools of thought have to find new ways to
engage each other. But Bosch suggests that even “the distinction between
sending and receiving churches is becoming pointless. Every church is either
still in a diaspora situation or has returned to it.” (p. 380). So with this
transitional nature of mission, missiology as a discipline must also change. This,
to me, is an interesting deduction.
One interesting note is how Bosch
promotes missiology to a meta-discipline that really should be free from the
constraints of just one field. To Bosch, missiology should not only inform all
other dimensions of theology, but it should “permeate all disciplines” (p. 494). This is truly a valid holistic approach,
but this holistic perspective brings evangelization into the same priority as
humanitarian aid and the fight for justice. In this regard, Bosch lays his
emphases on the elements with no regard to priority.
I agree with his stance on the need
for social justice and the call to reject a theology that is full of “excessive
individualism” (p. 438). However, I think his adherence to liberation
theology’s relevance for the dialogue with postmodernists is a naive reflection
on the tenets of postmodernism. I am not convinced that an evangelical agenda
of social justice will be the thing that draws postmodernists into a peaceful
coexistence with evangelicals who also hold to aggressive evangelism for
example.
I agree with his stance on
contextualization along with its dangers of relativism.
However, I disagree that mission should be so broadly
defined so as to incorporate every possible element of Christian activity. I
also disagree with his movement toward a more comprehensive understanding of
salvation so as to incorporate meeting social needs as part of the “integral
character of salvation” (p. 400). This seems to border on a dangerous watering
down of the gospel message.
In his attempt to be holistic,
Bosch has overemphasized liberation and justice to the detriment of conversion.
Moreover, he has underemphasized the eternal good news element of mission. He attempts
to divorce evangelism and mission by making stringent definitions for the two.
His attempt is ambiguous at best, because mission is defined as the “total
activity of the Church” (p. 412) whereas evangelism is just a dimension of
that. His insistence that evangelism be contextual is warranted, but Bosch also
warns of the potentially dangerous construct of a variety of theologies.
Although at first glance, this insistence seems sufficiently benign, but it
becomes problematic if evangelism loses the unique claims of Christianity in an
attempt to make a theology of witnessing more relativistic.
I believe Bosch has missed an
essential element of Eastern Christianity in the dialogue as well. He has
spoken from a framework that is largely western protestant and Catholic. Although
he takes enormous strides in describing the emerging paradigm among western Protestants
and Catholics, he totally ignores the eastern half of the world where these
discussions have been taking place for generations.
Oddly enough perhaps in raising the
question about how postmodernists receive the exclusivist claims of traditional
mission, Bosch reveals the deeper heart of the issue. There at the very core of
the discussion is the question as to the validity for dialogue among world
religions about mission. If mission is defined as something other than
evangelism, and if other world religions engage in those same activities, can
their activity be classified as mission? And if so, should Christianity have
missiological dialogue with non-Christian religions? These are important
questions that linger on the edge of this paradigm shift in missiological
thinking. For this reason, Bosch’s contribution is invaluable.
Bosch’s main thesis
that mission is not an activity of the church, but rather the essence of the
church, is well-founded. Seen in that light, as the “missio Dei which constitutes the church” (p. 519), mission becomes
much more important. All of our theology should be mission-informed theology.
All of our projects should be mission-driven projects. All of our worship
should be mission-enhanced worship. As such, Bosch’s admonition to understand
the changing nature of the mission dialogue is compelling.
No comments:
Post a Comment