Assignment | Lesson Three | Shift from "Mission" to Missio Dei (Mission of God) in the 20th Century

There are numerous ways to play a C chord on the guitar. Each of these different chords alters the sound somewhat, and gives the ability to play in a variety of styles of music. Even though there are slight differences, the root is the same, and it’s still a C chord. 

The shift in the Missionary movement of the 20th century reminds me of the C-chord. This change encompassed Karl Barths idea that Mission is from God as opposed to the Church- Missio Dei. This change touched me. Suddenly the focus is on Christ, which is somewhat new compared to the past two weeks of readings. God is now the primary mover and shaker.

Imperialism/colonization were emphasized before the 1900’s forcing indigenous peoples to convert and assimilate or die (metaphorically or literally). Now, pinpointing the Edinburgh Conference in 1910 as a catalyst, the mission field is seen differently. Changing the label of “Heathen” to Non-Christian was a major hurdle in raising the status of the “other” to a human being.

After WWI, the 1928 conference introduced an ecumenical stance. God was visible in everyone, (imagine that!) and there was an openness to other religious traditions that align with the gospels: The sympathy for the world’s sorrows (Buddhism); Connection to the ultimate reality (Hinduism); Moral conduct (Confucianism); and even, Pursuit of truth and Human Welfare (Secularism). Same root, different approach. 

Missionaries now were meeting people where they were instead of judging others on how they dressed or what they sang. One example is in Africa where William Harris incorporated indigenous instruments in worship. It’s quite a dramatic difference. 

Even more inspiring, indigenous peoples were missioning on and to their own. Sadrach, a Javanese believer, worked within his culture meeting with village leaders, and similar things were happening in the Philippines, China and Latin America. With no longer a need for a Western guidance, funding was no longer obtained from a Western home base. And dang it all, missionaries from non-western areas were looking at other mission fields, including Europe!

As the conferences continued, more and more indigenous leaders spoke up about their own cultural values. With this diversity, Western civilization/culture was no longer equated to the meaning of salvation, and people began to work together.

With this switch from Western superiority to the teachings of Jesus and the power of the holy spirit, the“from everywhere to everywhere” movement came into being.

It’s like moving from fret to fret all over the neck of the guitar playing the C- chord. Same root just different placement and positions . Just like the spread of the gospel. Same message but different approach. 

The understanding of the relationship between Christianity and other religions change throughout out the 20th century from the Edinburg conference to later dialogues by the Edinburgh conference bringing together some Protestant missionary leaders from Europe and North America. Christianity was viewed as the especial way and final revelation of God. The main or central goal was to see evangelization and conversion as its main in Christianity. Christianity started seeing other religions as living traditions with their histories, within their own beliefs and own spiritual understanding.

The transition from the “the West to the rest” to “from everywhere to everywhere” change the way missions are funded and organized because funding was from the Western churches, mission societies, and from individual donors. The decisions that were made came from strategies, leadership, where Western mission boards were taking place. Some of the churches were viewed as mission fields, instead of missionary sending churches where it was more individual focused and not mission filed sent.

At the beginning of the 20th century, Christianity and Western culture were intertwined in doing missionary practices together. Some missionaries assumed that Western civilization was higher quality to the point of being superior and it should be the way that they viewed and did the Western education, social customs and political values. The indigenous religions and other cultures were rejected as pagan. Also the leadership in mission organizations remained big in Western, although the local churches were growing. 

This was the shift that I needed to see!!

If I had just been reading through the life of missionaries without any real-life experience or knowledge, I would be greatly saddened and disappointed in the church and how it handled spreading the word of God. And while it’s still imperfect, I feel some comfort in the shift of a church-centric message into a God-centric one. 

The 1910 Edinburgh Conference was the beginning of something much bigger than they expected. While it was a step in the right direction of redirecting the message, it underestimated the resilience of other religions, the growth and leadership of indigenous churches, and the impact of decolonization and decline of European power.

The imperfections of all of this lies in the money. As the world changed after the World Wars, the funding of churches changed. It went from a larger almost continental group to a national source. And while, indigenous churches were more accepted, they also had to rely on larger churches (from the West) to help fund their congregations. The system that the West had put into place was never really erased but maybe reimagined. The West made people reliant but changed the way in which the relationship functioned.

I have to say that I’m writing this as I sit in Santa Fe, NM, after having just visited the Pueblo of Isleta for a Harvest ceremony. I was able to visit the St. Augustine chapel, locate in the pueblo,  which is one of the two oldest churches in New Mexico. While the church is labeled online as a part of the Isleta faith system, while I was there, I noticed no one was anywhere near the church and the festivities were separate from this space. Doing a bit more research online, I was able to see that the history of the church and of the people in the area is deeply complicated and that the church was accused of trying to erase cultural traditions to the Isleta people. It seems that over time that this has changed and that there is a more symbiotic relationship between the two. I have asked to speak to someone from the tribe to get their thoughts on all of this and to see what the people of today are carrying into not only their relationship with the church but their relationship with God and how it is all reconciled through all that has happened.

I would like to give thanks to this course for giving me the ability of awareness as I live into these spaces in my lifetime. I never expected that I would be in an actual space that was so greatly affected by the missionaries as I was in the middle of this course but am now able to at least acknowledge things through a different lens than I ever have been before.

When I was a senior in high school, I was given the opportunity to go to Manipur, India, which is a state in the far north-east portion of India. I was with a Christian missions organization that was helping deliver babies for women who were HIV positive. The actual structure of that organization is a topic for a different class, but I learned a lot about this group of largely Christian folks in a remote part of India. They were originally evangelized by an English missionary named William Pettigrew. Since I know a bit about his life, I thought it was interesting to think about him in context to this week’s lectures and readings.

Arriving in India in the 1890’s I think Pettigrew embodies part of this shift from ecclesiasticism to “mission dei”. In some ways he fits the “old” mold perfectly. He was sent directly by the British Empire to conduct missionary work. He even recruited laborers from Manipur to fight in WWI on behalf of the British. This was truly entangled with colonial structures as Hunt describes.

In other ways, he was fairly progressive for his time. Instead of forcing the Tangkhul people to learn English, he learned their language and helped to translate the bible into local language. Stil a cultural imposition, but at least with some respect for local culture.

Eventually Pettigrew’s methods were stopped by the British, but he spent the rest of his life working with local indigenous Christians. This decoupling of mission from political aims, and a dedication to the work God was already doing in Manipur is perhaps what Baik and Kim describe as more of an “equal partnership” rather than a top down approach.

Obviously, Pettigrew was a product of his time, and not perfect by any means. But today in Manipur, nearly 40% of the population is Christian, compared to 3% country wide. People in the churches today call Pettigrew “Uncle William” and have a fondness for his work in India. 

When I was a senior in high school, I was given the opportunity to go to Manipur, India, which is a state in the far north-east portion of India. I was with a Christian missions organization that was helping deliver babies for women who were HIV positive. The actual structure of that organization is a topic for a different class, but I learned a lot about this group of largely Christian folks in a remote part of India. They were originally evangelized by an English missionary named William Pettigrew. Since I know a bit about his life, I thought it was interesting to think about him in context to this week’s lectures and readings.

Arriving in India in the 1890’s I think Pettigrew embodies part of this shift from ecclesiasticism to “mission dei”. In some ways he fits the “old” mold perfectly. He was sent directly by the British Empire to conduct missionary work. He even recruited laborers from Manipur to fight in WWI on behalf of the British. This was truly entangled with colonial structures as Hunt describes.

In other ways, he was fairly progressive for his time. Instead of forcing the Tangkhul people to learn English, he learned their language and helped to translate the bible into local language. Stil a cultural imposition, but at least with some respect for local culture.

Eventually Pettigrew’s methods were stopped by the British, but he spent the rest of his life working with local indigenous Christians. This decoupling of mission from political aims, and a dedication to the work God was already doing in Manipur is perhaps what Baik and Kim describe as more of an “equal partnership” rather than a top down approach.

Obviously, Pettigrew was a product of his time, and not perfect by any means. But today in Manipur, nearly 40% of the population is Christian, compared to 3% country wide. People in the churches today call Pettigrew “Uncle William” and have a fondness for his work in India. 

In seeing trends toward materialism and secularism world-wide, evangelists began to see other religions more as partners in the battle to stave off godlessness, rather than competitors for saving souls. There began to be a recognition that at least there are common values and commitments among world religions that have some cultural importance, especially when the alternative might be a total absence of religion. The language even shifted from categorizing everyone as ‘heathens’ to distinguishing between various other religious practices and using the term non-Christians which is less stigmatizing and judgmental.

Hocking also wrote about the shift in the goal of missions from originally being solely about conversion for the sake of a ‘soul’ or eternal life, to one where body and soul are held as equally important and worth saving. Thus, ministries like hospitals, education, feeding programs, etc. had value in and of themselves as extensions of Christian Ministry. No longer seen as a means to conversion, but now valued as the fruits of Christian love and care for neighbors.

The Jerusalem conference in 1928 reflected a newer perspective that lifted up non-western experiences of faith. There began to be a recognition of the value possessed within African and Asian Christianities as they were emerging - instead of holding them to a western standard, allowing them to evolve more naturally and even calling upon them to bring their influence to North America and Europe. By 1952 the leaders within the Missions world had begun to see and denounce the problematic dynamics of colonialism and called upon evangelists to really differentiate their work of sharing the gospel from re-shaping or correcting the cultural practices they encountered. Adapting the Christian message or practice to a new language or musical style was a way of letting people encounter Christ from their own location without having to separate themselves from traditional culture in order to hear the gospel.

All of this is lovely to see. While the movement wasn’t perfect and still perpetuated some problematic practice the overall tone shift of the 20th century is quite positive. Allowing the global church to be shaped and enhanced by the voices and art and perspectives of so many people all around the world is a beautiful development and benefits all of us.