mission & evangelism:
International Review of Mission
IRM July 2002 Editorial by Jacques Matthey
ECCLESIOLOGY AND MISSION III
“Ecclesiology and Mission III” is a collection of papers that addresses the church’s role and witness in society, with a particular, though not exclusive, emphasis on Northern contexts1.
Keith Clements, general secretary of the Conference of European Churches (CEC), begins his paper by recalling how irrelevant churches have become in the eyes of many people in Europe. He then underlines issues and themes of major importance for the continent, where he believes the church’s witness can have an impact and make a difference: the unity of Europe and the quest for values which undergird society; peace and reconciliation; the quest for inclusive communities and for the meaning of life. Clements believes in the continuing relevance of the gospel in and for Europe. However, that might require a renewed approach to ecclesiology and mission from the perspective of churches, who increasingly will have to live and witness on the margins of society. Mission will be at the heart, too, of CEC’s concerns as it moves towards its assembly in 2003 on the theme: “Jesus Christ heals and reconciles. Our witness in Europe”. IRM is pleased to complement Clements’ paper with the main preparatory document for the CEC assembly (see documentation section).
The next two articles each deal, in their own manner, with the way traditional majority European churches relate to the “others”, whether they be other Christians or people of other convictions or cultural origins. Werner Kahl shows the inadequacy of the term “mainline” churches. He presents in a lively way the major challenges so-called “migrant” churches bring to classical continental theology and spirituality, as well as the opportunities for life and witness that these “new” churches offer for mission in and to Europe. Kahl's paper follows up on the earlier issue of IRM that dealt with African churches in Europe2. Arnd Bünker approaches the question from a very different angle. He analyses recent mission declarations and appeals in Germany, and what they say about the “others”, i.e. people who are not, or are not any more, linked to an institutional church. This leads Bünker to reflect on the function of such images of the “others”, in particular the way in which they reaffirm, albeit it indirectly, the traditional Christian identity (that which is considered “ours”). Bünker wants the church to evaluate seriously how it can communicate in society, and calls for a different understanding of “borders”, i.e. a new definition of what it means to be the church in mission.
Michael Goheen is one of the many members of the theologically very creative North American “The Gospel and Our Culture Network”3, which builds its missiology on the heritage of the late bishop Lesslie Newbigin. Goheen specialised in the study of the continuing relevance of Newbigin’s missional ecclesiology, which he presents in some detail in his article. Like the earlier articles in this issue of IRM, Goheen's reflection is clearly rooted and inculturated in a “Northern” context. It seems, however, that the debate on Newbigin’s position, which has to do with the fundamental role and function of the church in society and with the focus of mission, must not be limited to one context only, because it is relevant for any context.
This is well illustrated by Stephen Armet's paper. Armet shows what a holistic mission approach means in grassroots surroundings and among Pentecostal churches in Latin America. He describes the experience of church growth and social work in a slum of Bogota, Colombia, among people who live a “biblical popular spirituality”. Base development work and community building are directly linked with an evangelistic presence and action. This mission practice does not offer “utopian hope, but an alternative to the adversity and fragmentation of urban life” (p. 379) says the author. Armet’s paper gives a practical example of one among many Pentecostal trends described in the last issue of IRM, viz. the relationship between church and mission in very poor surroundings.4
Also from Latin America comes the next paper, written by Mercedes Garcia Bachmann from Argentina. It is a contextualised scholarly study of Qohelet (or Ecclesiastes) chapter 9. Bachmann presented this paper at the consultation on Bible study and mission jointly organised by the Mission and Evangelism Team of the World Council of Churches (WCC) and the Bible Study and Mission Interest Group of the International Association of Mission Studies5. The author shows how Qohelet’s very particular and apparently pessimistic critical message can be understood as a fundamental questioning of the official ideology of the new Hellenistic empire. Qohelet “knows many of his colleagues celebrate these new times of prosperity under Hellenism, of new coin and market, of advances in all fields of science. But he also knows the price the common people, the poor, the workers are paying for keeping that machine going on and on. Thus there is nothing new; everything is vapour….” (p. 389). It is fascinating to discover how Qohelet can become a book full of hope when read by scholars from Latin America! May such “pessimism” permeate all churches in the world, so that they may truly become missional communities that offer the gospel as an alternative to those promises which say that prosperity is only gained through allegiance to the major economic rules and powers.
The relationship between church and mission was a major item in the ecumenical movement from 1938 to 1961. It culminated in the integration of the International Missionary Council (IMC) and the World Council of Churches (WCC). On that theological and institutional basis some of the most important mission societies of Europe undertook major reforms in membership and decision-making processes, and transformed themselves into communities of churches in mission. Kai Funkschmidt has done the most thorough study of such radical transformation and presents some of his essential observations and conclusions in his article6. If some of the missiologists of the Gospel and Culture networks in North America and Great Britain understand the church as an alternative community within “Western” society, one can argue that the transformed mission bodies Funkschmidt analyses intend to be such alternative communities at the level of intercontinental exchanges. Indeed, every church is responsible for mission locally, but they are also called to contribute with others to world mission. How to respond to such a call in the new globalized world context is the challenge this article addresses by evaluating real attempts to express partnership in the last twenty to thirty years. A forthcoming article will look in more detail at the present status of affairs and offer suggestions for the future.
Tow texts are reproduced in the documentation section. The first is an important report form a WCC consultation on international and global inter-religious initiatives recently held in Hong Kong, which is introduced by Dr Hans Ucko, my colleague from the WCC's team on Inter-Religious Relations. The paper seems an essential step towards formulating criteria for WCC participation in such initiatives. The second document has already been mentioned. It's the theme paper which the Conference of European Churches has produced to launch the preparation process for its assembly scheduled for the end of June 2003. The area of reflection is similar to that foreseen for the next world mission conference of the WCC in 2005. IRM considers both papers as essential reading also for the WCC reflection on mission and evangelism.
Jacques MATTHEY
NOTES
1.
“Ecclesiology and Mission I” (IRM, Vol. XC No. 358,
July 2001) published the papers presented at the common consultation between
Faith and Order and Mission and Evangelism in Höxter-Brenkhausen.
“Ecclesiology and Mission II” (IRM Vol. XC, No. 359,
October 2001) followed with articles linked to, but not presented at the
Höxter consultation.
2. “Open Space: the African Christian Diaspora in
Europe and the Quest for Human Community” IRM Vol. LXXXIX No. 354,
July 2000.
3. “The Gospel and Our Culture Network” at
Western Theological Seminary, 101 E. 13th Street, Holland, MI 49423-3622,
USA. The coordinator is Prof. Dr George Hunsberger. Website: http://www.gocn.org
4. Bergunder, Michael: “The Pentecostal movement
and basic ecclesial communities in Latin America: sociological theories
and theological debates”, in the April 2002 issue of IRM.
5. Details and all the preparatory papers have been published
in the January 2002 issue of IRM.
6. The full study has been published in German. Funkschmidt,
Kai, Earthing the Vision. Strukturreformen in der Mission untersucht
am Beispiel von CEVAA (Paris), CWM (London) and UEM (Wuppertal),
Frankfurt am Main, Lembeck, 2000, 614 p.
IRM Vol. LXXXVI No. 342, July 1997 was dedicated to the theme “International
Relationships in Mission” and presented an overview and evaluation
of many attempts at structural reforms in mission, in the North and South.
Cf. also the report from the first joint consultation held by the three
mentioned communities Cevaa, CWM and UEM in IRM Vol. LXXXIX,
No. 353, April 2000, pp. 217-228, as well as the more recent personal
report on the first new general assembly of CEVAA in the October 2001
issue of IRM (pp. 455–461).