 |
|
|
|
What is Missions?Fr. Martin Ritsi
T he definitions of “missions” and “missionary” are used in a variety of different and sometimes contradictory manners in today?s society. From one perspective we could say that definitions of words are not that important, providing that the users of these words understand what they mutually mean by them. On the other hand, the use of language both reflects and forms thinking. From that perspective, with the task of missions being central to the essence of the Church, and with so much worldwide mission work still undone, it is important that words used to reflect this work are clearly defined and understood.
In this article some varying uses of the words “mission,” “missions,” and “missionary” are presented. How these definitions are sometimes used concurrently, in spite of their contradictions, is explored. The activities that are included within the scope of missionary work are also discussed. This article concludes with a suggestion on how to best define missions today in a way that propels the Church towards completing the task of reaching all nations with the Gospel.
In present-day missiological thinking, “missions” and “missionary” usually have a narrow scope. Missiologists define “missions” as the crossing of cultural and (most often) geographic boundaries in order to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ, making disciples and relating to the whole need of humankind, both spiritual and physical. This definition will be referred to as the traditional definition of mission throughout this article. Three important dimensions of this definition are: - the crossing of cultural barriers,
- the movement out of one?s own particular place and
- proclaiming the Gospel and making disciples.
The reason this definition is so widely held among missiologists today is that it outlines the key factors necessary to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to all peoples. The Church is directed to do this in what is called the Great Commission: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations?” (Matthew 28:19). Today, only 33% of all people consider themselves Christian. In addition, it is estimated that 28% of the world?s population has still not heard the Gospel in a way that they can respond to it affirmatively or negatively. In other words, over 1.8 billion people today have not been presented with the Gospel message.
Many of those who have not yet heard the Gospel live within social, ethnic, or geographic groupings in which there is no active Christian witness. The traditional definition of missions is used by missiologists to reflect the process of reaching these unreached people groups. In order that the Gospel may be preached to those who have yet to hear, by necessity there will need to be strategic efforts by people who will reach across these cultural and geographic boundaries. It is these efforts and the people who conduct them that are traditionally defined as “missions” and “missionary.”
Recently, however, an alternative definition of “missions” or “missionary” has evolved. This definition expands the more traditional scope of missions to include local activity by people within their own culture. Thus, we now have the terms “home, domestic, or internal missions.” Multiple Orthodox jurisdictions in the United States (as well as some Orthodox Churches abroad) often use this alternative definition. The usage of “home” or “domestic” mission can be seen in the names of Church departments. It is also used to describe the efforts of various jurisdictions as they reach out to start up new “mission” parishes within their own cultural and geographic regions.
This alternative definition of missions contradicts the traditional definition of missions. If a condition of missions is that a person or effort must be conducted outside of one?s “home,” people, place and/or culture, then local outreach and evangelism conducted by people within their own culture would be not be defined as missions.
Archbishop Anastasios of Tirana and All Albania explains some of the problems with the evolution of this alternate terminology in the following quotation: “As you know, the terminology "internal mission" is an influence of the German "inneremission," and in it we have found a very easy excuse to persuade ourselves that we are missionaries by doing internal mission. And yet the commandment says clearly: 'and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth.' The biblical understanding of mission (apostole) means to leave, to accept to be in another cultural environment, to be a stranger. We must distinguish between apostolic mission and the pastoral efforts that we undertake in our local churches. The pastoral efforts and the renewal of Christian life are indeed very important?. However, spiritual edification within the Church is not exactly missionary effort” (Yannoulatos, 2001).
To repeat, what qualifies a work or person as missionary (at least in the traditional use of the word) is that culture and language must be crossed in order to present the Gospel. : “This is a fact: if you can already speak the language and understand the culture?you are native, not a missionary. If you can?t speak the language and have to learn the culture where you are, then you are no longer a ?native? in that situation, but a missionary who faces cross-cultural barriers of communication.” (Winter, 2005).
There are cases, though, where the work within one?s own geographical boundaries could still embody the more traditional definition of missions. If a person of one distinct cultural group is reaching out to a totally different cultural group that has not yet become a part of the Church, that person and effort could be considered “missionary.” For example, starting up new parishes within immigrant ethnic communities that speak a language different from that of the mother Church and the persons doing the work could be considered missionary.
Aside from the work begun in Alaska by missionaries from Russia in the late 1700s, Orthodoxy in the United States has yet to establish any other significant strategic outreach specifically geared to ethnic groups that are not a part of the cultures that the various jurisdictions originated from (i.e. Latino, Asian, and Native American). Were this to be expanded outside Alaska, it could still be considered missionary work by the traditional definition of the word, even though there is not a crossing of geographical boundaries. In these cases there would be a significant crossing of culture. The person doing this work would be required to learn a language and culture in order to present the Gospel.
Some might even propose that by the standard definition of mission, reaching out to mainstream America for the Orthodox Church is still a missionary task in that Orthodoxy, they would say, has still not completely come to terms with American culture. Conversely, someone from mainstream America who has become Orthodox and who is now serving a traditional Orthodox community might also be considered to be acting in a missionary capacity because that person is required to learn a foreign language and culture in order to preach the Gospel.
Nevertheless, these subtleties are not usually a part of the understanding of mission that has evolved into common usage. Today, when the term “mission parish” is used, it often refers to a newly forming start-up parish and the parameters of being “mission” are defined mostly by size and ability to be self-sustaining, rather than by what cultural group the parish might be reaching out to.
Is it possible, though, that this broader usage of the word “missions” carries with it some confusion as it is held simultaneously with the traditional view of missions? Consider what we call a person involved in “domestic” mission. A priest who was born and raised in the United States and is assigned to a U.S. start-up parish is not considered primarily as a missionary priest. Many would be surprised to see the title of “missionary” on that person?s business card. Equally, a person who is successful at bringing new converts to one?s local parish is not called a missionary.
This same distinction carries through to other duties of parish life or Christian outreach. An individual who teaches catechism, or helps at a local soup kitchen and feeds the poor, or volunteers as a nurse or teacher in one?s own community is not called a missionary. In our own communities when we volunteer our services and do charitable works we are being good Christians doing the work of the local Church. Thus, if the person conducting the work is not classified as a missionary, the work being done should not be classified as missionary either.
It is here that inconsistencies in the alternative definition of “missions” and “missionary” are revealed. “Mission,” when used in this alternative way, is given a broad meaning, while the word “missionary” maintains its narrower traditional context. These terms contradict one another.
There is a second dimension of the definition of “missions” and “missionary” that needs to be explored: what activities can be included as mission work, so that the person doing them is considered a missionary? Often, a person serving the Church abroad in any capacity is called a missionary. But for some, there is the belief that for a person to be a considered a missionary, that person must be directly, if not exclusively, involved in evangelism. Orthodox missionary work, however, has always involved ministry to the entire person, both spiritual and physical. As it spread, the early Orthodox Church took an interest in the educational, agricultural, artistic and technical development of the tribes and peoples drawn to it (Yannoulatis, 1989). Most definitions of mission include this comprehensive and holistic understanding of missionary activity and do not limit it to evangelism only.
The following quotation is an excellent example of an inclusive definition of what activities are included within mission: “Mission” carries a holistic understanding: the proclamation and sharing of the good news of the gospel by word (kerygma), deed (diakonia), prayer and worship (leiturgia) and the everyday witness of the Christian life (martyria); teaching as building up and strengthening people in their relationship with God and each other; and healing as wholeness and reconciliation into koinonia ? communion with God, communion with people, and communion with creation as a whole. (CWME Commission, 2005) In many situations, though, a person who serves philanthropically across cultural and geographic boundaries is not called a missionary. In fact, some persons working abroad in a humanitarian capacity might even be offended if they were to be called missionaries. What, then, classifies philanthropic work conducted abroad as “missionary”?
The distinction that qualifies a philanthropic activity as “missionary” is that it is motivated by proclaiming the Gospel (in word and deed) and of making disciples. Does this mean that a person engaged in a purely philanthropic service but who does not engage in active and strategic evangelism can be considered a missionary? Yes. Philanthropic work can be considered mission if it is done for a Church that is intentionally reaching out evangelistically or ministering to unreached peoples through holistic outreach. The specific humanitarian work a person does assists the Church abroad in providing a more holistic ministry to the people it serves. This holistic ministry validates the Church?s message.
In many countries where Christianity is a minority religion, social services are minimal and human suffering is great. A Church that is true to the Gospel must address the entire condition of the people it reaches out to. Thus, when a missionary helps a Church to strengthen its philanthropic ministries, he or she can equally be assisting that Church to provide a more authentic expression of the Christian faith and thus to reach out with greater strength.
Two-thirds of the world?s population do not consider themselves Christian. Additionally, over one-quarter of the world?s population has not been presented with the Gospel in such a way that they could accept or reject the message. Many of these persons live outside the reach of a Christian community within their own culture. The only way “all nations” will be reached is if people are willing to accept the missionary calling, in the purest sense of the word, by leaving “?home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or lands for me and the Gospel?” (Mark 10:28-30).
The work of making disciples of all nations includes preaching the Gospel in both word and deed. Therefore, missionary work includes both philanthropic outreach and evangelism. The majority of the unreached people today reside outside the boundaries of the domestic Church. Thus, a definition for mission that is inclusive of crossing cultural and geographic barriers in order proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ can help to appropriately form our thinking and guide our strategy into the future.
References:
CWME Commission. (2005). Mission and Evangelism in Unity Today (CWME 2005 Conference Preparatory Paper # 1).
Winter, R. (2005, November/December). Mission Frontiers, 8.
Yannoulatos, A. (1989). Orthodox Mission ? Past, Present, Future. In G. Lemopoulos (Ed.) Your Will be Done: Orthodoxy in Mission (pp. 66-68).Geneva: WCC.
Yannoulatos, A. (Winter 2001/Spring 2002). SYNDESMOS News, Vol. XV / 2, 11-13. |
|
|
|