Mission on the Way
The work of mission is a great adventure: it is done as we go, it is a mission on the way. We may find ups and downs; different turns and twists, but at the same time, we know we are walking a path that the Lord has prepared for us. We look back and see that somehow everything makes sense.
In my last trip to Brazil I heard from a fellow pastor that we should train missionaries, not missiologists. Granted, what he was trying to tell me is that there has been a tendency of preparing more theoreticians over the pressing need of equipping men and women to be practitioners of mission. I understand that, from his starting point; but, at the same time, I must suggest that we need missionaries who are trained missiologists, but also missiologists who are seasoned missionaries. There is no way of separating both. Over the years, a similar idea has been applied for many when preparing pastors, for example. There are those who say that we should prepare pastors, not theologians. Big mistake! A pastor is in his or her very basic function a theologian. The problem is, should we have pastors who are good theologians, or should we continue to have theology illiterate pastors? The problem stems from the old mistrustful attitude against either theological or missiological training.
I believe that mission, being done on the way, requires a healthy balance between theory and practice, between missiology and mission practice, between theology and ministry; in other words, between Word and Deed. As we go forward with the work of mission, we are also writing our own theological or missiological compendia. In fact, the study of mission (i.e., Missiology or Science of Mission) came into being because of the growing practice of mission by the followers of the Lord Jesus Christ. As new problems and challenges were coming to surface, the missioners had the pressing need to find Scriptural answers for those needs. A good example of this is the first missiological conference that we have knowledge of: the meeting of Jerusalem, as we read in Acts 15. It was the practice of the Church that called for the theologizing behind that practice; thus, the letter that was sent to the churches then was the first missiological document that we have in the Bible.
The moment we no longer see the presence of mission theoreticians walking the same road as the missioner, we stop having good missionary practice. The same happens with the pastoral work in the Church. The missionary road requires both the theoretician and the practitioner. Conversely, the moment we, mission theoreticians, cease learning from those who are practicing the work of cross-cultural evangelization, we become blind to the realities of the vision of God for the salvation of the world.
In my last trip to Brazil I heard from a fellow pastor that we should train missionaries, not missiologists. Granted, what he was trying to tell me is that there has been a tendency of preparing more theoreticians over the pressing need of equipping men and women to be practitioners of mission. I understand that, from his starting point; but, at the same time, I must suggest that we need missionaries who are trained missiologists, but also missiologists who are seasoned missionaries. There is no way of separating both. Over the years, a similar idea has been applied for many when preparing pastors, for example. There are those who say that we should prepare pastors, not theologians. Big mistake! A pastor is in his or her very basic function a theologian. The problem is, should we have pastors who are good theologians, or should we continue to have theology illiterate pastors? The problem stems from the old mistrustful attitude against either theological or missiological training.
I believe that mission, being done on the way, requires a healthy balance between theory and practice, between missiology and mission practice, between theology and ministry; in other words, between Word and Deed. As we go forward with the work of mission, we are also writing our own theological or missiological compendia. In fact, the study of mission (i.e., Missiology or Science of Mission) came into being because of the growing practice of mission by the followers of the Lord Jesus Christ. As new problems and challenges were coming to surface, the missioners had the pressing need to find Scriptural answers for those needs. A good example of this is the first missiological conference that we have knowledge of: the meeting of Jerusalem, as we read in Acts 15. It was the practice of the Church that called for the theologizing behind that practice; thus, the letter that was sent to the churches then was the first missiological document that we have in the Bible.
The moment we no longer see the presence of mission theoreticians walking the same road as the missioner, we stop having good missionary practice. The same happens with the pastoral work in the Church. The missionary road requires both the theoretician and the practitioner. Conversely, the moment we, mission theoreticians, cease learning from those who are practicing the work of cross-cultural evangelization, we become blind to the realities of the vision of God for the salvation of the world.
posted by Ehud M. Garcia | 8:47 PM
|
0 comments
