My reflection text for this month is a recent favorite, Romans 8:28 (TWV — Tom Wright Version from Into The Heart of Romans), “We know, in fact, that God works all things together for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose.” We will get to this verse in due course.
The origin of mission(s)
First, I will address the reason for this opinion’s title. The word “missions” (human actions) or “mission” (God’s action) is derived from the Latin word missio, which essentially means to send. Missio is the Latin translation of the biblical Greek word apostellō which means a similar thing: to send away, out, or off. We rely on the surrounding context of the text to determine what or who is sent and why.
Apostolos in Greek (apostolus in Latin), a related word, adds intentionality and authority to the sending, as with the concept of an Apostle. In the Latin Bible, then, missio refers to the act of sending with apostolus referring to the person sent with authority in addition to the intention with which they are missio/sent.
In an article for the Journal of the American Academy of Religion (June 2011), Paul Kollman tracks the origin of the concept of mission(s) as we understand the term today back to the sixteenth century, popularized by Ignatius of Loyola. Around then it began to be used to describe Christian evangelization—sent, with authority to share the gospel. In doing so, Loyola conflated two biblical concepts (apostellō and apostolus) in the one Latin word missio.
Before the sixteenth century, there was no Christian mission.
Kollman expertly asserts, “Before the sixteenth century, there was no Christian mission, as the term is used today. There were people doing what was subsequently called “mission,” but the Latin missio was used to describe the sending of the Son and Spirit in Trinitarian theology.” Outreach or evangelistic activity was done but it was called something else like, propagating the faith, planting churches, or even illuminating the nations.
With this opinion I am demonstrating etymology, the study of the history of words; semanticism, the study of meaning; and archaeology of knowledge, the study of how language is used to reinforce systems of understanding over time. Language and vocabulary are dynamic phenomena, morphing according to shifts in the way we conversationally speak and understand our reality.
Our language both describes and reinforces our way of comprehending our world so we can act meaningfully in it. As our contexts change, words can drift far from their original intended meaning, their roots. This can liberate, but it can also constrain us to ways of thinking that are no longer fit for purpose.
When we consider how the word mission(s) is commonly used now, it does not take an expert to realize that it has come to mean something quite different from its original use in Latin (to send out, away, or off). Its morphed meaning over time now reinforces particular ways of thinking. More to the point, the meaning of “mission” has now drifted so far from the biblical meaning of apostellō that is effectively non-biblical. Our use of mission as a term is now functionally equivalent to the idea of completing a task—should you choose to accept it (cue “Mission Impossible” theme tune).
In theology we distinguish between the plural (missions) and the singular (mission), with the former indicating human participation in the latter, missio Dei (God’s sending). That distinction is not so clear in common usage, the singular and plural are often thought to be interchangeable. The theological idea of missio Dei can be sourced to the thinking of Karl Barth, which was discussed at a missionary conference in Willingen, Germany in 1952 and came into wider usage thereafter.
The extension of mission(s)
God not only sends but God achieves the ends for which agents are sent.
At its most basic, missio Dei encouraged missionary influencers to shift their thinking about Christianity's expansion from being human or Church centered to being God centered, initiated, and conducted. God was and remains the sender (of the Son, the Spirit, and the Church). Furthermore, God not only sends but God achieves the ends for which agents are sent. The agents, then, are participants in the process but not the initiators or directors.
Missio Dei was embraced by the Ecumenical movement (represented by the World Council of Churches) but by and large either ignored or reinterpreted by the Evangelical stream of Protestantism (represented by the World Evangelical Alliance and Lausanne Movement, and not to be confused with the nickname for the religious right in the politics of the United States). Missio Dei influenced the Ecumenicals to engage more in humanitarian mercy ministries. That is, the Church sent (by default) under the reign of Christ into all creation, to manifest that reality in society and participate in God’s acts of justice, mercy, and love.
Despite some valiant attempts to mitigate a complete divergence (particularly by Latin American Evangelicals), Evangelicals prioritized gospel proclamation and personal salvation—the Church (or, most functionally, the para-church) sent into the world to declare the Kingdom of God and call people to repent, follow Jesus, and thereby enter the Kingdom they previously did not have access to, while changing (personally and socially) to align with New Testament expectations.
Both of these perspectives find validity in scripture, and we do ourselves a great disservice by bifurcating them. In agreement with the Latin American proponents of integral mission, it is best that the personal and the social are seen as an integrated whole. But I do not believe that mission(s) is the best way to describe it.
The shift of meaning arose concurrent with European (read: Protestant) colonial global expansion.
Having established this recent distinction between the two Protestant streams, the shift of emphasis for each of them regarding “mission(s)”, from just sending to include doing, is quite the leap. The shift of meaning arose concurrent with European (read: Protestant) colonial global expansion and only since the late 1950s has the outworking of the shift diverged into the two streams.
They are each, in their own way, activistic. They both remain anthropocentric (human-focused), in spite of Barth’s encouragement toward a high regard for the sovereignty of God. But, while it may have been implied in the context of usage, “missio” never meant “to do”, it simply means “to send”.
“Missions” became defined quite narrowly by Evangelicals worldwide as a sizeable industry developed around the sending of expatriate missionaries to achieve a prescribed goal or goals. To suggest that missions is anything other than sending expatriates cross-culturally to share the gospel where it is not yet known results in a strong push-back, especially in the United States (see the 2018 book, When Everything is Missions and especially its follow-up as examples). Any contrary opinion threatens the business proposition and viability of a lot of organizations and they will defend against it being undermined even as they continue to suffer decline.
Repositioning mission(s)
With the tight hold on the concept of mission(s) in each of the Protestant streams, both drifting from missio’s etymology, I suggest we move on from using the term altogether when speaking of human participation in God’s activity in the world. We need a better biblically-faithful focus to describe gospel engagement with new realities. The continued use of “mission(s)” to mean a project to accomplish hinders our understanding of, and participation in, God’s purpose.
By repositioning missions, I mean to put the proverbial cart back behind the horse. Missio is the act of sending, period. We overreach when we add more to it. Missions experts get caught up in arguments about the actual intention of the sending, trying to interpret what Jesus might have meant in John 20:21 (“As the Father has sent me, so I am sending you”). Yet in an earlier passage John has Jesus himself stating what he means.
The meaning of missio/sending can be located in Jesus’ prayer of John 17:18-23 (“Just as you sent me into the world, I am sending them into the world…”). The entire intent of that prayer is that the sending was to manifest intimate unity—to be one: a diverse singularity in mutual submission for and to participate in God's glory. Not in uniformity but co-creative within the tensions of our differences. The Apostle Paul expands on this wonderfully in Romans.
There are, of course, numerous other passages that indicate what Jesus’ intention was when he sent the disciples (e.g. to preach or proclaim and demonstrate the Kingdom by healing and casting out demons). We also have a good understanding of what it means to be witnesses following Jesus’ ascension from the New Testament. But these intentions reflect the purpose of God for which the sending is merely the means.
By focusing on missio/apostellō (the sending) we too easily neglect the propositum/prothesis (purpose).
By focusing on missio/apostellō (the sending) we too easily neglect the propositum/prothesis (purpose). Forgive all the Latin and Greek, but for developing theological terms these are the most common languages used. And, since the study of Christian expansion has been commonly known as missiology, I now suggest that we put that aside with all “missions” terminology and instead embrace the study and practice of prothesiology—God’s plan and purposes, and our participation in them.
Proposing purpose
That is not to say that missiology did not include God’s intentions, it certainly does. But by holding to the morphed concept of missio to mean a project to complete, usually in a foreign place, it narrows the possibilities of what is explored and practiced, where, and by whom. Furthermore, since mission(s) and the study of it evolved with European expansion, the concepts are mired in colonial assumptions of dominionism (territory taking and dominating), too easily leading to appropriation (adding foreign meaning to cultural forms, also known as contextualization) and exploitation (extracting local resources for outsider profit).
God’s purposes are cosmic in nature, include all of nature, and require a call to allegiance, all with spiritual significance and material effects.
Prothesis or purpose, on the other hand, draws us into a different line of inquiry and activity. It emphasizes the need to deeply engage with God’s prescribed design, a plan that is far more complex than most Christians appreciate. It is not merely standing up for social justice, convincing non-Christians to follow Jesus, or finding some sense of true-self and fulfillment in life therein. God’s purposes are cosmic in nature, include all of nature, and require a call to allegiance, all with spiritual significance and material effects.
Developed as it was within a specific context and theological orientation, I am not promoting Rick Warren’s “Purpose Driven Life” here. There is much more to God’s intent than what is explored in that program, useful primer though it may be for some. There are also many more ways we can participate in God’s purposes than Protestant churches and missions recognize or allow for.
The people of God participating in the purposes of God to co-create New Creation for the glory of God in all nations.
Our participation in God’s purposes is at once intimately personal (we are uniquely designed to participate) and uncomfortably universal (our co-creative participation with followers of Jesus from different backgrounds should have benefit for all of the created order). With that in mind, I propose the primary axiom of prothesiology to be: the people of God participating in the purposes of God to co-create New Creation for the glory of God in all nations.
The defining verse of prothesiology would therefore be Romans 8:28 as N. T. Wright (drawing on others) expounds it. There, he renders the Greek word “en” as “with” instead of “for” or “to”. That switch, in light of the rest of Romans and especially Romans 8, transforms the meaning from something self-centered (God works for our good) to self-giving (we participate with God for the good of all things).
The focus remains firmly on “his purpose” and "those who love God" (that is, follow Jesus) as participants (co-laborers or co-creators) "with" God in that purpose. But it is not a purpose limited to our cultural interpretations, whether derived from theology or ideology. God is the primary actor here and God’s purpose is best understood from the entire narrative of scripture and through discerning the Spirit’s activity in the whole world today—reaching far beyond the salvation of individuals.
All the while, we humbly admit that God’s ways are higher than ours, even as we have sufficient instruction to act on according to our limited understanding. Different expressions of the faith may have different convictions of the purpose to which they’re called, but that doesn’t mean others are wrong. It is safe to say that God’s singular purpose is multifaceted, just like Jesus’ Church.
Outworking Purpose
Suddenly the scope of our participation includes “all things”, not solely proclamation and not just the cross-cultural establishment of the faith in another’s context. “All things” is an all-inclusive and all-expansive term, nothing is excluded. It is a reference to Jesus’ rightful inheritance of the cosmos as his possession as Creator.
The shalom of God realized—a state of perfect harmony or peace, the rightness of all things.
This is about our calling or vocation to manifest or materialize in our worlds (wherever the Spirit places or leads us) the reality of Jesus’ Kingdom, a manifestation that the Apostle Paul at times refers to as New Creation (which I treat as a proper noun). In Old Testament terms, this is the shalom of God realized—a state of perfect harmony or peace, the rightness of all things. It is, quite unequivocally, not the establishment of a Christian political state, nation, or empire. It is a transcendent reality manifest locally.
Contrary to popular understandings of mission(s), this has more to do with our being than our doing. The presence of churches as examples of New Creation is the very witness Jesus said we would be in Acts 1:8—diverse people gathered and worshiping together, loving one another in practical ways, caring for our environments, doing good in our societies (collectively and individually), and calling out what is not good.
Demonstrating the Kingdom of God outworked in our localities, as examples of the New Creation to come in fullness, is the purpose for which we are sent into the world. Our acts of proclamation should merely be necessary to explain to others what is already evident because of Jesus. Then the invitation to join us through allegiance to Jesus would be welcome by most.
Unless they have something significant to lose by doing so. Like power, privilege, prestige, entitlement, ill-gotten gains, etc. alongside what the Bible details as "desires of your sinful nature" (Galatians 5:19-21). There is no participation in New Creation if one wishes to cling to such things.
We, of course, will not bring about permanent transformation this side of eternity, nor will we have an effect on “all things”. The Bible is clear, that will only happen at the consummation, upon Jesus’ return in glory. But, even if politics or society persecutes us for our subversive perspective, we must persist with our witness or testimony to the fact that it will happen, that God’s promised shalom will come to pass in its fullness.
The promise is for God to fulfill, not a task for us to complete.
The promise is for God to fulfill, not a task for us to complete. It may not look like all things are working together for God’s good at the moment, but we can rest assured that God is still working to that end. God will be glorified, and in our obedience to God’s call we have our part to play in that process—through our positive example, and our prophetic calling out of bad examples.
While it is a state’s prerogative to determine how best to protect and nurture the wellbeing of its people, no earthly rule will satisfactorily meet the standards of Christ’s New Creation—ever. On this side of eternity, politics will flip between different sides of a political spectrum (whether by election, revolution, occupation, or colonization) and the best that citizens can hope for is some semblance of wellbeing over the long haul.
I believe that Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde was an exemplar of the prophetic nature of our witness.
In the meantime, churches are called to knuckle down and live out the ethics of God’s kingdom as best as they can in their contexts, especially in caring for those most vulnerable to excessive enforcement of a nation state’s law. In this regard, I believe that Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde was an exemplar of the prophetic nature of our witness at the recent prayer service with President Trump present.
When opportunities arise, representatives of Jesus are right to plead for mercy from the powerful, to promote peaceful unity among all, honor the dignity of all, call for loving honesty for the good of all, and encourage us all to live with greater humility. As expressions of love, against such things surely there is no law (Galatians 5:23).
For most Evangelicals, social and political engagement of the likes of the Bishop's homily would not be considered missions. But this is precisely what communities of Jesus’ followers are sent into the world to be as witnesses of his narrow way. Co-creating New Creation locally, and calling the powers to a higher standard prophetically, is right in line with God’s purpose to which we are called.
If we can make the shift from missio to prothesis we will be far more effective as the whole Church taking the whole gospel to the whole world, participating synergistically as co-creators with God, while the Spirit of God draws more people into Jesus’ family and (eventually) makes all things good.
Dr Jay Mātenga is a contextual theologian of Māori heritage. He serves as the Executive Director of the World Evangelical Alliance’s Mission Commission and Opinion Editor for Christian Daily International. Jay has served cross-cultural missions for over 30 years, with missionary deploying agencies and missions alliances. Jay's passion is to strengthen participation by the people of God in the purposes of God towards co-creating new creation for the glory of God. Jay keeps a monthly blog and other contributions archived at https://jaymatenga.com.
