The Use of the New Testament in Mission:
Methodological and Hermeneutical Reflections
JOHANNES NISSEN
This paper is an attempt to carry on my reflections on
New Testament and mission from a methodological and hermeneutical perspective.
This means that part of the material can be found in my book New Testament
and Mission: Historical and Hermeneutical Reflections (1999; 2nd. ed. 2002)
as well as in some recent articles. The hermeneutical problem, however, is
presented in a new way, and a number of new insights have been added.
My contribution has three parts. In an introductory
part I am giving some preliminary discussion of motivation and methods. Part II
is a survey of various ways of motivating mission. Part III will focus on some
hermeneutical problems.
It should be noticed that my reflections are
provisional and tentative. References are usually put in the brackets with a
list of literature at the end. In some case, however, I have not given the full
bibliographical information (in order to reduce the length of the bibliography
at the end).
The hermeneutical task can be described in different
ways. Some would speak of "biblical foundations" or ¡°biblical basis¡±;
others of "point of orientation", or "biblically inspired
perspective". ¡°Biblical groundings¡± is another term which is used
particularly by evangelicals. By contrast, some catholic missiologists would
rather operate with a systematic philosophy of religion or theology alongside
the Bible. The latter might criticize the former for using the Bible improperly
as just such a book of doctrine containing a system of truths (Spindler 1995:
126).
Following Spindler (1995: 126) one can distinguish
between three kinds of questions that must be asked:
(1)
Why mission. That is, the reasons that make mission possible and
necessary.
(2)
How must the church carry out mission? That is, the methods of
missionary activity in and according to the Bible.
(3)
What is mission? That is the essence of mission.
All of these questions are relevant for this study.
The motivation, the method and the essence of mission will
all be considered in what follows.
Biblical scholars and missiologists tend to define
¡°mission¡± in different ways. This might be illustrated by the following points:
a. It is often argued by historians that a definition
of a missionary religion must include the factors of both intentionality and
activity. In an article dealing with the understanding of Jewish mission R.
Riesner claims that one has to make a clear difference between the active
mission of a religion and its passive attraction. He therefore proposes to
define mission as an activity intended to win converts (Riesner 2002:
221-223). Such a narrowly construed use of the term mission has its advantages. However, a broader
definition is needed. Most missiologist would argue that mission or attraction
is not an ¡°either-or¡± (cf. below on the comprehensive understanding of
mission).
b. Biblical scholarship has tended to focus on the
issue of Gentile mission.
It is evident that this issue is of great importance from a historical point of
view (cf. the recent collection edited by J. Ådna & H. Kvalbein 2000). But
what is its hermeneutical relevance – apart from the question of Christian
mission to the Jews? One aspect of the answer might be what has been called
¡°the cultural mandate¡±: it means ¡°to make the principle of ¡°neither Jew nor
Gentile¡± the touchstone for our thought and to make the apostolic practice the
paradigm for our action as we seek to apply the Good News of new life in Christ
Jesus to the various cultural issues of life today¡± (Longenecker 1984: 44).
c. Other scholars are asking more broadly than just
the Jew-Gentile issue. Their starting point for reflection is the universal
gospel. So, for instance, D. Senior & C. Stuhlmueller emphasize ¡°the
universal mission of the church¡± (1983: 315). ¡°To be universal, capable of
embracing and being expressed by all cultures and all peoples, is essential to
the gospel. The god-given mission of the church is to all nations¢¥¡± (1983: 2).
No wonder that this approach is confirmed by many systematic theologians, e.g.
C.E. Braaten: ¡°Mission is the process of exploring the universal significance
of the gospel in history¡± (Braaten 1977: 2). ¡°Nothing less than the universal
gospel will meet the needs of the human condition we experience today¡± (p. 2).
These examples indicate that the focus on the universal gospel is important in
both a historical and hermeneutical perspective. The main problem here is how
to combine the universal perspective with the local or contextual expression of
the gospel (cf. Nissen 2002b, on the problem of Christology in relation to the
global and the local see Nissen 2000).
d. A number of scholars have taken as their starting
point the issue of ¡°sending¡±. This includes a recent collection of
articles edited by W.J. Larkins & J.F. Williams. "In the Bible,
"mission" is the divine activity of sending intermediaries whether
supernatural or human to speak or do God¢¥s will so that God¢¥s purposes for
judgment or redemption are furthered" (Larkin/Williams 1998: 3).
As to methodology three steps are proposed: a)
investigation of historical background, 2) analysis of the New Testament
documents, 3) synthesis of findings. This book seeks evidence for the writer¢¥s
view of the theme of mission. Word studies of apostello, pempo, erchomai,
poreuomai, kerysso, euangelion, ethnos, basileia, and cognates are considered
to be the starting point (Larkin/Williams 1998:4).
The
missiologist DuBose in a similar way have taken the issue of ¡°sending¡± as his
starting point. He pleads for ¡°a hermeneutic built around one central idea,
such as the concept of the sending¡± (DuBose 1983: 150). In effect, however, he declares
one verb to be the key verb in the Bible, at the expense of other verbs which –
given the same methodological approach – could with equal justification claim
to be key verbs. The results are twofold: there is at tendency to see ¡°sending¡±
everywhere in Scripture, and to harmonize the meaning of the verb ¡°send¡± as
though it means the same in every book of the Bible (Bosch 1986: 68).
The perspective in the work of Larkin & Williams
is broader than that of DuBose. Nevertheless their focus is also restricted to
one aspect of mission. Furthermore, their approach seems to presuppose the
traditional historical approach to the text: it is the task of biblical
scholars to establish the exact original meaning(s) of the term ¡°sending¡± and
then ¡°apply¡± these to our understanding of mission or use them as a checklist
to ascertain whether or not our missionary enterprises are ¡°biblical¡±. This
approach, however, should be replaced by a more dialectical conversation
between the interpreter and the text (see part III).
Furthermore, a more comprehensive definition is
needed. To be sure, a distinction should be made between mission and the
related term ¡°evangelism¡± Although mission and evangelism are linked together
and inextricably interwoven in theology and praxis, mission has a broader
meaning (Bosch 1991: 409-419; Klaiber 1997: 24-27). Mission is the church sent
into the world, to love, to serve, to preach, to teach, to heal, to liberate.
This comprehensive understanding of mission is often defined by the threefold
task of the church: witness (martyria), the service (diakonia)
and communion (koinonia). At least four aspects of mission can be
discerned (Nissen 2002: 18):
1)
mission as being sent out
(especially John),
2)
mission as making disciples
of all nations (Matthew),
3)
mission as deliverance and
emancipatory action (Luke),
4)
mission as witness (Acts;
John).
If we chose only one of these concepts (the list is
not exhaustive; see below), our focus is bound to lead to reduction, since the
New Testament comprises a variety of missionary approaches. We should avoid
what I would call a genre-reductionism, and not only use "sending"
texts in our understanding of mission.
In this part I shall try to categorize different types
of using the New Testament in mission. The different categories need not be
exclusive of each other. Thus, there might be an overlapping between different
types of motivation.
1. Mission as a command
The mission command of the resurrected Christ is known
in four different versions. In addition, there is a reference to a missionary
mandate in the pre-Easter material of the synoptic gospels (e.g. Matth
10:5-16). In these texts mission is conceived of as obedience. The so-called
¡°Great Commission¡± of Matth 28:16-20 remains to this day the most important
element of motivating missionary paraenesis. However, to label it the ¡°Great
Commission¡± is a value judgment. This designation is not part of the biblical
text. It might be more appropriate to call it "the final commission",
"the last mandate¡± or ¡°the mission charge¡± (Arias 1992: 16).
Matth 28 is sometimes seen as an isolated proof-text -
answering the question "Why Christian mission?" This idea must be challenged
for several reasons. First, as pointed out by many scholars (e.g. D.J.Bosch, L.
Newbigin, H. Boer) it was not until the 18th century that Matth
28:16-20 became the primary mission text.
Second, the text has been misused and/or used out of
context. The text is mostly understood to be about sending people out in order
to bring people into the community of faith. But the accent of the command is
not on going out. ¡°Make disciples¡± is the imperative and carries the main
emphasis (Kasting 1969: 36). The commandment bears on the formation of the
disciples, not on their departure.
Third, it is pointed out by scholars (e.g. Boer 1961:
109-110) that nowhere in the New Testament does the Great Commission play a
role concominant to the role it played in modern Western mission. The decisive
initiating factor for mission in the early church was not obedience to a
command, but the activity of the Holy Spirit since Pentecost (Boer 1961:
109-110). Formally Matth 28 is a command, but Protestant mission has often
emphasized in a one-sided manner obedience as a motive for mission
(Bosch 1983: 219-220; Soares-Prabhu 1994: 272-273). If the last commission is
interpreted in this way, it is easily placed in the context of legalism.
Mission is then depersonalized and the "command" becomes a marching
order of Christian militia, engaged in a holy war.
This critique of the use of Matth 28 has been voiced
in particular by scholars from the South. In the past – it is said - Matth 28:16-20 has been understood as
mandate to an aggressive militant mission, as a ¡°crusade¡±. It was imaged as a
¡°conquest¡± – winning ¡°souls¡± for Christ (Soares-Prabhu 1993: 85-86). Moreover,
it is claimed that ¡°military
imagery and language has not yet fully been exorcized out of the vocabulary of
Christian mission. Hymns, writings and speeches continue to use militaristic
imagery, which promotes the idea of mission in subtle ways¡± (Thangaraj 1999:
10). Such a militant understanding should be replaced by a cruciform
responsibility which will not allow us to see others as simply enemies of
the gospel who must be conquered and subdued. Evangelism is ¡°a rightful and
legitimate activity of the local church. But it has to be a cruciform activity¡¦
to be done in a spirit of vulnerability and humility¡± (Thangaraj 1999: 82).
Acts 1:8 does not belong to the category of a
missionary charge in the strict sense of the word. But it has often been
considered in this way. Jesus¢¥ words - ¡°You shall be my witnesses to the end of
the earth¡¦¡±) – have commonly been read as an imperative. But both in Acts 1:8
and in Luke 24:48 there is an ambiguity between promise and task. In the future
tense of Acts 1:8 the main emphasis is on promise. It is not primarily a
¡°command¡±. As Schneider notes: ¡°Das dritte
Evangelium und die Apostelgeschichte stellen indessen nicht ein Missionsbefehl
in den Vordergrund, sondern die Gottgewolltheit der Weltmission und die
Zuversicht, dass das Christuszeugnis alle Welt erreichen wird¡° (Schneider 1982:
74). Bosch in a similar way states: „Luke¢¥s pneumatology
excludes the possibility of a missionary command; it implies, rather, a promise
that the disciples will get involved in mission¡± (Bosch 1991: 114).
Acts 1:8 reminds us that ¡°witness (one can say:
mission) will simply be ¡°a matter of being¡±. And one does not have to be
obedient in order to be, as being precedes obeying. Our being as Christians is
therefore a being as witnesses in mission; there is no need to take a decision
first to be obedient to the Great Commission¡± (Kritzinger & Saayman 1994:
2).
To speak of mission as a mandate or a command is
certainly an important aspect of the New Testament. However, if mission is
interpreted in that way, it will easily be become a legalistic obedience.
At this point we might learn from Paul¢¥s hermeneutic.
It is interesting to see how he interprets a saying of the Lord in 1 Cor 9:14:
¡°In the same way the Lord gave instruction that those who preach the Gospel
should earn their living by the Gospel¡± (cf. Matth 10:10).
In the chapter as a whole Paul defends his working to
support himself in spite of his right as an apostle to be supported by the
communities (9:1-5). Now the point is that he renounced this right. Strictly
speaking it was not only a right, but a duty. The important thing,
however, is that Paul interpreted it as a privilege which he did not
take advantage of. In other words, he did not interpret the words of the Lord
in a literal sense. But he did capture their essence, their spirit: the
missionary should not be a hindrance to the gospel (Nissen 1984: 47-49).
A distinction must be made between external and
internal compulsion (e.g. Klaiber 1997: 193ff.). The deepest root of the
missionary calling is gratitude, wonder at the miracle of God¢¥s grace (Kritzinger/Saayman
1994: 1-2).
Perhaps the most beautiful expression for the inner
necessity for missionary proclamation is found in Peter¢¥s words in Acts 4:20:
"We cannot keep from speaking what we have seen and heard". One¡¯s own
experience provides the unavoidable urge to communicate the message of God¢¥s
salvific action in Christ. Many who were healed by Jesus behaved accordingly.
They made public - often despite explicit prohibition to do so - what Jesus had
done for them (Mark 1:45; 5:19-20; 7:36). It is the same with the content of
Paul¢¥s justification of his missionary activity in Rom 1:14-17: He is under
obligation to share with all people the message of salvation which has touched
him personally in his encounter with Christ. So it is that for him the urgent
command of the Lord Jesus (the ananke of 1 Cor 9:16) and his inner urge
to preach are one (Klaiber 1997: 194-195).
It is worthwhile noticing that a similar idea can be
found in the orthodox tradition. Here God¢¥s love for humankind is a foundational
motive of the missionary enterprise (Stamoolis 1986: 81). Furthermore,
particular emphasis is laid on the motive of inner necessity. This differs
somewhat from the Great Commission motive in that the obligation is
internalized by the missionary and becomes part of one¢¥s very being. The
question of the motive of mission can be studied from several angles: love for
God and men, obedience to the Great Command of the Lord, desire for the
salvation of souls, longing for God¢¥s glory. All these, surely, are serious
motives. However according to Stamoolis the real motive of mission, for both
the individual and the church, is something deeper. It is inner necessity.
¡°Necessity is laid upon me¡±¡¦¡°Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel¡± (1 Cor
9:16). All other motives are aspects of this need, derivative motives
(Stamoolis 1986: 84).
Paul¡§s understanding of mission can be seen under the
headline of ¡°Constrained by the love of God¡± (Nissen 2002: 99ff.) A sense of
gratitude constitutes the deepest level of Paul¢¥s missionary motivation. ¡°In
his letter to the Romans he
establishes an intimate relationship between ¡°grace¡± or ¡°gratitude¡± and
¡°duty¡±; put differently, Paul¢¥s acknowledgement of indebtness is immediately
translated into a sense of gratitude. The debt or obligation he feels does not
represent a burden which inhibits him; rather, recognition of debt is
synonomous with giving thanks. The way Paul gives thanks is to be a missionary
to Jew and Gentile (Bosch 1991: 138; cf. Kritzinger/Saayman 1994: 2).
3. Missionary discipleship
Discipleship as an important aspect of mission is
underlined by all gospels. The gospels of Matthew and Mark may serve as
examples.
Matthew: The content and conditions of
discipleship in the lifetime of Jesus are illustrated most clearly in the
mission discourse in Matth 10:1-42. The mandate given to the disciples in this
chapter includes a call for poverty and simple lifestyle. What is demanded from
Jesus is an attitude: freedom from acquisitiveness and a trust in providence so
absolutely that it can wholly dispense with even the minimum of material
resources. Poverty and powerlessness are for Matthew an absolutely
indispensable part of Christian Mission (Soares-Prabhu 1993: 80-81).
The church is called to follow Christ¢¥s example. Mission
in Christ¢¥s way means that we must read Matth 28:18-20 together with such texts
as Matth 27:41-42 (the temptation on the cross) and with Matth 16:24-25 – where
Jesus tells his disciples: ¡°If any want to become my followers, let them deny
themselves and take up their cross and follow me¡±. It means that the ¡°crusading
mind¡± has to be replaced by the ¡°crucified mind¡± (Koyama 1979: 54; cf. Nissen
2002: 31).
Mark: The call to discipleship is
also an important aspect of Mark¢¥s gospel. ¡°The way of Jesus is the way of the
disciples, and discipleship consists in walking the way of Jesus. This is the
meaning of akolouthein, to follow, in the gospel of Mark¡± (Blount 1998:
128). ¡°The members of Mark¢¥s community would easily read themselves into his
portrait of the disciples on their way up to Jerusalem¡± (Marcus) (Blount 1998:
141).
Discipleship is a learning process: The call to
discipleship is a call to open oneself to a model of learning. This model is
based on simply ¡°being with Jesus (Mark 3:14), accompanying him, experiencing
his authority, receiving his teaching and sharing his way to the cross
(Klaiber). In that sense ¡°the story of Jesus is also to be the story of his
followers¡± (Donahue). His way was flowed into their way. And their way has
become the way of discipleship (Pesch; see Nissen 2002: 43).
The hermeneutical question is: To what degree can this
radical ethos of discipleship inform and inspire later Christian missionaries.
This question was already addressed in the Pauline communities. As I have
indicated above there seems to be a conflict between two types of missionaries
in 1 Corinthians 9.
The different ways of understanding the missionary
have been elaborated by G. Theissen (1975). He considers the Hellenistic urban
churches as reflecting a less radical, more middle-class society over against
the wandering prophets from Palestine. Thus, according to Theissen the radical
ethos is replaced by a more moderate ethic that appears above all in the
Deutero-Paulines as a conservative ¡°patriarchalism of love¡±. Does that mean
that in the long run the radical discipleship had to be limited to a small
group of Christian missionaries?
The issue of itinerant missionaries has recently been
discussed by H. Marshall. His question is: Was evangelism a responsibility for
every Christian, for the local churches, or only for individuals with a special
commission from Christ, as for example the apostle Paul? A consideration of the
New Testament evidence confirms the collective responsibility of the church for
evangelism (in my terminology: ¡°mission¡±). According to Marshall itinerant
evangelism and local evangelism were carried on side by side. ¡°All this means,
finally, that the church today can learn from the Pauline pattern without being
tied to it, that it needs to recover the charisma of the evangelist but that
the witness of the local church remains an obligation that cannot be avoided
simply because it is present in somewhat rudimentary form in Paul¡± (Marshall
2000: 263).
Instead of highlighting the imperative (command,
commission, mandate, obligation) one can turn to the indicative. In this case
the main focus will be on God¢¥s action – not on the action of the church or the
disciples. This way of thinking is underlined in modern theology by means of
the missio Dei. Mission is considered to be a movement from God to the
world; the church is seen as an instrument for that mission. There is church,
because there is mission, not vice versa. To participate in mission is to
participate in the movement of God¢¥s love toward people, since God is a
fountain of sending love (Bosch 1991: 390). Here I shall point to three aspects
of this insistence on God¢¥s mission.
First, one of the most important aspects of Johannine
mission is its emphasis on the theological or even trinitarian aspect of
mission (Nissen 2002: 90-91). ¡°If the missiological idea of missio Dei
as the foundation of all mission applies anywhere, then it is in the Johannine
writings¡± (Klaiber 1997: 61). According to the orthodox theologian Mar
Osthatios mission is the ontological nature of God which is love. Hence God
Himself is Love or Mission. It is the outreach of his love that prompted God to
create all things visible and invisible and also prompted Him to send His only
begotten Son for the salvation of the world and to send the Holy Spirit for the
consummation of salvation (Mar Osthatios 1995: 87).
Secondly, another example is the Book of Acts which insists on the sovereign work of
the Holy Spirit in mission. In Acts mission is not just church extension. It is
the action of the Holy Spirit who in sovereign freedom both convicts the world
and leads the church toward the fullness of truth which it has not yet grasped
(cf. John 16:8-15). ¡°Mission is not essentially an action by which the church
puts forth its own power and wisdom to conquer the world around it; it is
rather, an action of God, putting forth the power of the Spirit to bring the
universal work of Christ for the salvation of the world nearer to its
completion¡± (Newbigin, quoted in Nissen 2002: 69).
Thirdly, one can also accentuate Jesus¢¥ ministry
as depicted in the synoptic gospels. One of the most characteristic aspects of
Jesus¢¥ mission is his compassion with the needy. It is this compassion that
constitutes the basis of his mission (e.g. Matth 9:36). No wonder, then, that
¡°compassion¡± has become a key word in missiological thinking, in particular
among theologians from the Third World (see also Nissen 1984: 153-167 on ¡°Spirituality
as sharing in God¢¥s compassion¡±). Sugirtharajah indicates that Jesus¢¥
disagreement with his contemporaries was about how one interprets the Torah –
whether it has to be interpreted from the perspective of holiness or from the
perspective of compassion. Their propagation of a holy and righteous God
resulted in the separation and isolation of the community. For Jesus, holiness
meant reaching out and accepting people, not segregating them and erecting
boundaries. Jesus opened up a fresh aspect of the God of Israel – God as
merciful (Sugirtharajah 1992: 4-5).
The hermeneutics of Jesus is a hermeneutics of
compassionate solidarity with the disadvantaged. The uniqueness of Jesus was
his boundless compassion. It was this that distinguished him from all
other Jews. And it was this that constituted the real basis for his mission
(Bosch 1980) – If this compassionate solidarity with the needy can be seen as
the clue to understanding the mission of Jesus, the same should be valid in
relation to his followers.
2. The gospel as narrative
Another type of arguing is to draw attention to the
gospel genre. It is well-known that the earliest version of Mark¢¥s gospel has
no mission command. This however, does not mean, that it is without mission
perspectives. The Gospel itself can be seen as a "Great Commission".
It is a creation of a new literary genre the aim of which is to communicate the
good news of Jesus in narrative form. Jesus and his message are dynamic, not
static. Mark tells a story which is ongoing. It is a communication,
involving invitation and response. "The basic story Mark offers his
readers is the account of a man driven to communicate a message to others and
excersing power on their behalf even in and through his death" (Senior
1983: 214; cf. Arias 1992: 38).
From its very beginning the gospel of Mark has a
¡°missionary¡± character: It is a story about of a great spreading of the gospel
and a great effect (Stock 1984: 131). ¡°Das
Markusevangelium ist in seinem Gesamtcharakter missionarisch, und zwar
universal-missionarisch ausgerichtet¡± (Stock 1984: 143).
3. Visions as motivation for mission
Closely related to the previous point one could argue
that the reflections on the missionary task must take as it starting point a
vision: The Kingdom of God.
D. Senior argues that one of the most vital functions
of the Scriptures is to suffuse the mind and heart of the church with a vision.
¡°The biblical stories and metaphors become the language of Christian hope. We
long for "the new Jerusalem", a home "without tears", a
people who are "neither Jew nor Greek, male or female, slave or free, but
all are one in Christ¡± (Senior 1983: 343).
Scholars from the South in particular focus on the
Kingdom of God as the crucial motivation for mission. Thus, M. Arias describes
the Jubilee and the proclamation of the Kingdom as the essence of Luke¢¥s
paradigm for mission. This is considered to be a holistic approach
(Arias 1992: 56ff.). E. Castro argues that ¡°in the perspective of the kingdom
the church is called to be and to go. To be an anticipation of the kingdom; to
show in its internal life the values of justice and supportive love; to develop
a priestly servant vocation in interceding, in Abrahamic tradition, for the
whole human community; ¡¦ and then to be the missionary people of God, called
and sent all over the world to proclaim and serve, announcing and manifesting
the coming of the kingdom of God¡± (Castro 1985: 69).
According to J. Ukpong, the goal and vision of the
Church¢¥s mission is the renewal of the earth. Jesus inaugurated a new age of
God¢¥s kingly rule on earth and has called the Christian Church to participate
in the actualization of that kingdom
until its eschatological realization. The challenge the church faces in
its mission then is how to proclaim this kingly rule of God in a world full of
oppression, violence and disregard for creation. Its message, just as Jesus¢¥
message must be liberating, life-affirming and prophetic (Ukpong 1992: 146).
In a similar way W. Saayman says that the biblical
story provides us with a powerful vision of new heavens and a new earth (Is
66:17-25; Rev 21). Our expectation of new heavens and a new earth should
inspire us to proclaim the good news that the old has passed away and that the
new has come. Proclamation in this sense should be understood as the
announcement of a deed, not a doctrine; the deed performed by Jesus Christ in
his incarnation, death, resurrection and exaltation. In the light of the
certainty as well as the expectation of new creation, Christian mission can
only be properly understood if it is understood as hope in action (Saayman
1993: 89).
The concept of witness may be seen as another way of
using the New Testament in mission. This category has the advantage of
combining the two aspects that has been considered so far: It is a testimony to
what God is doing (the theological motivation for mission). But at the same
time it underlines what we should do.
1. Mission as bearing witness
There is no doubt that the witness was an important
mode of mission in the early church. This is evidence by a number of writings,
e.g. 1 Peter (witness of hope), Revelation (prophetic witness), Colossians and
Ephesians (witness to powers and authorities). The testimony was not merely one
of words, but demanded a total engagement of speech and action. ¡°The testimony
of citizenship lived with integrity (1 Peter) or even of prophetic refusal to
compromise by withdrawing from certain societal functions (Revelation) were
considered genuine testimony to the good news of universal salvation¡± (Senior
1982: 310).
It is worthwhile noticing that witness in word and
deeds also played a significant role in the second and third century. The love
of neighbours was a distinctive factor of the church as a whole; such behaviour
was noticed by the gentiles. It had an effect of recruitment (Hvalvik 2000
284-285). One of the most probing stories from the early church about a
community living in ¡°two worlds¡± is a famous passage from the letter to
Diognetus, e.g. 5:5: ¡°They reside in their respective countries, but only as
aliens; they take part in everything as citizens, and put up with everything as
foreigners; every foreign land is their home; and every home a foreign land¡±.
The passage gives us a picture which is highly idealistic. But it is most helpful in
the sense that it reminds churches and Christians to their commitment to
witness in context, while it at the same time suggests that the source
of their witness is from beyond. As pointed out by Holtrop e. al. (1996:
59): ¡°To witness is to proclaim a different reality, God¢¥s reality, that
is: this reality turned upside-down as the outcome of God¢¥s
rule. Today as in the past, it opens up new ways of understanding¡±
Genuine Christian witness is witness in context.
This is also accentuated in the passage of 1 Pet 3:15, the importance of which
could not be overestimated (cf. the section ¡°The mission of hope¡± in Nissen
2002: 153-154). It is interesting to notice that this passage has been chosen
as background for the coming IAMS-conference: ¡°The integrity of Mission in the
Light of the Gospel: Bearing the Witness of the Spirit¡±. The importance of this
theme is underlined by S. Bevans. On the one hand, this means the witness that
we bear cannot be compromised by any allegiance to a particular context or
ideology, whether that be local culture, or social location, or philosophical
presuppositions. On the other hand, however, the integrity of the Gospel means
that mission cannot be limited to one kind of activity (Bevans 2002: 4-5).
The significance of witness in modern missiology is
also illustrated by the concept of the missional church . D. Guder
speaks of being the witness, doing the witness, and saying the witness. Being
the witness is representing the reign of God as its community. Doing the
witness is representing the reign of God as its servant. Saying the
witness is representing the Reign of God as its messenger (Guder 1998:
102-109).
2. Mission as invitation
The centrifugal aspect of mission should be
supplemented by a centripetal aspect. The Christian community lives in
gathering and scattering, in being called together and being sent forth. This double aspect of gathering and
sending is reflected in several New Testament writings.
The gospel of Matthew is one example. As H.-R. Weber
points out, Matthew conceived world mission not as a course of indoctrination
but as an incorporation of ever new members into the learning community. The
main point is to bring people into discipleship, with all that this implies:
vicarious poverty, a greater righteousness, and the way to the cross by
acknowledging and following he one who lives and interprets the will of God. In
short: mission is to issue to all the invitation to discipleship (Weber 1971: 98).
The centripetal mission is by definition mission as invitation. It is
¡°evangelization by hospitality¡± (Arias). It is an invitation to share the
blessings of Christ and it is for all. ¡°Come to me, all you that are weary and
carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest¡± (11:28).
Matthey has pointed out how the focus on the magi¢¥s
pilgrimage (2:1-12) can shape our understanding of Matthew¢¥s concept of
mission. He argues that Matthew¢¥s specific theses on Christian mission are much
more subtle than is usually presupposed on basis of Matth 28. The Gospel of
Matthew ¡°gives arguments, directly
as well as indirectly, for a balanced understanding of mission and the relation
between Jesus¢¥ disciples and people of other religious convictions¡± (Matthey
2002: 120).
The Gospel of John is another example of this double
aspect. It is well known that this gospel has a strong emphasis on the sending
aspect. Sometimes the other aspect is overlooked. However, the Fourth Gospel is
centripetal in its call to "come and see", a call made not only to
the initial disciples (1:39.46), to the Samaritans (4,29), and to Jesus
contemporary addresses (5:40; 6:35.37), but to all the potential readers as
well. This centripetal emphasis of the evangelistic invitation is intimately related
to an incarnational revelation that is located and "to be seen". This
revelation is a center of universal attraction, cf 12:32. One might speak of a
„hospitality Christology¡± (Nissen 2002: 84).
Throughout centuries mission has been understood almost
exclusively in the centrifugal sense. However, today we should realize that the
¡°Christian¡± countries have become ¡°mission areas¡± themselves. Thus, there is a
strong need that the centrifugal aspect of mission is supplemented by a
centripetal understanding. ¡°Es geht um ¡°Grenzüberschreitung¡° und
Präsenz der Christen in der Welt¡° (Schneider 1984: 92). At this point Protestants have much to learn from the
Orthodox tradition with its insistence on the doxological motive for mission
(cf. Stamoolis 1986; see also Thangaraj 1999).
3. Community as witness
Mission can be defined also as community witness.
Evidence of this concept can be found in various New Testament genres.
a. The gospels. In keeping with this understanding Matth 5:13-16 has been taken as
starting point for missiological reflections on Matthew¢¥s gospel. According to
G.M. Soares-Prabhu this passage can be sees as a corrective to a widespread
reading of the great commission. Mission is not just Christocentric (making
disciples of the risen Lord) but theocentric (giving glory by building up God¢¥s
kingdom), and the way to this mission is not so much individual proclamation as
community witness (Soares-Prabhu 1994).
While the alternative Christocentric-theocentric is
questionable, the other part of this suggestion should be accepted. The church
ought to see itself as Matthew saw it: as a distinct and appealing
counter-culture, a city set on a hill that makes visible the reality of God¢¥s
reign in the midst of the old order: a community concerned not so much to root
out the weeds in its midst as to cultivate wheat of such quality that others
will see it ¡°and give glory to your Father in heaven¡±, cf. 5:16 (Donaldson; see
Nissen 2002: 32).
Community witness plays a significant role in John¢¥s
Gospel. As Jesus has loved them until the last second of his life, so the
disciples are to love one another (13:34-35; 15:12). In and through their love
for each other they are called to give public witness to the life-giving power
of God¢¥s love in Jesus. By this praxis of agape all people will know
that they are Jesus¢¥ disciples (Fiorenza; cf. Nissen 2002: 81). ¡°The life of
love in the community of disciples becomes the trademark and the credential of
the missionary community: ¡®If you have love for one another, then everyone
will know that you are my disciples`(13:35)¡±(Arias 1992: 93).
b. The Book of Acts. The missionary character of the community is evidenced also by Luke¢¥s
description of the first Christians in Jerusalem (Acts 2:41-47; 4:31-37). The
basic characteristics of this community were the close relationship between the
unity in heart and soul, the sharing of goods, and the witness to the
resurrection (4:32-33). It is obvious that the transformed economical
relationships among the first believers is closely related to ¡°the phenomenal
evangelistic outreach¡± (Sider; cf. Nissen 1984: 88).
M.T Tangaraj speaks of mission as kerygmatic
presence. ¡°This is one of the earliest models of mission in the history of
the church. The church in the New Testament saw itself as just being a
community of faith at a given place. Look at the account of the early church at
the end of Acts 2. The life of the church is described as the prophetic way.
¡°Being sent¡± – the meaning of the term ¡°mission¡± – was practiced more as
¡°being¡± than by ¡°being sent¡± After all, the first few chapters of Acts
do not describe much going at all. The disciples were where they were in
intentional and specific ways. As one notices, the marks of this community were
kerygma, koinonia, diaconia, and martyria. ¡¦Thus I call the
mission of the early Christians ¡°kerygmatic presence¡± because it was their way
of living out the kerygma they announced¡± (Tangaraj 1999: 1o2-1o3).
c. The letters of the New Testament contain practically no explicit missionary
teaching. Nowhere do we find admonishment to the congregation and their members
to actively carry forth the good news. However, the congregation was missionary
in its effect simply by virtue of its existence. The congregation is to be
"a letter of Christ...acknowledged and read by all people (2 Cor 3:2f.).
This corresponds to Matt 5:13-16. Even here the talk is at first strongly
indicative: "The city built on a hill cannot remain hidden" (Klaiber
1997: 194).
It should be noticed that the missionary effectiveness
of the congregation does not derive from a simple accomodation to the society
in which it finds itself, but from a creative nonconformity which lets the
alternative possibility for living which grows out of the gospel become visible
to the outside world; cf. Rom 12:1-2 and especially 1 Peter (Klaiber 1997:
198).
1. Analogical thinking
One of the most widespread use of the Bible in mission
is that of using analogies. Biblical stories and events are considered to be precedents
to later use. Here are three examples:
1 Cor 8-10: The first example is Paul¢¥s discussion of the issue of idol meat in 1 Cor
8-10. From our viewpoint the questions raised in 1 Cor 8-10 might seem strange.
But in other parts of the world Christians are facing similar problems. So, for
instance, in Madagascar where Christians must decide whether they can
participate in special forms of funeral celebration (turning the corpse). It is
considered to be a social obligation, but also has a religious meaning. It is a
question of how to behave towards social norms and kinship rules. Similar
problems are known from Hindu, Buddhist and Taoist contexts. There are three
ways of relating to this problem (Nissen 2002: 121):
(a)
Rejecting: Following the weak in Corinth one adopts position
characterized by strong group boundaries.
(b)
Inclusion: Following the strong in Corinth one adopts position
characterized by weak boundaries vis-a-vis non-Christians.
(c)
Points of contact –
reinterpretation – replacement. This is a
middle position. On the one hand there is an emphasis on the uniqueness of
salvation in Jesus Christ. Other ways to salvation are refused. This means that
there is no compromise with paganism, cf. the first position. On the other
hand, God is seen as Creator. The implication of this is the accept of contact
to the non-Christian culture. But a reinterpretation is needed, and pagan
symbols and rituals must be replaced by Christian concepts.
1 Cor 8-10 is just one example of the manner in which
early Christians addressed the problem of Church and cultures. A different
perspective is offered in the Book of Revelation (Rev 2-3). The strategy
adopted by the author differs substantially from Paul¢¥s position. Here it is
question of ¡°either-or¡±. There is no possibility of a compromise. Today most
Christians would probably tend to follow Paul rather the Apocalypse. But why is
it that we find his model most relevant? In which way do we argue analogously?
Colossians: Most scholars would agree that the readers of this letter are living in
a syncretistic milieu. It is also argued that there are many similarities with
our modern situation. In my book New Testament and Mission I have argued
that Colossians as well as Ephesians are important letters in that they
contribute to a biblical cosmology which is relevant in today¢¥s religious and
cultural situation. God¢¥s economy of salvation reaches out far beyond the world
of Christians, even beyond the human world (Nissen 2002: 137).
In a similar way, T. Okure, argues that the
contemporary situation makes a missiological reading of the letter to the
Colossians, especially 1:15-20, necessary. Missiological reading here refers
primarily to how the letter can be read ¡°to promote an atmosphere where
Christians and peoples of other faiths can live and work together as God¢¥s
children and members of one human family, respecting the religious freedom of
each, and yet, for Christians, without ceasing to proclaim Jesus as God¢¥s
gospel or Saviour of humanity. The letter of Colossians addresses in its own
context, though in different terms, the questions of the uniqueness, unicity
and salvific universality of Jesus¡± (Okure 2002: 62).
Moreover, as T. Okure asks, what did it mean in the
first century to proclaim Jesus as the sole Saviour of the world? How did the
Colossians experience this problem, and what solutions does Paul offer them?
How do Christians today understand this message in their multicultural and
accepted pluralistic religious contexts? What actions full of love do committed
Christians, children of the day for whom the night of religious discrimination
or triumphalism is far gone, undertake to address our situaiton with a
christological truth, as Paul did his? These are some of the questions which
guide the current reading of Col 1:15-20 (Okure 2002: 63).
Acts 17:17-34: The speech at Areopagus is one of the most famous missionary texts in
the New Testament. In recent years the question has often been raised: Can this
text serve as a model for our relationship with people of other faiths?
The strategy of this address is remarkable. The choice
of Stoic principles as a point of entry and the quotation of familiar Greek
writers virtually guarantees attention and a sympathetic hearing – at least
initially. The degree of overlap between the concepts of this popular
philosophy and what the author regards as the basic Christian worldview is
striking, and serves the reader as a demonstration of what can be done in
approaching with the gospel those who have no familiarity with the teachings of
the Jewish scriptures (Nissen 2002: 70).
Many scholars have underlined the importance of the
Areopagus speech for a contemporary approach to non-Christian religions and
cultures. So, for instance, Legrand claims that in the encounter between the
gospel and Greece, Greek thought grows in breadth and depth, but Christian
thought takes on new dimensions as well. ¡°The gospel no longer responds only to
the expectation of the prohets and their Israel. Now it is thrust into the
heart of a cosmological and metaphysical search and dons new mystical aspects¡¦
The Word finds new echoes in this larger context: it encounters the fundamental
question of Being and the One, and takes on a universal value, for the West
immediately, and for other metaphysical civilizations, such as India,
indirectly¡± (Legrand 1990: 110).
J. Dupuis in a similar way argues that the speech
reflects a recognizing in the Greek tradition a genuine ¡°feeling after God¡±
(17:27-28). That the conversation breaks down when Paul speaks of Jesus¢¥
resurrection changes nothing (17:32); nor does it mean that Paul¢¥s approach
ends up in failure, for Paul adds that some people joined him (17:34). ¡°However
limited Paul¢¥s success at Athens may have been, the Areopagus speech
inaugurates a missionary strategy based on a positive approach to the
religiosity of the Greeks¡± (Dupuis 1997: 50).
The analogical model has played an important role in
the use of the Bible in mission. However, there are some deficits which must be
faced. First, it is difficult to see how the analogies between biblical
situations and our own are to be controlled. Second, what is to be done when no
biblical analogy is apparent? Are Christians bereft of guidance in the face of
radically new challenges?
To avoid the risks of a simple analogical model, one
must argue that patterns and paradigms exercise a normative role through
analogical imagination, which seeks to act in new situations in ways that are
faithful to the original pattern. In order to be both free and faithful, modern
believers reason by analogy from the earlier interaction which is witnessed in
the biblical text to a similar response to the challenges of their own time.
Analogical thinking relies on imagination and the ability to discern
similarities and differences between one situation and another (Spohn 1999).
Two historical situations are never totally analogous.
But perhaps one can speak of a ¡°dynamic analogy¡± between the text and the
contemporary situation (Sanders; quoted in Long 1989: 128). This means that no historical
situation is repeated exactly, but a dynamic analogy results when we identify
in some ways with characterics or circumstances in the text and thus
participate in the tensions and resolutions of the text.
2. Biblical figures as source of missionary
spirituality
The Bible yields not only theological bases but also
practical guidelines for missionary activity. It is assumed that actions of the
first apostles and evangelists are worthy of imitation and can be
imitated, that they posses a high measure of normativity (Spindler 1995: 136).
This approach applies particularly to the apostle
Paul; cf. his exhortation in 1 Cor 11:1. There are many instances of Paul¢¥s
great significance for modern missionary thinking. One example of an earlier
date is R. Allen¢¥s work (1908) which has had much influence on missionary
thinking (further references in Nissen 2002: 116). A more recent example is
J.A. Grassi who analysed Paul¢¥s great missionary plan, his concrete methods,
and the Pauline church in action. According to Grassi (1965) Paul is both a
herald of the word and a man of dialogue.
Paul was a man of great flexibility. He was alert to
the "signs of the times" (Grassi 1965: 119-120), open and critical
towards other religions and cultures. The modern missionary in a similar way
must be flexible, alert to the "signs of the times", open and
critical - open to other people, but critical to their religious beliefs and
thought-forms (Nissen 1989: 79).
In some sense the person of Jesus can also be seen as
a figure to be imitated. He has been called the ¡°Urmissionar¡± (Hengel; cf. Pesch 1984: 28). In all
the gospels we find material which might illustrate this point. Two stories
from the Fourth Gospel are of special interest. The first is the dialogue
between Jesus and Nicodemus (John 3:1-21). The second one is the dialogue
between Jesus and the Samaritan woman (John 4). Both stories can be seen as
models for later dialogues. (Nissen 2002: 85-87 and 87-89). The dialogical
character between Jesus and the woman is obvious (Chappuis 1982). This story
functions as a Johannine paradigm for mission.
We must realize that both ways of arguing have their
limits. Therefore, one should avoid an unconscious reduction of mission to one
single type (Legrand 1990: 6). The Bible is not a single book with a single
understanding of mission. The Bible offers a variety of perspectives on what
mission might look like.
Furthermore, these different perspectives should be
seen as a challenge. As I have put it in my book: ¡°Given this variey of types
of mission (e.g. in the NT) we might be tempted to assign priority to one of
these forms. But any choice we might make would have to proceed from an a
priori judgment of our own of what mission ought to be. Instead we should be
willing to be challenged by the rich variety of biblical data, including above
all its unexpected elements. If there are biblical forms of mission that fail
to correspond to our own idea of mission, then it is precisely were we should
pause. In this way we can be forced to transcend our ready-made schemata and
review our way of understanding mission in the Bible¡± (Nissen 2002: 159).
This variety of ¡°models¡± for using the New Testament
in mission runs to some extent parallel to what might be found in a related
area, that of Scripture and ethics. J. Gustafson has proposed a helpful
classification of various approaches to the Bible by Christian ethicists
(Gustafson 1970).
He makes a basic distinction between a ¡°moral use¡± and
a ¡°theological use¡± of Scripture in Christian ethics. The first category covers
what is called ¡°revealed morality¡±, the second category is characterized
as ¡°revealed reality¡±. Within the ¡°revealed morality¡± approach Gustafson
further distinguishes between a moral law model, a moral ideal model, an
analogical model, and a great variety model.
The moral law takes Scripture to be the revelation of
a moral law of certain rules and principles to be obeyed. The moral ideal model
takes Scripture to be the source of moral ideals of certain goals to be striven
for. The analogical model takes Scripture to be the source of moral precedents.
One can discern God¢¥s judgment for a contemporary situation in the precedent by
his recorded judgment in some similar biblical situations. The great variety
model takes Scripture to be a witness to a great variety of values and norms
through a great variety of literary forms. This model refuses to reduce the
forms of moral instruction in the Bible to a single theme. The Bible ¡°informs¡±
the agent or ¡°illuminates¡± the situation, but it is not sufficient to authorize
any particular judgment.
Parallel to this proposal one might say that the use
of the Bible in mission has often been limited to the first approach. This
means that the Bible can be seen as a set of moral recipe. In this case there
is a risk of a double reductionism. The first reductionism can be labelled
¡°genre reductionism¡±. This is the effective selection, whether deliberate or
not, of only certain kinds of biblical materials as the materials pertinent to
mission. The second reductionism can be characterized as ¡°norm reductionism¡±.
It is methodologically erroneous to proceed with the assumption of a single
biblical norm for Christian mission. This means that norm reductionism should
be avoided as well as genre reductionism.
The question of an adequate biblical foundation is
more complex than just a lavish use of biblical illustrations and proof texts.
The Bible is not to be treated as a storehouse of truths on which we can draw
at random (Bosch 1991: 9), rather: "one must consider the very structure
of the whole biblical message" (Verkuyl 1978: 90).
In
this connection, one of the most interesting models is that of the Bible
shaping the identity of the Christian and the church. What is meant by ¢¥formation¢¥?
Formation is a nurturing process in which a certain sense of identity, a
certain recognition of community, and a certain pattern of motivation evolve.
Any community of which we are members ¡°forms¡± us in the sense of orienting us
to the world in a certain way, encouraging kinds of behaviour and discouraging
others.
It is suggested by B.C. Birch and L. Rasmussen that
the role of the scriptures in the nurturing of a basic orientation and in the
generating of particular attitudes and intentions is a central one.
Furthermore, they argue that ¡°our ¡®being¡¯ shapes our ¡®seeing¡¯ and the way we
see things gives us a paricular outlook and orientation toward life¡±. ¡°Who
we are and are becoming as a result of faith we hold detemines in large
part what we see¡± (Birch & Rasmussen 1976: 89 and 88).
The story of Jesus plays a significant role for
formation of the Christians. This story shapes or informs Christian action
which conforms to, corresponds to, or embodies aspects of his life (Spohn 1995:
100). All these verbs express the
activity of patterning, of extending to new material the shape which was
inherent in an original. Th response is guided by the original. The original
serves as paradigm, prototype, and precedent to guide the actions, and
dispositions of Christians in new situations. Because biblical patterns combine
a stable core with an indeterminate, open-ended dimension, the missionary
response can be both creative and faithful. We extend a pattern by analogy
since we move from the recognizable shape in the first instance to new
situations within certain limitations.
The
third part of this paper will contain a few hermeneutical remarks. These
remarks have a more general character. They are not restricted to the area of Bible
and mission, but certainly they are also relevant in relation to this area.
In the past mission has tended to follow a ¢¥linear¢¥
hermeneutic, which began with the authority of the Bible and then applied it
universally (Jensen 1998: 79). The starting point was the mandate to ¡°Go and
make disciples¡± and the end point was building churches, often on the pattern
of the sending culture. This is hermeneutic of progression. It does not take
into consideration the experience or context of the people that are the objects
of mission.
This
¡°linear¡± hermeneutic must be replaced by another which presupposes a living
dialogue between the Bible and the interpreter. The model should be one of
interaction that is a mutual challenge between text and interpreter (Nissen
2000). On the one hand, ¡°When we read the Bible, we are not so much
interpreting the Bible as interpreting our own lives and life of our
community, in the light of the Bible¡±. On the other hand, the biblical texts
have a transformative role¡± (Holtrop.a.o 1996: 60). ¡°The authority and
interpretation of scripture has to be considered from a perspective that asks
the question of the capacity of scripture to bring about transformation¡±
(Holtrop a.o. 1996: 62).
Such a hermeneutic will promote a dialectic
¡°conversation¡± between the interpreter and the text which will respect both the
questions of the interpreter and the claims of the text. The meaning of the
text (a ¡°text-meaning¡± which will be continuous with but not exhausted by its
¡°author-meaning¡±) will emerge from this ongoing dialogue between the
interpreter¢¥s pre-understanding and the open-ended message of text.
(Soares-Prabhu 1986: 87).
Text and experience are two points of departure that must
be kept together (Poitras 1999: 44). If, on the one hand, we begin theological
reflection from the traditional perspective of revelation, Scripture and
tradition, we are in danger of a theological imperialism that overlooks the
crucial importance of every local human situation. If, on the other hand, we
begin with local experience and culture, we are in danger of reducing Christian
faith to a human creation designed to solve problems humanly defined.
The dialogue between text and interpreter demands a
two-fold critical reading. The first step is a critical reading of the Bible;
the second step is a critical appropriation and ¡°reading¡± of our own context.
This means that there is no simple correspondence between the Bible and our
context. We cannot simply move from our biblical reading to a present
application. The move from text to context is a critical, complex and cautious
exercise.
The
hermeneutics of correspondence
At different times in our lives different texts of the
Bible speak more clearly to us. When the images, metaphors and concepts of the
biblical text somehow correspond to our own context then the text comes alive.
Such an experience is not to deny the truth of all God¢¥s word for us. Rather,
it is the entering of God¢¥s word into the reality of our daily life. Such
experiences carry both a value and a danger. The value is that the text comes
alive. It speaks to us. It becomes ¡°good news¡±. The danger is that we are
sometimes wont to exaggerate the experience so much that we may exclude other
aspects of the richness of Gods world (Bate 2000).
As human beings we are subject to particular
influences from our culture and history. We tend to read the Bible selectively.
None of us can fully overcome this problem, but we can correct wrong notions by
a serious study of the biblical text and by following a method which helps us
to hear the text on its own terms.
Our tendency to read the texts selectively is related
to the whole process of understanding. Scholars speak of the method of
correlation, of the ¡°hermeneutic of correspondence¡± (Schillebeeckx).
Correlation or ¡°correspondence of relationships¡± is a key factor in
interpretation. Imperfect correlation is almost bound to be tendentious, as in
the modernizing of Jesus and the domestication of the Bible. A proper
correlation is dependent on ¡°distantiation¡±, the differentiation of the worlds
(our world and the world of the text) so that each of them is treated with
integrity, but correlation also involves the participation of the interpreter
in the dynamics of the text, and the theological reflection on issues arising
from it (Nissen 2002c: 81).
To counteract the absolutizing of our own situation
and experiences it is necessary to stimulate a cross-cultural hermeneutics of
the gospel, that is a dialogue between different confessional and contextual
readings of the Bible (cf. Nissen 2000: 189-190). Coming from different church
traditions and from different cultural situations we can mutually challenge and
correct each other¢¥s enterprise. This will enhance our task, but also widen our
horizons to other hermeneutical possibilities. We need each other – Protestant
and Catholics, evangelicals and liberations theologians, rich and poor, black
and white etc. – as conversation partners in the hermeneutical task. These
hermeneutical partners will assist us in hearing countermelodies for which
previously we had no ear.
The situation in which we are has aptly been described
as ¡°One Bible and Many Interpretive Contexts¡±. The implication of a global
hermeneutic process is that ¡°interpretation of the Bible is no longer just a
matter of a community dealing with the Word in its own context. It is now a
matter of deliberation among communities listening to one another and correcting
one another. More than ever before, hearing the Word and listening to each
other is intertwined¡± (de Groot 1995: 154-155, my emphasis).
There is a risk that our contexts can develop a life
of their own, divorced from the biblical text and its critical challenge. ¡°We
can create such powerful contexts in which to place Scriptural texts that these
texts can be muted and distorted¡± (Schreiter). ¡°The only safeguard we have
against this (and even that safeguard is no guarantee) is the ecumenical,
intercultural fellowship of brothers and sisters in the faith, where we learn
to listen to each other and begin to see the relativity of our own contexts¡±
(Bosch 1986: 77-78).
It
is to be welcomed that the World Council of Churches has initiated a study on
ecumenical and cross-cultural hermeneutic. As R. von Sinner has put it. ¡°We
need a hermeneutic that takes both tradition and context in consideration in
its quest for visible unity¡¦ In fact, there is a hermeneutical circle; it is
through our perception of the context that we read the Bible, and it is through
our reading that the Bible reads us (and our context) to take up a formulation
used by Hans-Ruedi Weber. And on this way of mutual reading, ¡¦, we need the
critique from others. These ¡°others¡± include other Christians and other
churches living in our time, as well as our forefathers and foremothers in the
faith. It is there that an ecumenical hermeneutic could help us to see whether
we are giving enough attention to Scripture, Tradition, context and our
hermeneutic community¡± (von Sinner 2001: 117).
Christians
from all confessions and cultures must contribute together towards an
understanding of what the Bible means for mission today. My own contribution to
this mutual reading might be formulated as follows (Nissen 2002b: 32):
Mission is the affirmation of the love of God in Jesus
Christ. It is a proclamation of how God loved the whole of humanity in Jesus
Christ. Mission is an invitation to come and see how God¢¥s fullness, the
abundance of his kingdom, is realized. And it is a challenge to go out
to tell people about this abundance – in words and actions.
In
this paper I have not intended to discuss the future challenges to Christian
mission. Yet, as a kind of conclusion I shall add a few words on where I see
the most burning task (more
in detail in Nissen 2002b). There is a need for seeing reconciliation as
paradigm for Christian mission. Overcoming violence and building peace will be
an important issue on the missiological agenda in the next years. A theology of
reconciliation is deeply rooted in the New Testament. Th. Ahrens rightly notes
that amid the missions of others, Christians remain committed to a mission of
love and service in the Spirit of Christ. Missiology will work at a
post-colonial understanding of mission. ¡°It is no longer acceptable to
visualize Christian mission as a kind of spiritual warfare. Such forms of
religious violence should be excluded in the light of the very roots of
Christian faith. Maybe we are entering a new phase of mission in which we do
not place our own visions and hopes above those of others, but alongside them.
We will not exploit the weakness of others and try to conquer them in their
vulnerability¡± (Ahrens 1998: 68).
When
the expansion of Christianity is seen as the goal of Christian mission there is
a danger of choosing a model that makes mission into something like ¡°marketing,
¡°a product¡±. In it mission would resemble the export sales branch of a global
corporation, and the prime goal would be like international institutional
growth, in which a western model of religion replaces a local model. However,
¡°Mission in Christ¢¥s way¡± is different. It is about a praxis of faith which
points to Jesus as ¡°the Way¡± and ¡°the Life¡± in a mission of love and service.
Ahrens, Th. ¡°Theology: A Tool for Mission¡±, in Into
the Third Millenium: Together in God¢¥s Mission, Geneva: LWF 1998, 57-72.
Arias, M. The Great Commission: Biblical Models for
Evangelism, Nashville: Abingdon Press 1992.
Bate, S.C. ¡°Matthew 10: A Mission Mandate for the
Global Context in T. Okure (ed.), To Cast Fire Upon the Earth. Bible and
mission collaborating in today¢¥s multicultural global context,
Pietermaritzburg: Cluster Publ. 2000, 42-56.
Bevans, S. ¡°Editorial¡±, Mission Studies vol.
19/1, no. 37, (2002), 4-5.
Birch, B.C & Rasmussen, L. Bible and Ethics in
the Christian Life, Minneapolis: Augsburg Publ. House 1976.
Blount, B.K. Go Preach! Mark¢¥s Kingdom Message and
the Black Church Today, Maryknoll NY: Orbis Books 1998.
Boer, H. Pentecost and Mission, London:
Lutterworth 1961.
Bosch, D.J. Witness to the World: The Christian
Mission in Theological Perspective, Atlanta: John Knox 1980.
Bosch, D.J. ¡°The Structure of Mission: An Exposition
of Matthew 28:16-20¡±, in W.R. Shenk (ed), Exploring Church Growth, Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans 1983, 218-248.
Bosch, D.J. ¡°Towards a Hermeneutic for ¡°Biblical
Studies and Mission¡±¡±, Mission Studies vol III-2 (1986), p. 65-79.
Bosch, D.J. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in
Theology of Mission, Maryknoll NY: Orbis Books 1991.
Braaten, C.E. The Flaming Centre: A Theology of the
Christian Mission,
Philadelphia: Fortress Press 1977.
Castro, E. Sent Free: Mission and Unity in the
Perspective of the Kingdom, Geneva: WCC 1985.
Chappuis, ¡°Jesus and the Samaritan Woman: The Variable
Geometry of Communication¡±, Ecumenical Review 34 (1982), 8-34.
de Groot, A. ¡±One Bible and Many Interpretive
Contexts: Hermeneutics in Missiology¡±, in A. Camps, L.A. Hoedemaker, M.R. Spindler
& F.J. Verstraelen (eds.), Missiology. An Ecumenical Introduction,
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1995, 144-156.
DuBose, F.M. God Who Sends: A Fresh Quest for
Biblical Mission, Nashville: Broadman Press 1983.
Dupuis, J. Toward a Christian Theology of Religious
Pluralism, Maryknoll NY: Orbis 1997.
Guder, D.L. (ed.), Missional Church: A Vision for
the Sending of the Church in North America, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1998.
Gustafson, J.M. ¡°The Place of Scripture in Christian
Ethics: A Methodological Study¡±, Interpretation 24 (1970), 430-455.
Grassi, J.A. A World to Win: The Missionary Methods
of Paul the Apostle, Maryknoll NY: Orbis Books 1965.
Holtrop. P.a.o. ¡°Witnessing Together in Context¡±, in Breaking
the Chains of Injustice, ed. P. Réamonn, Geneva: WARC 1996, 56-71.
Hvalvik,, R. ¡°In Word and Deed: The Expansion of the
Church in the Pre-Constantinian Era¡±, in J. Ådna & H. Kvalbein, The
Mission of the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck
2000, 265-287.
Jensen, G.A. ¡°Mission and Contemporary Theologies¡±, in
Into the Third Millenium: Together in God¢¥s Mission, Geneva: LWF 1998,
73-92.
Kasting, H. Die Anfänge der urchristlichen Mission, Munich: Kaiser
Verlag 1969.
Klaiber, W. Call and Response: Biblical Foundations
of a Theology of Evangelism, Nashville: Abingdon Press 1997.
Koyama, K. Three Mile an Hour God. London: SCM
Press 1979.
Kritzinger, J.J. & W. Saayman, On Being
Witnesses, Johannesburg: Orion Publisher 1994.
Larkin, W.J. & Williams, J.F. (eds.), Mission
in the New Testament: An Evangelical Approach, Maryknoll NY: Orbis Books
1998.
Legrand, L. Unity and Plurality: Mission in the
Bible, Maryknoll NY: Orbis Books 1990.
Long, Th.G. The Witness of Preaching,
Louisville: Westminster/John Knox Press 1989.
Longenecker, R.N. New Testament Social Ethics for
Today, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1984.
Mar Osthatios, G. ¡°Mission and the Uniqueness of Jesus
Christ¡±, Mission Studies Vol. 12-1 (1995), 79-94.
Marshall, I.H. ¡°Who were the evangelists?¡±, in J. Ådna
& H. Kvalbein (eds.), The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and
Gentiles, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2000, 251-263.
Matthey, J. ¡°Pilgrims, Seekers, and Disciples: Mission
and dialogue in Matthew¡±, International Review of Mission Vol. 91, No.
360 (January 2002), 120-134.
Nissen, J. Poverty and Mission: New Testament
Perspectives on a Contemporary Theme, Leiden-Utrecht: Interuniversitair
Instituut voor Missiologie en Oecumenica 1984.
Nissen, J. ¡°Firmness and Flexibillity: Paul¢¥s Mission
to the Greeks¡± in L. Thunberg e. al. (eds.), Dialogue in Action (FS J.
Aagaard), New Delhi: Prajna Publications 1988, 56-84.
Nissen, J. ¡°Christology Between the Local and the
Global¡±, Svensk Missions Tidsskrift/Swedish Missiological Themes Vol.
88, No. 4. (2000), 593-609.
Nissen, J. „Scripture and Experience as the Double
Source of Mission¡± in T. Okure (ed.), To Cast Fire Upon the Earth,
Pietermaritzburg: Cluster Publ. (2000), 178-193.
Nissen, J. New Testament and Mission: Historical
and Hermeneutical Perspectives, Frankfurt: Peter Lang 2002 (2nd
ed.).
Nissen, J. ¡°Mission and Globalization in a New
Testament Perspective¡±, in E.M. Wiberg Pedersen, H. Lam & P. Lodberg
(eds.), For All People: Global Theologies in Contexts (FS V. Mortensen),
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2002b, 32-52.
Nissen, J. ¡°Matthew, Mission and Method¡±, International
Review of Mission, Vol. 91, No. 360, (January 2002c), 73-86.
Okure, T. ¡°¡¯In Him All Things Hold Together¡¯: A
Missiological Reading of Colossians 1:15-20¡±, International Review of
Mission, Vol. 91, No. 360, (January 2002), 62-72.
Pesch, R. ¡°Voraussetzungen und Anfänge der urchristlichen Mission¡°, in K.
Kertelge (ed.), Mission im Neuen Testament, Freiburg: Herder 1982,
11-70.
Poitras, E.W. „St. Augustine and the Missio Dei:
A Reflection on Mission at the close at the Twentieth Century¡±, Mission
Studies Vol. 16-2, No. 32 (1999), 28-46.
Riesner, R. ¡°A Pre-Christian Jewish Mission?¡± in J.
Ådna & H. Kvalbein (eds.), The Mission of the Early Church to Jews and
Gentiles, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2000, 211-250.
Saayman, J, ¡°Biblical Insights on New Creation and
Mission in Power and Faith", Mission Studies, Vol 10-1&2
(1993), 83-90.
Senior, D. & Stuhlmueller C. The Biblical
Foundations for Mission, London: SCM 1983.
Schneider, G. ¡°Der Missionsauftrag Jesu in der Darstellung der Evangelien¡±,
in K. Kertelge (ed.), Mission im Neuen Testament, Freiburg: Herder 1982,
71-92.
Soares-Prabhu, G.M. 1986. ¡°Missiology or
Missiologies?¡±, Mission Studies Vol. 3-2 (1986), 85-87.
Soares-Prabhu, G.M. ¡°Following Jesus in Mission: Reflections
on Mission in the Gospel of Matthew, in Kvaunkal, J & Hrangkhuma, F.
(eds.), Bible and Mission in India Today, Bombay: St. Pauls 1993, 64-92.
Soares-Prabhu, G.M. ¡°The Church as Mission. A
Reflection on Mt.5:13-16¡±, Jeevadhara 34 (1994), 271-281.
Spindler, M.R. ¡°The Biblical Grounding and Orientation
of Mission¡±, in A. Camps, L.A. Hoedemaker, M.R. Spindler & F.J. Verstraelen
(eds.), Missiology. An Ecumenical Introduction, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
1995, 123-143.
Spohn, W.c. What are they saying about Scripture
and ethics? New York % Mahwah: New Jersey 1995.
Stamoolis, J.J. Eastern Orthodox Mission Theology
Today, Maryknoll NY: Orbis 1986.
Stock, K. ¡°Theologie der Mission bei Markus¡±, in K. Kertelge (ed.), Mission
im Neuen Testament, Freiburg: Herder 1982, 130-144.
Sugirtharajah, R.S. „Jesus and Mission: Some
Re-definitions¡°, in W.S. Robins & G. Hawney (eds.), The Scandal of the
Cross: Evangelism and Mission Today, London: USPCG 1992, 1-8.
Thangaraj. M.T. The Common Task: A Theology of
Christian Mission, Nashville: Abingdon Press 1999.
Theissen, G. ¡°Legitimation und Lebensunterhalt: Ein Beitrag zur Soziologie
urchristlicher Missionare¡°, New Testament Studies 21 (1975), 192-221.
Ukpong J.S. ¡°Christian Mission and the Recreation of
the Earth in Power and Faith: A Biblical-Christological Perspective¡±, Mission
Studies, Vol. 9-2 (1992), 134-149.
Verkuyl, J. Contemporary Missiology: An
Introduction, Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans 1978.
von Sinner, R. „Ecumenical Hermeneutics: Suspicion
versus
Coherence?¡°, in P. Bouteneff & D. Heller (eds.),
Interpreting Together. Essays in Hermeneutics, Geneva: WCC 2001,
111-121.
Ådna, J & Kvalbein, H. (eds.), The Mission of
the Early Church to Jews and Gentiles, Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck 2000.