Changing the Mind of Missions: Where Have We Gone Wrong?

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Sep 2000 by Hesselgrave, David J

Changing the Mind of Missions: Where Have We Gone Wrong? By James F. Engel and William A. Dyrness. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000, 192 pp., n.p., paper.

The authors have undertaken the gargantuan task of demonstrating where Western (especially North American) evangelical missions went wrong in the twentieth century and the kind of Revolution (their word) that must occur if they are to go right in the twenty-first century-all of this in less than 200 pages.

The first half of the book deals with the present crisis in missions and where missions have gone wrong. According to the authors they have gone wrong at many turns. In fact, their legacy constitutes a millstone as much as a milestone in the overall history of missions. They did not understand the comprehensive nature of biblical mission. They dichotomized between evangelism and social action, and between evangelism and discipleship. They yielded to the spirit of the modern age by reducing mission to a managerial enterprise characterized by marketing, fund-raising, strategic planning, and a preoccupation with numbers. They spawned numerous agencies (many of them parachurch) that preempted the role of local churches at home and abroad.

In the last half of the book, Engel and Dyrness develop a "new paradigm" for missions in the twenty-first century-". . . the establishment and extension of God's kingdom and reign on the earth" as announced in "Jesus' own mission statement" in Luke 4:18-19 (pp. 79-80). This "kingdom paradigm entails a commitment to the creation of "communities of common people doing uncommon deeds" (see p. 89). These communities will be sensitive to the Spirit; share a vision for Christ's reign; comply with the Beatitudes; identify with the poor and marginalized; and share in witness and social transformation with like communities around the world. They will not be modeled after the institutional model inherited from the Reformation and characterized by such things as sacraments, preaching, organization, authority, discipline, programs, a preoccupation with numbers, and resistance to change. They will be patterned after the model exhibited by later pietism and revivalism-one that encourages personal reflection and allows space for Spirit-directed, selective, and wise use of cultural influences. They will understand that the first work of the church is "to bring wholeness and healing to the brokenhearted and oppressed" (p. 123).

What about mission agencies? They have a future only to the extent that they undergo "top-down, bottom-up" organizational transformation that involves re-thinking goals, outcomes, and donor-relations; responding to the concerns of the churches; and valuing persons more highly than programs.

I have provided the foregoing summary in order to indicate the nature of this particular revolution and to demonstrate the need for a careful scrutiny and evaluation of it.

Engel and Dyrness are to be commended for their fearless critique of Western missions. There is little doubt that our missions often have been domineering and in need of more humility and appreciation for two-thirds world leaders, churches, and missions. There is little question that they have been overly dependent upon carefully concocted statistical analyses and "scientific" strategies while being less dependent upon the Holy Spirit. Few would argue that they have been addicted to numbers and, consequently, have given inordinate attention to such things as fund-raising and counting converts. Almost all would agree that they have not done a good job when it comes to properly relating evangelism and discipleship, mission and social ministries, and even church and mission. Practically all of these criticisms have been leveled at our missions before. Little is new here, but Engel and Dyrness have had the courage to restate them and to spell out some of their implications. One can only wish that mission leaders had submitted their programs and strategies for this kind of constructive criticism before selling them to the Christian public.

But if Engel and Dyrness merit sincere commendation, they also merit serious criticism. Frequently, their treatment lacks comprehensiveness, balance, and objectivity. Some examples are in order.

Following liberals, liberationists, and some evangelical holists, they make Jesus' messianic mission as stated in Luke 4:18-19 the paradigm or model for ours. In doing so, they fail to deal with the messianic nature of the quotation from Isaiah; with the import of Jesus' words, "This day this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing" (v. 21); and with the possibility (I would say fact) that only the Messiah could fulfill this kind of ministry.

They attempt to show that the various statements of the Great Commission support their case for adopting the "kingdom paradigm" in Luke 4. But in doing so they ignore recent and profound treatments of Great Commission statements such as those of Robert Culver (A Greater Commission: A Theology for World Missions, 1984) and Andreas Kostenberger (The Missions of Jesus and the Disciples According to the Fourth Gospel: With Implications for the Fourth Gospel's Purpose and the Mission of the Contemporary Church, 1998).