First, the act of incarnation required humility that is characterized by a downward mobility. Second, the incarnation of Jesus reflects the heart of God to make his dwelling among us and to relate to us as His companions. Third, the movement of the incarnation required the embracing of suffering by Jesus.
It has been proposed that vulnerability should be a defining characteristic of mission in the twenty-first century. Vulnerability meaning the exposing of oneself (normally deliberately) to risks and uncertainty, including the possibility of hardship, injury, and attack. Whilst not wishing to encourage recklessness, or the intentional seeking of martyrdom, it is crucial that Christians recognise that an important aspect of mission is allowing ourselves to be in situations where we are not in control, and where we effectively put ourselves in the hands of others, whether or not we know their intentions to be good.
A greater exposure to risk and loss of
control has a twofold implication: that we must be able to wholeheartedly trust
in God’s plans; and that we must develop a deeper theology of ‘failure’ when
exposure to risk does not result in what we had anticipated. Examples here
might include what is to be thought of ‘Business as Mission’ enterprises that
fail financially.
If the institution of the Church is understood as a missional act by God then it follows that God in His sovereignty may choose whatever instruments He deems appropriate to accomplish His aims. As the Bible repeatedly shows, God involves Himself in human history and human affairs, even at times doing so through foreign agents or powers (as testified, for example, by Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel), and not exclusively through a particular institution, nation or people. A theology that understands God as missionary only to His Church would therefore be very impoverished.
Ultimately, the usefulness of the term missio Dei, and its continuing relevance in missiology, surely depends on its being properly defined when being used. Missiologists must state their positions carefully. As long as such care is taken, it is possible for us to live with differences of interpretation, just as ‘society,’ ‘power,’ or ‘justice’ may each mean different things to different people.
The Church’s historical understanding of mission tended
to incorporate two key concepts:
that it was sent into the world; and that it took a
message (evangel) with it. An example from
modern times would be William Carey, who as a Baptist
pastor published his Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians to use Means
for the Conversion of the Heathens in
1792. The first section of this famous work was a justification for
mission, based on the continuing
applicability of the Great Commission: Christians are
sent out by Jesus’ command “therefore
go” (Matthew 28:19).6 In
this first section, Carey also makes clear that the work of the
missionary is “to introduce the gospel amongst them [the ‘Heathens’].” This example shows that a historical Christian understanding of mission was
in some ways based on a concept of divine initiative, bearing God’s message of salvation for
humanity.
If it is not altogether true to say that the Church saw
itself as initiating mission, where has the significant shift in missiological thinking occurred? The
answer lies in two areas. Firstly, the development of a deeper
Trinitarian theology meant that mission was seen as part of God’s essence or nature,
rather than just one of His actions; and that the Great Commission issued by Christ was prefigured
by the Father sending Jesus, and followed by the Father and the Son sending the Spirit. And secondly, the shift has been in a changing understanding of the extent of God’s mission outside
of the Church (as well as the nature of the
relationship between God and His Church working together missionally).
