critical45

biblical equivalent, it has a broad range of acceptable meanings. The contemporary secular definition of mission is simply ‘sending someone forth with a special purpose’. With the broadness of the term, our conception of the Christian mission will to a large degree depend on our theological orientation rather than an etymological analysis.[1]

Christians have always felt that they were engaged in mission in the world, sent by Jesus to proclaim and witness to the good news of the kingdom of God (Mt. 28:18-20). But the understanding of their mission and their task has varied in the course of the past two thousand years. And as the historical conditions have changed, mission too has changed even if the word has remained the same.

Thus from the traditional view of mission as exclusively evangelistic to the ecumenical view as the establishment of shalom, could we find a more balance and biblical way of defining of Christian mission. Max Warren defines that Christian mission is God’s will for the world, as we know, is that the world shall be saved, shall be made whole, and shall find its true unity of its response to the God, who is the Creator, Sustainer and Redeemer. The Christian mission is this will of God as it finds embodiment in active obedience on the part of the Christian individual, the Christian group and the Christian church.[2] For K.C. Abraham, an Indian theologian mission involves committing oneself to the cause of justice, peace and integrity of creation of the dynamic wholesomeness of life. Therefore commitment to the cause of Jesus Christ in a given context and struggle against all forces of oppression are integrally related.[3]

Evidence of current usage shows that the term “mission” has many meanings and it cannot be limited to a single meaning. And we as Christians have no exclusive claim to this word. But this variety of meanings has become a problem even for the churches themselves. Does mission still mean the proclamation of the gospel to non-Christians? Does mission today mean simply no more than humanitarian concern, disaster relief, and ministry to the sick, protest against human rights violations? There is no doubt that the term “mission” has caused a lot of confusion. As David J. Bosch, working from Hans Kung’s model of paradigm shift has convincingly argued that in the past each major crisis of history has led to a paradigm shift in missionary thinking and praxis.[4] When applied to the church we say that paradigms emerge as Christian communities seek to partake in God’s mission. Thus paradigm shift has taken place in mission and missionary thinking.

1.      Paradigm Shift in the Theology of Mission

Paradigm in theology means an interpretative model commonly agreed and shared by the members of the community. While Bosch traces the contour of paradigm shifts throughout the history of Christian mission, we will discuss here only four major paradigm shifts. However, one should be aware that when we say paradigm shift, it does not meant the eruption of a completely new paradigm without continuity from the past, it always means both continuity and change overlapping one another.

1.1.Colonial Ecclesial Paradigm

The colonial ecclesial paradigm of Christian mission is the result of the success of western Christian nations in exploring the world and subsequently expanding trade and commerce and colonizing Asia and Africa. It is in this context that the colonial ecclesial paradigm of Christian mission was developed. This paradigm covers an era beginning from Columbus to the Second World War; which marked the end of the colonial era.

In the early part of the colonial era, most of the Christian countries were theocratic states in which colonization and Christianization were inseparable like two sides of the same coin. The theological basis of this is drawn from the gospel of Luke 14:23, ‘Compel them to come in’ for there is no salvation outside the church. There was direct and indirect missionary war. The direct missionary war was waged by colonizers and crusaders who fought for God and the empire. The indirect war was marginalization of non-Christians who were deprived of certain rights when Christians were granted special privileges and shown favour. The logic of this act was that it was to their own material and spiritual advantage to become Christians. Leaders of the states and the churches together regarded subduing the pagans and taking their land as a divine commission, similar to Israel’s conquest of Canaan.

The right to send ecclesial agents to distant colonies was decisive. Their assignment was known as mission and they themselves became missionaries. The concept of mission seems to originate from the colonial philosophy. As Bosch explained:

The new word ‘mission’ is historically linked indissolubly with the colonial era and with the idea of magisterial commissioning. The term presupposes an established church in Europe which dispatched delegates

---

[1] A. Scott Moreau, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), 636.

[2] Max Warren, The Christian Mission (London: SCM Press, 1951), 61.

[3] K.C. Abraham, ‘Mission as Celebration and Sharing Life’, Seminar paper on Mission and Evangelism, Bangalore: 1991, 13.

[4] David J. Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in the Theology of Mission (New York: Orbis Books, 2004), 185-189. Hereafter cited as ‘Bosch, Transforming Mission’.