March 01, 1998 by Ralph Winter

The future of the world hinges on what we make of this word “mission.” Yet at this moment it is almost universally misunderstood—in both liberal and conservative circles.

About the only people who still think of mission as having to do with preaching the gospel where Christ is not named, with being a testimony to the very last tribe and nation and tongue on this earth, are the often confused people in the pew. In this matter their instincts outshine those of many eminent theologials and ecclesiastical statesmen.

Speaking personally, only recently has the awesome truth dawned upon me that practically everyone—liberal or conservative, conciliar or independent would today seem to agree that Christian World Mission refers to the redemptive activities of the church within the societies where the church is found (at home or abroad). But note, the phrase no longer needs to point to the redemptive activity of the church within societies where the church is not found.

Thus, for example, only a small percentage of missionaries today (of whatever stripe) work within societies, peoples, people groups where there is no church.

The missionary movement earlier sent missionaries out to places and peoples which had no indigenous Christian movement within their societies.

But as the church was successfully planted in many parts of the world, the follow-through activity of helping those churches reach their own people (an activity called evangelism in the sending lands) gained unconsciously the label mission in the receiving countries, by national and missionary alike, since missionaries were involved. Thus the current confusion between evangelism and missions.

It was seriously proposed at the 1963 meeting of the World Counsel of Churches-Congress on World Mission and Evangelism in Mexico City that Christian workers going to other countries to work with churches in a fraternal way (instead of going where there is no church) should more accurately be designated “fraternal workers” rather than continuing to be called “missionaries”.

Had this idea been adopted by everyone in 1963, it would have saved the meaning of “mission” for the initial task of founding the church within groups where it did not yet exist.

But no. Somehow perhaps the idea of going to serve at a great distance had become more important than the unique, pioneer work where there was not yet a national church. Thus, few groups adopted the new terminology. (It might be observed that those that did, had monumental problems explaining things to the people back home.)

By 1963, essentially, the work done by, with, for, through the church, “where it is” has been confidently labelled “mission” and the church itself was now considered the primary instrument of mission—the new phenomenon has become the “church in mission.”

Meanwhile, however, a vague unease settled upon those people back home supporting missionary efforts, despite the excitement of seeing the church arise in lands across the globe. The rise of the church has meant that missionaries did not have to do “pioneer evangelism,” nor even evangelism, since it is perfectly obvious that national leaders can do that sort of thing better than foreigners.

Today 90% of all missionaries are helping churches around the world in a whole range of technical and educational capacities.

The future of this kind of mission is indistinguishable from the mission of the church at home, to its own society. Thus, now all of a sudden, there is no apparent need for, nor is there a separately existing category for, the term “missionary.”

With greater hope, the meaning of mission can once more refer to the expansion of Christianity into the non-Christian peoples of the world.