Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in the
Theology of Mission
Author:
David J. Bosch,
Reflection by John Lee
PRÉCIS
David J. Bosch, in his book, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in the
Theology of Mission, offers both a
comprehensive assessment of the theological resources available to developing a
relevant theology of mission as well as a historical review of what has brought
us to our current state. Bosch’s whole concept of mission is based not on the
church’s various expansionist enterprises but on the trinitarian missio Dei, mediated through the one history of salvation which is at the
same time eschatology. Bosch argues that the church and its task is essentially
missionary and Christian theology must be missionary theology, and contends
that mission is not merely an extraneous activity, but the “mother of
theology,” the primary motive for all thelogizing. Bosch concludes that mission
is missio Dei which seeks to subsume
into itself the missiones ecclesiae.
BOSCH’S SUPPORTING
ARGUMENTS
Bosch’s use of “paradigm shifts” is
unique, first advanced by Thomas Kuhn with respect to scientific knowledge and
adapted by Hans Küng in his analysis of the history of Christian thought: over
time there have taken place a number of paradigm shifts in the thinking and
outlook of the church and the world; there is some continuity with the past but
new situations and new concepts of reality mean that the church has adapted and
changed. Bosch states that, in a field of religion, a paradigm shift always
means both continuity and change, both faithfulness to the past and boldness to
engage the future, both consistency and contingency, both tradition and
transformation, and he argues that the elements of the emerging missionary
paradigm are not distinct and isolated from the previous ones but interrelated, thus in theology old paradigm
can continue to live on as components of the new.
For Bosch, the basis
of the mission is the Great Commission in Matthew’s Gospel which he concludes
that it is the summary of the main themes of the whole Gospel rather than an
arbitrary addition. Bosch perceives mission to be wider than evangelism since mission
is not merely evangelism, and he contends that evangelism should not be equated
with mission. Bosch claims that Christians can recognize their mission only in
the midst of worldly process where the divine is experienced and where missio Dei has its goal.
Bosch points out that the present
state of missiology is in crisis, attacked by a debilitating loss of purpose,
and from without by charges of having become an anachronism; and the crisis can
only be met by the assessment by tracing where we have been and how we got
there. To avoid succumbing to the present crisis, Bosch claims, we need to
undergo paradigm shift in our understanding of the foundations, motives and
aim, and the nature of mission. On the basis of the documents mainly from the
Vatican II, World Christian Council and the Lausanne Covenant, Bosch finds the
emergence of a new postmodern paradigm as “the ecumenical missionary paradigm.”
THEOLOGICAL
IMPLICATIONS
Bosch argues that God’s sending
Jesus into our midst means God’s definitive and eschatological course of action
for redemption, which in turn calls for a human response in the form of
conversion. Bosch explains the term conversion that it is not the joining of a
community but rather it is a change in allegiance in which Christ is accepted
as Lord as centre of one’s life. This is the contraditory point where Bosch
creates a problem as he questions “How do we maintain the tension between being both missionary and dialogical?” It is
evident that his use of the term conversion means conversion into Christianity.
In our multifaith context conversion “from” and “to” what should be asked:
conversion should not point to any religion or denomination, but rather to the
core of their message, if it is for Christians, love your neighbour. It appears
to me that the problem here lies in his method which he starts and remains
“Christianity centred” by paying less attention to the “otherness or margin.”
It becomes apparent when we see his negligence, though he includes in a small
portion EATWOT in his survey, to Asian tradition or perspective despite his
“almost” exhaustive historical and biblical analysis.
Bosch rightly points out that
today’s shift in paradigm enables us to see that the Enlightenment outlook is
wrong. However, the vital point is that, in the beginning, the Enlightenment
outlook did not seem to be wrong as well as others. Bosch encourages us to be
self-critical and indirectly speaks that the prophetic voice is not from the
paradigm or theory itself. This leads us to understand that missio Dei is, to the church and through the church to the world, to have
qualitative change in the relationship with others.
|