Transcending Mission: The Eclipse of a Modern Tradition, by Michael W. Stroope (IJFM 34:1-4, 2017), pp. 112-114
—reviewed by H. L. Richard
This is a challenging book that questions the continuance of mission work as we have known, practiced, and discussed for the past two centuries. Radical changes swirl around the mission enterprise and this book calls for a radical response, not a knee-jerk response that is situationally based, but a fresh understanding of mission, how it developed historically, and why a new perspective is needed. This review will be extensive, consonant with the importance of the book.
The first chapter, the Introduction, is on “The Enigma of Mission.” This statement is a wake-up call for the rest of the book:
The oldest and most common use of mission is as a political or diplomatic term. The national and political interests of one country or territory are represented to another country or territory through its diplomatic mission. (2)
Stroope goes on to summarize seven meanings for the term “mission.”
M1: Mission as general, common task or representation or personal assignment. (Elizabeth has made it her mission to make sure all the children in the area are able to attend school.)
M2: Mission as specified aim or goal of a corporate entity. (The mission of our company is to provide products of superior quality and value that improve the lives of consumers all over the world.)
M3: Mission as specific and personal life purpose or calling. (My mission in life is to raise three children and provide hospitality for those who enter my home.)
M4: Mission as evangelism and church planting. (Mission means proclamation of the gospel to those who have never heard.)
M5: Mission as the ministry of the church in all its forms. (The ministries of the church contribute to the accomplishment of its overall mission.)
M6: Mission as structures or entities related to the expansion of Christianity. (Mission San Juan Capistrano was established in 1776 by Spanish Catholics of the Franciscan Order.)
M7: Mission as the activity of God in the world, often with little to no reference to the church. (God’s mission is much larger and often different from the work of the church.) (10—11).
Stroope also discusses the attempts to make singular and suggests that these have failed, and have only added to the confusion of meaning.
A core statement for the book is that
Mission, birthed and developed in the modern age, is itself inadequate language for the church in the current age. Rather than rehabilitating or redeeming mission, we have to move beyond its rhetoric, its practice, and its view of the world. The task is one of transcending mission. (26; italics in original)
This rather extreme suggestion is supported in many convincing ways. One is to point out how little “mission” has been used in biblical and Christian history:
Mission has to be read into the biblical and historical narratives anachronistically in order to create continuity between mission past and mission present. The more demanding task today calls for us to do more than justify, revise, promote, and bolster mission. Rather, the pioneering task is to acknowledge the habits of language and thought that developed around mission beginning in the sixteenth century and to foster new rhetorical expressions for the church’s encounter with the world. (27—28)
A potential misreading of the book is to focus on the terminology of mission; Stroope is constantly pointing much deeper than merely terminology:
The overall intent of this study is an appraisal of the long and enigmatic course of mission rhetoric. My concern is not merely to dismiss mission language, nor to damage the church’s witness and service to the world. Nor do I believe it is possible or even wise to abandon mission language altogether. Rather, the aim is to identify the source and severity of the mission problem and offer language that I feel more appropriately expresses the church’s being and activity for the time in which we live. (29)
Section One of the book is four chapters on “Justifying Mission.” Stroope suggests that two types or groups of people defend mission language: partisans and apologists.
Partisans are activists for mission . . . They proclaim mission and missionary as biblical without qualifying statements or accompanying evidence. Their argument is usually based on an uncritical, and at times naïve, reading of these terms into Scripture. Partisans leave the impression that Jesus and Paul speak of mission and missionary and thus both words are in the Bible to be literally seen and understood. (35—36).
Apologists . . . recognize the obvious absence of mission in Scripture and seek to establish justification for the term. (37)
Chapter two is on “Reading Scripture as Mission.” There is an interesting discussion on the Old Testament and mission, pointing out that some see no mission for OT Israel, others read mission into everything in the OT, and some make a theological category for mission even though there is no cross-cultural sending in the OT. Stroope concludes that in OT study, “Mission, as a rhetorical device, improperly controls interpretation and communicates more than the Old Testament text intends” (81).
The situation with the New Testament is not much better. Two statements from Stroope make this point:
Characterizations of the early church as a missionary church with a missionary spirit are problematic for several reasons. First, with such characterizations, the assumption is that these communities were more than churches: they were missionary churches. (102, italics in original)
Lauding the early church through missionary language may present an inspiring picture of early believers, but it does not aid us in understanding the dynamics of the faith and witness in their context and at their time. The language of mission and missionary prejudices our reading of the text so that a clear understanding of motives and intentions is impeded by a retrospective burnishing of Christian history. (103)
Chapter three is “Presenting Mission as History.” Here Stroope shows that reading the expansion of the early church as missionary work and mission expansion is read- ing into the historical record:
Modern interpreters, in spite of the absence of mission among these early individuals and historians, feel compelled to insert such conceptual language into the historical record. The imprecise vocabulary of mission and its anachronistic rendering of history are the products of something other than a plain reading. Rather, mission is either generalized to express any kind of common purpose or task, or it is historicized in order to promote modern mission endeavors. (142)
This same trend appears in the next chapter, which is in a new section of the book. This second section is comprised of four chapters headed “Innovating Mission.” Of most interest here is the relationship of mission terminology to the Crusades. First, note the core fact that “Much like the preceding centuries in Christian history, the language of mission was simply nonexistent before and during the Crusades” (220). Modern interpretations, however, are not bound by this:
And yet, modern interpreters of the medieval era and the Crusades find reason to liberally insert mission and missionary into the narrative of the Crusades. Once again, because of the elasticity of mission language, interpreters find reason to appropriate modern terminology to explain medieval activities and to identify their actors. However, in the appropriation, they ascribe nineteenth-century assumptions and aims to eleventh-century events and individuals. (221)
Some interpret the Crusades as a missionary project. Others suggest that mission was something done by individuals who focused on evangelism while other Crusaders had other motives. In the end, the Crusades and their era are a different reality from modern mission, but the roots of modern mission lie in the Crusades—particularly the terminology of the Crusades carried over into the missionary movement.
Finally, in the sixteenth century, the term mission is introduced into church history: “Mission, in its modern meaning and use, made its appearance in the sixteenth century. Ignatius de Loyola (1491–1556) took existing language and repurposed it” (238).
From Ignatius’s introduction of mission into the speech of the Society [of Jesus], a major shift began that eventually reformed the way the church talked about and framed its encounter with the world. In Ignatius’s innovation, the era of mission began and the modern missionary movement has its roots. The genesis of this shift was a gathering of friends in a chapel and their common vow. (239)
Section Three on “Revising Mission” has only two chapters. The first (“Protestant Reception”) looks at the development of “mission” among Protestants.
Oblique references to mission in Zinzendorf’s writings and the Moravians’ early foundational documents became full-blown expressions of mission and missionary in the second generation of Moravians. (314)
The second chapter is on “missionary problems” and starts with a focus on “the modern missionary movement.” That phrase is traced to the last decade of the nineteenth century when Baptists were celebrating their mission centennial and coined the phrase. This now-standard phrase is brought under close scrutiny.
As a whole, the modern mission movement functions as rhetorical device–slogan or motto–of a tradition. More than a historical period or ideological category, the modern mission movement identifies means and intent as Christians relate to the world. The modern mission movement functions like any other identity, motto, or slogan, as “an instrument of continuity and of change, of tradition and of revolution,” [Richard McKeon, Rhetoric: Essays in Invention and Discovery, 1987, p. 2] and thus it is a reminder of the recent past and a call for a response. In this way, the modern mission movement structures reality, and maintains and advances specific perceptions and values for individuals and the church. While significance can be found in each of the three words (modern, mission, movement), taken together they offer a distinct concept that frames identity and cause. (318—319)
Mission, as expressed at Edinburgh [1910], held vestiges of Urban’s summons [to the Crusades] and Ignatius’s vow. Its notion of conquest, occupation, and triumph were from previous eras, dressed in modern garb but motivated by similar aims. Mission was the link between the two eras, and through this language Christendom assumptions of one era are conveyed to the other. In this manner, Ignatius’s rhetorical innovation found full expression and reached its logical conclusion at the Edinburgh Mission Conference. (338)
Stroope goes on to evaluate mission “partisans,” who, like those who were at Edinburgh 1910, promote triumphalist slogans and seek more and more mission funds and action, and mission “revisionists,” like the Laymen’s Inquiry whose 1932 study of Re-thinking Missions began what has become “a perpetual revising of mission” (343). Yet even the revisionists maintain mission language, however radical their suggested changes might be. But the remarkable changes in the world in recent generations suggest that it is time for new paradigms (and terminology) to emerge:
What Ignatius innovated and Protestants made into a modern tradition is ebbing in its usefulness and vitality–but more importantly, contemporary Christians have begun to recognize the conceptual dissonance with mission language and its tradition. A number of factors should signal that rather than redoubling efforts to defend mission, or to promote the latest revision of mission, or to anticipate what mission should be in light of the newest trend or the next conference, it is time to recover ancient language that will enable a more vibrant and appropriate encounter between the church and world. (347—8)
Stroope outlines and briefly discusses seven current realities that point towards a new paradigm. First, Christendom is waning. Second, the colonial legacy of mission is not easy to overcome. Th ird, culturally and religiously plural societies kill the geographical assumptions involved in mission. Fourth, as modernity declines, so will mission. Fifth, multiple Christianities challenge the basic concept of mission. Sixth, the terminology of the modern mission movement is already dying out. Finally, the desire for empathy and mutual exchange with non-Christians creates space for language other than mission (348–352). So Stroope summarizes that
When we defend and promote mission, we may find that we are championing the wrong cause . . . we may find ourselves hindering the right cause. . . . The necessity of transcending the rhetoric of the modern missionary movement is critical, given its past associations and its present implications. . . . Transcending mission is more than a shift in rhetoric; it is witness to our continual conversion to the gospel story. (353)
So, if we transcend mission and adopt new terminology and attitudes, just what will that look like? Stroope has a few suggestions to start us again on the right path.
As language enters vocabulary, integrates with thought, and becomes the content of communication, it changes the way one sees God, it shapes identity, and it determines actions. Kingdom language prompts those who follow Christ to live as pilgrims who give witness to the coming reign of God. They are not called missionaries, and their life purpose is not named as mission. . . . Kingdom language frees the modern believer from ordinary expectations and expands the range of possibilities. Kingdom language is the better choice of language, because it is rooted in revelation, includes all types of believers, prioritizes formation of life, expands possibilities, underscores the place of the church, liberates from Christendom assumptions, and points to the Spirit’s work. (376; bold italic emphasis added)
Kingdom, pilgrimage and witness are key terms Stroope wants to make central in our vocabulary, replacing mission, missionary, and even missiology. Other terms like service and humility immediately come to mind. As the long development to our current phrase of “modern missionary movement” has been traced, it seems likely that there will be a long period of fermentation before any new construct becomes the accepted terminology for a new era. Evangelical “mission” societies have quite systematically and rather thoroughly removed “mission” from their names; it seems it is also time to remove mission from our terminology and, the much more difficult process, from our thought and life. The exciting prospect of representing Christ and his kingdom in the post mission era should revitalize and redirect our witness as pilgrims among the peoples of the world. To this end, Stroope is not critiquing the past era so much as issuing a clarion call for new initiatives for the glory of God. May many embrace his perspective and begin the reboot.
Pull Out Quotes
In the end, the Crusades and their era are a different reality from modern mission, but the roots of modern mission lie in the Crusades—particularly the terminology of the Crusades carried over into the missionary movement.
Stroope goes on to evaluate mission “partisans,” who, like those who were at Edinburgh 1910, promote triumphalist slogans and seek more and more mission funds and action.
- H. L. Richard is an independent researcher focused on the Hindu-Christian encounter. He has published numerous books and articles including studies of key figures like Narayan Vaman Tilak (Following Jesus in the Hindu Context, Pasadena: William Carey Library, 1998), Kalagara Subba Rao (Exploring the Depths of the Mystery of Christ, Bangalore: Centre for Contemporary Christianity, 2005), and R. C. Das (R. C. Das: Evangelical Prophet for Contextual Christianity, Delhi: ISPCK, 1995).
