It was not only that early Protestant missionaries began catching a ride with
commercial shipping operations like the British East India Company. It was that the very
structure of the trading company became the pattern out of which the Western
missionary cloth was cut. Missiologist Timothy Tennent says of William Carey, cited by
some to be the father of modern missions, “Carey, as a Protestant rejecting the
Catholic, monastic forms of mission, had no ecclesiastical structures to look to for
guidance. So, he proposed a mission society based largely upon the model of secular
trading societies, which were being organized for commercial purposes.”
Protestants were not only the architects and financiers of modern, corporate-
styled capitalism, they also adopted the corporate mold of the trading company as the
template for mission’s organizational shape. Missiologist Orlando Costas states, “Both
Melanchthon and Zwingli, Calvin and Bucer held that mission work was the
responsibility of the civil authorities. Therefore, it does not surprise us that Protestant
mission work began with the political and economic expansion of such Protestant
countries as Holland, England, and Denmark.”
Catholic mission, by contrast, was far more political than it was commercial.
David Bosch notes that Catholic mission was “based on the medieval assumption that
the pope held supreme authority over the entire globe, including the pagan world. . .
Colonialism and [Christian] mission, as a matter of course, were interdependent; the
right to have colonies carried with it the duty to Christianize the colonized.” In fact, our
word mission does not originate from Scriptures. While the term sent one (Greek,
apostellō) was used to describe those disciples who intentionally traveled announcing
good news, their work was not referred to as a “mission.” This word is one which comes
from a sordid past and is about as helpful to the church today as the word crusade is for
Christians working among Muslims. So, “mission” was born out of the exploitative,
sixteenth-century economic and political quest to acquire land, labor and raw materials,
and to leverage them either for Catholic kings or Protestant investors.
The new word, “mission,” is historically linked indissolubly with the colonial era
and with the idea of a magisterial commissioning. . . . The church was
understood as a legal institution which had the right to entrust its “mission” to
secular powers and to a corps of “specialists”—priests or religious. “Mission”
meant the activities by which the Western ecclesiastical system was extended
into the rest of the world.
The concept of Protestant mission, rooted as it is in the colonization of non-
European lands, carries on its shoulders a hint of conquest, exploitation and
imperialism. So as Catholic mission became inexorably bound to political colonization,
Protestant mission found itself entangled with economic colonization. God’s desire for
his people to spread abroad his invitation to a new and glorious kingdom, where sinners
receive forgiveness, the blind receive sight, the oppressed receive freedom and the
poor receive good news of a better life, was tainted by the vision of economic gain
through exploitation as well and the state vision for political hegemony.
Some Possible Changes
How might Protestant churches, mission agencies and parachurch ministries free
themselves from the slavery to the corporate model we have been handed? There is no
panacea, but there may be some modest steps we can take to explore other models.
Reexamining our boards. There may be wisdom in including on our boards
those who have business backgrounds. These men and women often come with a good
sense about how to get things done and how to manage resources strategically.
However, to allow the commercial sector to dominate the highest level of our ministries
is unwise. Boards should be comprised of a diversity of people from many walks of life,
including many of those whom a ministry is seeking to serve. For a geographically
spread ministry it may be wise to create a network of local boards made up of people in
the community being served. I would also suggest organizations move away from the
corporate model of boards of directors and adopt more ecclesiastical models of elders
or spiritual advisors, allowing decision making to occur at more local levels of the
fellowship among those who are on the ground.
The bivocational option. This is standard fare for ethnic minority urban church
pastors, but relatively unaccommodated and only marginally tolerated in the white
parachurch ministry world. A more aggressive approach to defining ministry positions
for bivocational ministers without burning them out could open the door for many. It also
embeds ministers in local institutions, connecting them more personally to the
economies, services and cultures of a local community. How might Protestant
organizations work with a variety of employment situations? Are there best practices
from those who have tried and failed or tried and succeeded from which we can learn?
Perhaps this is a better place for business professions to partner with ministries rather
than at the helm of ministry decision making?
Creative in-kind giving. Christian organizations might focus more energy on
calling local partners who may not be able to give money but who could help reduce
living expenses of our ministers in their communities. Housing and transportation can be
significant costs that might be reduced through creative, in-kind gifts. One ministry I
know is in partnership with a local restaurant owner. The restaurant provides the local
missionaries one free meal per day and enjoys their fellowship in his establishment. Too
much of Protestant ministry relies upon individual missionaries raising their budgets,
effectively putting ministry out of reach for those who grew up in poorly resourced
communities.
These suggestions may not be practical in all ministry situations, but they
represent a challenge to our imprisoned imaginations. We must recognize the
challenges that have been passed down to us through our historic marriage to the
commercial corporation. We must open our eyes to the ways in which this model can
obscure mission. And we must seek to move toward leaner and more local expression
of service.
Adapted from Overturning Tables by Scott A. Bessenecker. ©2014 by Scott A.
Bessenecker. Used by permission of InterVarsity Press. www.ivpress.com.
Comments