top of page
reimaginingstm

The Colonization of the Mission

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.

43 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


bottom of page