Africans in Missions: The Possible Dream

by David Zac Niringiye

As we approach the dawn of the 21st century, the church faces certain critical strategic questions: Who will be the missionaries of this era? What and where is the mission frontier? What models, patterns, and methods shall we use? What Christ shall we present? And, for us Africans, what is our place in all of this?

As we approach the dawn of the 21st century, the church faces certain critical strategic questions: Who will be the missionaries of this era? What and where is the mission frontier? What models, patterns, and methods shall we use? What Christ shall we present? And, for us Africans, what is our place in all of this?

We are concerned because one of the marvels, indeed surprises, of Christian history is the dramatic, massive growth of the church in this century in sub-Saharan Africa. Some researchers claim that over half of black Africa is Christian. Distinguished scholar and former missionary Adrian Hastings noted:

The Christian churches are today thriving in Africa as almost nowhere else. The era of “missions” in which Christianity in Africa was seen as a plant which had hardly taken root, which needed constant care from outside, which it was a duty to instruct but to which one would certainly not expect to listen—that era is over.¹

We in Africa see ourselves at the dawn of a new era in the history of world missions. What will our role be in light of this development? Will we find ourselves at the heart of a new thrust in world evangelization? Will we follow in the footsteps of the great outflow of missionaries from Europe and America in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries?

WORLD MISSIONARY MODELS
As the African churches consider what model to follow in the future, they see four broad structural models of cross-cultural missionary outreach: the Western voluntary missionary society, international church organizations, parachurch organizations, and national organizations.

1. The Western voluntary missionary society. The voluntary missionary society as we know it today was begun toward the end of the 18th century and thrived in the 19th century. We associate its beginnings with people like William Carey and Rufus Anderson. What historian Kenneth Latourette called “The Great Century of Missions” (the 19th) was a century of growth and success for voluntary societies.

Some of these societies are denominational and some are nondenominational, but the basic model is a Western concept, born in Western culture, and served by Western economies. Largely because of their work the center of gravity for the world’s Christian population has shifted from Europe and North America to Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia.

2. International church organizations. As denominational societies took the gospel to other countries they planted churches of their respective denominations. Over the years they became international denominations and joined organizations with a missionary concern, such as the Commission on Church Cooperation of the Lutheran World Federation, the Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Communion, and the Baptist World Alliance. They also organized ecumenical bodies such as the World Council of Churches and the World Evangelical Fellowship.

3. Parachurch organizations. The roots of the parachurch concept can be traced to the 19th century. These organizations strongly resemble voluntary societies. The same social, political, and economic cultures gave birth to both. However, they have significant differences.

While the missionary society sees its task as evangelizing and planting churches, the parachurch organization seeks to serve existing churches with a narrower focus or need. For example, the former Student Volunteer Movement mobilized students for world evangelization. Parachurch agencies proliferate worldwide. Some work with children or students. Others do evangelism, Bible study, and relief and development. Some work with pastors, professionals, and businessmen, and so on.

4. National organizations. The word “national,” of course, offends some people. These organizations could be called Third World, or Two-Thirds World agencies. Their structures vary widely. Some follow the Western voluntary society model, some are more congregational. At this stage, the “national” model seems amorphous at best. However, the crucial question for Africans is what model will best harness thevast missionary potential of our churches. We cannot just reproduce Western models.

SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA TO THE WORLD
Is it conceivable, is it possible to think of mission from sub-Saharan Africa to the rest of the world? In purely economic terms, No. Sixteen percent of the world’s poor live in this region. By the year 2000 it is projected that it will be 32 percent.² At the same time, Africa’s population is growing at a rate that far outpaces its Gross National Product. Further, the scourge of AIDS hits hardest the most productive population segment.

However, this does not mean that Christian Africa cannot contribute to world evangelization. For that to happen, we have to rethink who reaches what world and how. We have to reexamine both our ecclesiology and our missiology. Such a review must include defining the world (our mission field), the missionary (the church), and our methods.

1. The mission field. Of course, the whole inhabited world is our mission field. But our concept of the world has dramatically changed. As President Clinton noted in his inaugural address:

There is no clear division today between what is foreign and what is domestic—the world economy, the world environment, the world’s AIDS crisis, the world’s arms race, affect us all.

To which we must add that it is no longer accurate to refer to any place as “the dark continent.” Of course, this new understanding of the world has not made people more receptive to the gospel. Instead, the world seems to have become much more complex, but despite its complexity this “global village” is our mission field. It includes at least five frontiers, or categories, around which we must develop our future mission strategies.

First, there is the post-Christian, post-modern, secularized Western world. Its rapid recession from Christianity can be halted and reversed by a movement of a new brand of missionaries. Second, there are vast numbers of people under the yoke of Islam. It will take fresh models and methods—plus creative, positive attitudes—to break through this frontier.

Third, there are the people in the post-communist worlds of Asia, Eastern Europe, and the Commonwealth of Independent States. Fourth, there are those who live in the rapidly growing urban centers of the world. Fifth, there are billions who die too early—the people living in poverty, ignorance, hunger, disease, and other degrading conditions.

These new frontiers are not primarily geographical; they are realms, or kingdoms, and cultures. So we may speak of the kingdoms of modernity, secularization, urbanization, Islam, poverty, famine, and so on.

2. The missionary. By “missionary” I do not mean the individual, but rather the church. The whole church, wherever it exists, is the missionary. As far as we are concerned, this means that sub-Saharan Christian Africa needs to be liberated from the receiving church syndrome and the Western church needs to be liberated from the sending church syndrome. The whole church everywhere has a missionary mandate to go everywhere.

Theoretically, we all believe this, but the present situation in Christian Africa shows otherwise.

To say that the whole church is missionary means we have to practice partnership in mission. Each part of the church universal has a unique part to play. Vibrant sub-Saharan African Christianity could be an instrument in God’s hands to reach the secularized West, for example.

Or, look at the unreached Muslim world. Many African Christians have Muslim brothers, cousins, and uncles. These Christians do not have to learn another language and culture to reach their relatives.

The churches in the West despair of ever reaching the world’s poor. However, most of the church in Africa is a church of the poor. As a church in mission, it could be thrust out in mission to the poor.

Our need is to produce missionaries who will cross the Islamic, secular, poverty-hunger-ignorance frontiers. “We stand today at the threshold of a new phenomenon in the history of the church,” writes LaminSanneh of Yale, “when peoples and cultures are flocking to the cause, conscious as never before of their particular, unique contribution they can make.”3 Will our African Christians identify and grasp their particular, unique contribution to the cause of world missions?

3. Mission methods. Obviously, some of the basic models outlined above do not serve the churches in Africa. For example, we do not have the resources to service the Western-style missionary society. Therefore, we need to develop relevant, contextualized, national models of missionary organizations.

Whatever models we use, we must take into account the resources of the church everywhere. This is how partnership in mission should work. For example, Africa has a vast resource of people—zealous, Spirit-filled Christians — to take the gospel beyond their borders. The churches of the industrialized world have material and technical resources to be used for world mission. If we do not pool our unique resources, the missionary enterprise is thrown out of balance and the task is not accomplished as it might be. Our returns will not match our investments.

My own country of Uganda illustrates this point. Our church is just over 100 years old. It has a rich history of Christian vitality and mission vision. It holds great potential for world missions. During the reign of Idi Amin in the 1970s Uganda had strong ties with Libya. Our governments had agreements to exchange personnel in various fields. Qualified Ugandans were free to apply for work in Libya. Doctors, nurses, engineers, and other technicians were invited to apply.

Did our Christians go to serve Christ in Libya? No. In fact, some who were forced to go to Libya prayed day and night to come home. Meanwhile, Western mission agencies were praying for opportunities to send their people to Libya.

Suppose our churches had been alert to this missionary opportunity. Church leaders could have encouraged our Christian professionals to apply for positions in Libya. If we had worked in partnership with Western agencies, they could have sent some Ugandans to Libya. None of this happened, because our Ugandan churches still thought of themselves as receiving churches and the Western churches as sending churches.

CHANGES REQUIRED
If we are to effectively mobilize the total resources of the church for world mission, we have to change our methods and organizations in at least three areas.

1. Internationalization. Our resources and our people must be internationalized at all levels of mission agency organization. For example, suppose SIM plans to reach Islamic Sudan. After investigating resources in the immediate region, SIM may decide to invite Ugandan Christians to accept this challenge, rather than Western Christians. For this to happen, Ugandan church leaders will have to participate in making the decisions.

Of course, it is also important for Ugandan Christians not to sit and wait for SIM to act, but to consider ways and means of reaching Sudan. Perhaps one of the ways will be for the Ugandan churches to invite SIM to share its expertise and to help train Ugandan missionaries for Sudan.

2. Localization. Localization demands a critical assessment of local resources and needs. After studying what is local and unique to sub-Saharan Africa, the outcome may be unique models of mission organization. This local agency can then invite the participation of other churches, both African and Western. Our churches desperately need to follow this pattern. Our leaders must assess their priorities, resources, and mission frontiers.

3. Education. The church in Africa exists for mission. This mandate must be manifested in the curricula of our seminaries and Bible schools. Our schools must take a critical look at the new mission frontiers and the new methods of mission, if we are to make our mark in world missions.

Such courses must not be limited to students interested in missions; they must become an integral part of pastoral training as well. Theological studies need the relevance ofmissiological issues.

Of course, local churches are educational in the best sense as well. They can develop programs of so-called home missions that will cross the frontiers of Islam, poverty, hunger, and disease.

Our Western partners can help us with theological cross-fertilization. They have much to teach us about education for world mission. Education is the key to developing our African missionary potential.

I hope these ideas will stimulate further dialogue, both with Africans and with Western church and mission leaders. We cannot afford to delay any longer a serious study of how the Christians of sub-Saharan African can reach their potential in world missions.

Endnotes
1. Adrian Hastings, African Christianity (New York: The Seabury Press, 1976), p. 1.
2. See The Tokyo Forum: The Proceedings on Development Strategies for the Least Developed Countries in the 1990s. UNCDF, May, 1991.
3. Lamin Sanneh, Translating the Message (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1990), p. 6.

—–

Copyright © 1995 Evangelism and Missions Information Service (EMIS). All rights reserved. Not to be reproduced or copied in any form without written permission from EMIS.

Comments are closed.