Missiological Correctness

by Gary Corwin

Much has been said in recent years about “political correctness.” The PC movement asserts that certain ideas and practices are beyond questioning, and anyone who even suggests alternatives risks condemnation for the modern heresies of stupidity, lack of compassion, “insensitivity,” and perhaps even bigotry.

Much has been said in recent years about “political correctness.” The PC movement asserts that certain ideas and practices are beyond questioning, and anyone who even suggests alternatives risks condemnation for the modern heresies of stupidity, lack of compassion, “insensitivity,” and perhaps even bigotry.

At the risk of offending “missiological correctness,” I’d like to suggest that we in the world missions enterprise are sometimes guilty of the same kind of smug and narrow-minded stridency.

1. You know you have been seduced by “missiological correctness” if you can only see the lost through a window, but have no interest in open doors. A vigilant focus on the most needy is helpful. Downplaying the whole task, or neglecting strategic opportunities and ripe fields, is not.

2. You know you have been seduced by “missiological correctness” if you measure missionary effectiveness on a cost per conversion basis. Conversion is a product of sowing, watering, and reaping. This approach only measures reaping costs (sowing and watering may have gone on for years). It can seldom distinguish between good and bad crops (measuring perseverance and fruit takes too much time), and it says nothing about preserving the harvest.

3. You know you have been seduced by “missiological correctness” if you champion prayer walks, but spend little time in your closet actually praying. While prayer walks may be a good way to stimulate prayerful interest in a city, people, or nation, they are not magical means to more effectual prayer. It is easier to market “prayer walk” excursions than closet kneeling pillows, however.

4. You know you have been seduced by “missiological correctness” if you mention the year 2000 more than twice a day. “Lord, are you at this time going to restore. . .? . . . . It is not for you to know the times or dates. . . .” (Acts 1:6-7). While A.D. 2000 makes a useful target date, overemphasizing it may betray eschatological presumption.

5. You know you have been seduced by “missiological correctness” if you decry the lack of unity in evangelistic efforts but consider first-tier theological issues of minor importance. Without justification by grace through faith alone, and the complete reliability and authority of the Scriptures, it is a methodology without a message. Unity without clarity is no solution.

6. You know you have been seduced by “missiological correctness” if you are more concerned with discerning demonic hierarchies in an area than in preaching and teaching the gospel of grace. The New Testament is replete with examples of God’s messengers responding powerfully to demons, but the focus is always on preaching and teaching. Where are the biblical models of proactive discerning of demonic hierarchies in a region?

7. You know you have been seduced by “missiological correctness” if you are apologetic about the bulk of 19th and 20th century missionary work and consider it imperialistic. While we must acknowledge that missionaries, too, imbibed the spirit of their age, such an analysis is simplistic. Far from being the dutiful lackeys of colonial rulers, missionaries sowed seeds of both faith and freedom. They honored and enriched indigenous cultures through Bible translation and education, and stood as buffers against the worst excesses of colonial and commercial exploitation.

8. You know you have been seduced by “missiological correctness” if you love contextualization, but consider indigenous principles of little importance. Good cultural form without the goals of church self-governance, self-support, and self-propagation is closer to manipulation than contextualization. No matter how ingenious our cultural adaptations are, genuine contextual-ization has not taken place if we end up producing churches that are dependent on us.

9. You know you have been seduced by “missiological correctness” if you put a lot of stock in extrapolated projections regarding how much evangelistic activity will take place by the year 2050, particularly if you aren’t engaging in much in 1996. Allextrapolations suffer from a tendency toward arrogance. By their nature they assume that current trends will stay the same, thus failing to recognize God’s penchant for doing the unexpected (e.g. the fall of Soviet communism). They can also become a convenient substitute for personal engagement.

10. You know you have been seduced by “missiological correctness” if you are still fuming about item No. 1. Come on, loosen up! You don’t have to have tunnel vision to be single-minded.

….

Copyright © 1996 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.