Stability, Not Change, Is the New Status Quo

by Gary Corwin

If ever there was a truism for the new millennium it is that change, not stability, is the new status quo. Those who think otherwise need only examine any modern field of endeavor, from aerospace to zambonis (the machines that sweep the ice at hockey games). Change is not only a given, it is relentless.

If ever there was a truism for the new millennium it is that change, not stability, is the new status quo. Those who think otherwise need only examine any modern field of endeavor, from aerospace to zambonis (the machines that sweep the ice at hockey games). Change is not only a given, it is relentless.

True of missions, too? Youbetcha! And is it good or bad? Both. Good when it connects with the world’s ever-changing contexts and communication challenges, and bad when it overlooks biblical givens and the lessons of history.

So what’s the scorecard say now? How are we handling this ubiquitous 800-pound gorilla called change? The answer varies widely, depending on what aspects in the panoply of missions we are talking about.

Here’s a rundown of this writer’s observations:

1. Our responses to the geopolitical smorgasbord of changing nations with changing names hasn’t been all that bad. Oh, we have at times flooded high-profile areas like the former Soviet Union and parts of Eastern Europe with more organizations and Western agendas than are seemly—particularly in the earliest days after the collapse of communism in Europe. And this has often resulted in a disservice to existing churches and efforts, but overall a great need and opportunity have been recognized and appropriate responses have been fashioned.

2. Efforts at “evangelical ecumen-ism,” that is to say, cooperating fully where there is agreement on essential first principles even when there is disagreement on secondary matters, have seen both successes and failures. On the one hand have been greatly increasing levels of international and interdenominational cooperation, particularly with regard to reaching least reached peoples. This has been laudable even when it has sometimes resulted in ever-multiplying organizational umbrellas to encompass the new cooperation.

More troubling, though, has been the seeming devaluation of the essential faith principles which have historically defined evangelicals (the absolute authority of the Scriptures and salvation by grace through faith in Christ) in favor of what might be called “evangelization ecumenism,” which confines cooperation to a common task without necessarily establishing the foundation of a common faith.

Accompanying this phenomenon, sadly, has increasingly been a defining down of evangelicalism from its historic role as a transdenominational statement about personal faith to a sociologically defined, and largely American-oriented, religious subculture. This approach, of course, fails to recognize evangelicalism’s true internationalization, as well as its millions of adherents who hold to evangelical faith in multiplied church traditions (including Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and every variety of Protestant).

3. Organizationally, many missions have been re-engineered themselves with a vengeance. Many now have new headquarters, new relationships with sending churches, and new and more flexible support structures. Most often, however, they have new, more decentralized structures, where decision-making is brought as close to the action as possible (although it is also true that some agencies seem to be moving in the opposite direction).

4. At the level of missionary care, there has been a heartening recognition of the need, and a major mobilization for action, in the areas of pastoral care and leadership training for missionaries. Long-neglected as a major need, high attrition rates have played a large role in awakening leaders to these issues. The last decade has truly been remarkable and encouraging in the responses that have been forthcoming.

5. Technology certainly exemplifies the new status quo. Changing faster than you can know about, let alone keep up with, it has opened many doors for better communication, increased accountability, and cross-fertilization of ideas. Less encouraging, however, has been the increase in data and information accompanied by a seeming decrease in knowledge and wisdom regarding what it does or should mean. It appears sometimes like reflection,reading, and prayer have been largely superceded by our ubiquitous e-mail and Net surfing.

6. The understanding of what missions both in and from North America ought to look like has been quietly undergoing radical change. The world has indeed come to our doorstep, and we have responded to this new demographic reality with new research, new church mobilization initiatives, and new ministries to recently arrived ethnic communities. The mission community is also recognizing the need to experiment with new models for sending missionaries abroad. For an expanded discussion of the latter trend, see Dougherty et al. in this issue.

Clearly, change should no longer surprise us. Change is the new given— the new status quo. How we manage and adapt to it under God’s direction—our ability to contextualize to it, if you will—will be a key measure of our fruitfulness, even our viability, as we enter a new millennium.

—–

Gary Corwin is associate editor of EMQ and missologist-at-large for Arab World Ministries, on loan from SIM.

EMQ, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 273-273. Copyright © 1998 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.