I am teaching a History of Missions class at Philippine Baptist Theological Seminary. Again, I have been struck at two streams of missions work. The first might be called “Power Missions.” The other might be called “Weakness Missions.” Others have written on this (at least one that I know of), but I feel that not enough has been focused on this issue.
Today, I am teaching on the Crusades. Most don’t consider it a missions activity. However, it did spring, in part, from a missional zeal, motivated in part by the desire, and missional activities of pilgrimages (peregrination pro Christo (“wandering for the sake of Christ”)) and martyrdom. It also was guided by doubtful missional innovations of Charlemagne centuries earlier. These include “the cross and sword” missions method, and missions work as an arm of the State. The Crusades were, in part, a method for the Church and ‘Christendom” to deal with people outside the faith (be they “infidels” or “heretics” or pagans).
I am also talking about St. Francis of Assisi and his attempt to reach out to those not of the faith. He was not hugely successful, but arguably far more successful in overall missionary impact than the Crusades. He was carrying out missions from a position of weakness.
When I speak of Weakness missions… I am directly referring to the following:
- Missions carried out without military or governmental support.
- Missions carried out in places where the missionary is exposed to danger rather than being a source of danger.
Less directly, I would include::
- Missions is done “incarnationally.” In this, the missionary joins the people as a fellow citizen and fellow struggler.
- Missions is focused on loving encounters more than power encounters.
I think I will do a couple of more posts on this topic. It is not fully developed in my mind yet… but that is part of the reason for writing it down.