Missions tends to reflect the mindset of the missionaries, and the mindset of the missionaries tends to reflect the mindset of the churches they come from, and the mindset of these churches tend to reflect the surrounding culture.

• Christianity has often been tied to power… governmentally and militarally.
• With the “Enlightenment” it became tied to power educationally.
• With the Industrial era and the colonial expansion of Western powers, it became tied to power economically, and technologically.

When we try to use money as our strength in so-called partnerships, are we not overlooking 1 Cor. 1 as the default setting for mission—God using the weak to confound the strong? Are we not relegating that “weak” and vulnerable method of mission to those who are too poor to be able to afford to do mission the way we do it? Are we not assuming that people do mission from a position of strength if they can and from a position of weakness if they must?

There is a very difficult choice for the next generation of Western Christians. I see no easy answer. Should we complement the “weak” vulnerable mission of the Majority World church with our strength, or should we forego our strength and copy the vulnerable mission that the Majority World uses by necessity? If missionaries and mission agencies are so interested in bringing more glory to God, why would we not cut back on the mission methods that are failing to bring much glory to him? Why not replace them with a more vulnerable strategy, one that for its inspiration harks back to the cross, the resurrection, and Pentecost instead of the conquest of the Promised Land?

Why not pay the prices of vulnerable mission and bring to God the glory that vulnerable mission in his name brings?

Some other interesting places to look for more information:

1.  Jim Harries’ Mission. This page was recommended to me (Thanks, Jonathan). Jim is a missionary in Africa and has done a lot of work and writing on Vulnerable Missions. He has some interesting thoughts including the (very interesting idea in my opinion) that the proliferation of “Prosperity Gospel” in Africa came, mostly inadvertantly, from missionaries not utilizing vulnerable missions. That kind of makes sense. Using sender-based communication rather than receptor-based communication can lead to miscommunication… including miscommunication of doctrine. Missionaries coming to an impoverished people from a position of (relative) wealth and power can easily add to the confusion of message.  http://www.jim-mission.org.uk/

2.  Alliance for Vulnerable Missions.  Led by people like Jim Harries and Stan Nussbaum (listed above). They do seminars and have other resources of value.  http://www.vulnerablemission.org/

In some ways, I prefer the expression “Missions from a position of weakness.” However, it is long and ungainly. Also some may be tempted to see weakness in terms of spiritual weakness. However, for me, weakness is in contrast to (human or worldly) power, while “vulnerable” contrasts safety. Still, I can’t think of a better term than vulnerable. Vulnerable Mission is  a welcome addition to mission practice and certainly seems to be built on a more sound theological (or at least Biblical) base.

I believe Christianity is entering a phase of weakness. Some are bothered by this. Facebook is full of angry and even vengeful Christians. This attitude I belief comes from Fear, and this fear comes from the feeling of not being in control. In fact, Christians have never been in control (and prayerfully never will be). Christianity has tended to be at its best when it is weak. Power is too tempting. Listen to sermons on “Christian” TV. There is far too much fascination with power and the fruits of power.

Let’s not pray for power… let’s pray for weakness, letting God be our strength.

Related articles

• The Power of Weakness: Part 1 (munsonmissions.org)
• The Power of Weakness: Part 2 (munsonmissions.org)
• The Power of Weakness: Part 3 (munsonmissions.org)