Category: Mission Theology

Maybe We Can Work on a More Biblically Sound Missiology…

On By missionmusingsIn Mission TheologyLeave a comment

I almost hate writing that title. I am involve in Pastoral Counseling, and there are so many people who come up with some principles or methods of counseling and label them as “Biblical” often meaning nothing more than that they have linked them to a few key Bible verses. Alternatively, it can mean even less and simply means that the person feels it is true.

But in Missions, there is often such a disconnect from the Bible, that saying that good missions should be drawn from good theology is simply not enough. A few points:

A couple of posts ago I noted that the two most well-known versions of the Great Commission (in Matthew 28 and Acts 1) do not emphasize going far away. The Matthews passage focuses on discipling wherever one goes. The Acts passage emphasizes that being a witness is to happen everywhere… with no greater emphasis on far than near.

I was just reading an article who noted (not for the first time, but still noted well) that “panta ta ethne” is really not best understood as “people groups.” It is better understood as “All Gentiles.” As such, it is more of a uniting term than a dividing term. A real industry has developed with homogeneous groups, UPGs, UUPGs, and more, While these may have limited value, there is no real justification in linking them to the that Biblical phrase. And since the term is a uniting term, it truly seems to be a bad misuse of the term that can easily lead to bad practices.

Matthew 24:14 has been used as a motivation to hurry up missions— often in ways that are rather short-sighted. There just is no justification from that passage to suggest that Jesus is waiting on our timing for His return. Considering the odd methods that have been driven by this misuse of Scripture, it is a good time to plan for transformation, not simply affirmation.

One could go on and on. What is missions from a Biblical standpoint? What does a missionary correspond to in the Bible. There is a lot that needs to be regrounded.

This is not to say that one has to base everything on the Bible. One can focus on unreached people groups even if the term is unknown in the Bible, and its imperative is only indirect. We don’t necessarily have to limit the roles of a missionary to the roles of an apostle in the Bible. But we need to understand God’s revelation first and foundationally, as we develop our work.

Sermon: “Every Christian is a Missionary”

On By missionmusingsIn Mission Theology, Missional Churches, missions educationLeave a comment

I believe every person in this room can be a missionary. In fact, I believe that each of you here, if you are a follower of Christ, already is a missionary. The question here is what type of missionary are you, or will you be?

CALL

I rarely use the term “Call to Missions” For some it implies a “struck by lightning sort of event.” If you are struck by lightning, go to a hospital not the mission field. I prefer to talk about a Process or Journey to Missions. I will give a very brief version of ours right now.

As a teenager, I wanted to be a mechanical engineer, but I also wanted to serve God in a more full-time capacity. During the school year, I trained to be an engineer. During the summer, I served as a counselor at a Christian Summer camp.I did that for 5 summers. I found great joy and purpose in it, but I left it uncertain whether I really should serve God in full-time ministry or not.

Celia served God in Norfolk with an evangelism and discipleship organization that focused on navy personnel at the Norfolk Naval Base. She found it rewarding, but hard to balance with a job as a nurse. She decided that she would quit her job, go to Moody Bible Institute, and train to be a full-time missionary. She was accepted into MBI, but when she was not able to sell her townhouse— she could not go. Like me, she was left uncertain about what God wanted in her life.

Since she did not go to Moody, we met and got married–. Over the first few years we would talk sometimes about missions, but generally saw it in terms of something to do when the kids are grown up and we were ready to retire. However, we realized that doesn’t always work. My mom attended Nyack Missionary Training School when young planning to be an overseas missionary. But life got in the way. She then hoped to go late in life, but health problems kept that from happening. If God wants us now, it may not be right to tell Him, “Happy to go… in 20 years.”

Celia tells the story of my coming home after work one day and telling her that I had good news and bad news. The good news was that I believed that God was leading us to serve Him as full-time missonaries. That, however, was also the bad news.

Our first step was to learn more about missions. We began to read up on missions, watch missions videos. We began to get information from mission agencies. We found that the number ONE reason that people are rejected is financial debt. Therefore, we worked to pay off our debts and live on less.

Our second step was to prepare for missions. We homeschooled our children because in the mission field there may not be schools available for our children. We started visiting more unusual restaurants, to get ourselves and our kids comfortable with food from around the world. We focused more on foreign movies and foreign news, and less on American movies and American news.

In 2002 our pastor at Spring Hill spoke to us and shared his vision that we serve God full-time either locally or overseas. We had never shared with him our thoughts before… so it was an affirmation for us. We all are social beings. Few can self-motivate. We need support and affirmation from others. We actually applied with the International Mission Board (IMB). I went on a short-term mission trip with members of Spring Hill to Londrina, Brazil. Awesome. We tried to do a family mission trip to the Carolinas, but health issues or something came up. Things were going fine with the IMB, but then they slowed things down because the IMB wanted me to lose weight— I was chubby. This problem I have obviously since solved. … maybe. Then the IMB ran out of money… slowing all mission candidates. Pastor Dan said that if we chose to go on our own, Spring Hill would support us— But there were problems… One was that Spring Hill could not work out the arrangements for us to get into another country for long-term service. Also, the church could not address the issue of retirement. However, in our research and planning, it seemed like God was bringing us to the Philippines where Celia was raised. Laws had changed recently making it easier to stay long-term, and there was a seminary there in which we could train. Our former jobs as engineer and nurse could help provide for our retirement.

Up to this point, we still had not accepted the call to missions. I think one should always research, plan, and pray. After a lot of prayer and discussing, we finally agreed, accepting the call-— we were going into missions. I notified Northrop-Grumman that I was leaving. We sold our house and in March 2004 we flew to the Philippines. We placed our trust in God… but not in ourselves. We agreed that if everything fell apart we would return after 1 year. But after 1 year we decided to stay. We considered coming back after 3 years but then decided to stay. We seriously mulled returning at the 9 year, 10 year, 11 year and 12 year points. We considered it again at the 17 year point. But we are presently at the 20 year point, and will be returning in 3 days.

Don’t focus on a “Call to Missions.” Focus on seeing the journey God is leading you on and sharing this with others.

CATEGORIES OF MISSIONS

I like to talk about missions in terms of Three big picture categories. They are…

Missions is serving God where the church IS NOT

Missions is serving God where the church HAS NOT

Missions is serving God where the church CANNOT

A. Missions involves going where the Church IS NOT.

The gospel has not reached everyone on earth. There are those who have never heard. Additionally, there is a far greater number who have never heard the gospel presented in a way that is understandable to them and culturally resonant. In some cases there are no churches around, while in others, churches may exist in their neighborhoods but these churches target people who look, sound, or act different.

People act as missionaries when they go to such people. The Role is PIONEER. They Evangelize, Baptize, Church plant. This does not happen all that much in its strictest sense in the Philippines. A large percentage of the population would describe themselves as Christians… and the vast majority of places there are churches within range of a jeepney or tricycle.

I have known pioneer missionaries. I have a friend who is a retired missionary who was the first to effectively bring the Gospel to the Ifugao Antipolo tribe in the Northern Philippines. We have friends/colleagues who work with groups in Indonesia in which there are so few churches and the culture so hostile that they hold church meetings in private homes in rooms with no windows so that they won’t be caught and have their members abused or worse.

A far larger group of missionaries minister where the church technically is… but is in some sense unavailable— especially people who are marginalized or ignored. Aaron and Emma Smith, who this church supports, have worked in the slums or settlements of Manila with informal settlers— a group that used to be called “squatters”— an insulting term. Celia and I are presently discipling a group in Caloocan city— a group of leaders of a church that reaches out to informal settlers and the destitute. There are churches nearby, but these churches are unwelcoming— because the the residents are poor, and viewed as outsiders. But this leads to the second category.

B. Missions involves going to where the Church HAS NOT.

Missionaries serve where the Church Has Not. Missionaries really should not have to plant churches for the poor, for Muslim background believers, for Night entertainers (singers, dancers, prostitutes), for those struggling with substances. But churches have blindspots and biases. Sometimes the churches need help. I remember back in 2004 how worried many church leaders were in Baguio that so many Filipino Muslims were moving to the city from the Southern Philippines. They feared they would take over and turn the city into an Islamic state. Thankfully, today there are many churches and ministries that work specifically with Muslims and Muslim converts to Christ in Baguio.

Although Celia and I run a counseling center, to help church members, church families, pastors, and missionaries, we see our primary role as a training center. A lot of churches are not that good at pastoral counseling… but they can be. The church is meant to be a place for holistic healing. But many have not been trained. The Smiths train up Christian leaders to reach out to the Great Urban Centers of the world. This is a Parenting role… one trains, one inspires, one motivates one mobilizes with the intent of passing things on to others. If we do our jobs well, we work ourselves out of a job. A few years ago, whenever we traveled to the US, much of what we did… stopped. Today, much of what we normally do is being done by those we have trained. That is a good thing. Missionaries are mortals… they must always train the next generation.

C. Missions is serving where the Church CANNOT.

The line is not clear between what a church cannot do and what it can be has not. But here is an example.

For years we did medical missions. We worked with local churches. Local churches did not have medical doctors, dentists, surgeons or nurses. They did not have access to pharmaceuticals. They did not have the finances to reach out to hundreds of their neighbors. We, as a parachurch ministry, could do all of that. But there were a lot of things we could NOT do. We were from outside, so we needed the local church to work with community leaders to make arrangements for the mission. We needed them to help us to know what they really needed, to tailor what we were doing to their context. We needed them to invite their neighbors. And, most importantly, we needed them to do follow up, discipling those patients and bringing them into the church. Serving God where the church CANNOT makes us not really Pioneers, and not really Parents. Rather, we are Partners.

I teach missions at Philippine Baptist Theological Seminary and Aaron Smith teaches at Asia Theological Seminary. Celia supervises an accredited chaplaincy program. Seminaries, counseling centers, and accreditation organization, and other Non-government organizations, are partners with churches— along with Christian publishing houses, Bible translators, Radio ministries, Mission hospitals, and more.

So those are three— where the church is not (Pioneers), church has not (Parents), and the church cannot (Partners).

So how does this relate to everyone else. How is every Christian a missionry. Of course, one way is that every Christian can work with overseas or cross-cultural missionaries without leaving home. When you send finances or goods to missionaries or mission organizations you are involved in the mission effort— You are a Sender/Supporter. When you help a missionary on furlough, visiting home, You are a Welcomer. When you send emails, letters, care packages and such, You are an Encourager. When you pray for missionaries— you are a Prayer Warrior. When you provide oversight of what is being done through reviewing reports or even doing field visits, you serve as an Accountability Partner. These are all vital… but I want to focus on other ways every Christian can be a Missionary.

COMMISSIONING TO MISSIONS

Missionaries focus much on the Great Commission. This was Christ’s charge to His disciples before He left the earth. There are several versions of it found in the Bible. The two most well-known are in Matthew 28 and Acts 1.

Matthew 28:19-21.

“Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” HCSB

People often read it as GO, therefore and make disciples. But in the original, that was not the emphasis. For a clearer emphasis it could be translated, “MAKE DISCIPLES, wherever you go.” All of us go… somewhere.

In Acts 1:8. Jesus says,

“But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come on you, and you will be My witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

Jesus was saying, Be my witnesses. Back home… Jerusalem… be my witnesses. Nearby… Judea… be my witnesses. In Samaria… the neighbors we often ignore, be my witnesses. Anywhere, everywhere… even to the ends of the earth…. Be my witnesses.

Both versions place less emphasis WHERE it is done— way over there, or over here. The emphasis is on WHAT is done— serving as a witness to the lost and a discipler of new followers of Christ.

So let’s parallel this to the situation right here at Spring Hill Baptist Church.

-We can serve God where Spring Hill IS NOT. Here in the Ruckersville area, there are lots of churches… for most people a church is within a short car ride. However, for many of you, when you start a Bible study, or do a backyard Bible club, or a similar activity out of your house, you are bringing the church in a meaningful way into your neighborhood. One might call this Jerusalem or Judean missions. Or one may reach out to people who do not FEEL as if there is a church for them. Our Samarian missions. The impoverished, or the homeless, documented or undocumented migrants, Muslims, Hindus, other faiths. International college students, people in hospices, special needs individuals, those sensory impaired, those whose jobs make them unavailable on Sundays, shut-ins and more, there are people who in one way or another the church has missed. You can be a pioneer in your community. If there is not this sort of diversity in your neighborhood, check the next neighborhood over. Or… pray that people of other races, ethnicities, languages, religions, or legal statuses would move into your neighborhood. Your present neighbors may not like this… but you don’t have to tell them what you pray for.

-We can serve God where Spring Hill HAS NOT. Spring Hill has many wonderful ministries, but many if not most of them were started by one or two people taking on a ministry, building it up, inspiring others, and training the church to embrace this new form of service. Of the ministries that are now deeply engrained in our church’s DNA— Hope For Appalachia, Spring Fling, Trick or Trunk, and more, there was a time when these were not done. In many cases, these started by the inspiration and determination of one or more members. I pray that God will inspire some of you to open up our church to new and great things.

-We can serve God where Spring HIll CANNOT. Sometimes you are in a unique position or have unique skills to serve in a setting or ministry that others in the church cannot. We have had people in Spring Hill who had special ministries that due to distance, specialization, or other barriers, found ways to serve God where the church as a whole could not. That is not bad. Each of us are part of the church— and an extension of the church— and a partner of the church. Look around and see if God has placed you in a unique place to serve where Spring Hill cannot.

Missions where the Church is not, has not, or cannot is important. But so is Missions where Spring Hill Baptist is not, has not, or cannot. I am hoping you will pray that God will lead you into one or more of these categories of missions. Whether Pioneer, Parent, or Partner, All Christians are missionaries.

If you believe that God is speaking to you in some way about Christian missions, Celia and I will be hanging out here after the service and we would love to hear from you. However, I will admit, we MIGHT not be the best to talk to. The best people are probably your families and in your Bible study or other small groups, or your ministry teams. It is with the pastoral staff or deacons. They are the ones who know you the best and can encourage and empower in what and when and where to serve.

Is God’s Whole Message to Mankind Simply How to “Get Saved”?

On By missionmusingsIn Evangelism, Mission TheologyLeave a comment

I was reading a quote from Christopher J. H. Wright speaking about the Mosaic Law. Wright was reacting to the premise that Mosaic Law was given to add a ‘central problems— ensuring “sinful and rebellious people can live in the presence of a Holy God.” (Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert, “What is the Mission of the Church?,” pg. 83). Wright sees this as more like the context of the giving of the law, a sinful rebellious people, rather than the PURPOSE of the Law. Quoting from Wright,

“To present the law as ‘addressing a central problem’ seems to get us off on the wrong foot. The law was not given to ‘solve a problem’ but to shape a people and at an individual level, to give blessing, security, guidance, comfort, and joy to the believer’s life… . Not just the sacrifices but the whole law is a gift of God’s grace intended for a wholesome, life-giving purpose, to enable God’s people of that era to live as a whole community of contrast and witness in response to the grace of their redemption.” (Christopher J.H. Wright, “The Church’s Mission,” pg. 72)

To me, I think that I see this in terms of analogues. Two of them are in engineering design and psychology.

1. In engineering (I used to be a mechanical design engineer) I would regularly have to make changes to designs of pre-existing products. There are many reasons for making design changes. However, two common reasons are (a) fix a problem in the design, and (b) make the product better to be the ‘best it can be.’ One might see the Mosaic Law in terms of DeYoung and Gilbert in terms of the first of these. The people have a problem (sin) and the law provides a way to achieve atonement for those sins. Wright, on the other hand, is suggesting that while that is not invalid, it is inadequate. God has called the people of Israel to live as God’s chosen people— recipients and givers of God’s blessings.

We see this, I think in Micah 6 where the people are living sinful and corrupt lives. Micah notes all the things that God has done for and provided to the people in the first 5 verses. Verses 6 and 7 arguably propose a “fix the problem of sin” solution— keep doing sacrifices. Sin a little and one must sacrifice a little. Sin lot and one must sacrifice a lot. Verse 8 suggests a broader look— the justice and mercy that is demonstrated in God’s law and in His actions should lead to a positive response in the people:

—God’s demonstrated justice should lead people to live just lives.

—God’s demonstrated mercy should lead people to live lives of mercy for others.

—God’s demonstrated concern for His people should lead them to walk humbly with Him.

2. In psychology and more generally in counseling, one can think of care in terms of “pathological” and “positive.” Pathological care involves fixing psychoemotional problems. We need to deal with what is wrong. Positive care involves helping people to live more positive, abundant lives. In pathological care the ideal is someone with all psychological “problems” removed. That is nice… but far from the ideal that a person is ideally created to be. In like manner, seeing the law in terms of fixing what is broken is fine, but it points to something more— a call to a holy community in communion with God.

Is there a corollary in the New Testament? Absolutely. The Mosaic Law can be seen as being all about atonement— addressing the divine ramifications of sin. In the New Testament, Jesus fulfills the Law. One way He fulfills it is in terms of His death— atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world. And many ultimately will see the work of Christ in quite narrow terms— penal substitutionary atonement (“PEA”). And much like Christopher Wright with the Mosaic Law, I am not saying that PEA is true. It is certainly true, but it is horribly inadequate.

—Much like the Law, Jesus modeled God’s justice and mercy, calling us through example to live lives of love and justice (in much the same vein as Micah 6:8).

—The work of Jesus, more than simply atonement, was a demonstration of how much we are valued by, loved by God. While some groups emphasize human unworthiness (total inability to earn or be worthy of salvation), this has to be held in tension with the fact that God demonstrated his love for us in that WHILE WE WERE STILL SINNERS, Christ died for us. (see Romans 5:8)

Christians are called upon to be far more than a bunch of humans who have imputed righteousness— just as if we had never sinned. We are called upon to exist in a community of faith, in communion with our God, and living as channels of blessing to the rest of the world.

Micah 6:8 still is relevant to us in our present setting. God has shown us what is good and what is required of us. To demonstrate justice in line with the justice demonstrated to us by God through Christ. We are to act with mercy in line with the mercy shown us by God through Christ. We are to walk humbly, in fellowship and obedience, with our God.

I believe this holds implications when it comes to Christian missions:

Preaching the Gospel message (kerygma) is good. We must tell of God’s saving work on our behalf and how it is available to all. But living in a state of grace is not the whole message of the law (Mosaic Law of the Law of Christ). Fixing the broken is an inadequate response to what God has done in history and in our lives.

Living as citizens of the Kingdom of God is more than having a passport and visa to get to Heaven. It expresses the benefits and responsibilities of citizenship.

Missions— carrying God’s message to those not (yet) part of God’s kingdom— is more than how to be a citizen… but how to live abundant lives in relationship to God and in the community of faith. It is to be carried in words and in deed. It is the whole gospel, meeting the needs of the whole person in their whole community, in their whole context, transforming their whole lives.

Anything less is offering less that what God has given us through Christ. A holistic approach to missions (proclamation, and loving action meeting the full needs of the individual and community) a direct response to what God has done for us.

Intheologization?

On By missionmusingsIn Mission Theology, theology of missions.Leave a comment

I was reading an article by Christina Zaker entitled “Parable as a Lens for Theological Reflection.” It is a good article and notes that despite the importance many people place on Theological Reflection, many people (especially students in the context of the article) often are disappointed in the process. She suggests the use of parables in a reflective group setting. This is, of course, not a unique idea— others have talked of such things, including myself (“Theological Reflection through Storying in the Orality and Clinical Pastoral Training Movements“) The key point is that personal stories are amazing opportunities for theological reflection, and the group process, if done well, can lead to very beneficial growth.

Of course, Group Theological Reflection (GTR) should also be balanced with Individual Theological Reflection (ITR). Both are skills. Zaker speaks of moving towards such reflection becoming intuitive. It doesn’t become intuitive, however, if it is not in some way taught.

Some churches talk about “indoctrination.” This involves learning the doctrines of the church. Perhaps more generously it could be said that it teaches the doctrines of the Bible as filtered through the faith tradition of a specific church. Ultimately, the most successfully “indoctrinated” is one whose beliefs are completely conformed to the program used to indoctrinate. That may sound a bit cultic, but the perfect outcome of indoctrination is uniformity.

To me, the ideal church is not one of uniformity, but diversity with unity. That suggests a solid understanding of doctrine, but with a healthy range of doctrinal beliefs. This suggests in addition to (or in some way in place of) indoctrination, the church should train members in being competent in developing theologically.

===Repeating the church’s catechism is certainly not being healthfully theological.

===Neither is “I heard this guy on Youtube who said…”

The process is not necessarily easy. A friend of mine who heads a major Clinical Pastoral Education certification program says that when trainees get to the theological reflection in pastoral case studies, the tendency of many, many of them is “This reminds me of the 23rd Psalm” or perhaps the Good Samaritan. Verse dropping is not theological reflection.

The question I have is actually, “Is there a good term for this process of learning to theologize.” Do we need to create a term for this process? Is “INTHEOLOGIZATION” a good description of this process?

There are lots of different methods that could be used in the process (my wife and I talk of a few in Dynamics in Pastoral Care). However, I do agree that stories are important. Obviously, linking our stories to our “faith tradition” is part of the process, and this means we need to be doctrinally informed. Otherwise, it is just a process of pooling opinions. Based on this, INDOCTRINATION and INTHEOLOGIZATION do go hand in hand.

What I am less certain about is whether they should best be done concurrently or not. I think the two choices are concurrent or indoctrination occurring first. I think generally that indoctrination should precede intheologization. However, if the process of indoctrination ossifies the thinking of the learner, it can stifle theological growth. I think, however, good doctrine should apply the framework in which theological understanding can grow from.

Missions and chaplaincy very much need good theology. Missions has often been too focused on marketing and theory at one end, or too much on preaching points and bumper sticker rallying points on the other. A good, non-ossified, theology is needed for good missions. As such good “intheologization” should be formally established and promoted in any missions training program.

Missional Presence Proclamation Quotes.

On By missionmusingsIn Mission Theology, QuotesLeave a comment

I was reading an article that had been put on Academia.edu. The title of the article is “New Paradigm for Christian Mission: Mission as Christian Presence” by Arun P. John as a project for a course at India Bible College and Seminary.

As I was reading it, I saw a quote I rather liked:

“The focus on missions as expressing God’s love through personal presence in the world is nice but wholly inadequate. But so was missions that embraced proclamation of the Word without Christian service. Maybe the two sides could have learned and grown from each other.”

I found it interesting and so I looked up the source of the quote. It ended up being: “Missions Theology and the 60s.” MMM—Munson Mission Musings: Thoughts and Articles on Christian Missions Today. Last modified February 10, 2017. Accessed February 9, 2020. https://munsonmissions.org/tag/christian-presence.

So I found out that I like my own quotes apparently. But this wasn’t the only quote I liked from the article. Therefore, I will add two more.

“Mission encompasses proclamation, service, and advocacy for justice. Mission as proclamation is an attempt by every Christian to tell and interpret the gospel story in his/her context as a way to discover God’s saving action and meaningful presence in the world. Mission as service highlights the diaconal dimension of a faith active in love, working for the empowerment and liberation of those in need. Mission as advocacy for justice denotes the church’s praxis in the public arena as affirmation and reaffirmation of the dignity of human life, both as individual and as community, as well as a widened sense of justice, encompassing the economic, social, and ecological spheres.”

Lutheran World Federation Consultation on Churches in Mission Report, Nairobi, 1998, p. 20


With this, mission is identified in three broad areas: Proclamation, Service, and Advocacy. The Anglican Communion has five broad areas: (1) Proclaim the Good News, (2) Teach and Nurture, (3) Respond in Loving Service, (4) Fight Injustice, and (5) Safeguard Creation. The three from the Lutherans are generally included in the five of the Anglicans. They add teaching/nurturing and creation care. I am not totally sure that Creation Care should be considered part of missions… but it is certainly part of someting in terms of Christian ministry.

The final quote is from the author, Arun P. John. It is the Conclusions:


This paper has accessed different areas of mission as Christian Presence. The gospel needs to  be imparted to the people by demonstrating the Christian values in the society through the life of the Christians. The world reads the 5th Gospel which is our life. The mission as Christian  presence also includes being present with the poor and the voiceless people and to become as a voice for them. The church also has a great role in participating in the mission by fulfilling the commandment of Jesus. The church needs to be a sign of presence of God ’s mission in the world.

The danger of this approach is that when the mission exists only as ‘Christian presence’ without  proclamation it becomes the betrayal of the Gospel. Therefore, the presence and proclamation needs go parallel to each other.

Aron P. John, “New Paradigm for Christian Mission: Mission as Christian Presence,” p. 7. Available at https://www.academia.edu/42220888/_New_Paradigm_for_Christian_Mission_Mission_as_Christian_Presence_Subject_Contemporary_Issues_and_Trends_in_Christian_Mission_and_Evangelism


Fast to Slow Missions: Part 3

On By missionmusingsIn Mission TheologyLeave a comment

This is a continuation (no surprises) of Part 2.

I have written before on the story of the Faithful Servant. Luke 12: 35-48

I have suggested that one could look at this parable being about time.

Option #1. The servant does not try to time the return of his master. Because he does not seek to figure that out, he just keeps doing his work continually. The master praises him NOT for doing things differently as his arrival time approaches but because he continues to do what he always did.

Option #2. The servant, after figuring out that the master is not returning as soon as was expected, starts to adjust what he does based on his own perception of when the master will return. He becomes lazy, selfish, and ultimately abusive. Yet, one should imagine that if this servant was able to figure out when the master would return, he would jump into work making up for misdeeds before his return so that he might give the appearance of faithfulness. Such a tactic, however, proves fruitless because the master inevitably returns when not expected, and the servant’s strategy falls apart.

I feel that the missiological strategy of doing short-term missionary tactics to get quick responses— whether it be focusing on

Projects over Programs

Focusing on verbal assents and evangelistic rallies over building discipleship and relationships

Focusing on Relief over Development

Ministering spiritualistically rather than holistically

is more in line with the second strategy. With the second option, “Slow strategies” of missions are downplayed because “the time is short…” Jesus is returning any day.

But is there any justification for thinking this way? Well, it is possible that Jesus is returning tomorrow… or 500 years from now. But should our behavior be different based on whether one has one day or decades to serve?

If you think the time of Jesus’s return should have an effect on our ministry work, I must challenge this. In fact, consider this question:

HOW MANY DAYS DO YOU HAVE PROMISED TO YOU HERE TO SERVE GOD?

Suppose that Jesus is NOT coming in the next century. How many days do you have then?

You might die before reading to the end of this post. You might die tomorrow, next week, next year. I am 58. I might not live to be 59. On the other hand, I know a missionary how is in her mid 90s who is still active in service. If I am like her, I might be ministering for an additional 3 decades or more. On the other hand, this might be my last day.

With no guarantee for the future, what should I be doing? Should I be doing frenzied quick fix strategies in missions? I really don’t think so.

First, I think I should be developing religious leaders. Regardless of the amount of time I have left, I am mortal. I will die. I should be preparing people for my passing to take over. Developing leaders is a slow and relational process.

Second, I should be committed to repeatable patterns that are not dependent on myself. I should desperately be avoiding the “superman strategy” of missions. That means establishing patterns in others that make myself ultimately unnecessary. This takes time.

Third, I should build “fires that endure” rather than ones that “flash and fade.” Thus I need to move away from quick responses and towards transformational commitments.

Am I saying fast missions is always wrong? No. There is a place for evangelistic rallies, rapid church multiplication, and (perhaps) regional saturation strategies. <I am rather cynical of the last one since I think they are more designed to impress people than to follow the call of Christ.> But Fast Missions should always be linked to Slow Missions. STM projects should be tied to long-term local church presence, or long-term mission programs. Evangelistic events should be tied to slow follow-up. Relief projects should fold into Development programs.

However, if Fast Missions needs to be linked to Slow Missions… perhaps it is better to cut out that first step, and put one’s effort most of the time into Slow Missions. Develop people, relationships, and communities. This process probably only rarely needs quick little projects.

I think the following statement sums up my meandering posts:

IF YOU TRULY THINK THAT JESUS MIGHT COME TOMORROW (OR YOU MIGHT DIE TOMORROW) THEN DO SLOW MISSIONS TODAY

Fast to Slow Missions, Part 1

On By missionmusingsIn Books, Mission Theology1 Comment

This is a section of my book, “Walking With: A Theological Reflection on Christian Missions.” It is available by CLICKING HERE. In this section I promote three types of “paradoxical” missions:

  • Strong to Weak Missions
  • Big to Small Missions
  • Rich to Poor Missions

So most of the rest of this post is about those three— from the book. After that, I would like to add a fourth and talk about this, primarily in the next post:

  • Fast to Slow Missions

Moving Beyond

I would like to promote a vision for future missions that I would like to call “Paradoxical Missions.”2 It is called that because it suggests values that are traditionally not encouraged in missions. Generally, these are things qualities that are counter-intuitive when it comes to Missions.

In general, these relate broadly to the idea that Missions should move – From Great to Good. With due respect to the book by Jim Collins,  Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap…and Others Don’t,3 I would like to promote a move in missions from Great to Good rather than Good to Great. I am not the first to suggest this. Back in 2003, Eric Swanson wrote an article in Christianity Today, “Great to Good Churches.”4 I really enjoyed that article. Of course, the idea is that the two terms  (great and good) are on two different scales. Great is on a scale of Success. Good is on a scale of Righteousness. Of course, one can try to combine the two. One article tries to merge the scales a bit– Good to Great to Godly by Mike Bonem5 and a book, Good to Great in God’s Eyes by Chip Ingram,6 seeks to move the term Great fully into the Righteousness scale. I have no issues with any of these works. However, for me, the term “Great” is inherently problematic. Much like the term “Prosperity,” even though it has good potential meanings, it commonly becomes a toxic lure. To me, Christian missions should avoid anything that tempts one towards greatness. There are enough people and organizations striving for greatness. Let them get the accolades, and we should strive for goodness instead.7

Related to the move from Great to Good, are the following paradoxical characteristics:

  1. Strong to Weak.  Missionaries have commonly, and traditionally, come into a new culture from a position of strength. Early on, many missionaries considered mission lands as places that are under colonial rule, and often, although not always, served with support of the colonial authorities. Missionaries often would come in and be in a position to get their way because of funding from outside sources that locals lacked. In recent years, this strategy has been questioned.
  • It may not be good for missionaries to be linked to colonialism/imperialism.
  • It may not be good for missionaries to be seen as sources of economic blessings (leading to odd constructs such as prosperity gospel or cargo cults).
  • It may not be good to promote dependency in developing churches in developing countries.
  • It may not be good to keep a faith “foreign” by keeping it under economic hegemony of a foreign church or agency.

Out of this has come the growth of Vulnerable Missions. While I don’t really care for the term “vulnerable” I don’t have a better one. I do personally prefer “Weak Missions” but I know that is just too prone to misinterpretation. But in weakness, a missionary enters a culture as a lamb, not a lion. He or she has a more catalytic role than coercive. Reliance on God takes precedence over reliance on State, Denomination, or Financial supporters. (In Christian missions, I do have a lot of respect for the Honor-Shame Movement, which gives greater respect to “patronage.” Vulnerable Missions would seek to avoid patronage as something that can lead to dependency. I have not reconciled these— the support for dependency in the patronage system and the rejection of dependency in Vulnerable Missions. Maybe someday I will figure it out.)8

  1. Big to Small. For many, Great implies Big, as does the word Strong. In missions, we talk about church-planting movements, saturation strategies, and “discipling a whole nation.” They sound Great, they sound Strong, they sound Big. However, having been raised in the “Burned Out District” of Western New York– a region of big revivalism and saturation strategies in the 19th century, I feel justified in being a bit cynical about the long-term repercussions of such big strategies. While AD2000 (the most well-known such activity) and other mission programs have pushed big goals with poorly justified deadlines, change is commonly occurring in the mustard seed activities around the world. Some like to modify the “Dream Big!!” mantra with the more realistic “Dream Big, Start Small.” For me, however, it doesn’t honor small. Small doesn’t have to be apologized for. We are all small, and it is entirely possible that a God-size vision is often a small vision. 9
  2. From Rich to Poor. Jesus instructed his disciples (both the Twelve and the Seventy) to go in groups of two without money. Many in the early church believed that Apostles (evangelists/church planters) were to take a vow of poverty as part of their role. The early church grew through lay people who were typically poor, and sometimes enslaved. The most successful and commendable mission work done in the Roman Catholic church was often done by the Mendicant orders. The Christian Community Development movement emphasizes strongly the importance of identifying with the poor. This is not to say that money is irrelevant or always counterproductive. However, many ministries would benefit from having less money– even in ones that may really need large amounts of money. For example, a Christian missions hospital requires a great deal of money to function. However, more money might not make them better. Less money, for example, may lead to better long-term solutions in ministry such as developing home healthcare programs.

This is not an argument against financial support for missions. Rather it is a caution against presuming that big vision, big finances mission work is better. But often I have seen missionaries who do great things but with woefully inadequate support, while mediocre missionaries are highly funded. Sadly, missions support is often based not on need, but on the ability of the missionary or mission organization to fund-raise.

I think of Gideon and his 300 soldiers. Gideon started with a large group of men ready to fight, and slowly whittled them down to 300. Why 300? Were the 300 the “best” warriors? Probably not. They were selected based on those who were not afraid and those who drank water in an unusual way. I heard one preacher suggest that a person who cups water into his hands and then laps the water like a dog is more vigilant than one who drinks water another way. I have my doubts… and such a view seems to undermine the main message of the story. God told Gideon in Judges 7:2, “You have too many men. I cannot deliver Midian into their hands, or Israel would boast against me, ‘My own strength has saved me.’” The purpose of the drinking was not to find the most valiant, the toughest, the most vigilant. Rather, it was to get the numbers down. If 300 people just stuck their heads in the water to drink, I expect they would have been chosen. God wasn’t looking for the strongest. He was not looking for a big army. He was not looking for a strong army. He wanted a small and weak force so that when they were victorious people would be forced to say, “Praise God, for He has delivered us from our enemy.”

If one looks at some of the most effective times in Church History, one must note the growth during the 1st three centuries of the church in the Roman Empire and neighboring lands. One must also consider the growth of the Chinese Church in the 20th century. Both grew without superstars or super-programs or super-anything. They were good people, faithfully doing small activities, reaching out from a position of weakness.

2 Much of this comes from a web article of mine, “Paradoxical Missions.” https://munsonmissions.org/2019/08/28/paradoxical-missions/

3 Jim Collins,  Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap…and Others Don’t (New York: HarperCollins, 2001). Technically, I am not using this book, only referencing the title. As should be pretty obvious, I am following the pattern of Eric Swanson of using more of an ethical understanding of “good” and “great” in contrast to Collins’ use of the words in terms of gradations of excellence.

4 Eric Swanson, “Great to Good Churches.” Christianity Today, Spring 2003. Online version accessible at https://www.christianitytoday.com/pastors/ 2003/spring/3.37.html

5 Mike Bonem, “Good to Great to Godly.” Christianity Today, Winter 2010. Online version accessible at https://www.christianitytoday.com/pastors/ 2010/winter/goodgreatgodly.html

6 Chip Ingram, Good to Great in God’s Eyes: 10 Practices Great Christians Have in Common (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2007).

7 More on this topic in my post, “Great to Good Christians” at https://munsonmissions.org/2012/03/03/great-to-good-christians/

8 More on this in my post, “Praying for Weak Christian Missions” at https://munsonmissions.org/2013/07/12/weak-and-vulnerable-missions-its about-time-part-1/

9 More on this topic, “Dream Small,” at https://munsonmissions.org/ 2017/06/01/dream-small/

Okay… moving onto the next thing, I would like to promote the idea that Slow Missions is better than Fast Missions.

Let’s consider some forms of Slow Missions:

-Community Development

-Bible Translation

-Chronological Bible Storytelling

-Theological Education

-Localization of Christian faith and practice

In contrast, there are also Fast Missions

-Evangelistic Rallies

-Relief of Project-type missions

-Short-form faith indoctrination

-Canned evangelistic presentations

-Packaged foreign structures in localized setting

-Church-Planting Movements (this last one is a bit controversial. Will deal with that in the next.)

-Short-term Missions (another controversial one. Also dealing with next time.)

Christian Theology, Missions and a “Healthy Agnosticism”

On By missionmusingsIn Commentary, Mission TheologyLeave a comment

The following is a quote from C. S. Song

There is what I call “healthy agnostism” in some Eastern religions and philosophies. … There is also “healthy agnosticism” in the Apostle Paul. After agonizing over the convoluted relationships between Jews and Gentiles in the divine dispensation in the eleventh chapter of his Letter to the Romans, he finally has to say, not in exasperation, but in relief:

O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways. (Rom 11:33)

This is Paul at his best— Paul not as a pretentious theologian. He knows how to keep silent in the presence of the inscrutable God. Most theologians try to say too much about God, but at the end of the day God is not any less real to the men and women who cannot make heads or tails of theological abracadabra.

C. S. Song “In the beginning Were Stories, Not Texts (Cambridge, UK: James Clarke & Co,, 2011), 6-7.

While we often use the term agnosticism to refer to an uncertainty about the existence of God, the term in a broader sense means “without knowledge.”

In our counseling center, we have a phrase we use: “ASC before you ASK.” ASC is an acronym standing for:

-Agnostic— Don’t assume you already know the answers, and the “whole truth.”

-Suspicious— Don’t assume that what you are told or see is the whole story. It might not even be true.

-Curious— Don’t be satisfied with what you know or presume to know. Seek to clarify and know more.

This is a healthy agnosticism. It is not a denial of good and reliable knowledge. Rather it is the understanding that what is true is going to be in some ways different from what I think I know, and broader than I have the capacity to know.

Theologians should not presume to ‘know it all.’ Some, thankfully far from all, theologians give off the vibe that they got it all figured out. Good theology has a good dose of mystery in it. Theologians are explorers in the dark. Their reflective flashlight may help them see what is off the well-worn paths of others, but their understanding of what is beyond will always be limited.

Of course, if there is “healthy agnosticism” their is, presumably, “unhealthy agnosticism.” Some theologians drift so far from having a certain groundedness to their understanding that, perhaps, they are best described as students of “religious studies.” Theologians study the Christian faith and doctrines through the lens of faith. However, that “faith” has to have a certain substance to it. One cannot have faith without having faith in something or someone.

In missions we seek to localize or contextual the Christian faith in a new context. In so doing we are often exploring new theological territory. What does a healthy community of Christ worshipers look like that consist only of male Filipino workers building an airport in Doha, Qatar (to pick something at random that I have modest knowledge of)? It imay be easy to come up with “Al Yagoda” answers (All ya godda do is this, or All ya godda do is that). This probably involves labeling a bunch of guesses and presumptions as true. On the other hand, one can throw up one’s hands and say, how can I know anything about this situation. It is unknowable. That seems an error as well. Truth can be teased out, at least tentatively, only with a healthy understanding both what we do know and what we do not.

Jesus, Internationalizer of the Jewish Faith– Part 1

On By missionmusingsIn Contextualization, Mission Theology1 Comment

In recent decades there has been the rediscovery of a truth so self-obvious that it is strange that it was ignored.

Jesus was a Jew in lineage, culture, and faith

If you say, “Well of course he was,” that is good. But the implications are a bit more profound than what it first appears. Embracing the tendency to put Christianity in stark relief with all other belief systems, there has been a tendency to see Jesus Christ as clearly, and only, on the side of Christianity, and in opposition to all else.

James Dunn speaks of this,

“As Susannah Heschel observes, liberal theologians painted ‘as negative a picture as possible of first-century Judaism’ in order ‘to elevate Jesus as a unique religious figure who stood in sharp opposition to his Jewish surroundings.’ A classic example is Ernest Renan, who wrote: ‘Fundamentally there was nothing Jewish about Jesus’; after visiting Jerusalem, Jesus ‘appears no more as a Jewish reformer, but as a destroyer of Judaism. …Jesus was no longer a Jew.’ And Albrecht Ritschl drew a line in the sand, which was not decisively questioned for most of the twentieth century, when he pronounced that Jesus’ ‘renunciation of Judaism and its law … became a sharp dividing line between his teachings and those of the Jews..”

James D. G. Dunn in “The Historical Jesus: Five Views,” eds. James K. Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 217.

I am not sure why Heschel focused on liberal theologians. The same was true, with subtle differences of course with Conservative, Moderate, and other theologians as well. I was raised in a very conservative church. We did not deny that Jesus was a Jew, but Jesus was always portrayed artistically looking very different from the Jewish people around him. He looked different in physical appearance and bearing, in hair style, and in dress. Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes, Herodians, and Sanhedrin members, were almost always presumed to be bad people with evil aims. If one was seen as good— like the priest Zaccharias, or the Pharisee Nicodemus, they would be identified as being good DESPITE their role. We tended to look at the way of Christ and the way of Judaism in dualistic terms— the way of grace that leads to life, and the way of law that leads to death.

Nevertheless, things have been changing. Eddy and Bielby (pages 48 and 49 of the book referenced above) note that theologians have really gone away from centuries of this thought. Theologians revolted against the “Aryanizing” if Jesus by the German Nazis (and the theologians that supported their regime). Learning more about late Second Temple Judaism showed that much of what Jesus taught was harmonious with the teachings of others in Palestine. Further, the growing interest in learning more about “the Historical Jesus” meant that one had to study him in his context (in 1st century Judea, born into Jewish culture or Jewish lineage, and instructed in the Jewish faith).

This growing concensus does not solve all problems however. The old argument of whether Jesus was the most influential (Jewish) rabbi in history (as Reformed Jewish Rabbi describes him… see This Article) or first Christian” does not go away with this.

I would rather leave some of this to others— but I would like to address a somewhat related question:

If Jesus saw himself as a rabbi, a prophet, and as Messiah, did he see himself those roles with an implied “Jewish” in front of each role. Did Jesus see himself as a Jewish rabbi only for the Jews? Did he see himself as a Jewish prophet only for the Jews? Did he see himself as a Jewish Messiah only for the Jews?

There are those who would affirm this noting some statements such as in Matthew 15:22-24, “And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and began to cry out, saying, “Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is cruelly demon-possessed.” 23 But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and were pleading with Him, saying, “Send her away, because she keeps shouting [a]at us.” 24 But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.””

Now I would note argue the setting (Jesus chose to go to a predominantly Gentile region), that he used the woman as an example of faith for Jew and Gentile alike, and then followed up with his biggest Gentile ministry (the feeding of the four thousand) immediately after. These certainly undermine taking Jesus’ statement too literally. It seems to be more rhetorical for the sake of his disciples, rather than a self-identification of his personal calling. Still, most of his work was within the Jewish context. Because of this, some argue that the Great Commission (Acts 1:8 version especially) is an odd add-on that lacks a certain continuity with the rest of his ministry.

My argument was that in addition to (Jewish) rabbi and prophet (and I must add Messiah as well), he was the First and Great Internationalizer of the Jewish faith.

Of course, non-Jews joined the Jewish faith prior to Jesus. When Moses left Egypt with the mixed multitudes (Exodus 12:38). There is some question of who these are, but generally they were non-Israelites (by lineage) who joined the exodus and most likely became incorporated into the Israelite identity. Over the centuries, others did as well. Rahab and Ruth are well-known. The Gibeonites gradually became part of the Jewish identity. A similar thing could be said of the Idumeans. There were also formal procedures for non-Jews to be proselytes to the Jewish faith, including ritual bathing and circumcision.

In all of these cases, joining the Jewish faith (whether during the time of the Tabernacle, First Temple, or Second Temple eras) meant a loss of outside identity. Being Jewish (Israelite) in faith means becoming, gradually at least, Jewish in culture.

The examples before the time of Jesus of non-Jews embracing the Jewish faith without necessarily becoming Jewish in cultural identity is a bit more uncertain. The story of General Naaman, of the Arameans, seems to describe one who changed his faith to the God of Israel, and even took dirt from Israel (presumably to scatter around his courtyard) to identify with Yahweh. He probably did not visit Jerusalem for sacrifices and festivals. However, in the end we don’t really know. The Phoenician sailors in the story of Jonah, and King Nebuchadnezzar in the book of Daniel are others who changed their worship to the God of Israel. It is uncertain of what happens next. There did not appear to be any real way for one to be Jewish in faith while Gentile in culture. With the Exile, this changed a bit, as Jews spread to Mesopotamia and Egypt (and then beyond) ad found ways to practice their faith in a region where their faith identity was different from that of the broader populace. The growth the the synagogue helped this— a gathering place for the faithful that was not only in Jerusalem. Still, even here, being a Jew in terms of faith, meant being part of the Jewish sub-culture.

An example of becoming Jewish in faith without becoming Jewish in culture, is the Samaritans. Presumably of “mixed race” background, they embraced the God of Israel, without identifying themselves as Jewish in self-identity or in culture. Broader Judaism, however, rejected this (although in more recent centuries, attitudes have changed and most see Samaritanism as a sect of Judaism).

In other words, before Jesus, to follow the God of Israel generally meant becoming a Jew in terms of culture… with rare and uncertain exceptions.

Jesus did not target Gentiles (non-Jews) in his ministry (with a few exceptions), but he did internationalize the faith so that the God of Israel could be worshiped “in spirit and in truth” and not limited by ethnic/national identity, or location (John 4).

Part 2 will explore this more.

A Centered-Set View of Christian Missions

On By missionmusingsIn Mission TheologyLeave a comment

Years ago, Paul Hiebert spoke of Evangelism and Conversion in terms of Centered-Sets rather than bounded sets, or even simple open sets. We don’t really know who is saved and who is not. God alone knows. I am not being a Calvinist here (which I am not). I am just saying that God alone knows the heart… we don’t. Because of that, in Evangelism we don’t know where the person was before we witnessed to them, and we don’t know are after (with respect to God). Hiebert suggested then that we should see the set of mankind as a bounded set with Christ in the center. We don’t know the exact boundary between a person and Christ, but we know that the redeemed can be thought of as closer. As such, Evangelism should be seen as moving people toward Christ. As such, statistics are a bit artificial. We can’t really measure “being closer to Christ then they were before.” See Paul Hiebert, “Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues,” Chapter 6.

Missions is also a thing that is hard to place boundaries on. Any definition for missions tends to cross off things that we all pretty clearly accept as missions. For example, many of the definitions would exclude Paul and Barnabas (as I have noted before). They did not serve internationally, and barely qualified as working cross-culturally. Even things like being cross-cultural may not apply to Missional Churches, or Diaspora Missions, for example. Stephen Neill years ago, however, pointed out the warning that if everything is Missions, then nothing is. I think this is valid, but it becomes difficult to find a consistent boundary.

So maybe it is better to have a centered set where the center is most clearly Christian Missions, and as one moves further from the center, it becomes less so, but with no clearly boundaries of when it moves beyond.

Using this, one might say that <A> loosely to be described as being in the center is the most clearly missions. One could define

<A> is “Cross-cultural Pioneering Missions.” This is the Ralph Winter ideal for missions. Going to places where the church “Is Not” to evangelize and plant churches.

<B> is “Cross-cultural Missions.” This is the most common understanding of missions. It is serving God oversees or across cultural lines in a variety of types of ministries to expand the Kingdom of God.

<C> is a category that I like to use when I talk about Missions. Maybe because of my Baptist roots, I like to look at missions from the perspective of the local church. When the church reaches out beyond itself for the growth of the Kingdom of God (without expecting its own growth) this could be called Missions. This would include both local church planting as well as long-distant or cross-cultural ministry.

<D> is the broadest category that could include all forms of ministry of the church. This could be said to be the Missio Ecclessiae. the full ministry of the church in response to God’s ministry work (Missio Dei). Essentially anything that lines up with God’s will and work could be said to be carrying out missions in this sense. This is where things get a bit questionable since Stephen Neill’s warning start to truly apply. Still, doing the mission of the church (Missio Ecclessiae) is indeed Missions in some sense.

The boundaries, except for the outermost are porous because there are no clear boundaries. I noted Paul and Barnabas before. They were clearly Pioneer Missionaries. However, they were not international missionaries and were barely even cross-cultural (in my context more like going from one part of the Philippines to another). So where do they fit? The fit inside of the <A> circle, but almost don’t really fit inside of the <B> circle. The problem goes away somewhat when one recognizes that the boundaries are approximate and loosely defined. Diaspora missions is often International but to one’s own culture, so it is also hard to fit clearly. Centered set doesn’t solve everything but does help gives some insights I believe.

A similar set of circles could be done for types of ministries as well. Churchplanting, Evangelism, and Discipleship are clearly mission work. Holistic ministry (especially in places where the gospel has had limited impact) is also in a broader circle of mission work. I teach missions in a seminary in a different country (from my own). That is missions, I think, but a different circle. Social justice, Bible translation, Missionary member care, and others also fit into missions but the definition is becoming gradually looser and poorly defined. Rather than saying certain types of work is missions and others are not, one should look at it from a centered-set perspective.