518717

research-article2014
MIS0010.1177/0091829613518717Missiology: An International ReviewHanciles

Article

Missiology: An International Review

2014, Vol. 42(2) 121­–138
The future of missiology as © The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
a discipline: a view from the sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0091829613518717
non-Western world mis.sagepub.com

Jehu J. Hanciles
Candler School of Theology, Emory University, 1531 Dickey Drive (Suite 334), Atlanta, GA 30322 USA

Abstract
This article reproduces material originally presented in a plenary address at the
annual meeting of the America Society of Missiology (in June, 2013) organized
around the theme “The Future of Missiology.” It examines the prospects and
predicaments that confront the discipline of missiology in non-Western contexts.
This assessment revolves around three broad reflections. First, that while non-
Western theological production and missiological thinking has shown tremendous
growth in recent decades, captivity to Western training and intellectual traditions
remains a major challenge. Second, that one of the most pressing concerns
confronting non-Western missiological education and scholarship is the need
for institutional models and programmatic approaches that reflect non-Western
realities. In this regard, the article argues that in order to be effective and sustained,
missiological education in non-Western contexts needs to be more integrative—
that is, less dependent on the isolationist-specialist model prevalent in the West—
and make greater use of the methodologies and analytical tools of social-scientific
disciplines like the sociology of religion. Third, that for a reconceptualization of
what “missions” connotes and represents it is vital for churches in the non-Western
world to address key issues of ministry and witness. It is argued that many of the
models and perceptions of mission inherited from the Western experience are
no longer helpful or warranted and that widely used constructs such as “reverse
missions” inhibit the conceptual reorientation needed to equip the church for a
new era of missionary engagement.

Corresponding author:
Jehu J. Hanciles.
Email: jjhanciles@emory.edu

Downloaded from mis.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2015

122 Missiology: An International Review 42(2)

Keywords
non-Western world, indigenous production, intellectual captivity/passivity,
collaboration, integrative, missional model, cultural anthropology, sociology of
religion, religious dialogue, reverse mission

In February, 1966, Time Magazine published an article titled “The futurists: looking
toward A.D. 2000” that included a range of predictions from various academic and
scientific disciplines about the near future.1 Today, with the benefit of hindsight, most
of these forecasts will be greeted with incredulous amusement. The list of scientific
forecasts included the confident assertion that by 2000 both the automobile and the
highway would be obsolete, giving way to hovercraft that ride on air; also bacterial
and viral diseases would have been virtually wiped out; and that memory loss accom-
panying senility would be eliminated. The article reflected the strong preoccupation
with predicting the future that rose among Americans in the Cold War era. The year of
publication also marked the founding of the World Future Society, an organization
partly inspired by the conviction that “the study of the future might help the cause of
world peace.”2 Over the next decade or so, the obsession with the future quickly
became a growth industry, attracting millions of dollars in research funding.

The non-Western world as frontier

This scientific interest in the future was solidly focused on life and possibilities in
Western societies. The non-Western world was largely ignored, as was religion or
religious trends. But within a few decades of its founding, membership of the World
Future Society ran into the tens of thousands and included not only scientists and busi-
nessmen but “many churchmen, clergy, theologians, missionaries, mission executives,
and even a number of missiologists.”3 The inclusion of missions personnel in the offi-
cial list of futurists (as members described themselves) is hardly surprising. Western
academic interest in, and study of, the future of missions dates at least to the period
immediately following the 1910 World Missionary Conference when the International
Review of Missions (founded in 1912) made space for articles that explored the future
of missions in non-Western contexts. This interest burst into new life in the 1960s as
American missionary thinking was stimulated by the broader societal interest in the
future as a new, exciting frontier.
Though it reflected wider trends, the American missionary brand of futurology was
marked by three important distinctions: a decidedly religious focus, an eschatological
frame of reference, and an almost exclusive preoccupation with the non-Western
world. It is the last of these that is of interest here.
From the American missionary perspective, a new future meant a world in which
all peoples and societies had been evangelized. But, crucially, the task of world mis-
sion was largely perceived as a Western prerogative. This was because “world”
mission meant “foreign” mission; the term “world” being synonymous with

Downloaded from mis.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2015

Hanciles 123

non-Western societies. Without exception, therefore, the non-Western world has

always loomed large as the frontier in grand plans and schemes for world evangeliza-
tion.4 This time, however, the widespread fixation with AD 2000 fired the missionary
imagination and generated a groundswell of zealous enthusiasm. Ignoring clear bibli-
cal injunction, many identified AD 2000 as “the most likely terminus…of God’s plans
for our world.”5
Alas, most schemes quickly succumbed to the gap between enthusiasm and practi-
cality; and few survived beyond a decade or two. But the fact that evangelical
Christians proved no better than leading scientists or researchers at predicting the
future is not the issue here. The investment of unquantifiable amounts of time, energy,
and resources in the evangelization of the non-Western world by Western (primarily
American) agencies was not new and would continue; in part because the world vision
inherent in such efforts retains its deep allure. But it has had unintended consequences.
Most significantly, the umbilical interconnections created between the American mis-
sionary complex and non-Western societies spawned a reflexive dynamic. Increasingly,
major developments in the non-Western world had the potential to impact American
missionary thinking and programs as well as the discipline of missiology itself.6
For instance, the closing of China (accompanied by the rise of Communism) and
the collapse of Western colonial structures sent shock waves through the American
foreign missions ecosphere and triggered painful soul-searching about the relevance,
rationale, even existence, of missiology as a discipline. This crisis contributed to the
establishment of the Association of Professors of Mission (in 1950), in part to “defend
missiology’s right to exist.” Similarly, in the 1970s, the “moratorium” debate involv-
ing calls for a temporary cessation of Western missions to relieve the ill effects of
Western domination, and the upsurge and spread of other world religions, raised pro-
found questions about the nature and purpose of American missions. These develop-
ments contributed to a decline in student interest in missions and an erosion of the
study of missions in many denominational seminaries.
As Robert Scherer reports, these trends also triggered major changes within the
field of missiology.7 These included the creation of newly designed missions programs
in some schools (Andover Newton, Fuller, and TEDS), the introduction of new nomen-
clature for the study of missions—such as ecumenism, intercultural studies, or world
Christianity—a new emphasis on the interdisciplinary nature of missiology, and grow-
ing interest, especially in Roman Catholic schools, in linking the study of missions to
issues of justice and peace-building. To these were added concerted efforts to enroll
international students in missions programs. This variety of responses revitalized the
discipline of missiology, though mission or intercultural studies remained marginal-
ized in many theological institutions.
Meanwhile, the transformation of Christianity into a predominantly non-Western
religion, with Africa and Latin America as major heartlands, is the most recent and
arguably the most significant development in the non-Western world, with momen-
tous implications for missiological education. First attested in the late 1960s and
early 1970s, and now a commonplace, this dramatic “shift” has yet to fully engage
American missionary consciousness. But, due to the deep intersections between

Downloaded from mis.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2015

124 Missiology: An International Review 42(2)

mission studies and the realities of the non-Western world, the implications of this
“shift” (in the center of gravity of the Christian world) are in some ways most imme-
diate and most acute for the discipline of missiology.8 Certainly in the broader field
of theological education, the most meaningful responses (in scholarly production and
academic fora) to the new shape of global Christianity have come from scholars
involved in mission studies.9
So, I begin my reflections on the future of missiology in the non-Western world
with an acute awareness of two critical considerations: how poor we (scholars of mis-
sion) are at predicting future trends within Christianity and how important it is that we
remain mindful that a shared history will likely shape our common future.

Missiological education in the non-Western world:

indigenous production and Western captivity
The last couple of decades have witnessed the lively growth of non-Western academic
publications in all major theological disciplines—including missiology. In a summary
overview of the Indian context, Siga Arles (director, Center for Contemporary
Christianity, Bangalore, founded 1994) declared that “the rich and extensive produc-
tion by Indian scholars, programs and institutions of published material geared towards
theological education (mission studies in particular) within the Indian context” has
“provided the rudiments of an authentic and indigenous missiology, exactly what the
Indian Church needs for reflection, learning, and involvement.”10 Yet, after pages of
glorious testimony to prodigious indigenous theological/missiological production by
Indian scholars and institutions, Arles ends by stressing the urgent need in India “to
produce the missiology that would make us relevant and effective”; and he lists “devel-
oping an authentic, indigenous missiology for India” as one of the priorities for the
future.11
This assessment highlights the promise and predicament of missiological education
in non-Western contexts. The recent “Global Survey on Theological Education” found
that “there are not enough theological schools in the regions of the world where
Christianity is growing rapidly”;12 but since the 1980s, new degree-granting institu-
tions, many founded by evangelical initiatives, have proliferated in Africa, Latin
America, and South Korea.13 Many however, if not most, maintain syllabi that follow
the Western model. In some cases this is due to accreditation requirements that remain
tied to European models and prescriptions; in others because dependence on North
American support shapes programs and library resources to a great extent. This, com-
bined with the forces of economic globalization, also means that “theological research
and publications from Europe are present in African theological libraries, but theologi-
cal research from Africa to a great extent is absent from African theological
libraries.”14
Similarly, there is ample testimony to the rapidly growing contribution of non-
Western scholars in terms of academic theological production. But far too many reveal
an outlook that remains captive to Western training and intellectual traditions; in some
measure because they depend on Western-based publishers for sale and distribution of

Downloaded from mis.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2015

Hanciles 125

their ideas. The following comment by the editors of the recently published Global
Dictionary of Theology illustrates the point:
It was…surprising the number of scholars from the Global South who tended to do
theology in the manner of their Northern teachers…[that] entries drafted by theologians
from Asia, Africa, and Latin America did not differ significantly from entries that would
have been written by their European or North American counterparts…. This situation
raised the critical question: who is going to do authentically Asian, African or Hispanic
theology if not scholars from those particular locations…? It is clear that the theological
academy has some way to go in educating a generation of theologians who will take their
contexts seriously.15

Whether or not increasing access to Internet resources or online databases—still

beyond the reach of most institutions and programs—will make a difference to this
culture of intellectual passivity and dependence is difficult to say. Meanwhile, Western
dominance of online educational systems have, as Dietrich Werner notes, witnessed
“an increased trend to create affiliated programmes of American or other Western the-
ological colleges to operate as branches in countries of the South.”16

The role of the Western theological curriculum

The claim that Western intellectual hegemony remains one of the most enduring chal-
lenges for theological education in the non-Western world is perhaps overused, but it is
cannot be dismissed. Not many will dispute Joel Carpenter’s observation that “the ideas
and research of Asians and Africans are still treated mainly as the exotic raw materials
with which the Northern intellectual aristocrats can furnish their ivory towers”; and that
while “Northerners continue to assume the right to intellectual rule…Southern intellec-
tual development remains stunted.”17 Yet, it is foolhardy to think that the missiological
scholarship and training so desperately needed in the non-Western world can be wholly
undertaken in local or regional isolation. The academic inequities in question call for a
new effort at building what Carpenter terms “just and reconciling relationships.”
As they look to the future, theological institutions in the South must accept the need
for stronger, not weaker, ties with their counterparts in the North. In a new age of glo-
balization, the thickening and multifarious strands that link educational systems and
academic production around the world are an irretrievable fact. The US still receives
some 22% of the world’s foreign students,18 while the Association of Theological
Schools (a North American body) reports that foreign students accounted for 10% of
the student population in ATS schools in 2012. Moreover, even more now than in the
past, the expertise on which non-Western theological institution must draw to support
their programs includes a transnational network of African, Asian, or Latin American
academics, some of whom remain part of a wider diaspora located in the West.
The point at issue is that while the growing interconnections between the West and
the non-West in terms of theological education may include elements of hegemonic
exploitation, these same interconnections and the web of relationships that come with
them are also indispensable for the development of missiological education in the non-
Western world. To start with, the tremendously rich tradition of Western theological

Downloaded from mis.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2015

126 Missiology: An International Review 42(2)

scholarship and missiological thinking remains a common heritage. Rather ironically,

institutions in the West are often better placed to respond to the new global Christian
realities because they have better resources. Thus, in both Europe and North America,
it is mission historians or historians with experience or specialization in non-Western
cultures who have spearheaded consultations and projects that have elevated the study
of non-Western Christianity, probed the theoretical and historiographical challenges of
developing a global Christian history, and grappled with the challenge of writing and
teaching Christian history from a global perspective.19 But the involvement and col-
laboration of non-Western scholars in such efforts is critical, not least to ensure that
what is produced serves both Western and non-Western needs.
Regardless of uneven relationships, our awareness of being a global community of
faith is greater than ever before. This means that the education and training we pro-
vide—in the North and the South—must always have in view the wider global context.
The changes required in non-Western contexts for the discipline of missiology to fully
engage new realities must not be viewed in isolation from the changes needed in
courses or programs offered in Western theological institutions or seminaries. In both
contexts, a fundamental reorientation is needed for programs (or courses) to truly engage
or incorporate global perspectives and experiences as part of an overall effort to provide
the best training for a new generation of leaders. Yet, for the future of missiological edu-
cation in the non-Western world this requires the intellectual courage to move beyond
the corpus of insights and ideas dependent on Western theological heritage.

Some considerations for missiological education in the

non-Western world
One of the better definitions of missiology holds that it represents “a disciplined and
scientific study of the basis, methods, and goals of the Christian mission.”20 In this
technical sense, efforts to safeguard and develop the discipline of missiology in non-
Western contexts require attentiveness to at least two key issues: first, developing a
scholarship of integration that reflects non-Western priorities; second, rethinking the
traditional missions paradigm.

The case for a scholarship of integration

Scholarship of integration is defined as “the attempt to arrange relevant bits of knowl-
edge and insight from different disciplines into broader patterns that [reflect] the
actual interconnectedness of the world.”21 Due to the multi-disciplinary nature of
missiology, this type of scholarship has always been central to its function and pur-
view. Among us in this room are leading missiological thinkers who have made semi-
nal contributions to the field by demonstrating its specific relevance or contribution
to other fields of study. As James Scherer observed many years ago, the primary
challenge is for missiology “to find a way to be holistic, integrative, inclusive, and
complementary to human learning without becoming exhaustive.”22 The same is
largely true today.

Downloaded from mis.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2015

Hanciles 127

In this regard, a number of major questions confront missiological study in the non-
Western world. In particular, which fields of study (theological and non-theological)
require the closest correlation with missiology? What are the long-term benefits of
investing in specific degree programs aimed at producing missiology specialists? How
well does it serve the needs of the context to adopt a curriculum design in which mis-
siology is represented by parallel but separate courses within the theological curricu-
lum? All these questions add up to one pressing concern: namely, what alternative
models or approaches are required for missiological education to be effective in non-
Western contexts?
There is much that theological schools and institutions in the non-Western world
can learn from their Western counterparts about the inherent challenges of integrating
the particular rationale or theoretical assumptions of missiology into the various theo-
logical disciplines. But blind emulation of Western models is foolhardy. In the West,
for instance, a number of teaching models or educational arrangements have been
implemented to ensure that the discipline of missiology has a place in the academy.
These include a separate professional school or center within the larger university or
seminary, a full-fledged missions division within the theology department, or a single
missions faculty in the theological division (responsible for all things mission). Each
of these structural models come with particular limitations; but all have contributed to
the sequestration of mission studies as a distinctive, often disconnected, discourse
within theological education.
It seems to me that in the non-Western world, the discipline of missiology will need
to be more deliberately integrative in its profile and packaging to have long-term
impact and effectiveness. Put differently, the future of missiology in non-Western con-
texts requires models, structures, and approaches that emphasize integration in an even
more comprehensive way than is common in the West. This can be illustrated by a
brief review of two aspects of missiological education: the first is programmatic (how
missiology is represented within theological education). The second is the interdisci-
plinary nature of missiology, specifically its interaction with the social sciences.
First, the programmatic issue. There are many free-standing theological institutions
in the non-Western world that offer specific graduate programs or degrees in mis-
sions—including the South Asia Institute for Advanced Christian Studies (SAIACS)
in Bangalore; the Akrofi-Christaller Institute of Theology, Mission and Culture
(Ghana); the Asian Center for Theological Study and Missions (South Korea); and the
Center for Intercultural Studies at Africa International University (Kenya). But the
study of missiology as a distinct and cohesive degree program provided by a particular
division within the theological institution will increasingly prove challenging or
unsustainable for both economic and vocational reasons.
In most non-Western contexts, a sizeable and affluent Christian population that can
fund private theological institutions is lacking. Another major finding of the “Global
Survey on Theological Education” was that Theological education is financially unsta-
ble in many parts of the non-Western world.23 The fact of the matter is that privately
funded church-related institutions are (with few exceptions) either greatly dependent
on Western aid or serve a narrow constituency. Free-standing seminaries (where the

Downloaded from mis.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2015

128 Missiology: An International Review 42(2)

bulk of missiological education is done in the US) are seldom practicable, not only
because national wealth is mainly in non-Christian hands but also because the ideo-
logical fissures that make the seminary model desirable are absent. The nature of the
context and the needs of the church mean also that a “tent-making” approach, rather
than the “missionary specialist” model, will likely drive missiological study and train-
ing. Indeed, there is a strong probability that missiological education must take place
in university settings (denominational, private, or public) where theological training is
not the only mandate and doing business alongside non-theology disciplines affords
unique opportunities for collaboration and integration.
At the risk of recommending a one-size-fits-all approach, theological education in
Africa, Asia, and Latin America needs to be (in that overused expression) missional.
By this I mean, it must be marked by programs that keep the diverse ministries of the
church and the needs of human society at the center of theological formation and train-
ing. Some 30 years ago, South African theologian David Bosch provided a critical
survey of the published literature related to mission theology in Africa.24 He concluded
that on the African continent, “South Africans are virtually the only ones who write on
what one might call theology of mission proper.”25 Most importantly, he also conceded
that while many African authors would not classify their own work under the rubric of
“missiology,” it could accurately be said that “what most African theologians are
involved in is missionary theology.” This comment carries great import. It suggests
that in contexts where theological reflections are primarily stimulated by urgent and
pressing dilemmas, the process is instinctively missional. As Bosch put it,

Africans are doing theology because they are compelled to. They are doing theology on the
frontiers, where there are many dangers, where ambushes await one and where one can
easily take a wrong turn. It is, however, precisely because of these dangers that their
theologizing is so exciting and so worthwhile.26

Theological reflection for its own sake, removed from the travails and demands of
human society or inattentive to rapidly changing realities, is the antithesis of mis-
sional. It also represents an approach that institutions in the non-Western world com-
mitted to missiological education can ill afford, no matter the putative rewards.
A missional approach also eschews the deadening dichotomies that still persist in
Western theological thinking in which mission and church-planting are pitted against
social justice and advocacy, evangelism favored over ecumenism, evangelical distin-
guished from mainline, or church history partitioned from mission history. To take the
last, the partitioning of “church” and “mission” history, so entrenched in the West and
blindly duplicated in many theological programs throughout the non-Western world,
is unwarranted and unhelpful. At the very least, the longer record of Christian presence
in parts of Africa and Asia (compared to the West) and the very different historical
developments that have shaped the Christian story—such as a minority status and the
reality of religious plurality—trouble this model. Perhaps more evidently in the non-
West than the West, the institutional development of the community of faith (within
any given context) is impossible to disentangle from missionary encounter with wider

Downloaded from mis.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2015

Hanciles 129

society. It is also patently obvious that in non-Western contexts a meaningful historical

account of the Christian movement cannot be provided in hermetic isolation from
critical missiological assessment.
There is also the question of resources. The mission–church history dichotomy is
marked not only by separate courses and programs but also by separate academic spe-
cialists and academic societies. A missional model of theological education presup-
poses an alternative approach. It favors a pluralistic paradigm in which each area of
theological discourse and reflection actively seeks to support the witness of the church
as a matter of priority; in which also missiological reflections, methods, and theoretical
foundations are a shared commitment (of the entire faculty) and incorporated into each
theological discipline.
Implementing this integrative missional model of theological education will be
supremely challenging. But, as Lamin Sanneh recognizes, the future of missiological
education in the non-Western world demands “fresh navigational aids”; it calls for a
willingness to “reject old assurances; reject attempts at projecting the old ideas of
navigation, control and direction into the future; and instead ask new questions with-
out reference to the old answers.”27 This daunting task cannot be tackled with a single
solution or initiative, but it must be tackled. The only other option would be chronic
and unthinking dependence on Western templates or models—arguably the theologi-
cal equivalent of outsourcing the parenting of one’s children.
Whatever its potential advantages, the missional model of theological education
suggested here is hardly problem-free. It does not preclude specific (foundational?)
courses in missiology that may be needed to safeguard what James Scherer refers to as
the “normative content” of the discipline.28 But, in the absence of a representative unit
(in the form of a distinctive program or specialist faculty), other measures will be
needed to preserve the distinctive concerns and theoretical presuppositions of the dis-
cipline of missiology. The model also requires attentiveness to the idea of scholarship
as “a social endeavour [in which] everyone is dependent on each other’s work.”29
Furthermore, cultivating habits of collaboration and innovation in contexts were
explosive Christian growth is also marked by deep sectarian divisions and fracturing
will not be easy; but the formation of academic associations at the local and regional
level that merely replicate Western models is unlikely to be part of the solution.
The second issue of integration that confronts missiology in the non-Western world
has to do with the question of which fields of study (theological and non-theological)
require the closest correlation with missiology. Missiology or mission studies has tra-
ditionally been closely associated with a number of theological disciplines (including
history, biblical studies, and systematic theology) as well as social-scientific disci-
plines like anthropology. It takes little imagination to recognize that missiological edu-
cation in the non-Western world may require very fruitful interactions with areas of
study not typically associated with missiological thinking in the West: pastoral theol-
ogy, world religions, and peace and reconciliation among them. But here I am mainly
concerned with exploring the interaction between missiology and the social sciences.
In the US (certainly among evangelicals and Roman Catholics), the affinity
between missiology and the social sciences—notably, cultural anthropology,

Downloaded from mis.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2015

130 Missiology: An International Review 42(2)

linguistics, and communication—is long-standing.30 In fact, the establishment of

anthropology as a discipline in the nineteenth century was directly linked to Western
missions. Affection between representatives of the two fields was not always mutual,
but the connection has survived the passage of time. The intersection of the two dis-
ciplines also provided missiology with valuable tools of scientific analyses and
allowed it to appropriate vital scientific methodologies from the “secular” academic
domain. Also, the late twentieth century witnessed the emergence of a number of
evangelical and Roman Catholic missiologists who were also professionally trained
anthropologists: among these Charles Kraft, Alan Tippet, Louis Luzbetak, Paul
Hiebert, Sherwood Lingenfelter, and Darrell Whiteman. Courses in cultural anthro-
pology became an integral part of many missionary training programs and attained a
prominent place within mission studies.
However, the immense attraction cultural anthropology has for American missiolo-
gists reflects the almost exclusive preoccupation in American missiological thinking
and practice with outreach to non-Western societies or peoples. The incorporation of
other major social scientific disciplines like linguistics (translation) and communica-
tions also reflects this basic concern.31 While such interdisciplinary engagement has
yielded considerable gains for missiological thinking, it has done little to enhance the
credibility of missiology among non-missiologists in the field of social science. This
is in part because in many instances the findings and methodologies of these disci-
plines often become a means to an end; so that “the rationale for using cultural anthropo-
logical data and theories [was] faster evangelization and more efficient church planting
rather than a genuine wish to understand the cultural order.”32 This is also because the
missiological findings generated by such use of social-scientific tools, theories, or meth-
ods are seldom subject to evaluation or validation by the wider guild; which means that
missiology as a discipline remains confined within a self-protective silo.
From a non-Western perspective, the affinity between missiology and the social
sciences remains no less vital; but the radically different realities and challenges of
non-Western contexts mean that the interaction between missiological scholarship and
the social sciences must be approached somewhat differently. The insights of cultural
anthropology remain relevant; but there is a case to be made that other disciplines may
have more to offer—among these, sociology, globalization, urban studies, peace-
building and reconciliation, development and public health, and migration studies.
Sociology of religion, for instance, affords methodologies and analytical tools
much better suited to the challenges and demands that missiological scholarship faces
in non-Western contexts because scholarly exploration of the society in which the
church exists and bears witness (along with other major religions) is a primary missio-
logical task. Pressing issues such as the impact of social exclusion and massive youth
unemployment on the rise of religious extremism, of migration and population trans-
fers on religious existence, or the role religion plays in the coping mechanisms of
families and communities confronted by myriad social crises, all invite sociological
analyses. Other predicaments confronting Christian communities in non-Western con-
texts that can benefit enormously from social analysis include recurrent and debilitat-
ing violence (ethnic and religious), failed or fragile states, social anomie associated

Downloaded from mis.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2015

Hanciles 131

with tyrannical rule, the new social divisions engendered by economic growth, or the
cultural tensions created by emerging democratic structures.
But identifying other fields of study within the social sciences that missiological
education in non-Western contexts must directly engage as part of the curriculum is
only one part of the challenge. Just as critical is the need to avoid an approach whereby
the discipline of missiology merely mines or appropriates selective insights, theories,
or technical data from this or that social scientific discipline. A scholarship of integra-
tion calls for some measure of mutual intellectual accountability. In this case, more
effort must be made to ensure that missiological findings and scholarship are not insu-
lated from meaningful interrogation by non-theology specialists. In other words, not
only must the discipline of missiology (and missiological scholarship) take purposeful
interaction with other fields of knowledge seriously, it must also endeavor to do busi-
ness without self-protective gear, more mindful of its ideological conceits, and per-
haps more aware of the gap between its ideals and its impact. To put it differently, in
its interactions with the social sciences, missiology (in a non-Western context) must
not be content simply to be nourished by contributions from other fields of study, it
must also seek to contribute, to challenge, and to make its case within the wider acad-
emy. Indeed, such a task must be embraced as part of the mission.

Rethinking missions
The second key issue that the discipline of missiology in non-Western contexts must
seek to address going forward is the reconceptualization of what “missions” connotes
and represents. This is partly necessitated by the phenomenal sea-changes taking
place in the global missionary landscape. A number of non-Western scholars and
intellectuals such as Samuel Escobar, David Bosch, Orlando Costas, and Lamin
Sanneh have made meaningful contributions to the vigorous debate surrounding the
singular complexity of the term “missions.” The tremendous insights produced by
Latin American liberation theologians in their assessment of the church’s missionary
task is also germane. But, for non-Western Christianity as a whole, given its new
representativeness, there is urgent need to reexamine the missionary task of the
church in the light of the distinctive realities and dilemmas confronting burgeoning
Christian communities. This calls for intellectual boldness and maturity; a willing-
ness to get off the beaten path and make new mistakes. As Lamin Sanneh counsels,
exclusive dependence on Western models, categories, and conceptualizations greatly
impairs our ability to understand the new realities and fully explore the “new world
Christian movement.”33
As a major case in point, these new realities require a rethinking of the relationship
between Christianity and world religions. In a critical examination of this issue,
American-Asian scholar Jonathan Tan affirms that the minority status of Christians in
Asia and the upsurge and assertiveness of world religions such as Islam, Hinduism,
and Buddhism has tremendous implications for Asian Christianity and the Asian
church’s approach to mission.34 For Asian Christians, he explains, religious plurality is
not a challenge or dilemma to be overcome but rather “a distinctive characteristic of

Downloaded from mis.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2015

132 Missiology: An International Review 42(2)

being Asian and Christian.” Moreover, the recognition of such plurality is “essential to
the survival and growth of Asian Christianity as a minority faith tradition in a conti-
nent dominated by other great religious traditions.”
Hence, the nature and experience of religious dialogue in the Asian context is radi-
cally different from how the concept is understood or practiced in the West. In Western
contexts, religious dialogue is promoted in situations where Christians are in the
majority (or, at least, enjoy a dominant role) and the other great religions of the world
exist as an exotic minority. Dialogue is initiated by adherents of the majority faith as a
specific exercise in which the different sides participate. Asian Christians, however,
observes Tan, “live permanently amid the practitioners of these great religions.” For
them, dialogue cannot be reduced to an occasional event or planned encounter; it is
part of daily existence. In sum,

while theologians and church leaders in Europe and North America may invite representatives
of these other religions to meet occasionally for dialogue and conversation, Asian Christians
engage in a daily dialogue of life witness with these fellow Asian neighbors who are followers
of the great religious traditions of Asia.35

As such, Tan concludes, Christian mission in Asia must primarily take the form of mis-
sion inter gentes (“mission among the nations”) rather than the territorially oriented
classical paradigm of “mission to the nations.”36
Tan’s missiological reexamination of religious dialogue from an Asian perspective
is a compelling example of the basic reformulation needed in missiological education
in non-Western contexts. Quite simply, many of the models and perceptions of mission
inherited from Western missionary thinking and experience are no longer helpful or
warranted. The understanding of mission as a one-directional undertaking associated
with outreach to distant lands or peoples remains entrenched in popular thinking.
Indeed, in most parts of the world today the word “missionary” instinctively conjures
the image of a white person from the West working in a non-Western context, sup-
ported by funds from their home country or church. The overuse of military imagery
and terminology in depicting missionary activity (crusade, force, campaign, battle-
ground, enlist, etc.) and a the strong preoccupation with statistical measurements as a
prime indication of missionary expansion or progress are other bugbears. Even within
missiological scholarship old conceptualizations persist: such as the tendency to link
the arrival of a foreign agent to the establishment of the church or the widespread use
of “missionary” (without qualification) when the reference is more accurately
“European missionary.”

Reverse mission?
The truth of the matter is that non-Western missiologists have yet to fully confront the
formidable task of providing the conceptual reorientation needed to equip the church
for a new era of missionary engagement. In fact, many emerging non-Western mis-
sionary initiatives have adopted the old paradigms wholesale and remain enamored

Downloaded from mis.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2015

Hanciles 133

with inherited Western constructs in a manner that is counterproductive. A major

example is the widespread usage of the term “reverse mission” to describe new mis-
sionary initiatives from outside the West.37 For a number of reasons, this catchphrase
is detrimental to analysis of the phenomenon it purports to describe.
First, it enshrines a long-standing unidirectional emphasis and outlook; an under-
standing of missions that is framed in territorial terms. This approach presupposes a
fixed (geographical) center and requires differentiation between “sending” and
“receiving” nations—typically with the assumption that one side does all the sending
and the other side all the receiving. Also, to equate the presence (or arrival) of
Christians from foreign lands with missions is problematic regardless of the period or
context. Second, it fosters a misperception that non-Western missionary agency was
dormant before the “reverse.”38 The rapid rise in international, intercontinental, mis-
sionary outreach by non-Western Christian groups and organizations has been greatly
energized by the demographic “shift” within world Christianity. But this phenomenon
reflects a missionary dynamism and vision that was present within non-Western
Christianity long before the “shift” itself. International and interregional missionary
movements by non-Western Christians is not new.
Third, the unavoidable inference that the Western missionary movement is no
longer a factor or has ceased to play a major role in world mission is quite misleading.
Despite significant loss of momentum, Western missionary initiatives remain a major
and important segment of global missions. The North American Protestant element
alone is estimated to be a $6 billion industry.39 Indeed, the escalation of “short-term
missions” from the 1970s is partly driven by the desire on the part of churches in the
West (each church acting as its own mission agency) to sustain the status quo with its
territorial understanding of missionary outreach to the non-Western world. Fourth, the
phrase “reverse mission” runs the not insignificant risk of reprising the narrow ideo-
logical and deeply racial outlook that marred Western efforts. This included the fervent
belief, enshrined in notions such as “manifest destiny” and “divine providence,” that
world mission is a prerogative of Western churches and ministries. It is perhaps more
important than ever to affirm that world mission is a mandate given to the whole
church and never the prerogative of any one part of it.
Finally, the concept of reverse mission obscures the uniqueness of these new move-
ments and major disparities that distinguish them from the Western missionary experi-
ence. The prominence of international migration and the role played by immigrant
communities is among the most conspicuous. These elements also capture the largely
unstructured and frequently clandestine nature of the movement. For non-Western
migrant missionaries in the West, the reality of racial discrimination, social exclusion,
and diminished status makes for a very different missionary encounter.40 Missionary
action is shaped by unique challenges related to citizenship status (including the perils of
unauthorized presence) and the stigma of an immigrant identity.
The movement is not free from defects, including limited cross-cultural missionary
preparation and a penchant for divisive competitiveness. But in many parts of Europe
and throughout North America, migrant-missionary initiatives from Africa, Asia, or
Latin America must contend with formidable impediments in their outreach efforts to

Downloaded from mis.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2015

134 Missiology: An International Review 42(2)

the indigenous population. The “missionaries” encounter post-Christendom societies

where the primary challenges often come not from other faiths per se but from
“Christian” constituencies: including state regulations that privilege homegrown
Christianity and adversarial reactions from some homegrown Christian groups.41 The
lack of key elements intrinsic to the Western missionary movement is also noteworthy.
The structures of political power and economic expansion are strikingly absent (even
for missionaries from strong economies such as South Korea and Brazil); and the
replacement of the parachurch missionary society (and the formal training programs
or fundraising structure associated with it) by church-based and predominantly infor-
mal efforts is also salient.
In short, the phrase “reverse mission” dresses a new reality in borrowed robes and
perpetuates old misconceptions about missions. In its intercontinental dimensions the
non-Western missionary phenomenon is both transnational and multidirectional.42 Its
distinctive elements, particularly the instrumentality of unprecedented migratory flows,
strongly indicate that meaningful assessment of its capacity and potential requires new
conceptual categories or analytical tools. Here too, the interdisciplinary character of mis-
siology will be indispensable. The best missiological thinking will utilize fresh biblical
and theological analysis as well as appropriation of insights and analytical tools from
new disciplines such as diaspora or refugee studies and transnationalism. Incidentally,
the massive population transfers and phenomenal migrant movements taking place
within the non-Western world also remain largely unexamined in terms of their missio-
logical significance. How, for instance, has the explosive rural–urban migration within
China contributed to the growth of Chinese Christianity? How might African churches
in countries like Kenya respond to rising immigrant populations amidst concerns about
the presence of radical Islam? And what are the implications of the ever-expanding trade
networks within Southeast Asia for new missionary encounters?

Conclusion
The overview provided in this article is limited. Many non-Western scholars, and
scholars working in non-Western contexts, who read this will surely be conscious of
important elements that have not been given attention. (I have hedged my bets by not
attempting to define “non-Western.”) Suffice to say that I accepted this assignment
fully cognizant that, given its scope, it would be impossible to provide satisfactory
coverage.
This leads me to the two critical considerations (mentioned in the beginning) that
have shaped my reflections. The first is the unshakable awareness that scholars of mis-
sion have a dismal track record for making accurate forecasts about missionary trends.
Indeed, my instinct as a historian is to expose such foolhardiness, not to participate in
it. That said, there can be no doubt that the global church finds itself in a new age of
mission in which the Christian communities of the non-Western world have a huge and
perhaps decisive role to play. From a non-Western perspective, therefore, this is an
exciting time for missiological scholarship because there is a vast new terrain to be
navigated. The second consideration I alluded to was the need for the entire guild to

Downloaded from mis.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2015

Hanciles 135

remain cognizant of the fact that our shared history will shape our common future. I
sincerely believe that to the extent, and only to the extent, that missiological scholar-
ship is marked by active collaborations and partnerships between Western and non-
Western researchers and programs, the discipline of missiology can look to a future
rich in possibilities and new ventures. If “foresight is the ingredient of success,”43 than
our collective vision is needed to glimpse new and exciting frontiers.

Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or
not-for-profit sectors.

Notes
  1. “Essay,” 1966.
  2. Cornish, 2007: 53.
  3. Barrett, 1987: 434.
  4. By the 1960s plans and programs for evangelizing the non-Western world had dominated
the Western missionary endeavor for over four centuries; in particular, the rise of the
Student Volunteer Movement (in the late 1880s) had galvanized efforts for world evange-
lization in unprecedented fashion.
  5. Barrett, 1987: 440. Barrett reported that at least 70 of the “300 distinct plans to complete
world evangelization” referred to a.d. 2000.
  6. For a full understanding of the concrete impact of these examples on the discipline of mis-
siology, I have relied greatly on Scherer, 1985: 447–52.
  7. Scherer, 1985: 445–60.
  8. Cf. Walls, 2006.
  9. For more detailed arguments, see Hanciles, 2006: 361–82.
10. Arles, 2010: 159.
11. Arles, 2010: 162.
12. Global, 2013: 2.
13. Cf. Carpenter, 2003: 55–65.
14. Warner, 2010.
15. Dyrness and Karkkainen, 2008: xi.
16. Warner, 2010.
17. Carpenter, 2006: 81.
18. Batalova, 2007. This is the case even though stringent immigration policies (since 9/11)
have produced a slight decline in student visas.
19. See, among others, Shenk, 2002); Robert, 2009; Noll and Nystrom, 2011; Jenkins, 2008.
20. Shenk and Hunsberger, 1998: 5—quoted in Montgomery, 2012: 281.
21. Cf. Jacobsen and Jacobsen, 2004: 51–52.
22. Scherer, 1987: 514.
23. Global, 2013: 2. It reports that “80% and 82% of the respondents from Africa and Latin
America respectively selected ‘unstable’ or ‘in financial crisis’” in response to the ques-
tion, “What is the financial situation of theological education in your region?”
24. Bosch, 1984: 14–37.
25. Bosch, 1984: 36. Indeed, four of the seven books he listed were published in Afrikaans.
26. Bosch, 1984: 16.

Downloaded from mis.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2015

136 Missiology: An International Review 42(2)

27. Sanneh, 2002: 113.

28. Scherer, 1987: 508.
29. Cf. Jacobsen and Jacobsen, 2004: 130.
30. For an interesting assessment of this connection, see Montgomery, 2012: 281–92.
31. Cf. Montgomery, 2012: 284.
32. Jørgensen, 2011: 189.
33. Sanneh, 2002: 113.
34. Tan, 2011: 497–509 (498). Asian Christianity is a dominant force only in the Philippines
and East Timor. Asian Christians constitute roughly 5% of the total population.
35. Tan, 2011: 501.
36. Tan, 2011: 502.
37. As Afe Adogame points out, the phrase has also been applied to other quite different trends.
See Adogame, 2013: 169–71.
38. It is not uncommon to hear non-Western Christians make the claim, Now it is our turn!
39. Jaffarian, 2008: 37. In fact, mainly due in part to greater financial strength, North America and
Europe “continue to send the bulk of cross-cultural missionaries” (65%)—“Missionaries,”
2010: 31.
40. Even in the case of remarkable stories of success, such as that of Nigerian-born Pastor
Sunday Adelaja’s Embassy for the Blessed Kingdom of God based in Kiev (Ukraine),
deep-seated xenophobia and major impediments linked to the immigrant experience are
central to the story. See Adelaja’s biographical account in Adelaja, 2008.
41. For more on this, see Butticci, 2013; Währisch-Oblau, 2009; Hanciles, 2008.
42. In an intriguing development, some African churches established in Western countries
have now begun to take missionary initiatives back to Africa as part of their global out-
reach efforts. Though, even here, the phrase “reverse mission” is simplistic. Cf. Adogame,
2013: 189–90.
43. Cornish, 2007: 52.

References
Adelaja S (2008) Church Shift. Lake Mary, FL: Charisma House.
Adogame AU (2013) The African Christian Diaspora: New Currents and Emerging Trends in
World Christianity. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
Arles S (2010) The state of mission studies in India: an overview and assessment of publications
and publishing. International Bulletin of Missionary Research 43(3): 156–64.
Barrett DB (1987) Forecasting the future in world mission : some future faces of missions.
Missiology 15(4): 433–50.
Batalova J (2007) The “brain gain” race begins with foreign students. Migration Information
Source. Available at: http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?ID=571.
Bosch DJ (1984) Missionary theology in Africa. Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 49:
14–37.
Butticci A (2013) Religion in motion: a missionary narrative of creativity and survival from the
Pentecostal Nigerian diaspora in Italy. In: Afeosemime UA and Shankar S (eds) Religion on the
Move! New Dynamics of Religious Expansion in a Globalizing World. Leiden: Brill, pp. 203–21.
Carpenter J (2003) New evangelical universities: cogs in world system, or players in a new
game. International Journal of Frontier Missions 20(2): 55–65.
Carpenter J (2006) The Christian scholar in an age of world Christianity. In: Henry DV and
Beaty MD (eds) Christianity and the Soul of the University: Faith as a Foundation for
Intellectual Community. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, pp. 65–84.

Downloaded from mis.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2015

Hanciles 137

Cornish E (2007) The search for foresight: how the futurist was born. The Futurist. Available
at: http://www.wfs.org/Upload/PDFs/The_Search_for_Foresight.pdf.
Dyrness WA and Karkkainen V-M (eds) (2008) Global Dictionary of Theology: A Resource for
the Worldwide Church. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic.
Essay: the futurists: looking toward A.D. 2000 (1966) Time. February 25.
Global Survey on Theological Education 2011–2013: Summary of Main Findings (2013)
GlobeTheoLib.
Hanciles J (2006) New wine in old wineskins: critical reflections on writing and teaching a
global Christian history. Missiology 35(3): 361–82.
Hanciles J (2008) Beyond Christendom: Globalization, African Migration, and the
Transformation of the West. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
Jacobsen DG and Jacobsen RH (2004) Scholarship and Christian Faith: Enlarging the
Conversation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Jaffarian M (2008) The statistical state of the North American Protestant missions movement,
from the Mission Handbook, 20th edition. International Bulletin of Missionary Research
32(1): 35–38.
Jenkins P (2008) The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the
Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia- and How It Died. New York: HarperOne.
Jørgensen JA (2011) Anthropology of Christianity and missiology: disciplinary con-
texts, converging themes, and future tasks of mission studies. Mission Studies 28(2):
186–208.
Missionaries worldwide, 1910–2010 (2010) International Bulletin of Missionary Research
34(1): 30–31.
Montgomery RL (2012) Can missiology incorporate more of the social sciences?” Missiology
40(3): 281–92.
Noll MA and Nystrom C (2011) Clouds of Witnesses: Christian Voices from Africa and Asia.
Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books.
Robert DL (2009) Christian Mission: How Christianity Became a World Religion. Blackwell
Brief Histories of Religion Series. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Sanneh L (2002) World Christianity and the new historiography: history and global interconnec-
tions. In: Shenk WR (ed.) Enlarging the Story: Perspectives on Writing World Christian
History. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, pp. 94–114.
Scherer JA (1985) The future of missiology as academic discipline in seminary education:
attempt at reinterpretation and clarification. Missiology 13(4): 445–60.
Scherer JA (1987) Missiology as a discipline and what it includes. Missiology 15(4): 507–28.
Shenk WR (ed.) (2002) Enlarging the Story: Perspectives on Writing World Christian History.
Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
Shenk WR and Hunsberger GR (1998) American Society of Missiology: The First Quarter
Century. Decatur, GA: The American Society of Missiology.
Tan JY (2011) Rethinking the relationship between Christianity and world religions, and explor-
ing its implications for doing Christian mission in Asia. Missiology 39(4): 497–509.
Währisch-Oblau C (2009) The Missionary Self-Perception of Pentecostal/Charismatic Church
Leaders from the Global South in Europe: Bringing Back the Gospel. Boston: Brill.
Walls AF (2006) Scholarship, mission and globalisation: some reflections on the Christian
scholarly vocation in Africa. Journal of African Christian Thought 9(2): 34–37.
Warner D (2010) Theological education in the changing context of world Christianity—an
unfinished agenda. In: Board of the Foundation for Theological Education for South East
Asia (FTESEA). Philadelphia.

Downloaded from mis.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2015

138 Missiology: An International Review 42(2)

Author biography
Jehu J. Hanciles is the D.W. Ruth Brooks Associate Professor of World Christianity at Candler
School of Theology (Emory University). He is author of Euthanasia of a Mission: African
Church Autonomy in a Colonial Context (Praeger, 2002), and his current research aims to sur-
vey the history of global Christian expansion through the lens of migration.

Downloaded from mis.sagepub.com by guest on December 3, 2015