Do we need a new word?

‘Mission’ is one of those words that is common in our Christian vocabulary, but that can have a wide and often confusing variety of meanings. Narrowing the definition slightly to the activities associated with ‘going out’, rather than ‘an aim or objective’, we still have a wide usage. We go on beach mission, our church is involved in mission, we are a member of a mission society, and we pray for, send, support and even go as missionaries. But what does ‘mission’ mean in these contexts? Is it time to introduce a new word so that we can be more accurate about what these activities might and might not be and so that our support and prayers can be better informed and focussed?

My question comes after having spent a week at a student missions conference in the USA. Over and over again from the platform in small groups and in personal conversations, I heard confusing messages about what ‘mission’ is—often to the detriment of the personal application and challenge being considered. This is not a new problem; a quick scan of mission journals and discussion indicates a wide range of definitions and understandings of mission.1

So how will using a new word help?

It seems that much of the confusion flows from the relative weight given to ‘pure gospel proclamation’ in mission—particularly in ‘contrast’ to ‘good works’. (You’ll note my frequent use of inverted commas here. I’m doing that to try and use the sorts of words that crop up in discussion—even though they might be loaded, inaccurate or even pejorative terms.) For example, consider two missionaries linked with two different mission organizations. Missionary 1 is a church planter, evangelizing and discipling middle-class professionals in Asia. Missionary 2 is a Christian dentist working in north Africa, providing much needed dental services to an isolated and disadvantaged refugee community. Who is the real missionary? Is one sending organization more ‘mission-focussed’ than the other? Is one person more deserving of ‘missionary support’ than the other?

Or are these unhelpful questions to ask because they initiate ‘spot the real missionary’ competitions when in fact both people are doing excellent, godly work deserving of our prayers and support?

It has been argued (persuasively, I think) that we need to tie our use of the word ‘mission’ to the activity of proclamation because this reflects the overarching theme of proclamation and redemption in the Bible.2 However, a possible unintended consequence of such a definition can be the devaluing of those ‘non-proclamation’ good works that Christians are involved in all over the world. It is because of this potential devaluation that perhaps a new word might be useful.

Might it not be time to give a new name to the wonderful army of Christian medical workers, educators, agriculturalists, builders, welfare workers … (the list is endless) working in the far-flung corners of the world? ‘Mercy workers’, ‘Good works servants’—I don’t know; perhaps at the moment the specific word is just a mere detail. But I wonder if a new term for these skilled and gracious gospel servants might be useful, not only for the sake of clarity, but also for eliminating (or at least reducing) some of the unedifying and unhelpful ‘competition’ that goes on from time to time.

Might it be useful for our discussion, prayer and support to use the words ‘missionary’ and ‘mission’ to apply to the people and activities of direct gospel proclamation, and our new word to other servants? Might it be helpful for those who are inviting Christians to move overseas or into another culture to serve because the invitation can be more specific and the skills required more accurately described? Might it be helpful for our missions committees and church members to be able to specify more clearly the activities being supported and not have to say “and they evangelize as well” (as can happen)—as if to ask for some sort of legitimacy, when the primary task they are involved in is perfectly legitimate and worthy of support?

Is it time for a new word?

1 (See for example Keith Ferdinando, ‘Mission: A problem of definition’, Themelios, 33.1, 2008, pp. 46-59.)

2 See Michael Raiter, ‘“Sent for this Purpose”: “Mission” and “Missiology” and their Search for Meaning’ in Ripe for the Harvest—Christian Mission in the New Testament and in Our World, Explorations 12, edited by RJ Gibson, Paternoster, Carlisle, 2000, pp. 106-149.

11 thoughts on “Do we need a new word?

  1. Hi Pete, and good on you for taking this topic on! I personally like to be precise with words, especially biblical words.

    And I think our mission is the making of disciples of Jesus by the proclamation of the gospel (in the context of the whole Scriptures), and not social action or deeds or mercy.

    We are not sent anywhere to do the latter. We should love people and do such good deeds where ever we are and can. And that means it’s fine to go somewhere else to do them, especially where there’s a need. And Christians should be ready to live godly lives and speak up for Christ when they go for those purposes. But that’s not our mission.

    So I agree, our mission is gospel proclamation. As far as I can see that’s the only reason we are sent to the nations.

    But I suspect the desire for purity of wording is hard to achieve. And I can see practical hassles too.

    What about the person who is going as a tent-maker? They will do a task needed in the place they go, or which will earn an income because local Christians could not readily support them. But they are also using their ability to do that job get into a place they could not openly go to evangelise, or that could not ‘afford’ them. Presumably they will do that secular job with all integrity. B

    ut they are going by that means so as to open doors to preach Christ and make disciples and encourage or train local believers to do so too, albeit with discretion. They are still missionaries under your definition, aren’t they?

    But because they are doing two things, we get back to being blurred.

    And others go to do both things openly.

  2. Hi Sandy,

    I agree that there are going to be lots of ‘blurred lines’, particularly as the need for tentmaking continues to increase as we seriously try to reach some parts of the world. The way we support, pray for and recruit these courageous gospel workers has to be a high priority for us and we need to spend time thinking about the right vocabulary to use for them and their work. Will they require a particular word? Maybe? Maybe ‘tentmaker’ is the accepted term?

    But I’d say that isn’t the right word for a lot of brothers and sisters doing good works. I think we need to keep working to support and encourage them – and perhaps a new word will help that.

    Pete

  3. So many possibilities; so many unfortunate connotations.

    1. Roving religionists (James 1:27)
    2. World-wandering workers (James 2:14-17)
    3. Globetrotting do-gooders (Galatians 6:9-10)
    4. Travelling lovers (Galatians 5:6)
    5. Neighbours without borders (Luke 10:27-37)

    Sorry, apart from adding a few Bible references, that’s probably no help at all.

  4. This is helpful.
    In Eternity Newspaper I am trying to follow Peter’s line and reserve the word “mission” for gospel proclamation work. Like Peter I am following Michael Raiter’s led on this. This means I urgently need a word for mercy workers. I am trialling the name “Neigbours” for the page on social justice/mercy work.

  5. Hi Lionel – thanks for those suggestions. I like #5 ‘Neighbours without borders’ (and it has a nice ring to it in Spanish as well   ‘los vecinos sin fronteras’) although there is something catchy about the aliteration in #1 and #2.

    Pete

  6. On our field, we have traditionally, but unofficially, used the term “mercy ministries” for those ministries with a strong element of good works (homeless, orphans, addicts, etc). So “mercy workers” would fit this.

    However, for all of these people the term “missionary” is still legitimate since these ministries almost always include proclamation and have evangelism, discipleship and church planting as goals. And even if proclamation is not the focus of that individual, they serve as a part of a wider team in which the mercy work feeds into gospel proclamation. I find it hard to think a situation where this would not be the case, at least within a Christian organisation.

    So, as Sandy mentions, drawing a clear line between missionary and mercy worker is probably not feasible, or warranted, in the majority of situations.

    In the rare cases where the work is really not mission according to your definition above (e.g. in your case of Missionary 2), why not just call him a “Christian Dentist”?

    And where people are tentmaking for reasons of security and the word missionary is unhelpful, I think the just describing them in terms of their job is usually adequate: e.g. development worker, teacher, doctor, etc, etc.

    I think the main problem with this is not the lack of a suitable word, but rather confusion about 1. The meaning of mission as proclamation. 2. The value of Christian service which is not proclamation. i.e. how do we maintain the priority or mission as proclamation without at the same time devaluing other legitimate forms of service and creating a hierarchy of service.

    But isn’t this just the same problem we face at home as we distinguish between pastor and non-pastor, “full-time” and “part-time”?

  7. Hi Phil – thanks for your excellent comments. They are exactly the sorts of complications I was thinking about as I wrote and didn’t have word-space to articulate. I agree with your concluding points (1 and 2). I’m sure that getting the ‘right’ word isn’t going to be the silver bullet – but maybe a discussion about the word and the issues surrounding it will help.

    Unfortunately my experience recently at a large missions conference suggested that sadly not all Christian organisations subscribe to the view you outline in your second paragraph. But – I am very glad it is the case for many groups.

    Thanks.  Pete

  8. Hi Pete,

    If I am guessing right, I was at the same missions conference in the US as an OMF rep. and I know exactly what you mean. There is a disturbing amount of confusion and fuzzy thinking about the meaning of mission.

    I have been doing a lot of reading on this lately in preparation for a series of talks I need to give and the view that mission=proclamation really seems to be a minority view today. (And regarded as extreme and even dangerous.)

  9. Let me try and make things clearer by blurring them further. I think every Christian should be taking up the baton of continuing Jesus’s work of seeking and saving the lost. It is just that some of us do it in far away places.

    I am working under a mission organisation (CMS-Australia) and have started a medical clinic and maternity hospital in a slum here in Nairobi. We have 3 aims: 1) VIP Care – because God treats everyone as important so we should, 2) Medical Care, because that is the felt need in Korogocho slum, and 3) Gospel Care, because even if we cure people, they will get sick again, and in the end everyone dies of something we can’t cure. Medical Care is good and loving, but it is limited and in the end is a failure (as is education, income enhancement or any other benefit we can provide). The Gospel, on the other hand, benefits a person in more ways than medical care and never stops, not even with death. We use a tool to tell the Gospel to people in our waiting room, with the aim of everyone of the 150,000 people in Korogocho knowing it and deciding whether to accept it. Because of the clinic I can sit beside a Somali Muslim elder and tell him the gospel, which I couldn’t if I came as an evangelist.

    Am I a missionary? The medical work helps me seek the lost, and the Gospel proclamation helps save them. Did Jesus do differently? We try and show love to people with our medical care, but we try very hard to love them even more by meeting their unfelt need of the Gospel. Loving someone means wanting the best for them. I see many missionaries do good works without doing the best work. It is such a waste of opportunity!

  10. Hi Joe,

    Thanks for your input and personal experience.

    I was actually thinking about you when I was writing this and wondering how you would ‘fit in’ to a new word category.

    I think you are absolutely right about your work as an evangelist – from what I understand it wouldn’t happen unless it was for the clinic.

    I guess my question is to do with your last comment – good works and the best works. Do you think a new word would help understand / distinguish / encourage .. I don’t know – that kind of thing. If we were clearer about what we were saying could we more confidently talk about the good works, the best works, and not waste the opportunity?

    I feel very out of my depth to comment on that – but would be interested to know your thoughts.

    Pete

Comments are closed.