9 O WRITE AN EVALUATION of Evangelical missiology A T (hereafter referred to as EM) of the past half century is a formidable job. For the sake of limiting the scope of our Two-Thirds argument to guidelines given by such documents as the Lausanne Covenant, this chapter will apply the Iguassu Affir- World mation and the so-called “main axioms” delineated by Donald McGavran (Glasser & McGavran, 1983, pp. 100-112). It will evaluation then become somewhat clear that the EM that this writer of aims to evaluate consists of a body of missiological materials that have been produced after the mid-20th century in contemporary alignment with the contemporary Evangelical Movement, ex- pressed through such Evangelical gatherings as the Inter- Evangelical national Congress on World Evangelization at Lausanne, Switzerland in 1974 (Lausanne Congress hereafter). This date missiology conveniently coincides with greater participation of Two- Thirds World Evangelicals in formulating EM.1 First, an at- tempt will be made to sort out different streams that have David merged to create a modern EM. As a summary statement, a Tai-Woong chronological perspective of the development of EM will fol- Lee low. Finally, an evaluation will be made of this missiology. Major Influences in the Development of Evangelical Missiology Historically, a number of factors have influenced the for- mulation of Evangelical missiology. It is important that we take a look at some of the major factors that have helped to shape EM in order to evaluate them properly. 1 Although missionary work from the Two-Thirds World began much earlier, it was in the 1970s that we find Western missiologists becoming aware of the new movement, with such activities as the All-Asia Mission Consultation in Seoul, Korea in 1973 (see Nelson, 1976, p. 109ff.). 133 134 establishing the macro context of the major issues First, the European missionary move- Second, the Edinburgh missionary con- ment and its missiology must be men- ference in 1910 and subsequent major tioned. European missiology has its roots conferences held by the International Mis- in European missionary work, which be- sionary Council (IMC hereafter) and the gan as early as the 17th century (Rommen, World Council of Churches (WCC here- 1991). The study of mission began in 1622 after) assemblies have influenced EM in with the very practical purpose of train- one way or another. Until the Evangelicals ing missionaries for service in the East began to hold their own missionary con- Indies. In 1702, another attempt to for- ferences in the late 1960s, both Evangeli- mulate missiology emerged with the cals and non-Evangelicals had worked founding of Halle University, which was together to formulate missiology (Scherer, established for the purpose of training 1987, pp. 39, 165; Scherer & Bevans, 1992, missionaries. Gustav Warneck was their p. xvi). Even after Evangelicals withdrew missiologist, and by his effort missiology from ecumenical circles, a number of the began to take shape (Thomas, 1989, p. same themes found their way into EM,4 103). By the time the center of the mis- such as gospel and culture, contextuali- sionary movement began to shift from zation, a trinitarian concept of mission, the Europe to North America in the early 20th relationship between evangelism and so- century, European missiology seemed to cial responsibility, and dialogue as a form have gained its own characteristics. How- of evangelism.5 ever, in an attempt to be accepted as a part Third, after the 1960s, Evangelical mis- of the academic discipline in the univer- sionary conferences and consultations sity, it became scientific and theoretical.2 have tremendously influenced the formu- We shall see that this trend in missiology lation of EM. The Lausanne Congress in continued even in North America, when 1974 and the subsequent Lausanne Move- in the 1970s EM began to gain its own ment have probably influenced the shap- identity (Scherer, October 1987, p. 508).3 ing of EM more than any other single 2 Edward Rommen (1987) insists that “German missionary theory first embraced and later eschewed the social science” in the 19th century and up to the middle of the 20th century. 3 This trend in missiology roughly coincides with the period when the American Society of Missiology was admitted into the Council on the Study of Religion. Louis Luzbetak said on this occasion: “On this day missiology becomes a fully recognized academic discipline.” There is also “a qualitative … and a quantitative increase in teaching programs related to missiology, particu- larly in Evangelical seminaries and schools of world mission, especially between 1975 and 1985.” The number of missiological issues that have surfaced also warrants this view. Scherer (1987, p. 35) argues, “Before 1950, the study of the ‘theology of mission’ in today’s sense hardly existed. It is even later for the Evangelicals in my opinion.” See also Glasser & McGavran (1983, p. 8). 4 See Utuk (1994, p. 110). Utuk argues that the Ecumenical Movement has been one of the influences in the shift of the Evangelical position in mission from 1966 to 1974. 5 The ecumenical circle had the IMC and the WCC as their forum to dialogue regarding cul- tural issues. For Evangelicals, it was after the Lausanne Congress in 1974 that the relationship between gospel and culture received attention (see Scherer & Bevans, 1999, pp. 4-5). For ex- ample, “Missio Dei” was the theme of the 1952 Willingen conference, and “Contextualization” was the theme of the 1972 TEF report of the WCC. Evangelicals were introduced to contextuali- zation at the Lausanne Congress, and it was in 1982 that a consultation on “Contextualization” was convened at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School campus (see Hesselgrave, 1978, p. 87; Trinity World Forum, Spring, 1982; Scherer & Bevans, 1992, pp. 263ff, 276ff; Thomas, 1995, p. 117). a two-thirds world evaluation of evangelical missiology 135 movement in the history of Evangelical- West alone is no longer adequate. As we ism.6 Some of the outspoken missiological enter the new millennium, we will see yet voices came from the more radical dis- another paradigm shift in EM as mission- cipleship camp. These voices have particu- aries from the Two-Thirds World exceed larly affected the Lausanne Movement to in numbers the force from the West (Pate, no small degree.7 Meanwhile, the WEF 1991, p. 59; Anderson, 1988, p. 114). Missions Commission and the AD 2000 Participation of the Two-Thirds World and Beyond Movement, with their own re- mission force in the formulation of missi- spective missiological position, have also ology began early in the ecumenical camp. added richness to EM, as we shall see in With the birth of the IMC and the WCC, a the evaluation section below.8 forum was provided for their participation. Fourth, the Two-Thirds World mission- Through conciliatory effort, ecumenical ary movement began to take shape in the missiology began to emerge (Lossky et al., 1970s. By the end of the 1980s, it began 1991, p. 529; Bosch, 1980, pp. 180-181). to draw the attention of some Western For Evangelicals, it was not until the missiologists. In the 1990s, it was well es- Lausanne Congress in 1974 that the Two- tablished as a strong and newer mission- Thirds World began to be active in the ary force.9 Its influence on the formulation world-class missionary conferences con- of EM may have been meager in the past, tributing towards the formulation of EM. with the exception of some of the outspo- Since then, in virtually all of the ecumeni- ken voices representing the “radical dis- cal world missionary conferences, the Two- cipleship” camp. Some of the Two-Thirds Thirds World has had a lion’s share in the World leaders from more independent formulation of EM. Some observers even groups such as the Third World Mission predict that with the drastic changes tak- Association (TWMA) have also been active. ing place in the new millennium and the One can predict that the contributions rapid growth of the Two-Thirds World mis- from Two-Thirds World missionaries will sionary force, most of the missiological increase significantly in the new millen- textbooks written from the Western per- nium. By the 1990s, EM began to take a spective will become obsolete.10 This may global character. Missiology done from the mean that we have to write a whole new 6 Scherer & Bevans (1992, p. xviii) state, “Lausanne 1974 ‘marks the high point in the develop- ment of Evangelical mission theology.’” 7 These voices represent the position that has demanded that greater prominence be given to social concerns (see Scherer, 1987, pp. 194-195; Scherer & Bevans, 1992, p. xviii). 8 Glasser (1993, p. 19) argues that the AD 2000 and Beyond Movement had the desire for a “last big push” to evangelize the world. Many of the WEF Missions Commission’s recent member- ship would identify with that goal, unlike the “radical discipleship” camp. A series of publications include Taylor (1991, 1997), Harley (1995), Ferris (1995), and this volume. Most significant about these is that all of them were the joint product of both Western and Two-Thirds World mission leaders. The AD 2000 and Beyond Movement had their major congress in Seoul, Korea in 1995 and in South Africa in 1997. The majority of the participants were from the Two-Thirds World. 9 Three important research projects attest to this development. James Wong (1976), Marlin Nelson (1976a, 1976b), and Larry Pate (1989) have contributed towards helping both the West and the Two-Thirds World discover the new missionary movement. 10 This voice was raised by some of the Evangelical leaders from the Two-Thirds World who attended the Iguassu Consultation on Missiological Issues in October 1999.