Missio Dei and the Mission of the Church


Mis­sio Dei is a Latin the­o­log­i­cal term that can be trans­lated as “Mis­sion of God”, it refers to the work of the church as be­ing part of God’s work. So the church’s mis­sion is a sub­set of a larger whole mis­sion that is it is both part of God’s mis­sion to the world and not the en­tirety of God’s work in the world.[1]

This de­f­i­n­i­tion pro­vides a sim­ple in­tro­duc­tion to the con­cept of mis­sio Dei which is es­sen­tially that the work or mis­sion of the church is a sub­set of the work of God in the world, rather than some­thing with an in­de­pen­dent ex­is­tence. The use of mis­sio Dei has evolved con­sid­er­ably over the last fifty years, there­fore this es­say will start with a brief his­tor­i­cal overview of the term be­fore con­sid­er­ing the im­pli­ca­tions and use­ful­ness of con­tem­po­rary us­age, fo­cus­ing (not ex­clu­sively) on the Evan­gel­i­cal wing of the church[2].


The term mis­sio Dei, it­self has a long his­tory and can be traced at least as far back as Augustine[3]. It was Aquinas who first used the term to de­scribe the ac­tiv­ity of the tri­une God; the fa­ther send­ing the Son and the Son send­ing the Spirit[4]. In a mod­ern set­ting; Karl Barth, in a 1932 pa­per, set out the idea that mis­sion was God’s work and that au­then­tic church mis­sion must be in re­sponse to God’s mis­sio. This idea was picked up by Harten­stein who used the term mis­sio Dei to dis­tin­guish it from the mis­sio ecclesiae; the mis­sion of the church[5]. How­ever, it was at the 1952 Will­in­gen meet­ing of the In­ter­na­tional Mis­sion­ary Coun­cil that the con­cept of mis­sio Dei was fleshed out in de­tail. The term mis­sio Dei was not ac­tu­ally used at the Will­in­gen meet­ing though it was used by Hartenstein[6] in his sum­mary of the conference.


The meet­ing at Will­in­gen in Ger­many took place at a dif­fi­cult time in the life of the Church. The Sec­ond World War had been re­placed by the cold war and the church was com­ing to terms with the ex­pul­sion of mis­sion­ar­ies from China.[7] Against this pes­simistic back­ground Will­in­gen fleshed out the the­ol­ogy of mis­sion that Barth, Harten­stein and oth­ers had been mov­ing to­wards. In his re­port of the con­fer­ence Harten­stein de­scribed mis­sion as “par­tic­i­pa­tion in the send­ing of the Son, in the mis­sio Dei, with an in­clu­sive aim of es­tab­lish­ing the Lord­ship of Christ over the whole re­deemed creation[8]. Ac­cord­ing to Go­heen, there are two new par­tic­u­lar em­phases on mis­si­o­log­i­cal think­ing which emerged from Willingen.

First, mis­sion is first and fore­most God’s mis­sion. The church does not have a mis­sion of its own. Rather the pri­mary em­pha­sis is on what God is do­ing for the re­demp­tion of the world. There­after, con­sid­er­a­tion is given to how the church par­tic­i­pates in God’s re­deem­ing mis­sion. Sec­ond, God’s mis­sion is de­fined in terms of the Tri­une char­ac­ter and work of God.[9]

The Trini­tar­ian em­pha­sis was par­tic­u­larly im­por­tant. “Mis­sion was un­der­stood as be­ing de­rived from the very na­ture of God. It was thus put in the con­text of the doc­trine of the Trin­ity, not of ec­cle­si­ol­ogy or soteriology.”[10]. En­gelsviken sug­gests that this em­pha­sis on a Trini­tar­ian ba­sis for mis­sion is a more im­por­tant out­come from Will­in­gen than “the some­what am­bigu­ous phrase mis­sio Dei.”[11] While there was sub­stan­tial agree­ment on the use of ter­mi­nol­ogy and the Trini­tar­ian na­ture of mis­sion, the Will­in­gen par­tic­i­pants were un­able to agree on the ex­tent of God’s mis­sion and the Church’s role within it.


“In Will­in­gen and pe­riod fol­low­ing, two ma­jor – and some­what com­pet­ing – ap­proaches to mis­sio Dei emerged. The first one, a dom­i­nant view in the Will­in­gen meet­ing, un­der­stood mis­sion as God’s evan­ge­liz­ing ac­tion through the church. The sec­ond, which raised se­ri­ous op­po­si­tion to the dom­i­nant Will­in­gen view was de­vel­oped later… It con­ceived mis­sio Dei as God’s ac­tiv­ity in the sec­u­lar world over and above the church, say­ing, ‘the world pro­vides the agenda.’”[12]

Go­heen de­fines these two points of view as Chris­to­cen­tric-Trini­tar­ian and Cosmocentric-Trinitarian[13]. (Philip[14] uses the terms church-cen­tric and world-cen­tric). The Chris­to­cen­tric sees God’s mis­sion as cen­ter­ing on the work of Christ through the Church, whereas the Cos­mo­cen­tric view (of which the Dutch mis­si­ol­o­gist Hoek­endijk was the most promi­nent pro­po­nent) sees God’s mis­sion as be­ing ac­tive in all of the cos­mos. For Hoek­endijk, the church is an appendix[15]. to God’s work. “When one de­sires to speak about God’s deal­ings with the world, the church can be men­tioned only in pass­ing and with­out strong emphasis.”[16] For Hoek­endijk, God is at work in the world which then has an ef­fect on the church, as op­posed to the clas­si­cal view which saw God at work in the church and through the church to the wider world.[17] The stress on God’s mis­sion through the wider world and not just the church was such that New­bi­gin could write that “Mao’s Lit­tle Red Book’ be­came al­most a new Bible.[18]

Through the 1960s an in­creas­ing num­ber of peo­ple from a va­ri­ety of con­fes­sional back­grounds adopted Hoek­endijk’s views[19] to such an ex­tent that at the 1968 Up­p­sala con­fer­ence of the WCC “the church was of­ten ridiculed and … the church it­self was seen as an arena for mission”[20]. “By con­se­quence, evan­ge­lism prac­ti­cally dis­ap­peared from the mis­sion agenda of main­line churches in the West and North”[21].

Through the decade of the 1960s there was an in­creas­ing po­lar­iza­tion be­tween those who took op­pos­ing views of the role of the Church in mis­sion. Broadly speak­ing, Evan­gel­i­cals con­tin­ued to be­lieve in a dy­namic role for the church in mis­sion, whereas those with an ec­u­meni­cal per­spec­tive tended to fol­low Hoek­endijk’s Cos­mo­cen­tric model. This dif­fer­ence in views led to a split “be­tween the evan­gel­i­cal churches and the ec­u­meni­cally aligned churches and or­ga­ni­za­tions and thus to one of the biggest po­lar­iza­tion processes in the church in the west since the Sec­ond World War”[22]. One con­se­quence of this split was the es­tab­lish­ment of the evan­gel­i­cal Lau­sanne move­ment as a coun­ter­point to the World Coun­cil of Churches[23].


In the in­ter­ven­ing years, new in­sights have been read into the con­cept of mis­sio Dei, lead­ing to a slight blur­ring of the ex­tremes of in­ter­pre­ta­tion. How­ever, these two broad un­der­stand­ings of mis­sio Dei –Chris­to­cen­tric and Cos­mo­cen­tric – can still be dis­cerned in the lit­er­a­ture. For this rea­son we will ex­am­ine the way in which the dif­fer­ent views of mis­sio Dei have an im­pact on teach­ing about the King­dom of God, the Church and other religions.

Missio Dei and the Kingdom of God

Vide­com pub­lished a book en­ti­tled Mis­sio Dei in 1965; in this book he closely tied mis­sio Dei to the King­dom of God. How­ever, Vide­com used King­dom of God in two dis­tinct ways; the rule of God over the whole of cre­ation and the restora­tion of re­la­tion­ships with God and hu­man­ity through the death of Christ. This in­con­sis­tency facilitated[24] the di­ver­gence in un­der­stand­ing of mis­sio Dei which de­vel­oped dur­ing the 1960s.

If the King­dom of God is seen as be­ing God’s rule over the whole of cre­ation, then its re­al­iza­tion is pri­mar­ily in terms of so­cial and eth­i­cal trans­for­ma­tion. This view sees the ad­vance­ment of the King­dom as in­clud­ing the whole of his­tory with the Church as a wit­ness or per­haps a par­tic­i­pant in its re­al­iza­tion. This view clearly aligns with Hoek­endijk’s view of mis­sio Dei. The al­ter­na­tive view of the King­dom ac­knowl­edges that God rules over all of his­tory, but sees the King­dom as specif­i­cally re­fer­ring to the im­pact of the re­demp­tive work of Christ. In this view, which fits a Chris­to­cen­tric view of mis­sio Dei, the Church is the peo­ple who be­long to the King­dom and clearly must play a cen­tral role in its inauguration.

Missio Dei and the Church

His­tor­i­cal, de­nom­i­na­tional mis­sions were func­tioned as Eu­ro­pean-based na­tional churches ex­tend­ing their bound­aries into un­reached parts of the world[25] with their own in­sti­tu­tional ex­pan­sion and sur­vival as priority[26]Mis­sio Dei brings a cor­rec­tion to this view by putting God, not the church or de­nom­i­na­tion, at the cen­tre of mis­sion. Mis­sion is the orig­i­na­tor of the Church, not the other way round[27].

As we have seen, Hoek­endijk placed a strong em­pha­sis on mis­sion be­ing God cen­tered: “Church-cen­tric mis­sion­ary think­ing is bound to go astray, be­cause it re­volves around an il­le­git­i­mate centre”[28]. This strong em­pha­sis led to a vir­tual re­pu­di­a­tion of any role for the Church in mission.

By way of con­trast, Newbigin[29] sug­gests that the Trini­tar­ian na­ture of mis­sion im­plies an im­por­tant role for the Church. Com­mu­ni­ca­tion and com­mu­nity lies at the heart of the Trin­ity and there­fore must lie at the heart of Trini­tar­ian mis­sion. The call to con­ver­sion is a call to be­come part of a com­mu­nity, the Church, and comes from that com­mu­nity. Oth­ers ex­press sim­i­lar thoughts: “Both the church and the mis­sion of the church are tools of God, in­stru­ments through which God car­ries out this mission.”[30] “Mis­sion is thereby seen as a move­ment from God to the world. The church is viewed as an in­stru­ment for that mission”[31]. In this view, the whole pur­pose of the Church is to sup­port the mis­sio Dei[32] and Church struc­tures ex­ist in or­der to serve the com­mu­nity in mission[33].

Missio Dei and Other Religions

While the Church is key to God’s work in the world, Mis­sio Dei  teaches us that we need to see God on a broader can­vas than just through the work of the church.

“Mis­sion as mis­sio Dei nec­es­sar­ily rel­a­tivizes West­ern un­der­stand­ing of mis­sion. God can­not be re­stricted to what has been and is hap­pen­ing in West­ern cul­tural Chris­tian­ity. God’s work is uni­ver­sal in its impact”[34].

See­ing God at work in a uni­ver­sal sense im­plies that Chris­tians need to have a hum­ble ap­proach to other re­li­gions. For some, who adopt the cos­mo­cen­tric ap­proach to mis­sio Dei, this means that they see other re­li­gions as be­ing able to bring sal­va­tion in the same way as Christianity[35].

“The Mis­sion of the Church is not God’s only mis­sion. It is not even his only world-wide mis­sion… Few of us Chris­tians know much about God’s mis­sion in the Is­lamic ven­ture, God’s mis­sion to In­dia and nowa­days to the world through the Hindu venture”[36].

Those who take the Chris­to­cen­tric view agree that we need to en­ter into hum­ble di­a­logue with other faiths, how­ever they also stress that it is im­por­tant to “do jus­tice to our Trini­tar­ian faith” and “to point peo­ple to Christ”[37].

Evangelicals and Missio Dei

Mis­sio Dei is a the­ol­ogy which em­pha­sizes both the im­per­a­tive for mis­sion and the Sov­er­eignty of God. It is sur­pris­ing, there­fore, that Evan­gel­i­cal Chris­tians (es­pe­cially those of a Re­formed back­ground) who tend to em­pha­size the same things, have ap­par­ently paid lit­tle at­ten­tion to mis­sio Dei[38]. Lee[39] says that evan­gel­i­cals lag be­hind ec­u­meni­cals in de­vel­op­ing a mis­sio Dei the­ol­ogy, though he does not ex­plain why that might be so. Wick­eri says that con­ser­v­a­tive evan­gel­i­cals’ “un­der­stand­ing of mis­sion is quite dif­fer­ent to the mis­sio Dei”[40]It is no sur­prise that when evan­gel­i­cals do talk about mis­sio Dei, they adopt a Chris­to­cen­tric view rather than fol­low Hoek­endijk’s line[41]. It could well be that the strong sep­a­ratist strand which is of­ten a fea­ture of Evan­gel­i­cal life means that they are re­luc­tant to adopt a term which is in some way ‘tainted’ by lib­er­al­ism or sec­u­lar­ism. The di­vide in Evan­gel­i­cal cir­cles about the role of so­cial ac­tion in mis­sion also im­pacts their adop­tion of mis­sio Dei.  Chai says that the Evan­gel­i­cal mega-churches in Ko­rea see mis­sion purely in terms of sal­va­tion and so sug­gests that they do not take mis­sio Dei se­ri­ously[42]. How­ever, there is in­creas­ingly a strong Trini­tar­ian as­pect in Evan­gel­i­cal mis­si­ol­ogy. This is il­lus­trated by the Iguas­sou de­c­la­ra­tion: “All the per­sons of the God­head are ac­tive in God’s re­deem­ing mission”[43]..

Trinitarian Mission

The fact that mis­sio Dei is used as a term to cover such a wide range of mean­ing does de­tract from its use­ful­ness. Kirk[44] says “mis­sio Dei has been used to ad­vance all kinds of mis­si­o­log­i­cal agen­das”. Pos­si­bly, be­cause of the con­fu­sion which this lack of de­f­i­n­i­tion en­gen­ders, the term is ac­tu­ally used less fre­quently in cur­rent lit­er­a­ture as com­pared to twenty or thirty years ago[45].

There are a num­ber of weak­nesses in the cos­mo­cen­tric un­der­stand­ing of mis­sio Dei. The un­der­stand­ing of the King­dom of God as cov­er­ing the whole of hu­man his­tory does not seem to re­flect Jesus as­ser­tion that the King­dom ‘drew near’ through his min­istry (Mark1:15). Equally, the ap­proach that sees other re­li­gions as be­ing mis­sions equiv­a­lent to the mis­sion of the Church does not do jus­tice to Jesus claims to unique­ness, nor the Trini­tar­ian na­ture of God. How­ever, per­haps the great­est weak­ness in the cos­mo­cen­tric ap­proach is the idea that God’s king­dom is be­ing in­au­gu­rated through a con­tin­ual im­prove­ment in so­cial and eth­i­cal con­di­tions. In the 1960s against a back­ground of tech­no­log­i­cal ad­vance and colo­nial-in­de­pen­dence this may have seemed at­trac­tive. How­ever, hind­sight re­veals these im­prove­ments to have been false hopes, amount­ing to lit­tle more than a dif­fer­ent form of West­ern re­li­gious imperialism[46] which did not do jus­tice to the Bib­li­cal nar­ra­tive of fall and redemption.

De­spite the breadth of in­ter­pre­ta­tion ap­plied to the term, Bosch de­fends the con­cept of mis­sio Dei. “…it can­not be de­nied that the mis­sio Dei no­tion has helped to ar­tic­u­late the con­vic­tion that nei­ther the Church nor any other hu­man agent can ever be con­sid­ered the au­thor or bearer of mis­sion. Mis­sion is, pri­mar­ily and ul­ti­mately, the work of the Tri­une God, Cre­ator, Re­deemer and Sanc­ti­fier, for the sake of the world.”[47] Kirk em­pha­sizes the Trini­tar­ian na­ture of mis­sion. “When Chris­t­ian com­mu­ni­ties speak about God, by de­f­i­n­i­tion they speak about Fa­ther, Son and Holy Spirit. There sim­ply is no other God. There­fore to speak about mis­sio Dei is to in­di­cate, with­out any qual­i­fi­ca­tion, the mis­sio Trinitatis”.[48]

De­spite the real dis­agree­ments which con­tinue to ex­ist, there is, ac­cord­ing to Kirke[49] and Richebacher[50] a de­gree of con­sen­sus is ap­pear­ing about the the­o­log­i­cal un­der­stand­ing of God’s mis­sion. “Dur­ing the past half a cen­tury or so, there has been a sub­tle, but nev­er­the­less de­ci­sive, shift to­ward un­der­stand­ing mis­sion as God’s mission.”[51]

Plac­ing God at the cen­tre of mis­sion also in­volves a re­ori­en­ta­tion of think­ing; “a shift from church-cen­tered mis­sion, to a mis­sion-cen­tered church”[52]. “The the­ol­ogy of mis­sion has be­come mis­sion­ary theology”.[53] In other words, the agenda for mis­sion­ary thought and ac­tion is de­fined by the char­ac­ter of God, not the ac­tiv­i­ties of the Church. The im­pli­ca­tions of this in the life and prac­tice of the Church are far reaching.

“evan­ge­lism is God’s work long be­fore it is our work. The Fa­ther pre­pares the ground, the Son gives the in­vi­ta­tion and the Spirit prompts the per­son to re­spond in re­pen­tance and faith to the good news.”[54]

The Trini­tar­ian na­ture of Mis­sio Dei brings all three per­sons of the God­head into fo­cus in mis­sion­ary the­ol­ogy. This has not al­ways been the case, for ex­am­ple, Go­heen sug­gests that be­fore Will­in­gen, Leslie New­bi­gin did not give any at­ten­tion to the role of the Fa­ther in mission.[55]

The Father in Mission

The over­whelm­ing mo­tive for mis­sion is the com­pas­sion and love of God for his creation[56] and the end point of mis­sion is the King­dom, the reign of God over his peo­ple. These twin themes from mis­sio Dei es­tab­lish the mo­ti­va­tion and at­ti­tude of the church in mis­sion. Mo­ti­vated by God’s love, the Church should not seek to dom­i­nate or im­pose it­self upon other peo­ple or or­ga­ni­za­tions and in­di­vid­ual church groups or or­ga­ni­za­tions should not seek to ex­er­cise their rights to the detri­ment of oth­ers or of God’s mis­sion. “God’s reign can­not be re­duced to a hu­man level or made to serve hu­man purposes.”[57] The his­toric con­fu­sion of the Church’s mis­sion and the sec­u­lar po­lit­i­cal process in Chris­ten­dom is ex­cluded by mis­sio Dei. With this in mind, Wick­eri raises se­ri­ous ques­tions about the align­ment be­tween the Church and the po­lit­i­cal state in the United States to­day, es­pe­cially in the light of the war in Iraq[58].

The tri­umphal­ism of much of the world mis­sion move­ment is drawn into ques­tion in the light of mis­sio Dei[59]There is also rea­son to ques­tion some as­pects of Amer­i­can man­age­r­ial mis­si­ol­ogy. Though, gen­er­ally, there has been a step away from the idea of Church-cen­tric mis­sions; groups such as AD-2000 seem to be ig­nor­ing this trend. The elab­o­ra­tion of mea­sur­able and achiev­able goals, which is part of this mis­si­o­log­i­cal ap­proach, could be seen as plac­ing hu­man tech­nique and mea­sure­ment at the cen­tre of mis­sion rather than God’s big­ger agenda. Be­cause God is the cre­ator of the whole world, sal­va­tion is not lim­ited to the sal­va­tion of souls but in­cludes the es­tab­lish­ment of a new heaven and a new earth.

The Son in Mission

The in­car­na­tion lies at the heart of God’s mis­sion and pro­vides the con­tent, model and the in­spi­ra­tion for the church’s mis­sion (John 20:21).

“The mis­sio Dei has al­ways been the Gospel, good news about God’s good­ness re­vealed in God’s word through Is­rael’s ex­pe­ri­ence, lead­ing up to its cli­max and cul­mi­na­tion in Jesus Christ.”[60]

The heart of the church’s mis­sion is to com­mu­ni­cate this Gospel of Christ’s in­car­na­tion, death and res­ur­rec­tion. But the mes­sage must be com­mu­ni­cated in a man­ner which is con­sis­tent with the char­ac­ter of Christ. The in­car­na­tion demon­strates that God’s mis­sion is not de­pen­dant on any one hu­man cul­ture or language.[61] Suf­fer­ing, too is an in­trin­sic part of the mis­sio Dei, rooted in the suf­fer­ing of the Son. “Mis­sio Dei al­ways leads us by way of Gol­go­tha, by the way of suffering”.[62] In be­com­ing a man, Jesus be­came poor and spent a lot of time with the poor, and fo­cus­ing on the needs of the poor is an in­trin­sic part of God’s pur­poses for the Church. Richebacher says that poverty is the most im­por­tant sign of the mis­sion­ary church be­cause Jesus’ mis­sion was ful­filled by be­com­ing poor[63] and while we may not agree that this is the most im­por­tant sign, it is clearly an ex­tremely im­por­tant one.

The Spirit in Mission

Christ sent his Spirit to em­power his church for mis­sion and to en­lighten those who are out­side of the King­dom. This means that the church must be re­liant on the Spirit both for its own ac­tiv­i­ties in mis­sion and for the ef­fect of its work. There should be no place for or­ga­ni­za­tion or plan­ning which ex­cludes the role of the Spirit.

“Mis­sion is not just some­thing that the church does; it is some­thing that is done by the Spirit, who is him­self the wit­ness, who changes both the world and the church, who al­ways goes be­fore the church on its mis­sion­ary journey.”[64]

New­bi­gin[65] sug­gests that young churches, planted by mis­sion­ar­ies from other cul­tures, should find their eth­i­cal guid­ance from the Spirit rather than from the teach­ing or mores of the mis­sion­ar­ies. In this way, the Gospel will have an au­then­tic en­counter with the new cul­ture and al­low the de­vel­op­ment of lo­cally rel­e­vant Chris­t­ian tra­di­tions and avoid­ing the im­po­si­tion of the mis­sion­ary culture.

The Usefulness of Missio Dei

We have al­ready in­di­cated the use­ful­ness of the mis­sio Dei con­cept in pro­vid­ing a frame­work for plac­ing God (in par­tic­u­lar, the Trin­ity) at the cen­tre of our think­ing about mission.

The Trini­tar­ian fo­cus of mis­sio Dei, com­bined with the fo­cus on the King­dom of God res­cues the church from sim­ply be­com­ing an agent for so­cial and eco­nomic change on the one hand or fun­da­men­tal­ism on the other[66] and pro­vides a frame­work for mis­sion in which the false di­chotomy be­tween so­cial ac­tion and evan­ge­lism in mis­sion can be erad­i­cated. “The core of mis­sio Dei is evan­ge­lism, the com­mu­ni­ca­tion of the Gospel”[67] but this does not mean that we can turn our backs on the world and its needs. The call to con­ver­sion is a call to be wit­nesses to Christ by demon­strat­ing his love and con­cern for the world[68]. An em­pha­sis on mis­sio Dei could be of great help to Evan­gel­i­cal churches in en­abling them to over­come the sort of sim­plis­tic view of mis­sion of which Chai com­plains, above.

Schri­eter[69] sug­gests two pos­si­ble do­mains in which mis­sio Dei be­comes a use­ful con­cept in a post-mod­ern world.

“… the unity in di­ver­sity of the Trin­ity will be a key for a the­ol­ogy of re­li­gious and cul­tural plu­ral­ism that is the mark of post­mod­ern thought and civ­i­liza­tion. Sec­ond, Trini­tar­ian ex­is­tence pro­vides a strong the­o­log­i­cal foun­da­tion for mis­sion as a di­a­log­i­cal process of giv­ing and re­ceiv­ing … speak­ing out prophet­i­cally and open­ing one­self for critique.”

The con­cepts of mis­sion in a plu­ral­is­tic so­ci­ety and prophetic di­a­logue are ones which Evan­gel­i­cals need to ex­plore in more depth. The tra­di­tional declam­a­tory – con­fronta­tional, even – evan­gel­i­cal ap­proach to mis­sion is be­com­ing in­creas­ingly less cul­tur­ally ap­pro­pri­ate as plu­ral­ism ex­pands. There is a real need to dis­cover ways in which the truths of Chris­tian­ity can be ex­plored in a so­ci­ety which re­jects claims of ab­solute truth and which sees all re­li­gious opin­ions as be­ing equally valid. Med­i­ta­tion on the na­ture of the Trin­ity could be use­ful in ex­plor­ing these ideas.

Mis­sio Dei, not only pro­vides a the­o­log­i­cal key for mis­sion in a post-mod­ern age, it could also pro­vide a mo­ti­va­tional fac­tor in a West­ern church which strug­gles in­ter­nally with the chal­lenges of post-mod­ernism, plu­ral­ism and glob­al­iza­tion. In­ter­est in mis­sion is de­clin­ing among Evan­gel­i­cal churches in the West[70]. In part, this seems to be due to the im­pact of a post-mod­ern mind­set which sees all hu­man nar­ra­tives as be­ing of equal value and im­por­tance. In this con­text, Chris­tians be­come re­luc­tant to ‘im­pose’ their views on oth­ers. Equally, many West­ern churches of­fer a vast panoply of op­por­tu­ni­ties for Chris­t­ian ser­vice with mis­sion be­ing sim­ply ‘what some peo­ple do.’ Mis­sio Dei el­e­vates mis­sion from the level of hu­man ac­tiv­i­ties, rightly show­ing mis­sion as be­ing par­tic­i­pa­tion in some­thing which God is al­ready do­ing. Evan­ge­lism is thus no longer el­e­vat­ing one hu­man opin­ion over and above an­other equally valid one. There is a clear di­vine sanc­tion for mis­sion and evan­ge­lism (as well as a mo­ti­va­tion for an cul­tur­ally sen­si­tive ap­proach) which are no longer sim­ply ac­tiv­i­ties of the Church, but are, rather, the prin­ci­ple rai­son d’être of the Church.

Over the past two hun­dred years, Evan­gel­i­cal mis­sion­ar­ies, mo­ti­vated for the most part by the Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20) have played a key role in spread­ing the Chris­t­ian mes­sage around the world. The call to ‘go and make dis­ci­ples’ was nec­es­sary in an age when the ge­o­graph­i­cal spread of Chris­tian­ity was so lim­ited. How­ever, the great com­mis­sion with its stress on ac­tiv­ity plays into one of the weak­nesses of Evan­gel­i­cal­ism which so of­ten stresses ac­tiv­ity over and above spir­i­tu­al­ity. Gur­der speaks re­proach­fully of peo­ple who are not ac­tively ex­pe­ri­enc­ing the bless­ings of the Gospel, seek­ing to en­gage in mission[71]. There is a need for some evan­gel­i­cals to step back from a fo­cus on ac­tiv­ity and the tar­get dri­ven ap­proach of much of their mis­si­ol­ogy and to re­dis­cover a theo­cen­tric view of mis­sion which em­pha­sizes char­ac­ter and spir­i­tu­al­ity over and above ac­tiv­ity. Mis­sio Dei and re­flec­tion on what many see as the key verse for Trini­tar­ian mis­sion, John 20:21 could pro­vide the miss­ing dimension.

The un­de­ni­able fact that mis­sio Dei can still cover a wider range of mean­ings does place a po­ten­tial lim­i­ta­tion to its use­ful­ness as a the­o­log­i­cal term. Equally, its as­so­ci­a­tion with sec­u­lar­ized mis­si­ol­ogy means that some Evan­gel­i­cals will be re­luc­tant to use it to de­scribe their own ac­tiv­i­ties. How­ever, there is no doubt that the un­der­ly­ing no­tions of theo­cen­tric, Trini­tar­ian mis­sion are ones which need to be ex­plored fur­ther in Evan­gel­i­cal circles.

Visit Ed­die Arthur’s blog: kouya.​net


Be­vans. S. B. & R. P. Schroeder. Con­stants in Con­flict: A The­ol­ogy of Mis­sion for To­day. Mary­knoll. NY. Or­bis Books. 2004

Bosch, D.J. Trans­form­ing Mis­sion: Par­a­digm Shifts in The­ol­ogy of Mis­sion.  New York: Or­bis Books. 1991

Chai, Soo-Il. Mis­sio Dei — its de­vel­op­ment and lim­i­ta­tions in Korea: In­ter­na­tional Re­view of Mis­sion, 92 no 367, p 538-549. 2003

Dowsett, R. Dry Bones in the West, in Global Mis­si­ol­ogy for the 21st Cen­tury: Re­flec­tions from the Iguassu Di­a­logue, ed. W. D. Tay­lor. (Grand Rapids: Baker Aca­d­e­mic, 2001) pp. 447-462

En­glesviken, T. Mis­sio Dei: The un­der­stand­ing and mis­un­der­stand­ing of a the­o­log­i­cal con­cept in Eu­ro­pean churches and mis­si­ol­ogy.  In­ter­na­tional Re­view of Mis­sion Vol. 92 Is­sue 367, 2003

Go­heen, M. ‘As the Fa­ther has sent me, I am send­ing you’: J.E. Lesslie New­bi­gin’s mis­sion­ary ec­cle­si­ol­ogy’ 2001 http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/dissertations/1947080/inhoud.htm

Guder, D. L. (ed.) Mis­sional Church: A Vi­sion for the Send­ing of the Church In North Amer­ica. Cam­bridge. Eerd­mans 1998

Guder, D. LThe Con­tin­u­ing Con­ver­sion of the Church. Cam­bridge: Eerd­mans, 2000.

Hoffmeyer, John FThe Mis­sional Trinity.  Di­a­log: A Jour­nal of The­ol­ogy, Vol. 40 Is­sue 2, p108, Jun2001,

Kirk, J.A. What is Mis­sion? The­o­log­i­cal Explorations. (Lon­don, Dar­ton, Long­man and Todd, 1999)

Lee, D T-W. A Two Thirds World Eval­u­a­tion of Con­tem­po­rary Evan­gel­i­cal Mis­si­ol­ogy. in Global Mis­si­ol­ogy for the 21st Cen­tury: Re­flec­tions from the Iguassu Di­a­logue, ed. W. D. Tay­lor. (Grand Rapids: Baker Aca­d­e­mic, 2001) pp. 133-148

Matthey, J. Grezen­los – Bound­less. 50th an­niver­sary of the World Mis­sion Con­fer­ence. Mis­sion Fes­ti­val and Con­gress. Mis­sio Dei: God’s Mis­sion To­day. (Re­flec­tors Re­port). http://​www.​wcc-coe.​org/​wcc.​what/​mission/​willingen.​html

New­bi­gin, L. The Open Se­cret: An In­tro­duc­tion to the The­ol­ogy of Mission. (Lon­don, SPCK 1995)

Philips, T. V. Ed­in­burgh to Sal­vador: Twen­ti­eth Cen­tury Ec­u­meni­cal Mis­si­ol­ogy. (Delhi In­dia, IS­PCK 1999) http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=1573

Pachuau, L. Mis­si­ol­ogy in a Plu­ral­is­tic World. In­ter­na­tional Re­view of Mis­sion Oc­to­ber 2000 http://www.religion-online.org

Recker, R. RCon­cept of the Mis­sio Dei and in­struc­tion in mis­sion at Calvin Seminary. :. Source: Calvin The­o­log­i­cal Jour­nal, 11 N 1976

Richebacher, WMis­sio Dei: the Ba­sis of Mis­sion The­ol­ogy or a Wrong Path. In­ter­na­tional Re­view of Mis­sion, , Vol. 92 Is­sue 367, p588-605,  2003

Smith, W. C. Mis­sion, di­a­logue and God’s will for us. In­ter­na­tional Re­view of Mis­sion, No. 307 pp. 360-374. 1988

Suess, PMis­sio Dei And The Pro­ject Of Jesus: The Poor And The “Other” As Me­di­a­tors Of The King­dom Of God And Pro­tag­o­nists Of The Churches. In­ter­na­tional Re­view of Mis­sion, Vol. 92 Is­sue 367, p550-559, 2003

Sun­der­meier, T. Mis­sio Dei To­day: on the Iden­tity of Chris­t­ian Mis­sion. In­ter­na­tional Re­view of Mis­sion, Vol. 92 Is­sue 367, p560-578, 2003

Tay­lor, W. D. ed. The Iguas­sou Af­fir­ma­tion. in Global Mis­si­ol­ogy for the 21st Cen­tury: Re­flec­tions from the Iguassu Di­a­logue, ed. W. D. Tay­lor. (Grand Rapids: Baker Aca­d­e­mic, 2001) pp. 15-21

Wicker , P. LMis­sion from the Mar­gins: The Mis­sio Dei in the Cri­sis of World Chris­tian­ity. In­ter­na­tional Re­view of Mis­sion no 369. pp 182-199. 2004

[1] Wikipedia: the on­line en­cy­clopae­dia. www.wikipedia.org

[2] In or­der to get an ac­cu­rate pic­ture of the de­vel­op­ment of the the­ol­ogy of mis­sio Dei, we will need to con­sider the work of some au­thors who use the con­cept with­out hav­ing re­course to Latin terminology.

[1] Wikipedia: the on­line en­cy­clopae­dia. www.wikipedia.org

[2] In or­der to get an ac­cu­rate pic­ture of the de­vel­op­ment of the the­ol­ogy of mis­sio Dei, we will need to con­sider the work of some au­thors who use the con­cept with­out hav­ing re­course to Latin terminology.

[3] En­gelsviken p.482

[4] Hoffmeyer

[5] Be­vans and Schroeder p.290

[6] En­gelsviken p.482

[7] Bosch p.370

[8] En­gelsviken p.482

[9] Go­heen p.117

[10] Bosch p.390

[11] En­gelsviken p.482

[12] Pachuau

[13] Go­heen p.117

[14] Philip ch.5

[15] Sun­der­meier p.560

[16] Quoted in En­gelsviken p.488

[17] En­gelsviken p.489

[18] New­bi­gin p.18

[19] Richebacher, p.592

[20] Be­vans and Schroeder p.291

[21] Matthey

[22] Richebacher p.594

[23] Richebacher p.593

[24] En­gelsviken p.483

[25] En­gelsviken p.487

[26] Guder 1998 p.5

[27] Be­vans and Schroeder p.298

[28] Quoted in En­gelsviken p.488

[29] New­bi­gin p.76

[30] Quoted in En­gelsviken p.482

[31] Bosch p.390

[32] Bosch p.391

[33] Be­vans and Schroeder p.299

[34] Guder 2000 p.20

[35] Sun­der­meier p.567

[36] Smith p.366

[37] Richebacher p.597

[38] Recker p.192

[39] Lee p.143

[40] Wick­eri p.193

[41] En­gelsviken p.491

[42] Chai p.548

[43] Tay­lor p.17

[44] Kirk p.25

[45] En­gelsviken p.490

[46] Richebacher p.593

[47] Bosch p. 391

[48] Kirk p.27

[49] Kirk p.25

[50] Richebacher p.595

[51] Bosch p.389

[52] Wick­eri p.187

[53] Guder 2000 p.20

[54] Kirke p.78

[55] Go­heen p.129

[56] Guder 2000 p.32, Kirk p.27

[57] Guder 2000 p.37

[58] Wick­eri p.191

[59] Wick­eri p.187

[60] Guder 2000  p.47

[61] Guder 2000 p.78

[62] Suess p. 558

[63] Richebacher p. 594

[64] New­bi­gin p.57

[65] New­bi­gin p.132

[66] Suess p.552

[67] Guder 2000 p. 49

[68] Guder 2000 p.120

[69] Quoted in Be­vans and Schroeder p.293

[70] Dowsett p.449

[71] Guder 2000 p.151

01/2021 Africa

A Ministry of Reconciliation

South Africa’s Recent Past Offers Guidance to the Bible Translation ...

Read more


New Milestones in Digital Scripture Availability

Recent years have seen a dramatic and steady increase in the number of...

Read more


Who better than God to receive our best?

Who better than God to receive our best? from Wycliffe Global Allianc...

Read more