Whose centres? Whose mission?
Re-Questioning Polycentric Mission
Welcome to “Global Witness, Globally Reimagined,” where we dream about mission in a postcolonial world. Every Thursday, I share one thought that has spoken to me in the week, some resources I trust will be helpful to you, and three exciting quotes about mission. I pray one of these will energise you in the coming week.
1. Thought I Can’t Shake Off
Two weeks ago, a short essay that I wrote entitled "Polycentric Mission: Whose Centres? Whose Mission" was published by Vista Journal here in the UK. (I am co-editor of VISTA). The essay has since then been republished by several other outlets, including the Evangelical Focus. What I have here is a selection of abridged excerpts from the essay. You can read the entire piece here, (it is only 1400 words).
[When it comes to “polycentric mission,”] I wonder about the very language of “multiple centres.” Whose centres are these? What makes them centres? What happens at those centres? And, if there are centres, there must be margins. So, again, who is at those margins? Why are they at the margins? What happens at those margins? By talking about new centres of mission, it seems likely to me that we are expecting the emerging non-Western mission movements to be “centred” just like the Western movement was. I hope that they will be decentred (and decentralised). Their strength will be in their democratised approach to mission. We have seen it in Africa where Christianity has exploded, to a great extent, due to the democratic nature of the ministry of evangelism. If anything, going by the story of mission in the last two centuries, mission done from centres of societal power can easily collude with human empires and seek to dominate and assimilate those who convert while marginalising those who do not. We cannot effectively talk about mission in a postcolonial world while replicating colonial structures.
…
The realities of mission today are such that the West is still the centre, both in finances and theological/missiological leadership. Non-Western missionary movements are indeed emerging, but mission today is still Western. Yes, South Korea and Brazil are among the leading mission-sending countries and millions of Nigerian Christians have been scattered to all continents, bringing their faith with them. Yet, Western institutions still define mission for the world. Most of what we read in mission is written by English-speaking Westerners for other Westerners, for their service somewhere in the world, outside the West. Even books written by non-Western scholars tend to be shaped, to a great extent, by Western theological thought. They fail to use their own cultural resources to help us think about the mission of God in new and exciting ways. Without making space for and encouraging authentic indigenous missiologies, whatever centres emerge in other parts of the world will only be extensions of their parent centres in the West. Andrew Walls once remarked, “Western theological leadership of a predominantly non-Western church is an incongruity.”
…
Our language must reflect an awareness that the same God who sends Westerners also sends Africans, Asians, and Latin Americans. Our current language that qualifies non-Western mission as “diaspora mission” or “reverse mission” is not justifiable. We end up with mission as something that Westerners (mostly white people) do in other parts of the world while when black and brown people (from Africa, Asia, and Latin America) engage in in mission in the West, it is not really mission but “diaspora mission” or “reverse mission” which, generally speaking, only involves black and brown people reaching other black and brown people. Polycentric mission cannot happen when Western Christians believe they are superior or higher than the rest of us. In this century of world Christianity, there should be no second-class missionary. Mission will be polycentric when the power structures shift and African, Asian, and Latin American Christians can participate in mission in their own ways, using their own resources.
2. Resources I am Enjoying
Podcast: Luc Kabongo | Missio-Dei In Involvement in Social Change: A Case Study of InnerCHANGE, (Soshanguve, South Africa).
In this episode of the African Theological Scholarship podcast, I sat down with Luc Kabongo to discuss the intersection of missio Dei and social change, a subject that Kabongo is passionate about. In 2020 when this conversation happened, Kabongo was the director of a missional order, innerCHANGE, that focused all its work on the socially marginalised. Kabongo argues that the church must do better in expressing God and God’s mission in the world through the practical demonstration of love, especially to the marginalised. The concepts of dualistic spirituality and prophetic witness also emerged in Kabongo’s argument for a missiological understanding that invites every believer in Christ and not just the church to become agents of love and hope in the world. Indeed, we cannot effectively partner with the God of love on God’s mission without feasibly demonstrating love, even to the seemingly unlovable and the marginalised.
3. Quotes I am Pondering
If we understand the call to mission to be the church’s basic interpretation of its vocation and responsibility, then mission, in its universal scope, has to encompass all nations … It must be truly cross-cultural or trans-cultural. — Laurenti Magesa
The very fact of change itself is a challenge to mission and the message of the gospel. For example, how do we talk of an unchanging God in the context of ever-changing scenarios of human experience and knowledge? — Hazel Ayanga
While God’s mission is to reconcile humanity to his purposes, thereby offering shalom, it is also about guiding the believer into new truths of the gospel, changing the individual Christian or the church in the process. — Israel Olofinjana
I pray that you will be faithful to the mission God has for you this week.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on Re-Questioning Polycentric Mission. I agree with you that Mission today is still dominated by Western Churches, i.e., North America and Europe in financial and Theological terms. I think that Churches in the Two-thirds World can partner with Western Churches in Missionary Exchange Programs with the aim of enriching and strengthening faith and koinonia across board.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts! I appreciate you drawing our attention to the importance of language in our framing of mission leadership and structure. I'd agree that our terminology often exhibits our biases, as well as forms our biases, so I think you’ve raised a valid point of caution here with “polycentrism”, especially as what terminology we use will likely rebound into decisions on mission structures and prioritization of resources.
You brought up "diaspora". “Diaspora” presupposes a “heartland,” an equally complicated term often antiquated and colonial. The challenge with negotiating these terms is that we have used some vernacular that (in my opinion) is also antiquated and colonial, like “field” and “home” Once we draw the lines on “field” vs. “non-field” based on contemporary national boundaries, we are making judgments from the standpoint of political geography, rather than from an ethnolinguistic perspective.
But I have a minor pushback on your cautionary post on polycentrism: there seem to be concrete “centers” of presence, authority, and influence in the post-ascension apostolic narrative of the New Testament… Jerusalem, Antioch, Corinth, Philippi, etc. Paul’s travel itinerary shows intentionality to pass by (or through) certain centers precisely in order to share updates from his ministry, to talk with leaders, to raise money, etc. So how is the critique of polycentrism shaped by apparent geographical centers (or perhaps less incendiary: "nodes") in the NT?
Additionally, I wonder if you are projecting concern about missions being centered in the west onto your concerns about polycentrism and ongoing colonialism in missions. "Without making space for and encouraging authentic indigenous missiologies, whatever centres emerge in other parts of the world will only be extensions of their parent centres in the West."
This is not to deny the equality of the saints and the need to seek equality in empowerment and even resources (2 Cor. 8:14). I think “polycentrism” as a term tries to recognize and empower the “margins”, not deny them.
Of course, the pending question in your post is what are you suggesting we use instead of “polycentrism/polycentric?” I suspect no term will be without its risks, and how they are employed and for what agendas makes all the difference.