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.
In a nutshell, I am asking readers to imagine a mission movement without centres — a mission movement that is actually energised from the margins. This is what we have seen, to a fairly large extent, in the explosion of Christianity in Africa. It has been people at the margins reaching others at the margins too. As a matter of fact, I do not see the four cities you have mentioned as "centres" in the NT at all. But even if they were, they reflect Paul's "strategy" which is evidently different from what Jesus did by starting at the margins of the margins at Nazareth and Capernaum with uneducated fishermen. As a Westerner, I agree with you. We need to have centres — urban nodes — from where we can evangelise the areas around. Yet, as an African, I have seen many times the Spirit of God bypass the cities and move in the rural periphery (from where the urban Christian communities are revitalised). I do think that our focus on urban centres may actually get in the way of what God is doing in the world today.
You are a really provocative mission thinker, who often forces me to think through my own assumptions and examine my biases and blind spots. However, to argue that the idea of polycentric mission is somehow perpetuating the tendency to “center” mission, and thereby continue or repeat the Western legacy, seems to be turning the term on its head. The very idea of “polycentricity” actually works against centralization, since seeing mission originating from multiple locations means that there is no longer a center. Perhaps it would be better to speak of multi-directional or “polydirectional” mission. But I think polycentric was actually coined to convey the same idea of “from everywhere to everyone”.
I have just returned from two weeks in South America and the mission world there is as vibrant as anything I have ever seen! Mission initiatives (including mission sending to other parts of the world) from Brazil Chile, Equador, Costa Rica, Honduras, etc. are proliferating, without much reference to what armchair missiologists in the USA, UK, Europe or Australia are saying…. 😀
I hear you. But I dont think that "polycentric" means there is no centre (as you have argued here: "The very idea of “polycentricity” actually works against centralization, since seeing mission originating from multiple locations means that there is no longer a center.") It is all language though, and language evolves. We will eventually get it right.
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.
Good set of questions here. Thanks, Joey.
In a nutshell, I am asking readers to imagine a mission movement without centres — a mission movement that is actually energised from the margins. This is what we have seen, to a fairly large extent, in the explosion of Christianity in Africa. It has been people at the margins reaching others at the margins too. As a matter of fact, I do not see the four cities you have mentioned as "centres" in the NT at all. But even if they were, they reflect Paul's "strategy" which is evidently different from what Jesus did by starting at the margins of the margins at Nazareth and Capernaum with uneducated fishermen. As a Westerner, I agree with you. We need to have centres — urban nodes — from where we can evangelise the areas around. Yet, as an African, I have seen many times the Spirit of God bypass the cities and move in the rural periphery (from where the urban Christian communities are revitalised). I do think that our focus on urban centres may actually get in the way of what God is doing in the world today.
You are a really provocative mission thinker, who often forces me to think through my own assumptions and examine my biases and blind spots. However, to argue that the idea of polycentric mission is somehow perpetuating the tendency to “center” mission, and thereby continue or repeat the Western legacy, seems to be turning the term on its head. The very idea of “polycentricity” actually works against centralization, since seeing mission originating from multiple locations means that there is no longer a center. Perhaps it would be better to speak of multi-directional or “polydirectional” mission. But I think polycentric was actually coined to convey the same idea of “from everywhere to everyone”.
I have just returned from two weeks in South America and the mission world there is as vibrant as anything I have ever seen! Mission initiatives (including mission sending to other parts of the world) from Brazil Chile, Equador, Costa Rica, Honduras, etc. are proliferating, without much reference to what armchair missiologists in the USA, UK, Europe or Australia are saying…. 😀
I hear you. But I dont think that "polycentric" means there is no centre (as you have argued here: "The very idea of “polycentricity” actually works against centralization, since seeing mission originating from multiple locations means that there is no longer a center.") It is all language though, and language evolves. We will eventually get it right.