cover.final.qxp 12/4/06 10:28 am page 1

MISSIO APOSTOLICAJournal of the Lutheran Society for Missiology

COVER.FINAL.qxp 12/4/06 10:28 AM

Volume XVII, No 2 (Issue 34) November 2009

www.lsfmissiology.org

MISSIO APOSTOLICA —Journal of the Lutheran Society for Missiology, Inc.—

ISSN 1068-3151 EDITORIAL COMMITTEE: Robert Kolb, Editor Robert J. Scudieri Victor Raj, Editor Daniel Mattson Joel Okamoto, Book Editor Krista Whittenburg David O. Berger Jeffrey Thormodson Beatriz Hoppe Yohannes Mengsteab ALL CORRESPONDENCE SHOULD BE SENT TO THE OFFICE OF THE EDITOR:

MISSIO APOSTOLICA TEL: (314) 505-7115 801 Seminary Place FAX: (314) 505-7393 St. Louis, MO 63105, USA BOOKS FOR REVIEW SHOULD BE SENT TO THE BOOK EDITOR:

Joel Okamoto TEL: (314) 505-7152 801 Seminary Place E-mail: [email protected] St. Louis, MO 63105, USA COMMUNICATION DIRECTOR:

John Lautenschlager TEL: (314) 773-7327 2224 S. 11th Street E-mail: [email protected]

St. Louis, MO 63104, USA EDITORIAL ASSISTANT: Melanie Appelbaum TEL: (314) 505-7114 801 Seminary Place E-mail: [email protected] St. Louis, MO 63105, USA MISSIO APOSTOLICA is published twice a year in the spring and fall by the Lutheran Society for Missiology, Inc. (LSFM). All members receive copies of the publication. Single copies are available for $10 each. Missio Apostolica intends to promote discussion of thoughts and issues related to the Christian mission within the frame of reference of Confessional Lutheranism. Missio Apostolica provides a forum for (1) exchange of ideas on mission, (2) discussion of Christian faith, mission, and life on the basis of Holy Scripture and evangelical theology, (3) fostering the Apostolic Mission of the Triune God in the world. The views expressed by the individual writers, however, are not necessarily the views of the editors, Editorial Committee, or the Board of Directors of LSFM. The articles in Missio Apostolica are abstracted by Religion Index One: Periodicals, Missionalia (Journal of the Southern African Missiological Society) and compiled in the Bulletin for the Scottish Institute of Missionary Studies for the International Review of Mission (IRM).

©Copyright 2010, The Lutheran Society for Missiology, Inc., St. Louis.

MISSIO APOSTOLICA Journal of the Lutheran Society for Missiology, Inc.

CONTENTS EDITOR’S NOTE……………………………………………………………………..74 EDITORIAL…………………………………………………………………………...75 ARTICLES The Missiological Endeavor is Essentially Theological (and Vice Versa) Douglas Rutt……….…..…………………………………………………….78 The Development of Missiology in Theological Curricula Klaus Detlev Schulz..…………………………………………….………....83 The Inclusion of Missiological Formation in LCMS Seminary Education Interview with Andrew Bartelt and Lawrence Rast.………….….…………92 The Inclusion of Missiological Formation in Seminary Education in Brazil Anselmo Graff....……………………………………………….…….……100 Witnessing in a Pluralistic Society Herbert Hoefer……...……………………………………………………...109 Mission Across the Curriculum: Historical Theology William W. Schumacher…………………………………………………...119 Common Threads and Challenges for the Future William W. Schumacher….…………….………………………………….126 BOOK REVIEWS…………………………………………………………... ……….129

Volume XVII, No. 2 (34) November 2009

LUTHERAN SOCIETY FOR

MISSIOLOGY ____________________EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: Robert Scudieri, Executive Director Phillip Johnson, Vice Chairperson James Pressnell, Secretary Ruth Mattson, Treasurer Eugene W. Bunkowske, Advisor BOARD OF DIRECTORS: Kenneth Reiner (11) John Lautenschlager (12) Ruth McDonnell (12) Victor Raj (11) Robert Roegner (11) Henry Rowold (11) Douglas Rutt (12) Leopoldo Sánchez (12) Gary Thies (11) PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE:Henry RowoldEugene W. Bunkowske Daniel Mattson Douglas Rutt Will Schumacher Herbert Hoefer, advisory Won Yong JI, ex-officio Victor Raj, ex-officio Robert Scudieri, ex-officio

Editor’s Note As in any discipline, in recent years institutions responsible for forming pastors, theologians and church leaders have been subjected to significant rethinking and restructuring for the sake of effectively advancing the Gospel. Changes in delivering the one, unchanging Word nevertheless have become necessary as the world in which Christ has placed his Church as his witness has been constantly changing. A biblical worldview once foundational for much of western culture has been steadily fading away. In its place a more inclusive outlook has set in, appreciating the varieties of religious experience of all people. In spite of this, the authentic witness of Jesus Christ must go on without compromising its unique claim on the lives of all people everywhere. This issue of Missio Apostolica, thanks to the LCMS Board for Pastoral Education, presents the perspectives of several theological educators who either cast the vision or are themselves involved in integrating mission across the gamut of forming pastors and church leaders. We commend this volume to our valued readers and well- wishers. V. R.

Editorial

Mission in Lutheran Education Robert Kolb

The words “education” and “Lutheran” go together quite naturally. So do the words “mission” and “Lutheran” though that may not be so widely recognized, in spite of the tradition that was already quite developed before Bartholomaeus Ziegenbalg and Heinrich Plütschau pioneered Protestant mission work in India more than three hundred years ago. Unfortunately, in recent years “Lutheran” and “mission” and “education” have not been as frequently brought together in theological research and discussion as should naturally be the case. Luther’s Reformation took place, of course, first of all within the university and especially its theological faculty. But its impact was designed and intended to make a missionary impact on the baptized masses who were immersed in a practice of Christiantiy that obscured the gospel and failed to bring them the life-changing, identity-transforming message of forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation. Luther and Melanchthon sent their students on the mission of what they called “conversion.” It was one of their terms for calling to repentance those who had been depending on their own works alongside God’s grace for their salvation.

The reformers took “mission education” very seriously. As they educated the future pastors of the congregations of Germany and other lands, their goal of preparing the students for the mission of fostering biblical faith among those caught in false forms of Christianity permeated their instruction. Preparation for this mission informed their courses on Scripture and their courses on teaching the faith, the ancestor of systematic theology today. (Historical theology and practical theology had not officially become part of the curriculum in Wittenberg in the sixteenth century.) Wittenberg theology was for proclamation, for bringing God’s saving Word to those on whom it had made little mark in the old way of believing. That remains the purpose of theology today, to propel the proclaiming of the Word that kills and makes alive into the hearts and minds of twenty-first century false believers of all kinds. In recent years too often Lutheran theological faculties have restricted their active thinking about the mission on which Christ sends his church, as it is sketched in all five Great Commissions (Mt 28:18–20, Mk 16:15–16, Lk 24:45–49, Jn 20:19–23, Acts 1:8), to classes on missions or missiology. In some instances even that instruction has been limited and marginalized. One consequence of this is that Lutheran pastors and other servants of the church have been inadequately equipped to perceive that the dynamic of God’s Word, as understood by the tradition we share with those adherents of the Book of Concord who have gone before us, has been domesticated and diminished.

76 Missio Apostolica

Another is that we have failed to contribute to missiological thinking in the whole household of faith. That is a tragic failure. For within Lutheran theology certain treasured insights should be enhancing our own life in God’s Word, impelling all Christians to speak of these treasures. Our theology should be enriching the larger missiological discussion across denominational or confessional lines. Luther’s perception that trust is fundamental to human existence and that our trust of someone or something that is Ultimate and Absolute in our lives offers a firm foundation and a clear direction for Christian witness. If others cannot trust us as we speak to them of the Savior’s love, they will not be able to trust our message very readily. If we do not realize that our goal in giving witness to Christ is to lay a new foundation for our hearers’ lives upon his person and his sacrificial death for our sins, and his resurrection for the restoration of our identity as God’s righteous children (Rom 4:25), then we will only distract those to whom we are witnessing from the true heart of the life Christ gives and deprive them of their only true hope and consolation.

Luther’s distinction of law and gospel provides an excellent diagnostic tool for helping us to identity the right words to be sharing with those around us. Luther recognized that the law not only accuses. Even for those who ignore its accusation, it terrifies and it crushes (Smalcald Articles III, iii, 2). When the shadows of fear and the cracks of misfortune, mistreatment, or malfeasance open up doubts about the sufficiency and adequacy of old gods, those caught in false belief will begin to seek some other source for their core identity, security, and meaning. It is then that the gospel, in all the richness that Luther recognized it, will enable us to speak of Jesus, the Savior, the liberating Lord, the sacrificial lamb, in ways tailored for our living voice to address our hearers’ specific needs.

Luther’s concept of the necessity of the “living voice of the gospel” also recognized that it is in the dynamic of our personal engagement with those outside the faith that the Holy Spirit prefers to use as his instrument of salvation. The gospel we proclaim is his very power for saving the lost (Rom 1:17). We find another powerful resource for our witness in the Wittenberg concept of the means of grace, that God’s Word in its oral, written, and sacramental forms, actually conveys what God promises to those in whom the Holy Spirit creates faith. The theology of Wittenberg combines with twenty-first century theory regarding performative speech to illumine how God’s speaking becomes re-creative, as mysterious as that remains, when Christians convey their faith to others. For the biblical message needs to be tailored to lay a foundation by informing a biblically under-informed or ill-informed global population of the facts of the Christ’s saving story. Then it needs to be wielded as the sword of the Spirit which brings death to our sinful identity and bestows new life through trust that recognizes God’s gift of an identity as a child of God.

Christian witness draws those from outside the faith into the Christian community, and that community, according to the Augsburg Confession, is defined by our confessing the Word of God and delivering into the lives of others for their conversion and subsequent edification in the faith. In a world full of estrangement and alienation, Lutheran insights into the nature of the Christian congregation and the

Editorial 77

community which Christ builds there buttress our thinking on how believers, individually and in the company of others, bring God’s chosen to faith and into the circles of his family.

All these and many other vital parts of the Lutheran confession of the faith must be conveyed in a missiological vein to students of God’s Word in the theological faculties of our own churches and must be shared with those dedicated to spreading God’s Word and extending his kingdom in other Christian traditions. The combination of “Lutheran,” “education,” and “mission” go together like horse, carriage, and driver. Combining these three is our assignment from God, our calling from the Holy Spirit, our commission from our Lord, and the plea of those who want to spread the gospel of Christ and those who need to hear it.

Articles

The Missiological Endeavor is Essentially Theological (and Vice Versa)

Douglas L. Rutt

An issue of fundamental importance to any discussion of missions and theology is the nature of theology itself. The Lutheran fathers emphasized three important points that have great missiological significance.

First, they recognized the practical nature of theology. Theology that was not practical, that is, that did not have as its goal the application of God’s Word to the lives of people in their concrete situations, for their salvation, was no theology at all. This view was in contrast to both Roman and the Reformed positions on theological prolegomena, which asserted that there were some things that were simply to be recognized as true, but which may have no practical application or value whatsoever. That is, there were some aspects of theology and, therefore, theological study, that were merely theoretical, or hypothetical, or, to use the approach to which Luther objected, speculative. To this, the Lutherans were quick to answer that while some points of theology at first glance appear to be only theoretical, they are actually very practical, and, to quote Dr. Robert Preus, “are revealed for the sake of action” (Preus 1970, 199). Preus devoted several pages to this question in his book, The Theology of Post Reformation Lutheranism, where he stated:

Thomas argued that since theology deals with divine things, it is in a certain sense (secundum quid) primarily theoretical. Calov counters that indeed divine acts are more worthy of consideration than human acts. However, theology does not deal principally with divine acts as such. Rather theology informs a person that he might follow the way of eternal life. . . . Calov’s emphasis on the practical aim of theology, an emphasis that antedates the works of the pietists and goes back to Luther and Gerhard, is most important. He is following the old adage that what is not practical is simply not theological. He is linking inseparably doctrine and life. All theology is for concrete living. (Preus 1970, 194).

________________________________________________________________________Dr. Douglas L. Rutt is Associate Professor of Pastoral Ministry and Mission at Concordia Theological Seminary, Ft. Wayne, Indiana and is the former area secretary for Latin America and the Caribbean for LCMS World Mission.

The Missiological Endeavor is Essentially Theological 79

In an interesting study of the development of protestant theological seminaries in the United States before the Civil War, Piety and Intellect, Glenn Miller pointed out that Concordia Theological Seminary’s founding philosophy—that of the “practical seminary”—was based on this idea. The use of the word practical, in the founding fathers’ conceptualization, must not be confused with our modern meaning of the word, as if it were in contrast to the idea of a theoretical or more scholarly approach to theology. The desire to found a “practical seminary” was born of the recognition that theology ultimately and in its primarily sense can only can take place in practice. According to Miller, the designation of the Fort Wayne seminary as “practical” does not mean that the seminary was founded, for example, to simply teach “ministry skills” to the neglect of theology:

The term, ‘practical,’ that the Germans applied to the school, should not be understood as ‘pragmatic.’ Aristotlean philosophy divided the study of the world into two parts: theoria and praxis. ‘Theory’ was the scientific explication of existence, and “practics’ was the ethical or experiential component of that knowledge. In calling the Loehe seminary ‘practical,’ its advocates pointed to the rood idea: the application of theology to church leadership. . . . If one grasps this understanding of theory, the role of formal theology in the Loehe school is easily understood. Orthodox theology occupied as large (and perhaps a larger) place in the practical as it did in the theoretical seminary, and the faculty regularly drilled the students in their knowledge of theological specifics. (Miller 1990, 374)

The second fundamental aspect of the nature of theology according to the Lutheran fathers is that theology is a matter of habitus. The Latin term comes from an Aristotelian category described by the Greek work ��, “to have, possess or wear” something. It is something, so to speak, that you have or possess. Theological habitus, therefore, means that the true theologian possesses a certain ontological disposition and aptitude that reaches into his character, even his “soul,” as Fritz says in this Pastoral Theology (Fritz 1945, 2). Or, as Martin Chemnitz said: “For it has truly been said that theology consists more in a disposition (affectus = influenced, worked upon) than in mere knowledge” (quoted in Preus, 195). Luther’s formula for theological formation is difficult to improve upon, for it speaks of three aspects that go into the formation of a theologian: oratio, meditatio, and tentatio. It is most clearly described in his introduction to the Wittenberg edition of his German works, of 1537 (Luther 1969). Tentatio: While the first two of Luther's three fundamental aspects to the study of theology, oratio and meditatio, are quite reasonable and easily recognized as valid, the third aspect, tentatio, adds an important, theologically profound dimension to the picture. Tentatio is related directly to Luther’s theologia crucis. Heinrich Bornkamm said that it is impossible to separate Luther's theological insights, exegesis and commitment to God's word and the gospel from his personal experience of tentatio (Bornkamm 2005, 73).Regarding this Luther said: “This is the touchstone which teaches you not only to know


and understand, but also to experience how true, how right, how beautiful, how comforting, how mighty God's word is: It is wisdom above all wisdom” (Luther 1969, 287, emphasis added). While Luther’s experience of tentatio is a subject of great interest among theologians, historians, and psychologists, in this context Luther discussed it mainly in terms of the suffering which he experienced at the hands of the Romanists. He said that actually the Pope and the Roman theologians who raged against him and the gospel have made him a fairly good theologian, which he would not have been otherwise. In other words, the attacks that he experienced drove him deeper into God's word, and to a stronger conviction that what he had learned regarding the truth of the Gospel was indeed the teaching of Scripture.� Therefore, tentatio is fundamental to the formation of a theologian in Luther’s view, for only in the realm of Christian experience can one really apprehend the truths that one learns cognitively. Paul, in the first chapter of his Second Epistle to the Corinthians, sets the tone for the rest of this letter, emphasizing the role of the sufferings he had experienced in his own theological formation and how that formation impacted his ministry. Paul was able from the start of this letter to see the redeeming value of his own experiences of ��, in that they provided him with the personal experience, insight and understanding to encourage others when they faced similar trials. This is most clearly brought out in verse 4: “. . . who comforts us in all our affliction so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God,” and verse 6: “But if we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; or if we are comforted, it is for your comfort. . .” (emphases added). The experience of the blessings of the gospel which were Paul’s by faith, as that gospel was put to the test in his own experience and ministry, gave Paul the ability to minister to others with greater compassion, eagerness and legitimacy. The Lutheran fathers integrated these two emphases of theological prolegomena—the practical nature of theology and the formative process in the making of the “theologian”—in a way that spells out, then, what this writer would call the missiological nature of theology, as Preus, quoting Calov, explained:

“Theologians have as their aim not mere knowledge, but also the practical application (praxis) and perseverance unto salvation. Teachers and ministers in the church carry on their activity, or at least they ought to do so, in order to bring men to everlasting salvation. Thus, their work centers in saving men, and for this reason they are called saviors in the sense that they are ministers of

� Franz Pieper recommends that all students read and re-read Luther’s method for theological study and put it into practice. If this would happen, he said, our church would not be suffering from such a severe lack of teachers (1950). Interestingly Gerhard Ebeling, after his detailed excursus, The Study of Theology (1978) in a sense raises his hands in despair at his inadequacy and includes Luther's method in its complete form as an appendix, adding that the value of it is “self-evident.”

The Missiological Endeavor is Essentially Theological 81

salvation (Acts 11:14; 1 Cor 9:22; 1 Tm 4:16).” Not everyone who believes and perseveres to the end is to be called a theologian (e.g., children), but only those who lead others to salvation. . . . Therefore theology has to do not with attaining salvation but with leading others to salvation. Theology acts not as a medicine (habitus patientis) but as a physician. “Hence theology is not the art or activity of being saved and healed spiritually, except per accedens; but it is the business of the theologian and teacher to bring spiritual healing to others.” (Preus 1970, 192–3)

On another occasion, Preus put it even more boldly during a chapel sermon: “If you have no interest in sharing the Gospel with the lost world, you’re neither an orthodox theologian nor a confessional theologian” (Bunkowske 1996, 35). According to this understanding, theology is essentially missiological. It always reaches outward, beyond itself, and likewise the true theologian always projects beyond himself to bring salvation to others. Therefore theology is called a habitus practicus, this is, something that one “has” for the sake of praxis. Many modern theological educators have lamented the gradual dichotomization of theology into that which is theoretical and that which is practical. Such a dichotomy is false, and is perhaps one of the most detrimental factors to theological education and theological formation today. Such a distinction can be traced back to Aristotle, who maintained that the vita contemplativa was superior to the vita activa. When theology is conformed to this Aristotelian schema, it is difficult to avoid the influence of the idea of “pure theory.” The Scriptures, however, know of no such distinction. Christ himself clearly pointed out the implications of his salvific work: “Go, ye therefore, and make disciples . . . .” The Apostle Paul spoke of what his understanding of theology meant for him: “It is written: ‘I believed; therefore I have spoken.’ With that same faith we also believe and therefore speak, because we know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus from the dead will also raise us with Jesus and present us with you in his presence” (2 Cor 4:13–14). Indeed, the love of Christ “compelled” Paul to carry out his mission and ministry because he was “convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again” (2 Cor 5:14–15). Therefore, Scripture simply does not support the idea of a purely theoretical side of theology, divorced from its practical, missiological implication. To put it in terms of the topic of this essay, the missiological task is rooted in theology and is inherently theological. For theological education and missions, this means that missions, or “the mission,” are a part of every course that is taught, whatever the course may be. When we learn to discern properly the meaning of Scripture and we learn to interpret that Word correctly, we are involved in part of what is necessary for mission to take place. A proper understanding of Scripture, of who Christ is and what he has done, and all the articles of faith, is essential. But an essential part of the task of being a faithful theologian is also the proclamation of that word to the lives of lost, sinful individuals, for their salvation. The two, doctrinal purity and the missionary impulse, can never be played against each other. One cannot take a back seat to the other. Or as our


Lord Jesus Himself said: “What I tell you in the darkness, speak in the light, and what you hear whispered in your ear, proclaim upon the housetops” (Mt 10:27).

References Cited

Bornkamm, Heinrich. 2005. Luther's World of Thought. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

Bunkowske, Eugene. 1996. “On Theological Education and Missions,” Reflections: The

Student Journal of Concordia Theological Seminary. Fort Wayne, Ind: Student Publications Committee, Concordia Theological Seminary.

Ebeling, Gerhard. 1978. The Study of Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. Fritz, John H. C., and C. F. W. Walther. 1963. Pastoral Theology: A Handbook of

Scriptural Principles Written Especially For Pastors of the Lutheran Church. Springfield, IL: Concordia Theological Seminary Press.

Luther, Martin. 1960. Preface to the Wittenberg edition of Luther's German writings.

Luther's Works, 285–288. Translated by Robert R. Heitner. Vol. 34. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Pieper, Franz. 1950. Christian Dogmatics. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House. Preus, Robert D. 1970. The Theology of Post-Reformation Lutheranism. Saint Louis:

Concordia Publishing House.

The Development of Missiology in Theological Curricula (historical survey and recent

developments)Klaus Detlev Schulz

Mission in relation to theology and the church. The study of mission, known as missiology, in the academic curricula of

pastoral education is of fairly recent origin. It assumed its place as a discipline in Protestant pastoral education in the late nineteenth century when foreign mission enterprises had reached their peak. Thus, missiology is the birth child of the modern era of mission. However, this does not mean that mission itself had never been a subject of theology before. In the early church in particular, theology and mission were deeply connected; one pushed for the other. Already for the apostles and their immediate successors in the ministry of preaching, teaching the word of God and shepherding the flock, education led to instructing others (Mt 28:20; 2 Tm 1:10–14; 2 Tm 2:2,15; 2 Tm 3:14; Ti 1, 9). Such instruction occurred in the context of emerging congregations from non-Christian people, Jews and Greek alike. Initially, the Gospel’s universal nature was challenged yet resolved at a council (Acts 15) and, Peter and Paul’s ministries demonstrate how their theology and understanding of the Gospel was focused on non-Christians. There was no introspection in doing theology; it was focused and purposeful.

Today, among scholars there is a clear consensus that theology in the early church began as missionary theology. That missionary theology became an expression of the church’s work in spreading the Gospel to Jews and Gentiles. As the Gospel made its way outward, theology was in the making. Thus, Martin Kähler’s oft-quoted observation based on historical evidence is pertinent, i.e., that mission was the “mother of earliest Christian theology.” The formulation of faith as creeds and rules of faith, for example, was a direct result of missionary engagement with non-Christians.1

Sadly, when the church distances herself from mission and does not see mission as the catalyst for further theologizing, missiology’s place in pastoral education, too, will clearly suffer. Missiology would be relegated to an isolated, orphaned status as a single subject or eliminated from the curriculum altogether. That is evident in theological curricula all over Europe and the United States.2 Instead, supporters of mission should speak out in favor of the intrinsic relationship of theology and mission. They should encourage theologians, pastors and laity to affirm the connection between the church and mission. That connection between mission and theology, and between church and ________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Klaus Detlev Schulz serves at Concordia Theological Seminary in Ft. Wayne, Indiana as Professor and Chairman of Pastoral Ministry and Missions. He is also the supervisor of the Ph.D. in Missiology program and Dean of the Graduate School.


mission, would have an impact on pastoral education. Not only would mission be given a legitimate place in the curricula, but it would serve pastoral formation by imbuing graduating students with a mindset that they are important agents of mission in the church irrespective of the context of their ministry. Both seminaries of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, at Fort Wayne and St. Louis, have played an important role in upholding the missionary nature of the church in their theological curricula and in providing missionary pastors for the context of the United States and other countries. One may hope that recruitment for their service around the world will intensify in the years to come.

By affirming the dynamic nature of the Gospel and the missionary purpose and nature of the church in the theological curriculum, graduates will see themselves messengers of that dynamic Gospel and servants of a church which the Lord uses as his instrument to reach out to an unbelieving world. Thus, the inability to see the church as a missionary church and theology as missionary theology would be an impediment to the task of studying theology. To use an illustration, how amiss would an exegete’s feat be if he were to explain Paul’s doctrine in the letter to the Romans without the context in which it was written, namely a missionary one to which the framing chapters of that epistle point. Beginnings: Mission assumes a place in theological curricula As stated earlier, with the organization of mission societies in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and the sending of their personnel to overseas assignments, mission became an increasingly important component in pastoral education, namely, as a means to prepare students for such service. However, the history of the nineteenth century reveals an initial disconnection between the preparation of pastors and that of missionaries. Different standards were applied to their education. All the great traditional Lutheran mission societies, such as Halle, Hermannsburg, Leipzig and Neuendettelsau, were to varying degrees struggling to obtain the approval of their church officials to have their missionary personnel included in the customary university training that all pastors received. For some societies that request was declined. Many reasons both political and theological may have motivated that decision. One legitimate concern on the part of territorial church leaders was that many missionary candidates were ill equipped, having little or no elementary education, and thus simply not fit for university education. In many cases a two-tiered system emerged, one where pastors were university trained and missionary candidates were taught at seminaries or mission prep schools. Over the years, however, when the standard of elementary education rose, most mission seminaries were dissolved and missionary candidates received training similar to that of pastors. Wilhelm Löhe (1808–72), especially, is known to have given his emergency helpers a very basic training in Germany with the understanding, however, that when they arrived in the United States, they would seek further education at the theological seminary in Fort Wayne, Indiana.3

As missiology became a recognized discipline in theological education, instructors were assigned chairs to teach it. The first missiologist was the well-known Gustav Warneck (1834–1919) who taught at the university of Halle in the years 1896 to

The Development of Missiology in Theological Curricula 85

1908.4 His contribution to missiology is enormous insofar as he published the first missiological work, a five-volume work entitled Missionslehre—which to this date has not been translated. Other well-known missiologists from Germany were Hans Werner Gensichen, who taught in Heidelberg; Walter Freytag (1899–1959), at the University of Hamburg; Georg Vicedom of Neuendettelsau, who is known for his book The Mission of God; and Peter Beyerhaus, the retired professor at the Institute of Mission and Ecumenical Theology in Tübingen. Across the channel, former Indian missionary Alexander Duff (1806–1878) was the first assigned chair for missiology at the New College in Edinburgh. His contribution to missiology was less influential, and after his departure his chair of missiology was eliminated. Today, Selly Oak College in Birmingham continues to teach missiology at its Center of Mission Studies. Noteworthy also is South Africa particularly for its most influential missiologist, David Bosch, (December 13, 1929–April 15, 1992), a professor of missiology at the University of South Africa, Pretoria, and author of Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (1991). South Africa also boasts an active Society of Missiology with its widespread publication entitled Missionalia. Across the Atlantic Ocean in the United States, numerous influential theologians promoted mission and continue to do so. Daniel Fleming (1877–1969) and Donald McGavran (1897–1990) are most perhaps the most renowned. Daniel Fleming, was appointed in 1918 as the first full time professor of mission to the Union Theological Seminary, and Donald McGavran, a former missionary to India, taught as professor at the Fuller Theological Seminary. McGavran is recognized as the father of “Church Growth” missiology and author of his magnum opus Understanding Church Growth (1970). We should briefly note the three essential principles for Church Growth as McGavran developed them, since these have influenced not only missiology but also theological education all over the world. The first principle is to realize that God wants all people found and brought into the church; the second principle is to conduct responsible research into the causes and barriers to church growth; and the third principle is to develop goals and strategies based on the facts discovered that will win people more effectively.5 These principles established a school of thought [?] and the Church Growth movement, which continues to further the legacy of McGavran, especially through his student followers, such as Peter Wagner, Carl George, Charles Kraft, et al. To what degree the outgrowths of that movement, such as the so-called “Seeker Sensitive Worship” and “Market Driven Ministry,” reflect the true intent of McGavran’s principles would have to be argued on another occasion. Today Asbury Theological Seminary, the Evangelical Divinity School, Trinity Deerfield and Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne, are some of those institutions promoting missiology as a discipline and providing actual degrees in that discipline. Discussion on missiology’s position and definition within the classical disciplines6

Since Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834), theological education has been divided in four classical disciplines: Biblical, Systematic, Pastoral (Practical) and Church History. In his Kurze Darstellung des theologischen Studiums, Schleiermacher devotes a


few sentences to “Theorie des Missionswesens” (Theory of Mission) in his broader discussion on Practical theology.7 Indeed, it seems that practical theology would serve as a good fit for embracing mission, especially when it comes to planning and carrying out mission in a congregation or planting churches. What is important here is that Schleiermacher points to what became of mission in the theological curriculum, namely a complementary subject within all theological curricula. In this position, missiology then complements all four disciplines or takes a seat in one of them. The danger of a complementary approach, one could argue, is that missiology is left to a few expert professors and then, at worst, is ignored by all professors of the other departments. Mission would struggle to connect to theology as taught in other departments and would exist in an isolated status. Positively, however, as a complementary subject in the theological curriculum, missiology would serve as a constant voice reminding all students and professors not to loose sight of their focus on the lost, and it would explicitly address important cultural issues, insights into world religions and contemporary spiritualities, and church planting. In order to bring out these aspects of mission in theology, missiology as a complementary discipline should, as Bosch affirms, “provoke theology as a whole to discover anew that mission is not simply a more or less neglected department of the church’s life that only enters the picture when a specialist from outside appears on the scene when a collection is taken.”8

In addition to its being a complementary discipline, we should also affirm missiology as an integrative component within all classical disciplines. Every theological curriculum should, as we stated above, reflect on theology as being missionary in nature. Christopher Wright leads us into that discussion from his observation of mission in Scripture. He bemoans a common misperception of mission as being understood as our doing something separated from theology, where we learn and discuss of God. In his book The Mission of God he opens with the following concern:

“I am dissatisfied with popular use of the word mission (or more commonly in the United States, missions) solely in relation to human endeavors of various kinds. I do not at all question the validity of Christian active engagement in mission, but I do want to argue throughout this book for the theological priority of God’s mission . . .”9

Christopher Wright approaches Scripture with a comprehensive missional hermeneutic that goes far deeper than understanding Scripture as a collection of a few texts that support our mission as sending. Wright explains:

“I wanted them [my students] to see not just that the bible contains a number of texts which happen to provide a rationale for missionary endeavor but that the whole Bible is itself a ‘missional’ phenomenon. The Bible renders to us the story of God’s mission through God’s people in their engagement with God’s world for the sake of the whole of God’s creation. The Bible is the drama of this God of purpose engaged in the mission of achieving that purpose universally, embracing past, present and future, Israel and the nations, ‘life, the universe and everything,’ and with its center, focus, climax, and completion in Jesus Christ. Mission is not just one of a list of things that the Bible happens to talk about, only a bit more urgently than some: Mission is, in that much-abused phrase, ‘what it’s all about.’10


Christopher Wright supports the argument most missiologists wish to make that mission should be integrated into every theological subject in the theological curriculum. Professors and students would read theology as the story of God as a missionary who actively pursues the redemption of the world. Indeed, theology is the study of God, but it is the study of a God who is motivated by the purpose to redeem the world. To underscore the point we may focus on the center of theology and its integrative principle, namely, justification. At its core, it is a missiological statement of God whose purpose is to seek out every sinner. “Justification is missiological in its very essence, since it describes what mission is at its core: imparting salvation through the forgiveness of sins.”11

In this sense, then, all theology is soteriology or salvation oriented, and thus thoroughly missiological. Even if theology does not engage in mission in every subject it treats, it should be carried, nonetheless, by the underlying conviction of who God is and what he does. As stated earlier, this insight would have an impact on the overall formation of all students and their education. Now, all students and not only a select few are involved in the mission of God. God’s missionary work as imparting forgiveness takes place through His means, through preaching and through baptizing. That, in essence, is the purpose behind the suggestion for the whole theological curriculum to embrace the underlying missiological theme in all of its theological disciplines.

The debate on what missiology as a discipline should include. As much as we hold forth the missionary nature of theology and thus also its

integrative nature within the theological curriculum, we must also affirm the importance and benefit of teaching mission as complementary discipline within the theological curriculum.12 Missiology will, as Johannes Verkuyl observes, “forever be pointing; in so doing she plays a crucial, complementary role. The burden of missiology is to answer the question facing the church: does her life conform to her calling to be the ‘salt of the earth’ and ‘the light of the world’?”13

While all classical disciplines in the theological curricula generally still engage material and methodology in Western European tradition and fashion and are geared towards preparing for a ministry in the Western context, missiology uniquely brings in an international and multicultural dimension to theological education. It takes a focused look at the world in all its diversity throughout which the Law and Gospel are to be communicated.

In view of embracing subject matter emerging from the “world” and its context and the sheer encyclopedic number of topics, missiologists are engaged in endless debates on what issues should be included in the subject mission. Indeed, missiology is multidisciplinary, but what topic qualifies for being included? For apart from shedding light on mission from Scripture, history, theology and practice, missiology would have to include also cognate non-theological disciplines generally known as social sciences, such as linguistics, religions, psychology, poverty, pedagogics, cultural issues, human care, geography, strategies and goals, environment, leadership, economics.14


In order to assist in the selection process, James Scherer, in an essay devoted to the topic, “Missiology as a discipline and what it includes,”15 suggests that it would be helpful to approach the dilemma by first defining exactly what is mission.16 Based on that definition, missiology would then be able to select subject matter that would underscore that definition. For our purpose, I would define mission as the “triune God’s redeeming act of all people through Jesus Christ on the cross, which is brought as the forgiveness of sins to all people through God’s word as it is preached, witnessed and administered. The church serves as God’s instrument to the world until the second coming of the Lord.”

As missiology engages the world in her study by incorporating non-theological disciplines, she is introduced to the inductive method, that is, by investigating individual facts and statistics and drawing them into the broader discussion of theology. Missiology thus synthesizes two approaches or methods: On the one side, it is expressly theological or deductive, which goes with the territory of engaging the classical discipline, particularly exegesis and doctrine; but on the other hand, it is also inductive, empirical, analytical or descriptive due to the study of the world and context. To put it in different terms—generally applied to Christology—missiology is both “from above” and “from below”: both theological and contextual. Both methods are synthesized in what, hopefully, results from a productive conversation.17 To that end, such a conversation serves a purpose, not to be merely contemplative, descriptive or analytical, but as Scherer points out, intent on becoming normative and leading to action and participation: “If study does not lead to participation missiology serves no purpose.”18

Thus, as missiology is engaged in the process of synthesizing theology and contextual issues, it must also point to the missiological center that is faithful to Scripture and theology. We have argued that the Protestant doctrine of justification serves particular well as that constitutive missiological center. With justification as the guiding principle, missiology promotes the mission of the church as that mission which brings righteousness in Christ to a world that is impaired by sin, as Paul so forcefully depicts in his biblical accounts (e.g. Rom 3:21–26).

In an essay, “What is Mission?,” McGavran bemoans the apparent lack of clarity amongst theologians and missiologist as to what mission is. Thus, he underscores our plea for a constitutive missiological center, by drawing attention to what he calls the proper distinction between non-negotiables that provide guidance in an ever changing world and negotiables.19 Indeed, by affirming the ability to draw distinction between non-negotiables and negotiables, students will attain the skills of approaching the world with a ministry that is both prescriptive or normative yet also flexible; an art or ability that is challenging yet crucial to every pastoral education and ministry today:

“Increasingly, in a society shaped by technology that is continually changing, we need to learn a new skill: how to keep learning. We must be flexible and adaptable enough to survive in any circumstances. Even more important than flexibility is a virtuous character and set of guiding principles that will enable us to keep track of goodness amid the moral and social chaos that surround us.”20

Given the above discussion, I would provide the following definition and purpose of missiology:


“Missiology is an academic study that reflects critically on the mission of the church as the instrument of the salvation activity of the triune God. It integrates various disciplines (i.e. it is multidisciplinary) such as biblical and ecclesiastical theology, mission history, and empirical studies, and it aims to contribute positively and constructively towards the church’s faithful stewardship of the mission of God.”21 Reasons for reclaiming missiology’s central status in the theological curriculum. Compounding the need for missiology as the subject in theological curricula are the latest statistics and information about the world around us and the status of not only our Synod but of all churches in the West. We observe with alarm the gradual dwindling in the membership of all major denominations in the West. We may recall the time when the West was a stronghold of Christianity and a major contributor to overseas evangelization. For many reasons, which would be raised in missiology, mainline churches are struggling to retain the membership they currently have. Recent statistics show that Christianity now stands at 45 percent as a religion for white Europeans, whereas one hundred years ago it was still 80 percent.22 In a statistical overview that David Barrett and Todd Johnson provide in their World Christian Trends AD 30–AD 2200. Interpreting the Annual Christian Megacensus,23 we are told that in AD 2000, the number of the unevangelized in the world had actually not changed much from 1976. Also in the next 50 years, Christianity will remain a steady 33 to 34 percent of the world’s population and not make a larger impact than it already does. We may applaud the status quo, but we may also heed to it as a call to intensify the missionary task,24 to the 57 percent of the world’s population—three billion souls—who are completely without Christ. Among them are about 1.6 billion people who continue to lead an isolated existence without the Bible and the Christian faith presented in their native language.25

Western Lutheranism, too, has reasons to be concerned. The greatest growth for Lutheranism in 2005 occurred in the continent of Africa which now boasts Lutheran membership of over fifteen million. If we compare that to the Lutheran churches in North America, we see an overall decrease of 1.16 percent to about 8,154,631.26 Moreover, we are told the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod’s one-sided ethnic configuration hovers somewhere around 95 % white, and the ELCA’s even more at 97%. In the past, it had been easy for Lutherans of American and European backgrounds to live unaffected by cultural and ethnic minorities. Today the geographical distance between Christian communities and those of different cultures and beliefs has diminished. In particular, the rising numbers of immigrants from non-Christian origin into countries such as the United States, Canada, Germany, Norway, and Sweden on economic and political grounds must surely make mission an important task of the church and every congregation, and in all theological curricula. “Now, many new strangers have appeared on our doorstep, and we have the opportunity to take them in, minister to them and welcome them to the Family of God and the grand American mosaic.”27

That all leaves us with a conclusion that makes the case for missiology as part of the theological curricula. Students would learn to embrace such new strangers into their


congregations and into Lutheranism—strangers who come from other religions, who are in the grips of secularism, nihilism, hedonism and atheism. Through missiology, students can be formed to accommodate into their pastoral ministry the changing ethnic, multi religious and cultural configuration of the United States.28 Theological curricula, if they include mission, can provide a panoramic view of mission opportunities and a missionary theology that push beyond the boundaries of introspection to a world around us in need of Christ. Students will graduate with an awareness of a “mission field” around them irrespective of their location. Finally, they will serve as missionary pastors within and through Lutheran communities. Thus, for us today the question is not whether mission should be included in the theological curricula, but rather how mission should be done in that context and by whom it should be carried out. As the church is in the process of formulating missionary goals and strategies, may she look at missiology for guidance and at the seminaries to meet the need for laborers in God’s field. For through the pastoral acts of preaching, teaching and baptizing (Mt 28:18–20) ambassadors of Christ further the kingdom of God. Thus, pastoral ministry is fundamentally a mission ministry.29

Endnotes 1 Carl E. Braaten, That All May Believe. A Theology of the Gospel and the Mission of the Church (Grand Rapids/Cambridge, U.K.: Eerdmans, 2008), 146; see also David Bosch, Transforming Mission (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1991), 16. 2 For example, Carl Braaten bemoans the orphans status missiology has received at Luther Seminary in St. Paul (Ibid. 144). In Tübingen, Germany, the Institute of Mission and Ecumenical Studies was closed after Peter Beyerhaus’ retirement. 3 Carl Meyer, Moving Frontiers (St. Louis: CPH, 1964), 97 4 It would have been Karl Graul (1814–1864), the director of the Leipzig mission, who held his inaugural lecture in 1864 in Erlangen University: “On the Place and Significance of the Christian Mission in Scientific Studies of a University Considered as a Whole” but unfortunately he passed away prematurely. 5 Paul Engle and Gary MacIntosh (eds.) Evaluating the Church Growth Movement (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 15 and 16.

6 Literature abounds: David Bosch, “Theological Education in Missionary Perspective,” Missiology: An International Review 10.1 (January 1982): 13–34. Here page 26. One may consult also other essays or studies on this topic: Edward Farley, “The Reform of Theological Education as a Theological Task,” Theological Education 17 (Spring 1981): 93–117; Hans Jürgen Findeis, “Missiology,” Dictionary of Mission: Theology, History, Perspectives (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1997), 299–301; David J. Hesselgrave, “A Science Orientation—The Development of the Discipline of Missiology,” in Today’s Choices for Tomorrow’s Mission: An Evangelical Perspective on Trends and Issues in Missions (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 131–46; William Richey Hogg, “The Teaching of Missiology: Some Reflections on the Historical and Current Scene,” Missiology: An International Review 4 (October 1987): 487–506; Jan A. B. Jongeneel, Philosophy, Science and Theology of Mission in the 19th and 20th Centuries, Part I–II (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1995, 1997); Jan A. B. Jongeneel, “The Missiology of Gisbertus Voetius: The First Comprehensive Protestant Theology of Mission,” Calvin Theological Journal XXVI (1991): 47–79; Elias Dos Santo Medeiros, Missiology as an Academic Discipline in Theological Education (UMI Dissertation Services, 1992); Olaf Guttorm Myklebust, The Study of Missions in Theological Education, vol. I–II (Oslo: Forlaget Land Og Kirke, 1955, 1957); Klaus Detlev Schulz, Mission from the Cross (St. Louis: CPH, 2009), 29–43. 7 Johannes Verkuyl, Contemporary Missiology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 6. 8 Bosch, “Theological Education in Missionary Perspective,” 26. 9 Christopher Wright, The Mission of God (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 23 10 Ibid., 22. 11 See Schulz, Mission from the Cross, 79


12 The theological curricula for Pastoral students at CTS Fort Wayne includes two courses: “Ministry in a Pluralistic Context” and “Confessing Christ in Today’s World.” That does not deny the integrative missionary component in all other courses offered. CS St. Louis affirms the integrative character by having missionary professors placed in each of the classical disciplines. 13 Ibid., 9. 14 One may see here the list provided by Charles van Engen, Mission on the Way. Issues in Mission Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), 19, and Jongeneel, Jan A. B. Philosophy, Science and Theology of Mission in the 19th and 20th Centuries. Part I and II (Frankfurt am Main – Berlin – Bern – New York – Paris – Wien: Peter Lang, 1995 and 1997). 15 Scherer, James. “Missiology as a Discipline and What it Includes,” New Directions in Mission & Evangelization 2. Edited by James A. Scherer and Stephen Bevans (Maryknoll, Orbis Books, 1994), 173–187. 16 Missiologists would not all concur on what is the central core of mission. The missiologist Walter Freytag many years ago argued for a concise definition: “In the biblical sense nothing can be called mission that is not geared towards conversion and baptism.” Walter Freytag, Reden und Aufsätze II, ed. Jan Hermelink and Hans Jochen Margull (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1961), 85. The missiologist, Andrew Kirk, on the other hand, answered the question of what mission is in a book entitled What Is Mission? Theological Explorations (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000) by incorporating a broader agenda such as environmental issues. Peter Beyerhaus in his Shaken Foundations: Theological Foundations for Mission (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972) and his Mission: Which Way? Humanization or Redemption, trans. Margret Clarkson (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1971) argued vehemently against the World Council of Churches concept of liberation and humanization as a departure from classical soteriology. 17 As Scherer points out, (Ibid., 178) scholars at times place themselves in either of the two approaches. Verkuyl for example understands himself theological, prescriptive whereas Alan Tippet devoted more to social sciences and thus descriptive or inductive. One may see, Alan Tippet, Introduction to Missiology (Pasadena: William Carey Library, 1987), XI–5. 18 Ibid., 178 and 183 19 Donald McGavran, “What is Mission?” in Contemporary Theologies of Mission (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983), 15–29. 20 Stratford Caldecott, Beauty for Truth’s Sake (Brazos Press, 2009). 21 Schulz, 33. 22 Philip Jenkins, The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 89–90. 23 David Barrett and Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Trends AD 30–AD 2200. Interpreting the annual Christian megacensus (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2001), xiii and 4. 24 For a description of Christianity’s state worldwide fifty years ago, see E. J. Bingle, “The World Mission of the Church: A Survey,” Mission under the Cross, ed. Norman Goodall (London: Edinburgh House Press, 1953), 144. 25 Gailyn van Rheenen, Mission: Biblical Foundations and Contemporary Strategies (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 209. 26 The statistics were released on February 14, 2006, on the Lutheran World Federation’s website: www.lutheranworld.org. 27 Donald Moorman, Harvest Waiting (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1993), 55. 28 Karl Müller, Theo Sundermeier, et al., eds., Dictionary of Mission (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1997), 506. 29 In his Pastoral Theology: A Handbook of Scriptural Principles (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1932), 283 John Fritz points to the inclusion of mission in every pastor’s ministry. Apart from canvassing, Fritz also spent time providing concrete advice to the pastor in the promotion of mission such as staging annual mission-festivals, monthly mission-lectures, and disseminating information on mission opportunities at the local level and encouragement (see pp. 268–69). I, too, with the assistance of theologian Peter Brunner have argued for the church to promote a much closer connection between the ministry of the missionary and the pastor as generally presented. See Mission from the Cross, 277–278.

The Inclusion of Missiological Formation in LCMS Seminary Education

An interview with Dr. Andrew Bartelt and Dr. Lawrence Rast

Dr. Glen Thomas: How would you describe the relationship between “seminary formation” and “mission formation?” Are the two tangential, overlapping, or synonymous?

Dr. Lawrence Rast: Concordia Theological Seminary in Fort Wayne, Indiana, was founded in 1846 out of mission and for mission. Its purpose then was to form missionary pastors for service to church and world as well and as quickly as possible. That spirit continues to shape our mission in the present as we work to form servants in Jesus Christ who teach the faithful, reach the lost, and care for all. What was true of our seminary at its founding remains true today. Seminary formation is formation in mission for servants who will apply Lutheran theology to missional context, connect effectively with multiple cultures, replicate leadership for mission, disciple people who disciple people, and build community in mission. Dr. Andrew Bartelt: I suppose one could argue that they are at least overlapping, and in many ways synonymous. One really should begin by discussing what is meant by “mission.” In a very simple sense, the mission of the church is to be the people of God who, as the body of Christ, bring Christ into the world: the means of grace form the people of God as a mediating priesthood to make disciples of all nations. Very often our understanding of “mission” focuses so much on just evangelism, perhaps because we all too easily neglect it. Mission is certainly no less than that, but really so much more, involving all we do as the people of God, not for our own sake, or for the sake of the institutional church, but for the sake of Christ’s gospel, so that all families of the earth will be blessed. We often talk of seminary formation as forming the theological patterns of mind and heart in a very holistic way. It is preparation to be engaged in pastoral leadership in the church’s mission through Gospel ministry. Thus it is centered in the means of grace, but always moving outward toward the lost. Our historic models are well suited for such ________________________________________________________________________ Dr. Glen D. Thomas serves as Executive Director for the LCMS Board for Pastoral Education.

Dr. Lawrence R. Rast, Jr. is the Academic Dean at Concordia Theological Seminary and Professor of American Christianity and American Lutheranism.

Dr. Andrew H. Bartelt serves Concordia Seminary as Professor of Exegetical Theology, Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, and Executive Assistant to the President.

Missiological Formation in LCMS Seminary Education 93

a “full-bodied” formation, bringing together the depth of understanding of a graduate education with the praxis that assumes a goal of applying God’s Word to the hearts and lives of real world people. And today’s real world of cultural pluralism and secularism will demand the very best understandings of anthropology, sociology, history, language, and communication, not to mention leadership skills that a broad humanities background can provide. To that we add a breadth and depth of biblical theology, anchored in the Scriptures themselves, interpreted and practiced through the ages, and applied to the mission opportunities of our age. But we can never get lost in theological theory, as though is the goal in itself. And we can easily do that. But like the means of grace themselves, our theology is a means to an end—the salvation of souls, that the kingdom of God may come amongst us also, so that those of every nation and people and tribe and tongue may stand before the Lamb, now and into eternity.

Thomas: Do the students enrolling in your seminaries these days arrive on your campuses with a fervent desire to reach the lost with the Gospel?

Bartelt: Many do, and this is very encouraging. Many now come with a deep personal engagement with the secular pluralism of the world in which they have grown up, and they want to make a difference. Many have had a personal experience in cross-cultural work, international service, a “third generation” understanding of ethnic diversity and integration, and a deep sense of mission and outreach that is often more important to them than commitment to the institutional side of “church.” What they often lack is a holistic sense of the larger church as a corporate community, bigger than “me and my witness” or “me and my experience,” or “me and my congregation.” For a generation that, according to the sociological interpreters, lacks a sense of community, the understanding of the catholicity of the church as something into which we are incorporated by grace, outside of ourselves and our ways and mean, is both difficult to grasp and wonderful to experience. If we can help merge that mission zeal with the richness of our theology of church and mission, it’s easy to get excited about the next generation of God’s great mission story.

Rast: In a word, yes! Many of our students—and especially the younger ones, though not exclusively so—come to the seminary having lived in a post-churched society. As a result, they simply do not have the same set of assumptions about how church and world interact that was part of my own growing up. Their perspective brings a freshness to the seminary as a whole and the classroom in particular. At the same time, many of our older students have come to the Lutheran church later in life. As such, they have an intense love for the church and its confession coupled with a deep appreciation for those who reached out to them with the Gospel. As a result, many have an intense desire to share


that Gospel with others. These two perspectives each serve to enhance the other as students and faculty interact with the church’s confession of Christ.

Thomas: How is mission formation present in classroom instruction on your seminary campus?

Rast: In our recent curricular revision we as a faculty strove to integrate the curriculum in a strategic way. The older assumption of moving from theory to practice has given way to intentional integration within the curriculum as a whole and within each individual course. If a course does not have any application to mission and ministry, then its value in pastoral formation is questionable. One way this has played out is in the area of missions and evangelism. Formerly we had two courses—one on “evangelism” and one on “mission”—and that exhausted the missional offerings of the curriculum, unless one took electives. We’re now stressing how mission permeates pastoral work and therefore touches all of the traditional theological disciplines. For example, a course on the history of Lutheranism in the United States not only relates information about the church’s mission efforts over time, it stresses how people understood and enacted mission in their context. It then challenges students to think about applications from the lessons of history for the present.

Bartelt: We have become much more intentional over the past years, realizing that we can’t take this for granted. Even the students with mission zeal often need to understand how it has to flow from solid theology. Our Institute for Mission Studies has been a catalyst for “missions across the curriculum,” and even the way we have embedded a mission professor in every department is a reminder that all our curriculum is engaged in the mission of the church. We have encouraged specific assignments to focus on those outside the church, who do not know the culture or speak the jargon, forcing students to avoid the “shorthand” language that we often use within the church. It’s not as easy as we might think, and it’s a great challenge for both students and professors to work on this together. One could note a lot of specifics, but a very comprehensive project is flowing out of our new curricular outcomes, which are framed in the preamble by the Great Commission and are already guiding curriculum assessment and revision—something that we have been doing as an ongoing process since the early 1990s but now is receiving renewed focus as a mission curriculum for the twenty-first century. The outcomes themselves, including the performance indicators by which we can assess student progress, address both general and specific mission themes, from the need “to interpret reality theologically” to “exhibits a zeal for proclaiming the Gospel to all people,” to “speaks the Word of God to those outside the faith.” We have also begun to bring course work itself into the mission field. We just offered a course in urban ministry taught quite literally on the streets of New York City. We will build on this experience to offer more, and more regularized course work that engages mission pastors in the field.


Thomas: What other intentional efforts are added outside the classroom curriculum to further mission formation in students?

Bartelt: For years now we have required a cross-cultural field education module, in which one major goal is simply to experience what it means to be an outsider. Often this is accomplished by a variety of mission trip experiences, both domestically and internationally. We require an evangelism project within the congregational context of vicarage, and this has generated some excellent application of theology to the practice of outreach. Our missionary formation track has now gained enough evaluative experience and momentum to be coming of age, and it will not only prepare mission planters but also bring mission focus to all our students. The SMP (Specific Ministry Pastor Program) curriculum, which we are developing on a new, integrated, and mission-driven model, intends to serve many who already engaged in mission plants and revitalization opportunities, and what we are learning in that project is already affecting the residential program, especially in bridging the gap from classroom to parish and community life. Another area is the simple presence of non-Anglo leadership on our campus, especially through our Center for Hispanic Studies, Ethnic Immigrant Institute of Theology, and Deaf Institute of Theology. More and more students are coming to us already engaged in a second language, and we seek to provide support for language learning, especially in Spanish, even some French (thanks to Francophone African students!), and American Sign Language. We have also built important partnerships with mission leadership across the church, from various networks of mission-focused pastors, such as Pastoral Leadership Institute, to synodical and district mission leaders. Not only do such relationships foster mission energy and learning, they also model good churchmanship, as we seek to work together with the whole church in ways that we, as synod and church, have agreed to honor.

Rast: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod has been at the forefront of using contextual education over the years. Fieldwork experience and, especially, vicarage give students the opportunity to apply their curricular experiences in real life ministry situations. Often we underestimate the value of such experiences. However, important as these contextual experiences are, there is room for enhancement. Fieldwork and Vicarage need to be more integrated into achieving the stated outcomes of our curriculum. Making this a reality is one of the more exciting opportunities on the immediate horizon. However, even beyond the intentionality of the new curriculum, we understand that pastoral formation occurs in many ways most importantly in what we call the “ungraded curriculum.” We are increasingly aware of the central role that informal learning experiences shape the future practice of pastors. To that end we encourage our students to take leadership in forming and guiding student mission societies, mission convocations, and invitations of guest speakers.


An outcome of this has been the explosion of student “learning abroad,” “mission visits,” and “human care” experiences. These three areas capture the seminary’s mission of forming servants who teach, reach, and care. In several months a group of students will visit Haiti on a mission visit. In 2008 I led a group of sixteen students in a study abroad to South Africa where our students lived and studied with seminarians from all over sub-Saharan Africa. Further, we made several mission trips to help the students experience the life, death, and rebirth of missions in South Africa. Other trips have visited Madagascar, Russia, and Latvia. All of the students involved have stated that these trips have fundamentally reformed the way they think of mission and their place in the missio dei. Thomas: What are some of the most significant challenges that your seminary faces in forming students who have a mission focus?

Rast: While Jesus Christ and his Gospel is the same yesterday, today, and forever, over the past half century American culture and its assumptions about Christianity and the place of the church have shifted in basic ways. We now live in a post-church culture, and that has changed the rules for and expectations of pastoral ministry and mission in 2010. The congregations of our Synod—and also our students—are beginning to realize just what it means to be “church” in a post-Constantinian setting. But the challenges are tremendous, even as we seek to maintain a faithful witness to the unchanging Gospel in the midst of dynamic and rapidly changing circumstances. While administrative and educational leaders are providing leadership on this point, it is the pastors and congregations who will do the real mission and ministry in the places to which God calls them. And so the burden—and the opportunity—will largely be theirs!

Bartelt: Certainly we have to maintain the important “both/and” of right theology and mission zeal, both “getting it right” and “getting it out.” If I have all knowledge, to paraphrase Paul, and know every doctrine just so, but have not a heart for others, we can be clanging gongs or noisy symbols, and the world will hear us as noise. On the other hand, I can have a burning burden for the lost, even be the greatest communicator, but if I run out of substance at the first hard question or even get it wrong, I can do the kingdom of God more harm than good. In the end, however, good theology is a means to the greater goal, and never an end to itself. The justified, sanctified, and properly catechized people of God are the means of communicating God’s grace to the ends of the earth, and to the folks next door. Frankly, another challenge is connecting mission emphasis in seminary formation to the rest of the church, and, I suppose, vice versa—connecting the mission on the front lines to seminary formation. We work to make sure our students do not graduate without an understanding of the mission of the church, and with it also an understanding, care, and patience for God’s good folks in the parish and beyond, but this whole enterprise is a partnership with the congregations of synod, who themselves form and raise up seminary students, who support them and the seminary itself, who participate in


field education, vicarage, and other new ways of bringing classroom and parish together. It can also happen that graduates go out with a mission zeal and expectation of congregational mission vision that clashes with the realities of a congregational struggling to survive or somewhat turned in on itself. Obviously, we work very closely with the district presidents in vicarage and first call placement, but the mission of the church is, indeed, the mission of the church, not of the seminary or this congregation or that. This must engage the very best collaborative work before, during, and after the seminary experience itself.

Thomas: If you could “dream big dreams” and had the resources to bring those dreams to reality, what changes would you make to enhance mission formation in your students?

Bartelt: We would send forth laborers into the harvest with a full-bodied biblical theology of head and heart and the skill to apply it to the realities of a lost and fallen world, incarnating Christ’s presence in the church as a “holy people” in, and reaching out to, the diverse cultural contexts of our global mission. Our graduates will be faithful, missional pastoral leaders, stewards of the means of grace by which God enlivens and empowers his people to be his people in the world. Obviously, every pastoral student should be competent in Lutheran, biblical theology, and be able to articulate God’s truth in language that connects to real people, including those of every tribe and tongue. He should know well what he knows, and also know what he does not, confident in the Word of God and humble in his own limitations. We would have the resources to ensure that every student has cross-cultural experience and evangelism experience that includes giving witness of his own faith. Students would not be distracted by financial disincentives for pastoral preparation and service, even as they learn good stewardship, financial responsibility, and a sense of service and servant leadership. They would already be engaged in a sense of life-long learning, of which the seminary is a seminal part, but only a part. In fact, some “feathering” and finishing of seminary education in the context of the first years of parish ministry would be very helpful, and quite easy to do. We would also have the resources to maintain the theological contributions of seminary and faculty, from a world-class research library to a faculty engaged in the global mission of today’s world, to provide the context and environment for theological education and formation, including both residential and non-residential, classroom and parish components. Finally, the seminary formation would be understood within the larger mission of the church to send forth laborers into the harvest field, with a common purpose grounded in our creedal faith, supported by the best stewardship of our earthly resources, and integrated into a church body that is faithful to God’s Word and the missio dei that has come in Christ, so that the whole church, even here below, may include those of every nation and tribe and people and tongue (Rv 7:9).


Rast: As stated earlier, our mission trips, study abroad opportunities, and human care visits have been foundational to the students who have experienced them. I would love to see these become part of the pastoral formation of every student at this seminary. For students to teach the faith in Russia, reach out with the Gospel in Haiti, and serve at an HIV/AIDS orphanage in Kenya—or to do all or some of these in the United States—would provide some of the most important formative pastoral experiences, which would allow students to integrate the faith they have learned with their personal faith in order to share that faith with others.

Thomas: What future trends will most significantly impact mission formation at your seminaries?

Rast: The world has changed in some important ways in the last half century. Our curricular revision intentionally sought to address this shift. And so it had as one of its working assumptions to overcome the overly compartmentalized understanding (in our opinion) of the traditional theological disciplines. The next step in integration is to provide a collaborative model of leadership in service to the church and the mission that Christ has committed to it. This means striving to develop and enhance partnerships between the seminaries, the Synod and its boards and commissions, partner churches throughout the world, and, perhaps most importantly, the congregations of the Synod. As this occurs, it will be happening in the midst of another fundamental shift in the church. As Philip Jenkins has pointed out in The Next Christendom, the global center of Christianity is shifting from the North and the West, to the South. The Southern Hemisphere is where Christianity is growing most quickly and, if this trend continues, will come to play a more and more important role in the church and its mission. That will impact the church generally and the seminaries specifically. I like to think we’ve made a start at tapping into this important shift. But there is so much more that may be and can be done. The opportunities for reaching out with the Gospel have never been greater. And so our seminary’s mission in 2010 is as important as it has ever been as we form servants in Jesus Christ who teach the faithful, reach the lost, and care for all. Bartelt: Certainly the increasing secularization in our culture. Already we are experiencing the diversity in our students and in the congregational contexts in which they are formed. There is a general lack of common understanding of what constitutes Lutheran doctrine, Lutheran worship in a variety of expressions, even fundamental values and ethics that can no longer be taken for granted. Some students do not know there is a Lutheran hymnal or any liturgical forms. Some think that anything but a service from the hymnal cannot be Lutheran worship. We are also, I believe, now taking seriously the positive contribution of what I like to call the ministerial use of social science, from the need for grounding in cultural anthropology to a better recognition of the importance of social skills and psychological wholeness for pastoral leadership.


We are in the midst of a huge shift in funding models for theological and pastoral education, in which our seminaries are really self-funded, and our students bear the burden of educational expenses. Another trend, well underway, is the healthy sense of partnership and collaboration with the church. These relationships need to be fostered in a much more integrated, holistic, and systemic model of church, ministry, mission, and formation for ministerial leadership.

The Inclusion of Missiological Formation in Seminary Education in Brazil:

Theory and Practice Anselmo Ernesto Graff

Preamble It seems to me that Lutheran theology of mission has not had always enough

clarity in regard to certain topics related to the subject. Specifically, there are questions on how to handle theory and practice (doctrine and life), mission and theology, and the place of missiological formation and its implications in the theological curriculum. Is there need for a Christian to be trained or taught to be a missionary? What is the role of mission and the relationship between mission, theology, and church? Which place or status is assigned to the missiological chairs in the whole process of theological formation? I presume that a starting point for discussing this subject can be based on these questions and then combined with a brief overview of three issues on which the missiological formation might focus its attention. Secondly, I will share a brief overview of the missiological formation at Seminario Concordia and Lutheran Brazilian University (ULBRA).

Theory and practice—doctrine and life Although the time of the Reformation saw many changes in church and society, there may be good reason to see in the beginnings of the Lutheran Church the proper approach both to doctrine and to the Christian life of its members. At the same time, some of our present difficulties related to mission may stem from the earliest days of Lutheranism. One of the main reasons that Martin Luther wrote the Catechism was to counter the ignorance of the people in living in their daily life in the Gospel that had been just restored. “The laity had stopped paying their church obligations for the support of pastors… the peasants learned nothing, knew nothing, prayed not at all, did nothing except abuse religious freedom, and did not go to confession or commune . . . at Zinna the peasants refused to learn the Lord`s Prayer because its length.”1 In short, the Lutheran Church from its very beginning had to struggle with the tension between doctrine and practice, or justification by faith and the sanctified life. The lack of clarity was to some extent compromising the mission of the church. Actually, the practical ________________________________________________________________________ Rev. Anselmo Ernesto Graff teaches Missiology at Seminario Concordia, in Sao Leopoldo, Brazil, and Lutheran University of Brazil (ULBRA). He is also Coordinator of the International Center of Missionary Training (CITM), a department of Seminario Concordia.

Missiological Formation in Seminary Education in Brazil 101

activity of Christian life has been well characterized as a paradox of the “gift and responsible fidelity,” especially given the three major expressions of the justified sinner`s life—prayer, discipline, and practice—which include certain matters related to the tension between the mission as the work of God that involves human responsibility.

Theology and Mission Another topic that has arisen more recently is an apparent difficulty in dealing with the supposed choice between theology and mission. Some claim for themselves the confessional label, seeing as their primary duty or aim to proclaim and defend pure doctrine. Others would consider that showing love for people is the most important thing to do in the church. The latter may be related to the very pragmatic context where we live, which emphasizes more the end rather than how and why to get there. William Schumacher says in one of his articles that this distinction is unhelpful because it is unreal, for the simple reason that one cannot claim to be confessional/theological without being missional, or, to be missional without being confessional/theological.2 This view is in accord with what was demonstrated by the Christian Church in its early stages when New Testament writers did not engage first in theological research in order to put text on the paper before carrying on the mission work. The church’s mission and theological adjustments proceeded side by side. Theology and mission were mingled in one enterprise to be carried out by the church. As Martin Kähler said, “Mission is the mother of Theology”.3

Missiological formation and theological curriculum Christianity in general has had to go through intense debates on the theology of mission and its place in a theological curriculum. In fact, there were at least two fragmentations that affected decisively the innate missionary character of the church and mission as the “mother of theology.” Stephen Neill detected an extreme separation between church and mission by the nineteenth century. This was the first significant split. The emphasis was more on the church as an administrative body, rather than as a creation of God and the body of Christ. Due to this paradigm the “majority of Protestant missionaries were not churchmen . . . in most cases missions had been undertaken as the personal effort of devoted Christians, and not as the responsibility of the church as a whole.”4 In terms of missionary training, Neill says that at that time missionaries were trained in a special institution, where the studies were not on the same level as at in the universities and were completely disconnected with the church, since the missionary was not ordained by the church and his mission work was performed without dependence on or responsibility to any church body (Neill, p.512). The second split occurred in theology itself. For almost two millennia theology had no subdivisions. There was only one discipline, regarded as a “habit” that embraced the knowledge of God and the things of God. Under the influence of the Enlightenment, this one discipline subdivided into two realms, mainly in the second half of the eighteenth


century: theology more practically oriented for clerical work, and the other side more scholarly or technically directed. In short, theology was taught as practice and theory. From this embryo germinated the well-known model called “fourfold pattern”: the disciplines of the Bible (exegesis), church history (history), systematic theology (truth), and practical theology (application). According to Bosch’s evaluation, this model proved to be un-missionary, calling attention specifically to a statement from 1652 of Lutheran Theological Faculty in Wittenberg, that the church had no missionary duty or calling at all (Bosch, p.490). The other aspect regarding this point was to accommodate the teaching of mission to one of these existing four disciplines. Normally, missiology was appended to practical theology, more specifically to the church`s apostolate. There was also an attempt to teach missiology as an independent subject in its own right, or to incorporate a missionary dimension into the entire field of theology. The latter was theologically the most sound, but there was a problem with the concept of mission that had not yet been overcome. The effectiveness of the “fourfold pattern” would depend on how mission, church and theology itself are defined in their nature and relationship. If mission is characterized exclusively in terms of reaching unbelievers with the Gospel, saving souls, or promoting church expansion, then the main subject of missiology would relate to ways of executing these tasks. If understood in these terms, it is comprehensible why missiology was viewed as a peripheral subject, since theology itself was not comprehended as being missionary (Bosch, pp.490–491). However, it is very important to note that a shift took place in 1952 at the Assembly of International Missionary Council at Willingen, Germany. From then on it was more accepted that the theological concept of the mission belongs to the very essence of the church. The church has an intrinsic missionary vocation. Mission was not anymore seen just as the activity of the church. The innate missionary dimension of the church is everywhere. And so, the concept of mission was clothed in a broader sense and not limited to just reaching unbelievers, but rather understood as the global activity of the church. Church mission is executed through preaching, administering sacraments, nurturing Christians, promoting human care, evangelization, and so on. This new look to the mission of the church developed a fresh understanding of missiology itself. Now it should not be any longer a marginal subject of theology, but definitely incorporated into the church's entire teaching. It is true that a historical investigation of how mission was carried out in the past through the expansion of Christianity would provide very useful insights for mission today; however, it would lack a more profound or specific appreciation and intimate connection between theology and church, thus the need to relate mission to the church’s entire teaching, including Scripture, doctrine, history, and practice. In Dr. Ji’s words, “Missiology is a scholarly systematic study of the mission of the Triune God (Missio Dei) and the task of the church in principle (theory), practice, history, and personalities.”5 This means that the fourfold pattern of theological education acquires a natural (and necessary) missionary perspective.


Attempts to bridge these issues to missiological formation

Personal formation From the beginning of the twenty-first century the missiological formation at

Seminario Concordia in Brazil has been a discipline related to personal formation of the missionary, particularly in three aspects: spirituality, leadership, and cross-cultural communication of the Gospel. The starting point was inspired by what Martin Luther says in his Preface to the Wittenberg Edition of his German Writings of 1539. There is a correct way to study theology and to be prepared as a person as well as a pastor/missionary. Luther presents three basic rules rooted in Psalm 119, which are likely identifiable throughout the Psalm and are appropriate to theological missionary formation for today: Oratio, Meditatio, andTentatio. Luther’s insights make it possible to see that the principle is to help young pastors avoid clinging to their own reason and understanding. The main aim is to be a good and competent pastor by being permanently connected with the true foundation of wisdom and life, God himself. The first step is to practice what David did: “Pray to God with real humility and earnestness, that he through the dear Son may give you his Holy Spirit, who will enlighten you, lead you, and give you understanding.” 6 The second step is to meditate in the heart by reading, repeating, and comparing with diligent attention what the Holy Spirit wants to say in the Word of God. This is the way that God gives us his Spirit. Then comes the final step, Tentatio. Real life with its hardships and temptations will either move us away from the will of God or make us aware of his will while facing trials, sufferings or even sins. However, these are exactly opportunities to see how right and sweet is God’s Word. Despite the fact that this “formula” is pretty elementary, this approach, above all, calls attention to the false notion that a pastor eventually would not need to care for himself as one who needs to be recharged daily with the Word of God and be ready to face every type of tribulation, whether in his own life or among people in his congregation. The point is that the theology of the cross also takes part in the work of mission. It is a fact that lectures in theology can sometimes drive the student away from his spiritual and personal real life. According to Helmut Thielicke, the idea is to see and treat students also as souls entrusted to those in charge of theological formation.7

Servant Leadership The second focus is on the missionary’s having the inevitable mission to lead his people. In essence, it is important to realize that leadership is a natural gift given by God, as well as one demanding proper development of skills and abilities through study and practice. Assuming that there is a thin line between leadership and authority (in the sense of being totalitarian), the challenge is to define and promote formation of a leader in terms of his being a servant. Moreover, two significant examples of leadership in the Bible, Ezra and Nehemiah, demonstrate that leadership is not a matter of administering


business, but above all it has to do with people, since leading in the church is fundamentally about people. They are the most precious “resource” to be led. And if we look further and realize that the mission of the church is to proclaim the Good News of salvation in Jesus Christ, then there will be issues greater than budgets, buildings, and other challenges. Mission has to do with introducing people to Christ in the different fronts of action of the church, and so leadership has to do with soteriology.

Cultural aspects Among diverse and multifaceted challenges which have to be faced by church

leaders, one of them is to lead church mission in a very pluralistic society, including multiple worldviews, religious beliefs, and multicultural settings. There are unique features in the Brazilian cultures that missionaries have to take seriously when they are sent to different places. It is true that there has been a natural improvement regarding this situation because we have candidates coming to the seminary from different cultures, but it still remains a test to prepare missionaries to be able to handle cultural diversity and communicate the Gospel across these cultures without losing the biblical/confessional identity. The main focus is on maintaining the appropriate sense of balance in approaching variable and mutable cultures with the unchangeable Good News of Jesus Christ. If on one side we are conscious that the best school for this training is the mission field itself, on the other side there is need for basic instruction in terms of clarity in theology, context, and strategy. As mission is done neither in a vacuum nor in a rigid context, the idea is to prepare missionaries that integrate biblical theology with some information about the audience, their particular situation, and their worldviews and beliefs. In short, preparation creates a high value of the Word of God and of the culture as well.

In fact, the history of missions shows us an outstanding example of how this cultural aspect was assessed seriously. One of the most notable missionaries in China, Matthew Ricci (1552–1610), was brought first to Macao, before going to China, in order to learn the Chinese language and Chinese customs for his mission enterprise in that nation (Neill, p.163).

Even though the Lutheran Church in Brazil aims to operate with this strategy in some of their missions, it is important to note that today there are advantages in educating for mission that still need to be explored, instead of the idea that one must go immediately to Macao. There are many tools available for gaining knowledge of foreign languages and cultures, and the Internet provides information and tools for learning that were not available in the past .

Church, mission and theology There are in the theological curriculum three disciplines whose aim is to emphasize the innate and interconnected missionary character of the church, mission and theology, and approaching them as an integrated and interrelated unity. Two are taught at the seminary, Introduction to Missiology, and Evangelization in the Congregation; and


one is taught at the Brazilian Lutheran University (ULBRA), Theology of the Mission of the Church. The basic content of the first course is to cover, among other aspects, three dimensions that clarify the contours of what is meant by unity of the church and its mission. The starting point is to study a series of concepts so that students are acquainted with a chain of words and its implications in practice. The two most important are Missio Dei and mission. When the theological concept of Missio Dei was raised, mission was not to be understood any more as an enterprise belonging to the exterior of church life, or carried out somewhere else, such as overseas or in the slums of a big city. A new garment was put on the term “mission” and it was underlined as derived from the very nature of God himself. In other words, church does mission because God is essentially missionary, a concept for which there is much biblical evidence. The Father sends the Son, God the Father and the Son send the Holy Spirit, and the Trinity sends the church into the world. For the church, the mission is to look on the world with the same loving eyes that God does constantly. If mission is the activity by which God puts his salvific intention into practice, then the church will be missionary when it puts into practice what God does. However, it is important to note that if mission is understood in the sense of the total activity of the church, that is, having its center obviously in the preaching of the Gospel and administering the Sacraments, it then follows that mission must relate to the work of the church with the specific intention of serving the Gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ. Everything is mission, but at the heart is making the Gospel known inside and outside the church. And so, we might say in general terms that mission is not evangelization itself, but evangelization is a fundamental feature of the mission. The second dimension is to get information about the history of the Christian church from its early period up to the present time. The goal is not merely to access data, but to develop abilities to appreciate and infer the nature, circumstances (sometimes extremely adverse), strategies, and mistakes of the worldwide expansion of the Christian Gospel as a still unfinished task. The third aspect is to emphasize Luther’s legacy of mission. We are indebted to the Reformer for many things. Certainly one of the most important is the doctrinal inheritance, but we may also further seek from him counsel and guidance for doing mission because there is an unchanging scriptural foundation that surpasses all time and binds us together: God justifies us by Christ through faith. Rather than simply respond to those who have criticized Luther vehemently for not being missionary, the purpose is to scan the mission perspective in Luther`s commentaries, lectures, and sermons on the Bible so that his insights can stimulate the modern missionaries to think and to perform mission work. The other course taught at the seminary is Evangelization in the Congregation. Its focus is more practical and deals with evangelistic strategies, Christian education, and special concerns with Christians driven away from the horizontal communion of the church.


The goal is to prepare pastors for the specific task and growing necessity of evangelization. The approach analyses three common mistakes in evangelism with the intent of correcting the errors. The first mistake to avoid is taking a negative approach to mission and specifically to evangelization because of the difficulty of living in the midst of religious pluralism, which sometimes seems to force Christianity to be quiet in its corner as a sign of respect. It is also necessary to avoid the pragmatic view, which looks more to the end rather than to the legitimate means that have to be evaluated carefully by sound biblical and confessional theology. It is also important to avoid romanticizing evangelization so that everything that church does would be an expression of evangelization. The idea is to value every activity of the church without losing the specific moments when the gospel is preached, taught, and offered in Sacraments as Jesus reaches people with his saving power. Although it may seem obvious, the emphasis is on the church life based on the “activities” where salvation can be found: preaching and teaching the Word; administering Baptism and the Lord`s Supper in the local congregation; and daily witnessing by Christians. Any talk or initiative about evangelization in the sense of outreach, strategies, church numerical growth, and new missions fronts may be legitimated as long as the basic principle is retained: Jesus comes to people by the grace of God, and He does it through Word and Sacraments. In this particular course students are stimulated by taking part in religion classes in public schools, visiting people who have left the church in various congregations, distributing outreach evangelistic tracts in strategic places, and developing personal witness skills. Other activities where students are stimulated to learn the expectations of being on the mission front include school and hospital chaplaincy, being in touch with child abuse centers, and visiting human care organizations.

Unique challenge, unique opportunity Missiological formation in Brazil provides a very interesting opportunity and at

the same time a unique challenge to face in its curriculum. One of the courses taught at the Lutheran University has as its main focus the theology of the church`s mission. The opportunity is unique because there are students of different Christian religious bodies. Although there is a general theological agreement among them, there is also a diversity of beliefs and practices which makes this enterprise challenging. Above all, it is another mission occasion. We note that if, on the one hand, there may be some theological agreement, on the other hand, it is very clear that their practice is characterized by an excessive emphasis on human achievements, with mission often measured numerically and based on human standards. The aim of this course is to seek a theological framework for understanding the place of the church as an instrument of God in his mission. The course syllabus is formatted to help students reflect on the basic mission as exclusively being the work of God. It begins in the heart of God, it is empowered by the Holy Spirit, it is urgently necessary because of sin, but it involves human responsibilities. I presume that the course


would fit also into Lutheran circles where the topic of mission is dealt with, especially in regard to the practice of evangelization, sometimes a controversial topic.

The courses are based upon the understanding of the doctrine of the two kinds of righteousness as expounded by Luther and Melanchthon.8 In terms of evangelization, the basic subject is to make very clear the distinction and the relationship between the passive righteousness before God and the active righteousness before men. In other words, the endeavor is to distinguish what belongs exclusively and solely to God, such as converting sinners, comforting people, and nourishing souls from that which is “energized” by him, but belongs to men, namely, what the Lord Jesus gives us through the Holy Spirit, who uses our voice, abilities, reasoning, tongue, hands, shoulders, ears and everything else that he needs from us to carry on his mission. The challenge is not to keep a balance, but to make sure that these two dimensions are not mingled or confused. Problems may arise in the practice of evangelization and compromise theologically the mission of God by creating frustrations where there may be no reasons for any problems. In the broader context of increasing religious diversity, it is necessary that theologians realize that they must nurture theological excellence in order to talk about Jesus Christ and witness Christian faith in this environment. Many other factors come into play. People are dealing with various problems. There are also concerns about the impact of evil on people (adultery, violence, stealing, lying, and divorces) and about disasters such (hurricanes, accidents, flood, and drought). In the midst of these problems and concerns, one can develop the primary evangelistic skills of listening and of emptying oneself so that the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ can find room to act powerfully. In other words, our “mission trips” are not on calm waters, but on stormy ones, where only Jesus can keep us going in this mission.

Concluding words There is no way to think about mission without intense and serious theological

work. The fourfold pattern of theological education makes sense when its labor leads to the front of mission, whether in the global activity of the church or specifically in local evangelization. Exegetical study furnishes the basis of the church`s role in Missio Dei. Historical study serves for meditating on the expansion of the church and its strategies in different ages and cultures. Systematic theology is an indispensable tool to preserve sound doctrine in an extreme pluralistic religious context. It is needed for clarifying the meaning and application of the principles of original sin, Christology, soteriology, and the doctrine of justification by faith. Practical Theology provides understanding of means, methods, and strategies for carrying on God`s mission in the world. There is an idealistic element in all of this, indeed. Nevertheless, the ultimate target is to affirm and reaffirm that a theological curriculum must serve the mission of God, whether in terms of global activities of the church, or specifically in the practice of evangelization. Missiological formation provides fundamental purpose and reason for theological education.


Endnotes 1 Arand, Charles P. That I May be His Own: An Overview of Luther’s Catechisms. St. Louis, USA: Concordia Publishing House, 2000, 72–73. 2 Schumacher, William W. Theology or Mission. Concordia Journal, Volume 30, July 2004, Number 3, 116. 3 Bosch, David J. Transforming Mission. MaryKnoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2006, p.16. 4 Neill, Stephen. Christian Missions. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1965, 511–512. 5 Ji, Won Yong. A Lutheran Understanding of Mission: Biblical and Confessional. Concordia Journal, Volume 22, Number 2, April 1996, 142. 6 Luther, Martin. Preface to the Wittenberg Edition of his German Writings, Luther’s Works, Volume 34, 279–289. 7 Thielicke, Helmut. A Little Exercise for Young Theologians. Translated from the German by Charles L. Taylor. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprinted, 2003, 1. 8 The text which inspired me to keep on this model is written by David J. Peter. “A Framework for the Practice of Evangelism and Congregational Outreach”. Concordia Journal, Volume 30, Number 3, April 2004, 203–216.

Additional References Bliese, Richard H. and Gelder, Craig Van., Editors. The Evangelizing Church. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2005.

García, Alberto L. and Raj, Victor A.R., Editors. The Theology of the Cross for the 21st

Century. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2002.

Kolb, Robert. Speaking the Gospel Today: A Theology for Evangelism. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1995.

Newbigin, Lesslie. The Open Secret. An Introduction to the Theology of Mission. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.

Öberg, Ingemar. Luther and World Mission. A Historical and Systematic Study. Translated by Dean Apel. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2007.

Scherer, James A. Gospel, Church, & Kingdom: Comparative Studies in World Mission Theology. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1987.

Witnessing in a Pluralistic Society Herbert Hoefer

We are well aware that the United States is becoming a pluralistic society religiously. Most clergy and members grew up in contexts where Christianity was clearly dominant, so the fast developing situation of plurality has become confusing and threatening. I myself grew up in an era when Christianity was the religion of the land, but I went to serve in India where it is a small minority. I’ve returned to serve in a United States where devout Christian faith is fast becoming a minority. With all the uncertainty and fear that our new pluralistic situation arouses among American Christians, what might the church in India teach us about witnessing effectively in such a context? The church in India has been a small minority for almost 2000 years, today at about 2.6%. Even at that, however, it numbers 25 million members, mostly from the downtrodden and outcastes, and yet has a profound and pervasive effect on the general society.

Influence vs. Numbers Here is an area where we might have something to learn. Instead of asking about numbers of members, we might ask about extent of influence. One looks at death notices or anniversaries in Indian newspapers, for example, and they typically do not speak of the deceased moving on into a new incarnation, as orthodox Hindu belief would teach. Instead, the notices speak of the person being in heaven, a concept which does not exist in traditional Hinduism. By far the most common form of Hinduism today is “bhakti” (devotion to a personal deity). It has supplanted ritual Hinduism in popular piety. The rituals are still used, but largely only as a matter of tradition. There is no deep conviction that they convey supernatural power. However, direct prayer to one’s chosen deity is done with the anticipation of direct personal blessing. When I travel around India, I sometime use overnight busses. In India, there is very little separation of secular and religious, so typically there is a religious rite before beginning the journey, and there are pictures and symbols of the owner’s deity outside and inside the bus. Hindus believe in beginning the day in supplication to their gods, so at dawn there usually is a song of praise to the deity blasted over the bus loudspeaker system. When I wake up with a start to these songs, I am struck how I might just insert the name of Jesus for the name of the Hindu deity, and I could just sing along to the sentiments. There is scholarly disagreement about how much of this bhakti piety is attributable to Christian influence. But clearly the bhakti movement has been strongly ________________________________________________________________________ Rev. Dr. Herbert Hoefer is the Mission Chair at Concordia University, Portland, OR.


influenced and enhanced by exposure to Christian piety among the population. The transition to devotion to Jesus as one’s personal God is easy for those in this Hindu tradition. One could point to many other external features of religion around India. Hindus have started orphanages, social service organizations, educational institutions, and mission techniques that mimic traditional Christian practices. Hindu leaders see how effective and appreciated these Christian activities are and have taken them up. Where these Hindu efforts have truly alleviated the suffering and oppression in the land, we can only rejoice over the effects of that influence.

Reputation as Key Christians in India have a reputation for service to the downtrodden. No doubt, some of this motivation comes from the fact that the Christians themselves are mostly (80–85%) from the lowest echelons of the society, called the “dalits” (“oppressed”). However, one doesn’t see such effort coming from dalit Hindus, even educated and wealthy ones. Much of the motivation to serve must come from the gospel and the training of the church. Historically, almost all of the initial service among women and lepers and orphans and the ill was carried out by Christian missionaries. Now, of course, such concern is part of the general ethos of the land and expected of government agencies (another feature of Christian influence over the past 200 years). Yet, the work of church institutions in these areas continues unabated. Very commonly, people much prefer service at Christian rather than government institutions. Even in government service, it is very common to have Christians teaching in schools or helping the sick or working for the poor. It’s estimated, for example, that one-third to one-half of all nurses in India are Christians. I recall one missionary relating a conversation he had with a Hindu building engineer who often exuded scorn of Christian evangelism work. Yet, he said, if he ever needed to turn his aged father over to homecare, he would only hire a Christian to do it. In one region of our partner church in India there have been several mass baptisms over the past three years, totaling around one thousand. In this same area, the church has a home for the mentally handicapped. The surrounding population provides much of the daily food for the 200 clients. This ministry is one that typically only Christians would do, but it is highly respected and appreciated by the general population. When evangelism work is carried out in this region, Christianity already is highly esteemed. To convert is to identify oneself with a faith that is generally respected and valued. There is much less high caste opposition, governmental interference, and communal ostracism to conversion. I remember meeting with the panchayat president (village mayor) a couple years back when we were asking about purchasing a piece of land in the village for a church. She welcomed the prospect, though she herself was a high caste Hindu. She said she knew a Christian presence would bring good to the society. Often it would mean a pre-

Witnessing in a Pluralistic Society 111

school or a development project. However, even if it was only a spiritual ministry, it would be welcomed. One evangelist told me of a slum where they had constructed a chapel. Both Hindu and Muslim leaders came for the dedication and spoke of the decrease in drunkenness, wife beating, and school dropouts since the Christian work had begun. People want good for their society, and they welcome and respect anyone who will help to bring it.

Politics as Secondary During the Independence Movement in India a century ago, many groups (caste, economic, linguistic, religious) demanded separate electoral constituencies in the new democratic constitution. People marveled and appreciated that Christian spokespersons made no such demand. They did not see the purview of the church to be that of political influence. They were willing to trust that their influence would be effective in the country even without political power and protection. Of course, Christians have experienced a good deal of oppression and restriction through governmental agencies and legislation. Converts from the outcastes lose all government privileges and help which they had when they were Hindu. Several states have laws that require any baptism to receive prior government approval—which, of course, is rarely given. Christian students from the outcastes must compete with high caste young people for seats in institutions of higher learning, instead of entering into the quota for Hindus. It goes on and on. Yet, it is rare that any Christian youth converts back to Hinduism to receive these government benefits. Christians protest and plead against these, but they do not riot or turn violent or reconvert. Instead, they strive by their own merit and hard work. At one mass baptism, I asked the father of a family that was converting why he was doing it even though they were going to lose all their government benefits; he simply said, “Christian children get ahead.” The children gain new dignity and self-respect through the gospel. They gain the moral training of the church and oversight of the pastors. They get ahead through inner spiritual strength, not external political power. By abjuring political power, the Christians’ prophetic voice in social affairs has authenticity. It is not a self-serving, self-protective voice but a voice on behalf of the downtrodden in the common good. They know the general population does not accept the authority of the Bible in social mores and practices. They know the general population has no interest in promoting Christianity or conversion. They know politicians generally make decisions for the sake of political gain not moral gain. It is best to forego external, opportunistic change and work for inner, spiritual change. This withdrawal from national politics does not mean withdrawal from involvement and cooperation with the government. Many Christians are in all branches of government service. Christian institutions also are recipients of government program support. The rural schools in particular could not survive without government support for salaries. Even when government inspectors object to Bible classes in the schools, the


church continues to conduct them on a voluntary basis. The schools have enough community support that the government does not take action against the school.

Observance of the Sacred Indian society has a strong sense of the sacred. It is a cultural recognition of the greatness which surrounds us and in which we are rooted. There are times and places and people that remind us of our insignificance before that greatness, in Rudolf’s Otto term “the mysterium tremendum.” Each religion in India has its own particular expressions of the sacred, whether it is the festivals for Hindu deities and their wandering sanyassis or the Muslim observance of Ramadan and their call to prayer five times a day. Part of being seriously spiritual is to have such ritualistic observances of the sacred. Chapels for Christians are observed as holy places, just as mosques are for Muslims and temples for Hindus. People take off their shoes when they enter. No secular activities are held inside. With Roman Catholic churches, they often have a shrine along the roadside, and one often sees people—both Christians and non-Christians—stopping reverently at that sacred spot for a brief prayer as they go about their day. Advent and Lent are observed as sacred weeks by Christians. Many forego non-vegetarian food during Lent. No weddings or church meetings are held, the latter for fear that controversies will spoil the spiritual unity and peace of the season. Morning family prayers are common. Some homes have a family altar. Pastors and priests are held in high esteem, also by the general public, particularly when wearing their clerical robe. Even a clergy who has lost respect because of his personal failures receives respect when conducting worship or home visits in his white robe. A religion is expected to remind us of the mystery in which we live and into which we are going. It has to point beyond the mundane and routine of life. Certain rituals are necessary to transport us beyond ourselves. Christian observances of the sacred communicate to the general public that our faith links us to God.

Evangelism vs. Proselytism India is a very diverse society. The vast majority of church membership comes from the dalit portion of the society, the outcastes and tribals, which make up about 20% of the population. The other 80% of the population is very unlikely to join the organized church. Therefore, the church’s evangelism among dalits is proselytism, oriented toward conversion from Hinduism into church membership. However, evangelism among the rest of the population must have a variety of goals, methods, and occasions. Christmas, for example, is a major time for evangelism. In Hinduism, the religious date for the birth of a god is highly honored, as is the birth date of Muhammad among Muslims. Jesus is highly honored among both Hindus and Muslims, so people of both religions expect Christians to lead them in honoring this occasion. The custom is for Christians to hold what is termed “suppose Christmas” celebrations during Advent. Basically, they organize an office or village or neighborhood party, bring in a special speaker, and proclaim the fact and purpose of our Lord’s coming.


Another Advent custom is to go caroling. Generally, they go to a member’s home, but then also to the surrounding homes. Sometimes congregations will inform the member of the date and time beforehand, and the member will gather his neighbors to his home to welcome the carolers. In villages, they will sing up and down the streets in the evening. Sometimes they are invited in for special prayers. Often they are treated with snacks. If they miss a street, people will complain and ask why they were left out of this celebration of the Lord Jesus. None of these people will usually join the church, but they are evangelized, and the Holy Spirit does work faith. New Year’s Eve has also become an important spiritual event. Anglicans brought the custom of the “Watchnight Service.” The service runs for over two hours. It begins with a service of repentance before midnight and concludes with a service of recommitment as the New Year begins. It is one of the two services of Holy Communion where almost all members participate. (The other is Maundy Thursday.) Pastors in urban congregations report that many high caste Hindu people come for this service and join in the Sacrament. While the rest of the society might be carousing to celebrate the New Year, the church is providing the opportunity for all to celebrate spiritually. The church also uses the mass media with the same general evangelistic purpose. There are Christian TV stations featuring both Indian and Western speakers. Marie Mayer is very popular throughout India. Bible correspondence courses have been going on for centuries. Administrators of these courses receive letters expressing faith and requesting more materials, even from Hindu, Buddhist, and Muslim religious leaders. There are mass rallies which non-Christians can attend quite anonymously and hear gospel messages over a series of evenings. From missionary days on, Christian educational institutions have been a powerful influence on the society. Non-Christians much prefer to have their children study in these institutions, and most of the top echelon of the society has studied in Christian schools and colleges. Most of the teachers in these schools are Christians, and most conduct Bible lessons and Christian festivals. There is a proverb in India that one must honor three people as if they were God standing in front of you: first, your mother, second, your teacher, and third, your guest. People want their children to study under Christian teachers because they feel confident they will get good discipline and loving attention. Christian hospitals and clinics have also been a mainstay of the Indian society. Not only were they usually the first medical services in many communities, especially in rural areas, but they remain the local preference for services. This remains true even where the hospital is not nearly as well equipped as other private or government hospitals nearby. People know the good care and attention they will receive at the hands of Christians. These hospitals typically have pastors and deaconesses who serve as chaplains. They have open-air worship in the morning and evening; they go ward to ward for prayers with the staff; they go bed to bed to offer prayers with the patients and their families. In rural areas congregations will conduct a parade through the village on special occasions, singing hymns and songs. Sometimes it is an annual event such as the close of


the Sunday school year or the celebration of Easter or Christmas that draws the community to the church. The community will certainly be part of a special event such as a new church dedication or installation/ordination of a pastor. As in every country, funerals and weddings are major evangelistic events. People who would never otherwise come to a Christian gathering will gladly be there to hear what the Christian message is for such an occasion. In villages, congregants sing hymns and songs all night as they keep vigil with the family. Even if people don’t come to the funeral service, they still hear the proclamation of Christian hope in the resurrection by God’s grace because of Christ. Likewise, at wedding receptions, the proclamation is given so that they hear the gospel even if they don’t attend the service. In all of these events, at all of these venues, and through all of these methods, the gospel is proclaimed to a generally receptive audience. Only the Holy Spirit can work faith, and he certainly does. Rarely does such faith result in church membership because of all the sociological factors, but faith is still saving faith.

Theological Education for Mission Recognizing that not everyone will join the church, the church in India is nonetheless zealous for church planting. They recognize that churches will be planted primarily among their own people group, the dalits. However, there is plenty to do there, as only around 10% of the dalits are churched. The seminary training is centered on church planting. The traditional subjects are taught from a Confessional Lutheran perspective, and the students get academically-recognized degrees. However, the training prior to entering the seminary, the focus during the training, and the expectations following graduation are all focused on church planting. The seminary conducts a “one-year course” for laity. It is a basic course in theology, after which they are qualified to serve as Catechists for the rest of their life. Some of these young men and women volunteer to serve under pastors for a couple of years doing evangelistic work. From among this group, some are chosen to come to the seminary for training to be pastors and deaconesses. Every Friday afternoon the students go out to neighboring villages to conduct evangelism, usually among the children, with parents looking on. Congregations have been raised up by the Holy Spirit through these ministries. The graduates then go out for a three-year probationary period. They are known as “probationers-for-church planting,” as they are sent to totally unchurched areas and expected to plant a church. Dozens of congregations have arisen through this ministry over the past seven years. Of course, once they are ordained into regular pastoral ministry in established congregations, they know the joy and skill of church planting and bring that focus to their parish ministry as well.


Respect for Differences Indian Christians are used to pluralism, both among religions as well as among denominations. There is a respect for others’ right to differ, while at the same time being true to oneself. After Independence, Indian Christians gathered to try to gain some organizational unity among themselves after all the denominational divisions that the missionary movement had brought. The result was the first union of episcopal and non-episcopal church bodies. However, even in this process, there was the acceptance of differences. The official position of the new united church bodies, the Church of North India and the Church of South India, was that they were a “uniting” church body. They didn’t expect the different traditions to give up their uniqueness. Rather, they entered the union with confidence that they could learn from and enrich each other best if they were gathered as one. Also among those church bodies that did not enter these unions (Baptist, Lutheran, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and some Methodist), there is an attitude of maintaining one’s uniqueness while not disrespecting others. There is a mentality and desire to cooperate. There is very little attempt to proselytize from other denominations. The caveat to this is the Pentecostals, who regularly proselytize—often quite successfully—among other denominations. Of course, that is understandable when, according to their theology, no one’s salvation is certain unless they meet Pentecostal criteria. The same dynamics are there in relation to other religions. Rarely is there any mockery or denunciation of other religions by mainline Christians, even in evangelistic settings. Once again, the caveat is the Pentecostals, especially when they have mass rallies with Western speakers. On these occasions Hindus may react violently to insults broadcast through loudspeakers. Most mainline church evangelism is simply a proclamation of the new life available in Jesus Christ and invitation to accept him as Lord. The same applies to expressions of church. There is recognition that expressions of church in India must be as diverse as the society. Not every disciple of Jesus will be a member of an organized, traditional church body. Some will be gathered in home churches, where there may be a separate fellowship in different caste sections of the village. A traveling evangelist may visit and supervise occasionally. Others will be under the tutelage of a Christian “sanyassi” (traditional “holy man”) who may come to visit the family in their home or may hold regular gatherings in his “ashram” (retreat center). The disciples may come to stay with him for a longer time of training as well. Baptisms will be conducted publicly but in the home, as most Hindu rites are. The baptism is not recorded in any church record, so the person remains legally a part of his own community. If s/he had been baptized in the church and entered into church records, according to Indian law they are now legally a part of a different community and subject to different civil laws. These followers of Jesus, called “Jesu Bhaktas” (“devotees of Jesus”) remain part of their family and community. They witness and practice church there.


Lay-led Ministry Much of the work of mission in the congregations is carried out by the youth. In India, youth typically continues up to marriage or the age of thirty. It’s recognized that this part of the congregation has the time, idealism, and energy needed for church work. Some will be brought into a specific training program of the church for a couple of years of full-time work, similar to that practiced by Mormons. This official training qualifies them to be authorized as Catechists, and they continue volunteer congregational ministry throughout life. Particularly in rural areas where there may be three to six congregations in a pastorate, the Catechists regularly conduct worship services in the absence of the pastor. These theologically-trained laymen organize the congregation for all kinds of outreach work and church planting in surrounding villages. There are major para-church organizations that are devoted toward preparing young people for mission service. Most are funded totally from national contributions. These lay missionaries go to remote corners of India, learning the local language to witness and serve. As I have traveled around India, I am often startled to find these women and men in the most dangerous and needy environments boldly and faithfully serving. In almost all congregations there is a youth group that carries the major load of mission work, evangelizing, planting new congregations, and carrying out social service projects. Guidance is provided by senior members of the congregation, but vision comes from the youth. Being an officer of the congregation’s youth group is as prestigious as being an officer of the whole congregation. Work among women in India must be done by women. Deaconesses, Bible women, and women’s groups meet with women during the day when they are free for HIV/AIDS education, birth control information, nutrition advice, prayer, and Bible study. A major weakness of the Indian church is the lack of lay training by the pastors. Yet, the vast majority of outreach work is organized and conducted by them.

Focus on Prayer The Indian church is a praying community. Fasting and prayer is a common practice. Evangelism is centered on prayer. When Christians visit homes, they offer to pray for the family’s needs. Usually, these prayers are welcomed. When a family feels that prayers in the name of Jesus have been answered, they begin to make those prayers themselves and begin to accept him as Lord of their lives. It is a strong custom not to leave any home without praying with them for God’s blessing on their lives. In corporate worship settings the intensity of spirituality is also palpable. They really want to praise God and experience his presence in their lives. Typically, these worship services are carried by loudspeakers to the general community. Often there is a gathering of Hindus listening in from the outside while others listen in their homes. They all get an experience of what Christian piety is all about and then understand this piety when Christians visit their homes for prayer.


Taking Care of the Needy There is a great deal of poverty in India, especially among Christians. However, there are some Christians and some congregations, especially in urban areas, who are quite well off. There is a strong spirit of Acts 2 and 4 that there should be “be no needy” among us. The special concern for widows and orphans expressed in both the Old and New Testaments is a part of Christian piety in India. The government and the wealthy non-Christians won’t help our needy; we must do it ourselves:

• Numerous boardings and orphanages care for children from needy families and provide them with a good education.

• Rural schools remain focused on faithfully serving children from the lowest echelons of society.

• Well-to-do Christians contribute generously when a village congregation is building a new chapel.

• Urban congregations take up village projects.

“All men will know you are my disciples if you love one another” (Jn 13:35).

What Can We Learn? America is also becoming a more and more diverse society. There is no one program or idea that will suit all situations. The approaches to mission in India are as varied as the country, and so they must be in the United States. The best help I can give now is simply to ask some leading questions based upon the experience of God’s people in India. Which of these might help you think about what you might do in mission where you are?

1. Do you think Christians in America should focus on spiritual/moral influence instead of political involvement?

2. Do you think it has come to the point in the American society that the Bible has very little authority in matters of public policy?

3. How are our church’s social ministries, schools, service organizations, institutions, etc. integrated with our evangelistic goals?

4. Is your congregation/church body recognized in the general public for its help to the needy?

5. Do your church institutions and members participate in constructive government programs for the common good?

6. In our very informal, secularized American society, what are areas/ways/occasions where we can observe the sacred and point people beyond themselves to the greatness of God?


7. Are you comfortable with evangelism that is not likely to lead to church membership? What are such media in our society?

8. Are mainline churches effectively using the mass media in our society?

9. How should we train pastors and deaconesses so that they are focused and skilled at evangelism and church planting?

10. Do you feel we have a wholesome respect for denominations with which we differ? How do we maintain our integrity without being judgmental and isolationist?

11. How do we maintain respect for people of other religions while also evangelizing among them?

12. Are you comfortable with a variety of forms of church evolving in our society?

13. Do you think a congregation’s outreach work should be lay-led?

14. How can we harness the energy, idealism, and time of youth for outreach work?

15. Are you comfortable with congregational worship being conducted by trained and authorized laypeople when necessary? What kind of theological education should be provided, and who should do it?

16. What do you think about the practice of intercessory prayer as an evangelistic tool?

17. Are there ways in which we can use technology to share our worship services, devotions, etc. with the general public?

18. Are funerals and weddings planned as evangelistic events?

19. What does your congregation do so that there “is no needy” among you?

Mission Across the Curriculum: Historical Theology

William W. Schumacher The challenge of integrating mission across the theological curriculum is faced by seminaries and other institutions. At one large Lutheran seminary, the discipline of historical theology provides one important avenue for missional education and reflection. By moving beyond a narrow focus on “history of missions” to develop a "missional hermeneutic of history,” the inherently cross-cultural dimension of historical study can significantly reshape the curriculum by drawing increased attention to the non-western world.

“To understand the religious history of a people is to know quite a lot about their politics, their social habits, their hopes and aspirations, their fears, their failures, their understanding of who they are and what life holds for them” (C. Eric Lincoln, the Black Church Since Frazier, 104).

It has not always been self-evident that seminary education and the mission of the church are closely related. On the contrary, the life and work of academic theological institutions are generally perceived to be (and often actually are) quite distinct from the church’s task of bringing the gospel to the lost. But widespread and far-reaching changes experienced by the North American church in the past two decades now demand that we rethink both seminary and mission. Seminaries need to be actively and intentionally involved in missional thinking and planning in order to prepare students for ministries that serve the mission of the church. What kinds of institutional and curricular changes might come about if a seminary decided to view “mission” as integral and central to the whole theological task? What follows is a case study of one such work in progress, viewed from one vantage point in the curriculum. Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, is the larger of two seminaries which serve The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. For some time, Concordia has been searching for more effective ways to integrate mission theology and practice into the curriculum for preparing pastors, missionaries, and other church leaders. About a decade ago, and before I joined the faculty, Concordia made a deliberate decision to emphasize the missional dimension of theological education but not to form a separate department of missions. Rather, a “mission professor” was embedded in each of the traditional theological disciplines (exegetical, systematic, historical, and practical theology). These mission ________________________________________________________________________ William W. Schumacher served as a missionary in Botswana until 1995. He is now mission associate professor of historical theology and dean of theological research and publication at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri. Special thanks to the editor of Missiology for permission to reprint this article from Missiology, vol. 35, no. 4 (October 2007), pp. 431–436.


professors would collaborate in the trans-disciplinary work of the Institute for Mission Studies (IMS), an institutional vehicle which sponsors missional and cross-cultural learning and teaching opportunities for both faculty and students. The IMS also serves as the catalyst to encourage an ongoing discussion of how to integrate mission across the various parts of the seminary curriculum, as opposed to viewing mission as a segregated “special interest” of a few. The thoughts that follow are framed in that very concrete and specific institutional context and pretend to be nothing more than a possible approach to the goal of “mission across the curriculum” from the perspective of historical theology, the department in which the author serves as the “mission professor.” Let me start by disposing of the notion of more strongly emphasizing “history of missions,” or perhaps even making such a course mandatory. “History of Missions” is typically thought of as a specialized and perhaps exotic branch of church history. But the category of “history of missions” is problematic for several reasons. As Andrew Walls, Lamin Sanneh, and others have pointed out, there is a tendency to view the church’s mission activity as peripheral to its essential character and only tangentially related to the core of its life. Walls points to the example of Owen Chadwick’s immense and erudite study The Victorian Church, which covers the period in which the British missionary movement was at its height but with barely a reference to that mission activity. There is also the tendency for “history of missions” to become limited to “history of missionaries”—with “missionary” being a term applied to designated agents of evangelization from European and American churches who brought Christianity to the benighted “natives” in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Such a view does not take the catholicity of the church seriously but assumes the centrality and normative place of European (especially northern and western European) cultural forms and institutions. What is called for, as we think about integrating a sense of mission throughout our curriculum, is not so much offering (or requiring) more courses or more assignments that overtly fall under the exotic category of “mission history.” Rather, our curricular goal should be to cultivate a missional hermeneutic of history. By this I mean a frame of historical reference which embraces the ongoing encounter of the Christian faith with unbelief and with rival religions, along with the integration of new believers from such backgrounds into the church, as central to the whole sweep of church history, not as an interesting or exotic side-bar to that history. Such a missional hermeneutic of history can result in a fresh re-reading of the history of European and North American churches as well, since we will need to understand our own past and present in somewhat the same categories as we study non-western churches. The whole history of the church is a story of missional engagement with ever-changing cultures in which the gospel has been propagated. Is it possible to cultivate such a thing as a “missional hermeneutic of history”? I believe it is not only possible but crucial if we believe that historical theology is an important ingredient in the formation of missional pastors and other leaders for today’s and tomorrow’s church. The mission task before the church in any age requires a knowledge of the people to whom the message of the gospel is to be brought, and (as C.

Mission Across the Curriculum 121

Eric Lincoln reminds us) a knowledge of that people’s religious history is a key ingredient in such understanding of the whole experience and identity of the people. The habits of historians and historical awareness are important for future pastors and missionaries because such habits and awareness can help foster awareness of culture, both our own and that of others. A historical bent of mind can liberate us from the parochial tyranny of the present and the immediate, and thus can help stabilize us in the turbulence of incessant short-term change. Such historical awareness can and should be pitted against the unreasonable privilege claimed by the few members of the human race who happen to be alive at the moment. In a church body in which most seminary students come from a fairly homogeneous background and have limited cross-cultural experience, it is particularly important that historical theology introduces students to the complexities of crossing cultural boundaries with the gospel from a “safe distance,” as it were. That is to say, history can offer a non-threatening entry into cross-cultural thinking for beginners. Historians also know and accept that their disciplines and contributions in the formation of pastors, missionaries, and leaders are partial and, at best, complementary to those of other disciplines represented in the curriculum. We recognize that not every class or every assignment is equidistant from the missional task. It is reasonable to suppose that some classes in “historical theology” may be less directly “practical” than other subject areas. Historical theology has developed as a part of the curriculum on the assumption that the various pieces of the whole seminary program are each admittedly partial and fragmentary but can and should be complementary. While there is a good deal of artificiality in the division of theological studies into various departments and disciplines, each of those disciplines cultivates certain habits of mind which seek to recognize and understand the presuppositions and concerns of others in their own ways. Historical theology contextualizes our own perspectives and tempers our assumptions, including our often implicit use of the category of “mission” in the sense of organized, professional missionary activity. It is helpful in this regard to remember the way in which David Bosch reads the history of the church’s self-understanding and the various paradigms that have shaped what the church understood as “mission.”1

Historical theology must take seriously the catholicity of the church: the church of all ages and all places. That catholicity implies diversity of cultures just as surely as it denotes unity of faith.2

What incremental part does or should historical study play in the overall theological formation of missional pastors and leaders? History is an intentionally cross-cultural discipline, maybe the only such necessarily cross-cultural discipline in our curriculum. Sound biblical exegesis must obviously come to grips with the distinctives of the cultural framework in which the biblical texts were written, as well as the context in which we are to articulate that same message; the cross-cultural implications of such study are not always obvious to students. Systematic theology (at least from the students’ perspective) can often focus more on the corpus of doctrine than on the dynamics by which that teaching are formulated and communicated in a new milieu. Practical theology, which some might regard as the natural home of the missional perspective in the theological curriculum, necessarily concentrates on the particular skills and functions


within the context in which most of the students will eventually serve. Homiletics, counseling, worship, etc., all help the student contextualize and apply the theology they learn but do not necessarily help the student see how to move from one context to another. History is different, and unavoidably different. The well-known line that, “The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there” (L. P. Hartley, The Go-Between) means that one simply cannot adequately understand the events and ideas of our history without gaining some appreciation for the assumptions, values, and allegiances that constituted the worldview of people in generations past. This is true even when studying the history of one’s own tradition, as when our Lutheran students encounter the Reformation era of the sixteenth century. Students gain an experience of cross-cultural learning as they enter the thought-world of other historical contexts, and that experience cultivates skills and attitudes that help them cross other cultural boundaries. Historical awareness is a missional skill. We will probably inculcate that kind of historical awareness more through our pedagogy than through the curriculum per se; that is to say, it matters more how we teach our courses on whatever period of the church’s history, than which courses we decide to teach. These comments on the pedagogy of historical theology as a cross-cultural discipline are certainly not meant to imply that it doesn’t matter at all what we teach. We should give some thought to what we want students to learn to think of as “our” history. Scholars such as Lamin Sanneh and Kwame Bediako have forcefully made the point that the Christian religion and Christian theology are not the exclusive products or possessions of a normative Euro-American tradition. Philip Jenkins put the emergence of global Christianity on the best-seller list with his book The Next Christendom. Andrew Walls reminds us that this most remarkable new feature about Christianity that emerged in the 20th century is now part of our history, and must figure in the “normal” curriculum:

First, let us recall that within the last century there has been a massive southward shift of the center of gravity of the Christian world, so that the representative Christian lands now appear to be in Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, and other parts of the southern continents. This means that Third World theology is now likely to be the representative Christian theology. On present trends (and I recognize that these may not be permanent) the theology of European Christians, while important for them and their continued existence, may become a matter of specialist interest to historians (rather as the theology of the Syriac Edessene Church is specialist matter for early Church historians today, not a topic for the ordinary student and general reader, whose eyes are turned to the Greco-Roman world when he studies the history of doctrine). The future general reader of Church history is more likely to be concerned with Latin American and African, and perhaps some Asian, theology.3

What Walls suggests is a far-reaching—and probably disturbing—restructuring of the curriculum. Far-reaching because it suggests that the central thread of the historical


narrative of Christian history must now trace developments outside of Europe and America, and disturbing because such a re-thinking of church history shifts the center of that narrative away from us and our local concerns. Although Walls recognizes that “mission studies” is not really adequate as a category for embracing a more global view of the church, such a mission emphasis is probably the one aspect of the modern theological curriculum that makes possible a thorough rethinking of the historical curriculum in a seminary like ours.

The church history of Africa, of Asia, of Latin America, of the Pacific, cannot be comprehended under “mission studies.” The missionary period in these histories is only an episode. In many cases it was a very short episode, and in many others it is one that closed long ago. But in relation to the various Christian communities of the Southern continents, “mission history” and “church history” do not just represent different periods, but different kinds of history. . . . The church histories of the Southern continents are clearly of special concern to the churches, the peoples, and the scholars of those areas. But they are not an exclusive possession or interest; the whole history of the church belongs to the whole church. This does not mean that Church history in Africa or Asia is, for people who are not Africans or Asians, simply a source of interesting additional options in the curriculum. Still less does it mean that these histories can simply be appended to existing syllabuses as though they were an updating supplement. The global transformation of Christianity requires nothing less than the complete rethinking of the church history syllabus. Most conventional church history syllabuses are framed, not always consciously, on a particular set of geographical, cultural, and confessional priorities. Alas, such syllabuses have often been taken over in the Southern continents, as though they had some sort of universal status. Now they are out-of-date even for Western Christians. As a result, a large number of conventionally trained ministers have neither the intellectual materials nor even the outline knowledge for understanding the church as she is. The only hope of such things being acquired in perhaps the majority of theological institutions is from what is currently thought of as “mission studies.”4

Our curriculum of historical theology at Concordia Seminary certainly fits the pattern criticized by Walls. Like most denominational seminaries, we have framed our syllabus on “geographical, cultural, and confessional priorities,” and that means we may tend to relegate non-European, non-Lutheran histories to that status of “interesting additional options in the curriculum.” I think we have done this intentionally in order to help form a strong confessional identity in our students (most of whom, after all, are expected to become parish pastors in a denomination characterized by a strong emphasis on confessional unity). The formation of our students’ identity is no small matter, since they must know themselves before they can relate in meaningful ways to others in their


ministry. But historical theology is simply too important a part of the theological curriculum for us to neglect its potential for cultivating a sense and appreciation of the wider church as well. Given the fact that our required courses in historical theology tend to concentrate on our own tradition, I doubt very much whether we manage to convince most of our students that “the whole history of the church belongs to the whole church.” I can illustrate the curricular implications created by this tension between confessional identity and the sense of belonging to the wider church by citing one concrete example. We teach a required course in our department on the history of the Missouri Synod. This course was introduced as a requirement in response to the curriculum review process in the mid-1990s, motivated especially by the growing number of students without deep roots in our church body. In other words, it was a response to the need for stronger (theological and confessional) identity in our students. But it is now worth asking ourselves whether that curricular design accomplishes what we really want. Confessional identity does not have to imply sectarian narrowness, yet our curriculum may have the unintended result of fostering too parochial a view in our students. The time seems to have come for us intentionally to include the church in the non-western world and not simply “history of missions” as an integral part of the “normal” theological curriculum. It is no exaggeration to describe historical theology as an inherently cross-cultural discipline. As such, it is a natural place in the theological curriculum to instill a missional sense of the church’s ongoing propagation of the gospel in the world’s cultures. Teaching this kind of missional hermeneutic of history is primarily a matter of pedagogy rather than curriculum (i.e., it depends much more on how we teach than on introducing this or that specific course into the program). The curriculum in the department of historical theology can be effectively designed not as a chronological sequence of courses aimed at accumulation of data but in a way that emphasizes the importance of developing skills, attitudes, and habits of thought. This part of the task will require sustained collaborative work by our department that concentrates on developing and refining a missional historical pedagogy. We will need to reflect intentionally on the outcomes we desire and work together on asking the right kinds of questions to help our students think missionally about history. In terms of the courses we expect our students to take, we need to figure out how to reflect the reality of a truly global Christianity without abandoning the identity of our own tradition. This may mean introducing courses into the “mainstream” of our historical theology curriculum which focus on the non-western church, or we may find ways of integrating a more global perspective into existing courses. In terms of both curriculum and pedagogy, historical theology will make its distinctive contribution, incremental yet complementary to other disciplines, to the formation of servant leaders for the church in its mission. All this implies a continuing collaborative reflection about who our students are and the contexts in which they will be called to serve.


Endnotes 1. David J. Bosch. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1991. 2. This is appreciated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, when it says that the church “is universal by vocation and mission, but when she puts down her roots in a variety of cultural, social, and human terrains, she takes on different external expressions and appearances in each part of the world,” CCC 835. 3. Andrew Walls. The Missionary Movement in Christian History: Studies in the Transmission of the Faith, 9f. 4. Ibid., 145.

Common Threads and Challenges for the Future William W. Schumacher

Our authors in this little collection share a broad range of agreements, which is not surprising. As Lutheran theologians, they share a joyous clarity about the good news of the gospel, a love for God’s sheer promise of forgiveness, life, and salvation in Christ alone, a promise that is received through only through faith. Since God’s way of planting and sustaining that faith in people’s hearts is the Spirit’s work through the word of the gospel, Lutheran theology eagerly unpacks and communicates that gospel word in the confidence that the Spirit is working “when and where he pleases, in those who hear the gospel.” As several of these authors remind us, “mission is the mother of theology.” That is true both as a historical description of the church’s life in the world and as an expression of the internal dynamic of the church’s message. The church on its way through history has always encountered new circumstances, new ways of thinking, and new languages—“in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth”—and it is still the life of the church to witness to Christ and his promises with Spirit-breathed confidence and creativity on that expanding frontier between faith and unfaith. (And since that ragged edge between faith and unfaith runs through every human heart, as well as between the baptized and the unbaptized, the distinction between “mission” and “pastoral care” is never as simple as we sometimes pretend.) Mission is never merely an external activity of a church which finds its real essence elsewhere, but rather constitutes the real identity of the church, and the inner logic of all her theology. The gospel promise is received by faith, and in order for people to believe the promise they must hear it. And since God’s saving purposes depend on that hearing, the church and its individual witnesses are not satisfied with mere theological accuracy but always theologize in order that Christ’s promise may be heard as gospel. The scope of the mission is universal, not because the church entertains global imperial pretensions, but because the God who saves us in Christ is the very same God who created heaven and earth, and who therefore claims all human creatures as his own. As Graff puts it, “the church has an intrinsic missionary vocation.” All the authors here presented testify to the intimate interconnection between theology (and therefore theological education) and mission as the intentional living out of the church’s identity as the community of the gospel. As Rutt says, “The two, doctrinal purity and the missionary impulse, can never be played against each other.” But of course, we know from our experience in the church (as a community of sinner-saints) that playing these two against each other is an all-too-common rhetorical device, employed both by those who prefer to indulge their “missionary impulses” without the constraints of careful theological work and by others who would excuse their own ineffectiveness (or apathy) as witnesses by a plea of faithful orthodoxy. Such ploys reflect the ways in which we are still recovering from the “two fragmentations” to which Graff and Schulz both refer: the split between church and

Common Threads and Challenges for the Future 127

mission in terms of institutions and functions, and the conceptual fracture within theology between theory and practice. But mission can be disconnected from church in this way only when we imagine the church to possess a more or less secure position within the culture, a “home base” which is quite distinct (and perhaps geographically distant) from the “mission field.” Naturally, a seminary is located securely in the church’s “home base.” In such a conceptual landscape, the church and its pastors can assume certain legitimate cultural status and privilege as insiders. “Mission” for an insider church consists in intentional sorties “into the world” (which may be another continent, or another neighborhood) in order to invite strangers to enter the church’s space. The problem with such a picture is that the church is no longer an “insider church” with its own acknowledged space in the cultures in which it lives. The church, its members, and its seminaries are increasingly called to witness in public spaces where they do not enjoy any special status or privileges. The gospel message is not always given a polite, respectful hearing. The tables are turned, and instead of welcoming strangers into its own space, the church may just as likely find itself to be the stranger. To use a sports metaphor, the church is always playing away games, never with home field advantage. A church which can no longer count on being a secure insider can no longer afford (if it ever could) a theology in which theory and practice are considered separately. And that means the church’s seminaries are no longer (if they ever were) located as protected seed-beds safely within the church’s home base. Theological education, like every other aspect of the pilgrim church’s life, is “playing an away game” in the culture. The tables have turned, and the church and its pastors can no longer count on being insiders and speaking from a position of strength. But this is ultimately a benefit, since it allows us to recover weakness as the gospel’s natural condition in the world. A church which confesses Christ from a position of weakness will find itself once again a church of the apostles (1 Cor. 1). A seminary which is preparing servants for a ministry off apostolic weakness will, perhaps, not expect to operate in a condition of institutional strength and security. As Graff reminds us, “our ‘mission trips’ are not on calm waters, but on stormy ones, where only Jesus can keep us going.” Perhaps the greatest challenge facing Lutheran seminaries in today’s mission context is the challenge to imagine pastoral ministry—and therefore pastoral education—in contested space and unsettled circumstances. Pastoral ministry will no longer be primarily in the form of chaplaincy for privileged, self-evident institutions, but rather witness in public spaces which are not under our control. The urgent task before us, as seminaries and as the church, is to prepare pastoral missionaries who can witness confidently and lead faithfully amidst the risks and uncertainties of this outsider church. As I said, these authors reflect a profound and powerful agreement. Yet there may be some unresolved tension, or at least a difference in emphasis, over the question of who speaks the gospel promise. Schulz focuses on “pastoral acts” through which God does his work. Bartelt’s vision is broader when he says, “The justified, sanctified, and properly catechized people of God are the means of communicating God’s grace to the ends of the earth, and to the folks next door.”


Seminaries, of course, are places which are deeply invested in the pastoral office. Yet it is also important that seminaries give attention to the witness of Christians who are not pastors or other professional church workers. The expectations and assumptions about the relative vocations of pastors and others, which are formed to some extent as future pastors study at seminaries, can affect the church’s health and the clarity of its word about Jesus. Part of that health and clarity will involve recovering a proper appreciation of the diverse vocations of all the baptized. Thus we look forward to further reflection together on the connections between vocation and witness. Mission may be the mother of theology, but it is not as obvious that mission is the mother of theological education, especially as theological education still today exhibits the structures, curriculum, and institutional culture inherited from German academic systems such as Schleiermacher’s nineteenth-century four-fold arrangement of the theological disciplines. To put it another way, let me suggest that, while these essays convincingly show how mission is central to the work of today’s Lutheran seminaries, I am not sure they have demonstrated that those seminaries are central to the church’s intentional life as the instrument of the missio Dei. We are agreed that seminaries have no life, vitality, or future apart from God’s mission; but can the mission prosper without seminaries? That is, for those of us involved in theological education today, an inevitable and uncomfortable question. The kingdom of God, we know, comes even without our prayer, and thus presumably also even without our seminaries. Yet the question of whether (humanly speaking now) the mission of the church requires the kinds of theological education we have is uncomfortable because we always tend to invest more, personally and emotionally, in our institutions and our traditions than they really deserve, and our arguments in defense of those institutions and traditions may consequently be both vehement and fragile. Yet the question is also inevitable, because some are already daring to ask whether we really need seminaries to form the leaders we need in a post-Christian (or “post-Constantinian”) age. Experiments in multiple new kinds of programs, in non-residential education, in immersing students in mission and ministry while they are students, and in redesigning residential curricula are all underway. What these efforts have in common is both the commitment to form the kinds of missionary pastors the church needs today and tomorrow, and the recognition that we do not yet have all the answers. Those who already know what they need to know do not experiment. Not every new idea, not every experiment, not every new program or curriculum will succeed. Creative solutions will require sustained and collaborative work, and rigorous honesty. But the church will still need places dedicated to the vigorous life of the mind in service to the gospel, where our best theological insight can be harnessed for witness so the world may hear Christ’s promises.

Book Reviews AN ILLUSTRATED LIFE OF CHRIST PRESENTED TO THE CHINESE EMPEROR: THE HISTORY OF JINCHENG SHUXIANG (1640) by Nicolas Standaert. Sankt Augustin, Germany: Institut Monumenta Serica, 2007. 33 pages and illustrations. Hardcover. € 55,00.

Amazing! An illustrated life of Christ presented to the emperor of China . . . in the days of the Gerhardts (Johann and Paul)! What a treasure, and what a marvelous introduction and overview this book provides to that illustrated life. The year is 1640, only a couple of decades before the fall of the Ming Dynasty. By then, the Jesuits had been in China already for some 40–50 years. Though there were many who shepherded local churches, the more well-known Jesuits (Ricci, Schall, Verbiest) proved themselves worthy of place in the imperial court, as astronomers, cartographers, teachers. Whatever the roles assigned to them, their constant focus was to bring the Gospel to those who shaped and led the culture and ethos of China. In early September an auspicious occasion appeared when Johann Adam Schall von Bell presented an exquisite illustrated life of Christ to Emperor Chongzhen, in response to the emperor’s curiosity about and interest in Jesus Christ and the Christian religion. That illustrated life contained forty-eight miniature paintings of various events (birth, baptism, temptation, transfiguration, crucifixion, resurrection), themes (Abraham as forefather, Gospel, savior, judgment), teachings, and miracles of Jesus. Of the forty-eight drawings, no less than twenty-one centered on the entry—passion—death—resurrection—ascension of Jesus—something the Jesuits from Ricci to Schall and beyond were often accused of soft-peddling. Accompanying the forty-eight paintings are comments on each (original Chinese and English translation), focusing variously on details of the drawing, significance in the life of Christ, and applications to the viewer/s. With a soft touch but a clear pen, Schall introduces the life and work of Christ for this curious emperor and those of the imperial household. Unfortunately, the continued collapse of the dynasty brought this specific part of the project to an early and untimely end. Unfortunately also, the original masterpiece disappeared, perhaps in the turmoil of dynastic overthrow. Providentially, Schall had prepared also a wood-cut version of the paintings together with original comments for posterity, which is the version that this book under review presented: JINCHENG SHUXIANG (IMAGES IN A BOOKLET PRESENTED TO HIS MAJESTY). (One matter of curiosity is that Emperor Chongzhen’s successor-designate, still a youth, was baptized and was given the baptismal name of Constantine. Though by the time he could ascend the throne, the Ming dynasty had fallen, this does reflect the influence of Jesuit missionaries in these early years—and perhaps this book as well.) Much of the introductory chapter of our review book is a discussion of antecedent European pieces of art (mostly engravings) upon which the paintings in the Chinese version were based. This book places those antecedent European pieces of art


cross-page with the Chinese woodcuts, which allows appreciation for the artistry of both and for the delicate process of transforming a European expression of art into one reflective of and suited for reception by the highest level of Chinese culture. Just as insightful are the accompanying written comments which help to explain features of the story perhaps not familiar to Chinese, as well as to highlight the import of what the visual art is seeking to portray, from Jesus’s birth to baptism to walking on the sea to passion to resurrection. Though much seems straight forward, on occasion a few interesting items slip in, including a reference to Thomas bringing the Gospel to China, to the Shroud of Turin (without the name), and to a drop of blood from the Lord on the cross which healed the bad eye of a one-eyed soldier at the cross. Interestingly, too, three segments were devoted to the Lord’s Supper, namely the ritual eating of the lamb (and Jesus as the lamb), the washing of feet, and the symbol of spiritual teaching in the Lord’s Supper; there was no mention of the real presence. All in all, the visual art and the text complement each other well, and together they provide a simple introduction to Jesus Christ and to the Gospel for persons 1) of high status and culture, 2) of another culture, and 3) of total non-acquaintance with the Gospel. The goal seems well met that no Chinese who might peruse this illustrated life of Christ would feel that Christ was so foreign that he had no place in China. One further twist of history is that this masterful work made its way several decades later into the hands of a formidable opponent of Christianity, Yang Guangxian, who reproduced several pieces portraying Jesus' entry into Jerusalem and his crucifixion. Yang used these to document how Jesus was fomenting rebellious unrest, and thus was shamefully and justly executed for his crimes. Though Yang’s efforts, limited as they were, did not help the cause of Christianity, his use of these artistic portrayals certainly points to the influence and impact of this illustrated life of Christ. This is a lovely book . . . about another book . . . about Jesus Christ, and a model of bringing the finest artistic (including literary) expression to the task of communicating across a major cultural gap. Theology, art, and mission converge in a most winsome and articulate way. While a bit of historical acquaintance with the history of Jesuit mission in China gives added appreciation to this book, and while it pioneers new ground in sharing this Life of Christ with students of that era, anyone can pick this up and linger at leisure over the comparative artistic forms and an early commendation of the Lord. One final observation is that the only reason we have access to that original book prepared solely for the emperor (and lost) is that folks did the right thing by preparing a back-up!

Henry Rowold

GARDENING EDEN: HOW CREATION CARE WILL CHANGE YOUR FAITH, YOUR LIFE, AND OUR WORLD. By Michael Abbaté. Colorado Springs: WaterBrook Press, 2009. 272 pages. Paper. $13.99. Michael Abbaté is a city planner for Gresham, a suburb of Portland, Oregon. He came to speak at our Concordia University-Portland campus on October 1, 2009. I gave

Book Reviews 131

my mission course students the option of attending and writing an extra credit report on the topic, “Is care of God’s creation part of God’s mission for His church?” Certainly care of creation has become a mission for a significant portion of our USA population, particularly among young people. One of their major criticisms of the church is its reluctance to support environmental protection efforts. Mr. Abbaté addresses this criticism early on in his book, Gardening Eden: How Creation Care Will Change Your Faith, Your Life, and Our World. He points out the irony that 50–75% of Christians in this country express willingness to sacrifice for the environment. Yet pastors and lay leaders have generally been reluctant to take any leadership role on the issue. Abbaté attributes this disconnect to evangelical Christians’ association with the Religious Right and reluctance to embrace a “liberal, leftwing” political issue (19). It looks to our critics that the church is more interested in promoting a secular political agenda than our biblical call. Abbaté focuses his biblical argument around five themes: “What God Made Is Good,” “God Loves the World He Created,” “What God Made Is God’s, Not Ours,” “Everything Was Made to Glorify God,” and “God Appointed Us Stewards.” This material can be very helpful for conducting a congregational Bible Study on the topic. These biblical themes lead Abbaté to pose three questions, which provide the framework for the book (25):

• Do I have a responsibility to protect the planet?

• Are some of my current actions having a detrimental effect on the environment?

• Should I make changes to better steward the resources we have been given?

The first half of the book outlines the deterioration of our natural resources with sections on food, energy, transportation, home, air, land, ocean, and fresh water. In a helpful chapter entitled “The Big Push Back,” he addresses five common objections heard in evangelical circles, such as “God gave us the earth to use, so don’t sweat it,” “It doesn’t really matter—the planet is going to be destroyed anyway,” and “People are more important than nature.” He follows this chapter with two unique chapters on “Creation Care as Worship” and “Creation Care as Compassion.” The second half of the book is 84 pages about putting all of this into practice. It is aptly entitled “Becoming a Gardener.” Abbaté urges us to action, not only to stop “mortgaging the future” of our planet for the poor and our descendents, but also to grow closer to God as we recover his original mandate to Adam and Eve to have a caring dominion over his creation. Thus, the title of the book. We grow closer to God as we do the work he intends for us, for Abbaté points out that gardening was not Adam’s punishment but his purpose (39). In an appendix, Abbaté gives us fifteen pages of resources and organizations that we can turn to for guidance and support. One disappointment I had in this regard is that Abbaté fails to point out the witnessing potential of our involvement in environmental issues. A great many of these activists and organizers have a very negative


view of the church. As we respectfully and humbly join their God-pleasing efforts, we express in action our repentance for our sins of omission. We gradually gain new credibility for our message of God’s saving love when others see it expressed in action. Finally, what might this mission focus look like in a congregation? Under the congregation’s Stewardship Board, I could see a task force on environmental stewardship. Just as government and businesses need to provide an “environmental impact” study with any of their proposals, this task force could do the same with all congregational plans. Utilizing the 50 “Gardening Tips” in the second half of the book, the task force could make proposals for the greening of their congregational life, perhaps as a one-minute presentation each month in the worship services. Drawing on Abbaté’s tips, such practical suggestions for congregational life might include:

• Storage of personal mugs for coffee, instead of Styrofoam cups

• Recycling bins

• Digital announcement screen, instead of paper bulletins

• Bike rack

• Carpooling

• Low-energy lighting, hot water, heating/cooling, etc.

• Solar panels

Combine these organizational commitments to environmental stewardship with personal involvement in outside environmental organizations, and one might well find some new people with dirty fingernails crossing the church’s threshold.

Herbert Hoefer

ORGANIC CHURCH: GROWING FAITH WHERE LIFE HAPPENS. By Neil Cole. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005. 272 pages. Cloth. $23.95. In the Introduction to his book, Neil Cole well summarizes his basic thesis:

Instead of bringing people to church so that we can then bring them to Christ, let’s bring Christ to people where they live. We may find that a new church will grow out of such an enterprise, a church that is more centered in life and the workplace, where the Gospel is supposed to make a difference (xxvi).

Much of the rest of the book presents anecdotes from his multi-faceted ministry experience in the USA. Often it reads more like a journal or diary than a thoughtful study. Cole wants to move beyond the house church movement. He promotes the concept of starting fellowships where people work and socialize. “We believe that church should happen wherever life happens. You shouldn’t have to leave life to go to church”

Book Reviews 133

(24). One of his more radical/creative suggestions is about how a church planter should get to know his community and begin finding “good soil” for his start-up work. Cole suggests a “ride-along with the local sheriff,” “search the paper for bankruptcies and foreclosures,” “twelve-step recovery groups,” and “crisis pregnancy center” contacts (75). Cole captures well the current focus on discipleship as the major task of the church. “We are not to start churches, but instead to make disciples who make disciples” (98). Toward this end, he draws on the frequent use of “two or three” in the Bible as the primary unit of the Holy Spirit’s work. Cole creatively uses passages that detail the following seven benefits of a “two or three” church: community, accountability, confidentiality, flexibility, communication, direction, and leadership (99–102). In this way, Cole advocates that everyone can be a church planter. All you need to do is find one other person among your acquaintances and start a regular life of prayer, sharing, and study of the Word with her/him. This simplifies and clarifies church planting to the point where any Christian may feel energized and affirmed. This view of church planting, however, implies a criticism of life in many congregations:

When church is so complicated, its function is taken out of the hands of the common Christian and placed in the hands of a few talented professionals. Th[is] results in a passive church whose members come and act more like spectators than empowered agents of God’s Kingdom (27).

Like others, Cole is critical of the organized church as a consumer-oriented society:

We have made church nothing more than a religious show that takes place on Sunday, and after it’s done we all go home, until church starts again next week, same time, same place (xxv).

We are now seen as an impotent and frightened group that ides from the world and the reality that faces us (5).

What we draw them with is what we draw them to. If they come expecting to be entertained, we had better entertain them if we want to keep them coming back every week. This mentality creates a vicious circle of endless program upgrades, staff improvements, and building campaigns to feed the consumer monster. The monster is always hungry. Pastors are burned out. Members are marginalized and lost in the programs. The lost community gets a corrupted caricature of the Kingdom of God (95).

The alternative is to focus on disciple-making. “Structures are needed, but they must be simple, reproducible, and internal rather than external” (124). Cole founded the Church Multiplication Associates (CMA) organization (http://www.cmaresources.org/) in 1991 to provide people with training in such structures of discipleship.


One of his church planting guidelines is to go where there already is community and be a Christian presence there.

In our experience, coffeehouses have proven to be fertile soil for the gospel . . . The key is not in the building but in bringing the Kingdom of God to the people He is calling out. In searching for a fertile pocket of people, look for a strong sense of community and social cohesiveness . . . Then we enter into relationship with those people . . . and a church is born there from the changed lives (176–177).

Another creative suggestion, drawn from biblical models, is to start a new fellowship in the home of a new convert, rather than in one’s own home (181–186). The new believer’s friends feel comfortable to join in, and the new believer moves forward in spiritual growth and evangelistic outreach. This is a book that could easily be condensed into fifty pages. The critiques of the organized church are familiar and need not be repeated. The history of the CMA and stories of their work are of limited interest and help. However, Cole’s proposals for mission outreach to, and within the general community, are courageous and innovative. His practical ideas for enabling the laity to be the church in action are uplifting and inspiring.

Herbert Hoefer

SOLOMON AMONG THE POSTMODERNS. By Peter J. Leithart. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2008. 176 pages. Paper. $19.99.

For the Christian pastor, teacher, or layperson still wondering what postmodernism is, and what it might imply for Christian witness and life, Peter J. Leithart offers an impressive summary. In Solomon Among the Postmoderns, Leithart aims to convince the “anti-postmodern Christians” that what postmodernism has to say is not as scary as they probably have been told. Yet at the same time he aims to temper the “pro-postmodern Christians” who have jumped headfirst onto the postmodern bandwagon by pointing out some of postmodernism’s pitfalls. Along the way, Leithart leads readers through much of Solomon’s musings in Ecclesiastes in order to point out where Christianity can find sympathy with postmodern theory and where postmodern theory falls short.

The first chapter tells a story. In typical postmodern form, which often uses genealogies, archaeologies, and narratives, Leithart narrates “how we got here from there.” He begins twice, both times telling the story beginning at the Renaissance, but each time from a particular angle. The first story focuses on the religio-political shifts that led to modernism and the Enlightenment. The second story tells of the epistemological motivations present in modernism as thinkers reacted to the pre-modern Renaissance. Leithart’s story doesn’t have an ending per se; rather, he portrays

Book Reviews 135

postmodernism as the current chapter in the story. The rest of the book, then, is an elaboration of how postmodernism is a reaction and response to the Enlightenment and modernism.

Chapter two spends a significant amount of time dealing with the accusation that postmodern theory is relativistic regarding what we can know or what is true. Leithart concludes, and this reader agrees, that this accusation is illegitimate. A better description of postmodernism is not that it is relativist, but that it is provisional in terms of knowledge and truth: there are things we are unable to know, and there are things that we hold to be true but that, in the end, are ultimately unprovable articles of faith. Leithart demonstrates the pervasiveness of what he calls “provisionalism” in postmodern theory through discussions of antifoundationalism, historicism, incredulity toward metanarratives, rhetoric, and deconstruction—each of these being key features in various streams of postmodern thought.

The next chapter pursues the idea of the self. In a comparison to the modern conception of the self as an enduring, unchangeable identity, Leithart shows how and why postmodernism argues for a radically “de-centered” self. This chapter focuses first on the narrative of how the modern conception of the self came to be taken for granted, then how postmodernism challenges those assumptions. What is particularly helpful in this chapter is Leithart’s discussion of technology, consumerism, and media as playing key roles in helping us to understand the utter temporality and mutability of the self.

The fourth chapter elaborates the very important discussion of power and oppression present in postmodern theory. Leithart’s extended presentation of Foucault’s thinking is helpful because of Foucault’s influence has upon not only other postmodern theorists and also upon feminists and ethnic minority thinkers. As they argue for the right for other voices and perspectives to be heard, they rely at times specifically on Foucauldian thought, even though they do not usually identify themselves as “postmodernists.” Foucault’s thinking has been taken up by a wide variety of disciplines especially because it illuminates the pervasiveness of arbitrary hierarchical relations among persons, in society at large, and even in texts and interpretation.

This reader’s most significant criticism of Leithart’s presentation of postmodern is that he attributes to it a general nihilistic hopelessness. However, this reader does not share the same diagnosis. While Leithart’s diagnosis is accurate for some postmodern theorists, many Christian postmodern writers take seriously the questions raised by postmodernism and wrestle with them responsibly in relation to their Christian faith. Leithart compares postmodernism to the hopelessness of the “vaporous” life that Solomon speaks of in Ecclesiastes in contrast with the life to come that Solomon also anticipates. But postmodern theory is not always so faithless or non-eschatological. In fact, it is often quite hopeful and opens the possibility for a more radically faithful Christianity.

Leithart’s discussion throughout Solomon Among the Postmoderns is clearly supported by examples that are useful to anyone wishing to learn more about postmodern theory or looking for help in presenting it to others. It should not be, however, one’s only introductory text on postmodernism, especially regarding postmodernism’s implications


for the Christian faith. Nevertheless, it is valuable for its clarity, the breadth of postmodern themes it covers accurately in a brief manner, for the introduction to various postmodern thinkers, and for the bibliography present in the footnotes.

Chad Lakies

A Note for Contributors

We welcome your participation in writing articles for Missio Apostolica. Here are a few guidelines:

• Articles should be related to mission and missiology, taking up theological, historical, social, and/or practical questions relating to the missionary dimension of the Church, or dealing with missiological issues of our day.

• Language should be clear, informative, and stimulating. We try to avoid

redundancy, overly pedantic style, pejorative terminology, and over-use of professional jargon. Language and content should reflect logical coherence not to be too oral in style if it has been delivered as a conference paper. We try to avoid controversial and polemical issues in writing, for our journal has a very limited space to share.

• We appreciate carefully documented notes and references based on research.

• Length: about 12 double-spaced, typewritten pages (about 3000 words). If

possible submit your article electronically.

• The Editoral Committee of the Journal will examine the manuscript. We regret that we are unable to provide a monetary honorarium. We will send you five copies of the issue in which your article appears.

We also encourage you to contribute to our “Mission Observer” section of the journal: about 500 words, preferably one thematic thought or accent in a brief presentation. All writings should include a brief biographical note.

—ed

What is the Lutheran Society for Missiology, Inc.?

The Lutheran Society for Missiology, Inc. (LSFM) is a society of Lutherans who are interested in the apostolic mission of God in today’s world. The society was born on October 25, 1991, out of a concern to provide Biblical attitudes for missions.

MEMBERSHIP BENEFITS

Each member of LSFM: • Participates in carrying out the purposes of LSFM, • Receives a subscription to The Communicator, a semiannual mission newsletter, • Receives a subscription to Missio Apostolica, the semiannual mission journal

which provides articles on mission studies and practice, and • Is invited to attend meetings of the LSFM chapters and the annual meeting of

LSFM. At present, chapters are located in St. Louis, Missouri, Fort Wayne, Indiana, and St. Paul, Minnesota. --------------------�-----------------------------------------------------------�----------------------

Registration Form

Name___________________________________________________________________ (Both husband and wife, if applicable)

Address_________________________________________________________________ City______________________________ State______________ Zip________________ E-mail address: __________________________________________________________ �New Membership � Renewal Membership �Visionary ($50 or more/year) � Missionary/Prof. Church Worker ($15/year) � Regular ($25/year) � Student ($10/year) Church Affiliation: � LCMS � Other Lutheran � Other ___________________________ � Subscription only � Individual ($20/year) � Institution ($15/year) Please make check payable to Lutheran Society for Missiology, Inc. Send form and check to Lutheran Society for Missiology, Inc., 801 Seminary Place, St. Louis, MO 63105 USA.

91401_ADS.indd 1 6/7/09 11:30:26 AM

Serving church and world by:

• Assisting congregations with local leadership develop-ment through delivery of on-site Spanish language courses.

• Providing contextualized ministerial formation for men and women seeking service in the LCMS as rostered pastors and deaconesses.

• Offering consultation and on-site seminars in English and Spanish on Hispanic/Latino theology and missions.

• Supporting and engaging in research and publication initiatives in English and Spanish critical to Lutheran Hispanic ministry.

The Center for Hispanic Studies

Providing theological education and leadership in theLutheran tradition from and for the Hispanic/Latino

communities in the United States

CALL OR E-MAIL US

Toll free number: 1-800-677-9833Rev. Dr. Leopoldo A. Sánchez: [email protected]. Mark N. Kempff: [email protected]

Promoting Theological Education Through Hispanic Eyes

Center for Hispanic Studies801 Seminary Place

St. Louis, Missouri 63105www.hispanicstudies.org

www.csl.edu

cover.final.qxp 12/4/06 10:28 am page 1

Documents