-
Responding to the Shortcuts Critique of Movement Missiology
Take some time to read the following article: “Discussing and Catalyzing Movements: An Invitation to Research, Sacrifice, and Commitment” by Pam Arlund and Warrick Farah. What is your main takeaway from this article?
Also, which of the critiques commonly charged against the Movement Missiology approach do you find most troublesome? Finally, have you experienced a temptation toward “Missiological Policing” (where you criticize other approaches to missions) even though there is room in Scripture for a diversity of approaches?
-
4 Replies
-
My main takeaway from reading this first article is that we often over complicate what a movement is. We try to categorize a movement in our own Western terms and perspectives, and forget that a movement is just something that fits into the Great Commission. I thought it was interesting that it was discussed that sometimes we try to place missionaries into a box. Forcing them to have specific training, degrees, experience, etc., when actually we see Jesus taking people who had zero ministry experience and making them be his closest disciples. We need to be training missionaries well but also not forcing them to be only one type of missionary because God can use anyone.
The critique that I found the most alarming was the last one: “It is missiologically unwise, even dangerous, to have unbelievers studying the Bible without any mature Christian present to guide their study.”. I think having that perspective puts God in a box, and tries to say that he cannot work through his word without having something there. Ultimately, it is God who brings the text of the Bible to life – not an experienced believer. Although I do believe it can be helpful to have a believer there to explain certain biblical elements, to say that it is “dangerous” is a very strong claim and is worrying from my perspective. I have totally experienced the temptation to fall into Missiological policing. I can often be critical in my mind when I see people doing missions in a way that doesn’t make sense to me. But I am challenged by the fact that God can work through those things despite what any person does.
-
Methods always change, but our message does not!
-
The main takeaway I got from the article was that we are at fault for looking at success in missions from our human perspectives, not God’s. Some people say missions shouldn’t be measured in numbers, some say it shouldn’t be measured in pace, or some say that it should be measured in these ways. It seems that the right answer is all of the above. The article did well to show that the bible acknowledges many different methods and praises many different types of growth, not just one. Of course, there is danger in obsessing over multiplication, and of course, there is danger in obsessing over discipling a few people for too long. Either way, the most important factor in this equation is- as it seems to be the conclusion to everything- are we being obedient to God in the process?
It was interesting to go through this topic because, at first, I was not sure if the course suggested that criticizing different approaches was a good thing. Only until the end did we acknowledge that which I find to be the most important pre-requisite when discussing how missions should be done: we should never approach it pridefully. Because who are we to say that someone else is not led by God? What a dangerously presumptions thing to do! I agree that it is most constructive to simply come alongside anybody who is genuinely moving in faith. Discuss what the bible says, discuss what experience says, and walk away from it encouraged that other people in the world are still willing to even try and serve God in a missiological way.
-
The “Discussing and Catalyzing Movements” article had some great insights on movements and the concerns brought up by No Shortcuts. I can understand the criticism of No Shortcuts and agree with the responses towards it. There are many different structures in which people are taught how to do missions and they all have their strengths and weaknesses. But the points brought up by No Shortcuts did sound like they were very rooted in traditional Western ministry and I see the benefit of letting go of those ways and adopting the strategies of movements that focus on Biblical principles.
The critique I found most troublesome was the one that implied leaving a group of new disciples to read the Word together can lead to heresy. Truthfully, the desire for control in me has caused me to think similarly. When I’ve gone through the DMM steps in training, I would think something like “okay at this point I’d like to reconnect with the group to make sure they haven’t gone off the rails.” There was somewhere in this lesson that stated that people who think that way aren’t realizing or trusting that God can speak to His people through His Word and the Holy Spirit can give understanding. I think it would be valuable to continue in relationship (maybe mentorship) with the leaders of new discovery groups, but I also now know that it is not my job to control their growth and understanding.
ojs.globalmissiology.org
View of Discussing and Catalyzing Movements: An Invitation to Research, Sacrifice, and Commitment
View of Discussing and Catalyzing Movements: An Invitation to Research, Sacrifice, and Commitment
Log in to reply.