By Jean Johnson, Director of Five Stones Global
The Lausanne Movement describes integral mission as a style of mission that recognizes “no biblical dichotomy between evangelistic and social responsibility.” Putting this concept into the form of an action statement, we might say that integral mission is “integrating the proclamation of the gospel and social action.”
When I served in Cambodia, I sure thought I was practicing this integral approach to mission. But there was one significant problem—one day I turned around and realized that none of the Cambodians were following in my footsteps.
The reason they were not following was quite simple: they couldn’t do what I did without my money, my donors, my novelty that goes with being an American, and my worldview understanding. They either had to become like me—an impossible goal for them—or rely on me.
As I realized this, it dawned on me that integral mission loses its integration, social action loses its action, and social justice loses its justness when I as a missionary make it difficult for cultural insiders to seamlessly proclaim and demonstrate the gospel to their neighbors without depending on my worldview systems, donors, donations, and donor-driven complexities. Simply stated, just because the mission was integral for me didn’t make it integral for them.
This new revelation changed my assignment. I understood now that I had to inspire local people to put their heads together and use what they had to create what they needed for integral mission.
Over the years I have seen an increase in locally reproducible models for the proclamation of the gospel (such as disciple-making movements, or DMM). But for some reason when it comes to the social action piece of integral mission, we tend to throw out best practices.
For example, let’s say we raise funds to start and subsidize a preschool, which is conceptualized and organized based on our worldview assumptions, to act as our social action partner in the proclamation of the gospel in a particular country. If the local people themselves cannot readily start, sustain, and reproduce Western-style preschools, we have created a unbiblical dichotomy between evangelistic and social responsibility. I know this sounds harsh, but if we model the integration of gospel-as-word and gospel-as-action without the DNA of reproducibility and spontaneity for local people, we are flirting with colonialism—making ourselves the center of attention, indispensable to the ability of the local people to love their neighbor as themselves. We can disguise our efforts in words like poverty alleviation, community development, partnership, non-profits, and compassion all day long, but integral mission is not integral if the local people cannot integrate it without us running the show.
If we truly want to promote integral mission, we need to put the cross-cultural work back on our own shoulders rather than requiring the local people to adjust to us. We will have to learn the local culture and worldview enough to know how to use local ideas and resources to create what we need for integral mission.
Jim Harries with Vulnerable Mission Alliance advocates for an alternative that affirms local people to own, drive, and indigenize integral mission and social justice in their own neighborhoods: “Progress through local initiatives in line with local lifestyles.”
My next blog will speak to this question: How can we encourage locally initiated, lifestyle-based endeavors of social justice and social action?
Something to Think About:
1. How have you possibly created a breakdown in the integration of gospel-as-word and gospel-as-deed because of centering it around your worldview systems, donors, donations, and donor-driven complexities?
2. How can you encourage and model integral mission and social justice that is reproducible and organic for the local people you serve?
Click to Visit Social Justice 1 – God Designed Social Justice — Don’t You Dare Hit Her!
Click to visit Social Justice 2 – How Does Spiritual Justice Play Out?
Want More! Get Your Copy of:
We Are Not The Hero book, participant’s Guide, and videos
Standing On Our Own Feet Workbook
Go Light! Go Local!: A Conscientious Approach to Short-Term Missions
Click to learn about Disciple-Making Movements
What you are describing is a healthy vision of social justice which I strongly agree with. However many people using the same terms mean something very different. Here for example is what social justice as applied to law looks like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0lyp-9Cd5s
The debate between Cornell West and Ta-Nehesi Coates is also instructive. West shares our understanding generally. He critiques Coates who holds an understanding which is popular but riddled with fundamental errors of analysis. Particularly nihilism and race essentialism. If you encounter opposition to the term social justice it is from people who care about what you do, but have studied how the perversions of it are folded into the term as well.
For an deep study consider, “The Quest for Cosmic Justice,” “The Gulag Archipelago” and “Factfulness: 10 reasons why the world is better than you think.” The latter was endorsed by Obama. The second was written by a nobel prize winner who brought down a corrupt power by telling the truth while on the run from secret police and in prison camps. The first book explores the philosophical and economic underpinnings of traditional and social justice.
Personally I find psalm 64 encouraging as well 🙂
Hi Ben! It is so true! You could fill a room with people and ask them what social justice means to them and you would get many different answers. Also, perversions do work its way into the term, as well. In some very small way, I am trying to tackle two of those perversions: 1) Western people who think they can implement social justice activities in cross-cultural contexts through Western systems, worldviews, and donor-driven agendas that send the message that local people must wait on heroes from the outside. 2) If we hold to the viewpoint that gospel-as-word and gospel-as-action need to be offered in harmony, we do a disservice if either of these parts are utterly dependent on us in other people’s countries. The apostle Paul told his disciples: “Keep putting into practice everything you heard from me and saw me do”(Phil. 4:9). As cross-cultural missionaries, it is a tragedy when local people cannot follow in our footsteps because we make ourselves the experts, the source of foreign aid, and heroic leaders in their midst. Thanks Ben for passing on the links.
Hi Ben, Some fascinating insights there! I need to explore some more. I’m standing very much with Jean on this. Previous analyses I have made, point out that in practice the implementation of what we are here calling ‘justice’ actually requires ‘magic’, to fill the gap between what’s envisioned and what is possible. E.g. see here: http://www.academia.edu/attachments/53619882/download_file?s=portfolio
Why is the term “social justice” part of this conversation? Implied in that term is a sense of victimization and respsibility shifting that is not necessisarily helpful to those who are seeking to apply Christian values as Gospel in action.
The Gospel in action, focused on positive activities, is the best way to overcome social injustice in the long term, while best representing the Gospel.
Hi Mike! Good question. Social justice has many meanings and different meanings to different people these days. In global missions, there is a present trend to use the term social justice interchangeably with or in place of terms gospel in action, compassion ministry, loving thy neighbor, caring for widows and orphans, poverty alleviation, development, etc. And that is exactly how I am using the word in this blog . . . social justice is another way to say Gospel in action, as you have worded it. In this case, social justice (Gospel in action) and Gospel in proclamation need to be reproducible and doable for the local people based on their determination, drive, love, vision, resources, interdependency, and cultural relevancy; rather than dependent on the foreign missionaries (otherwise it ends and starts with us).
I certainly agree with the broader point of your blog and wish this sensitivity could be more fuller developed. Two out of three missionaries who visited our church recently were raising money and soliciting construction team help to build large buildings to serve as community outreach centers. They certainly sell well to the American church where little to no consideration of foreign, local ability to effectively use or support such a facility is given.
I don’t mean to be harsh, but such projects often end up being monuments to the missionary, used in pictures shown back home as tangible evidence of ministry success.
Keep up the good work!