The Proclamation of the of the Reign of God as Mission of the Church: What for, To whom, By whom, With whom, and How?

The Proclamation of the of the Reign of God as Mission of the Church: What for, To whom, By whom, With whom, and How? 

by Peter Phan

The article of Peter Phan generally centers his essay on the meanings of mission according to the Pre-Vatican II missiology and post-Vatican II missiology. He particularly made a comparative and contrast study on the two missiologies of mission. To situate his definitions he answered the five basic questions of what for, to whom, by whom, with whom and how of mission. Moreover, in the context of the four theological realities – proclamation, reign of God, church and mission – by way of rearranging them guide him in finding answers to his questions. But, what then is the end point of his article. What is he trying to tell us? May be Phan wants us to understand mission both as a gift and a task. He even indirectly ask us on the last part of his article that if the mission of the church is to flourish in this new millennium, it must trod the path that a new theology of mission. If he is presenting us a new theology of mission, why then should we consider it? Then, let us take a look of the strong and weak points of this new missiology and at the same time what the article says about it.

Strong points of the article:

·         “Phan made a total reconfiguration of the relations among the four basic elemtns of the theology of mission: Now, the central pillar sustaining the missionary edifice is the reign of God. It is the light that shines on all missionaries activities of the church, which is now seen to be missionary by its very nature.” This then entails us that the paradigm used by Phan is the Theocentric theology of mission, wherein God is the center. It is good since it has broke away with the pre-Vatican II mindset of mission, wherein the reign of God is subordinated to the Church – that is from ecclesiocentric theology of mission to Theocentric theology of mission.

·         A noticeable theology of the church needs to be acknowledge by which the author integrated in his article that is simply unexpected. It is the eschatological events of Jesus’ message about God’s power over sin, corruption, injustice and violence. He said that the present reality is the Kingdom of God prophesized and fulfilled by Jesus. And at the same time the kingdom of God is still to come. It is the ‘already and not yet’ of the kingdom of God. This theological concept is salient in the teaching of the reign of God for Jesus himself taught it to us. 

·         The object of mission defined by Phan is ‘missio ad gentes’ that is literally addressed to the pagans and other Christian denominations. For him missio ad gentes  as exclusively  to “foreign mission” is primarily a wrong conception and that only an elite few are called to this mission, which unlike the old theology of mission, it is done only by priests, religious orders and the like. Missio ad gentes must really address it to peoples, groups and social cultural contexts in which Christ and his Gospel are not known, or which lack Christian communities sufficiently mature to be able to incarnate the faith in their won environment and proclaim it to other groups. (RM 33).

·         The article also introduced ‘contextualization model’ or what he prefers ‘interculturation’, which is the ‘process whereby the gospel message encounters a particular culture, calling forth faith and leading to the formation of a faith community, which is culturally authentic and authentically Christian.

·         Culture also is given importance in the complexity and the reality of multi-cultures.

·         Foreign mission does not constitute the entire mission of the church but is only a part, albeit necessary, of it. Furthermore, its principal goal is no longer “saving souls” and “church planting” but bearing witness to the kingdom of God.

·         At the beginning, the author may have recognized that mission ad gentes is only for the pagans or foreign mission but Phan includes another group of people that also needs to be in the object of mission. They are the pagans, who are not really pagans, and to Christians, who are not really Christians. He is aware that many had remained nominal Christians than being active living Christians of faith.

Weak points of the article:

·         While inculturation can be a strong point for mission at the same time it can also be a weak point. It is a question how far culture can interact with the faith and beliefs of the Christians. It sometimes may affect the traditions of the faith. By which in this sense can also a source of division if not properly guided.

·         The theocentrism of Phan’s essay raises a question of the church as Christocentric. We can’t deny that all the teachings of the church are basically founded by the teachings of Jesus Christ. Theocentrism is weak since we can’t really let go of the person and reality of Jesus Christ as God. Our God is human and most likely other cultures and religions would not agree on that.

·         Phan as a catholic theologian can’t really exclude church doctrines in his article, which sometimes other non-Christians disagree.

·         Emphasizing God in a theocentric theology of mission may sometimes create further divisions. People may think that to be affiliated to any religion is not necessary anymore. This might be the danger of the ‘reign of God’ as the primary end of mission. However, as the author writes, he simply didn’t put God alone. There’s a modifier – reign. Reign of God is simply associated to Jesus Christ. It then can be a weak point.