The article deeply looks into the
role of globalization as the primary factor in the need to ‘re-image’ the
missionary identity in the new world. He presents the contextual analysis of
the contemporary world based from the experiences and realities happening in the
various fields of society. Because of globalization, science, technology,
industry or economy had also been affected by the phenomenon and even religion.
As the author implies all throughout the article, side-effects of this new
world are a reality that can never be denied.At the same time, there is a
change. Change in thinking and living of the people. Consequent to this change
is a ‘crisis’, which is a combination of danger and opportunity. As the world
is open to unity because of
globalization but its differences create
fragmentations because it favors identity and diversity. The world’s
multicultural and interreligious context has transformed the nature of
Christian witness today. Human achievements which changed people’s lives, like science
but not wisdom, technology but not spiritual energy, industry but not ecology
and democracy but no morality. The coming of the new world seems to be the mark
of the end of what is ethical and moral as reason in enthroned while faith or
religion is dethroned. Thus, there is a need to re-image missionary identity. Then,
a paradigm shift in our thinking of mission and our identity has to take place.
Old models of mission need to be set aside. The author used Asia as the basis
and fitting example in doing the paradigm shift since it is the proper milieu because
ofits cultural diversity and religious pluralism. There must also be a shift of
mindset that is – from “either/or” (exclusivist) mentality to “both/and”
(inclusivist/pluralist) mentality.The author then suggests points to consider
in what mission today should be. Mission today is described crossing
boundaries. Mission today is “going to the Other.” Today’s missionary must be a
learner, a listener, a healer, a home-builder, and a man of silence.
The abovementioned synthesis seems
to be the good and strong points of the article. The mission of saving souls is
the mission of God, the church is only an instrument exerting her effort to
proclaim the kingdom of God and the teachings of Jesus Christ. Missionaries are
all participants in God’s mission.This new doing-mission as the re-imaging of
missionary identity is a move from being ecclesiocentric to Christocentric to
theocentric.
However, side-effects of this
paradigm shift should be expected. Since the center of this missionary identity
is like being immersed to a goal not only for the salvation of souls but for
the salvation of the whole human person addressing the problems of poverty,
oppression, ecological abuses, conflict and interreligious violence. The
missionary might be turned into a mere social worker and not anymore as a
servant of God. Secularization of their mission as servants of God is one of
its dangers. However, just like the Chinese concept of ‘crisis’ that means
danger and opportunity, we can hope of the positive things that could be
brought for the future. Though uncertain of the future yet the tension aids us
to expect a positive outcome.
The uncertainty of using new models
of mission as a re-imaging missionary identity amidst the pluralistic culture
and tradition has not been addressed deeply. There might be a side-effect of
this re-imaging, which was not explored deeply in the article. The dangers of
doing mission in the contemporary world should have been elaborated. Thus, I
think these are the weak points of the article.
No comments:
Post a Comment