Princeton Currents in World Christianity Seminar, 2 February 2001
First published in 1991, Bosch’s Transforming Mission represented a climax of ecumenical and evangelical debate and a surprising measure of consensus. Ten years later new frameworks for discussing mission in relation to multicultural and post-modern contexts are required. In 1990 Missiology needed a text capable of proving its academic quality and practical relevance. If David Bosch succeeded in providing that text, he did so in terms of a worldview that was already losing its defining polarities. The mission of Christianity now requires the formulation of the elements of new emerging paradigms. Tracing missiology after Bosch is a reminder of the quality and importance of his contribution. If that may also give us some directions for a new era, it is still necessary for missiology to articulate what it really offers the church and the academy. John Roxborogh
Presbyterian School of Ministry
Knox College, Dunedin, New Zealand
1Missiology in 1991
Definitions of missiology2 tend to reflect the writer’s vision of the mission of the church.3 Missiology is the theology that serves that understanding. However the maturity of the discipline really requires that missiology be conceived in terms that encompass visions of mission other than one’s own. The word mission itself needs to be defined, not simply in terms of the ingredients which make up what people believe the church ought to be doing, but in terms of what questions we are asking by using the word. If we do not know what we mean by the concept of mission, we cannot know what we mean by the mission of the church and we cannot ask questions about it, whatever our sources. While it is common for the “mission of the church” to be a question of what the church as a body does outside of itself, the mission of the church as in a “mission statement” also needs to address the responsibilities of the church towards God, and towards its own life. Fundamentally missiology is about helping the church know what it ought to be doing.
Ten years ago, the Cold War was all but ended, and the Gulf War had begun. In June 1991 Boris Yeltsin became the first elected president of the Russian Republic and in January 1993 Bill Clinton would become President of the United States of America. Some had heard of the Internet, and very few of the Worldwide web. Globalization was a programme for North American theological schools to be more international in their programme and staffing,4 it was not yet the catch-all explanation for how multinationals and the electronic flows of culture and capital were destroying the world.
In 1991 the state of missiology was mixed. It was nearly 20 years since the American Society for Missiology and the International Association for Mission Studies had come into existence, and a bit longer from the founding of the South African Missiological Society by a 39 year old Afrikaans missionary from the Transkei, David Johannes Bosch. There was significant scholarship in English in journals like Missiology,Mission Studies, and the International Bulletin of Missionary Research. Ripples from Vatican II and reactions to them were still making a profound difference. Liberation and feminist theologies were challenging structures and forging new hermeneutics outside the old frameworks. The vision of Evangelicals meeting at Lausanne in 1974 had been augmented in 1989 at Manila. The San Antonio meeting of the WCC CWME that same year seemed positive and comprehensive. Sharp polarities Bosch had noted in 1980 after meetings in Melbourne and Pattaya were no longer reliable guides to Evangelical and Conciliar loyalties.5 Lesslie Newbigin’s Gospel in a Pluralist Society6 appeared an attractive solution to the problem of doing justice to the good in the faith of others while maintaining a missionary commitment. His challenge to see the West as a mission field had touched a chord which inspired “Gospel and Culture” movements in Great Britain, the United States, and New Zealand.
Nevertheless there was unease. The balanced commitment to social justice and evangelism of the 1974 Lausanne Covenant was not accepted by all of its own constituency. The AD 2000 movement coincided with a “decade of evangelism”7 and its focus of planning for a new millennium showed little interest in a wider agenda for mission. There was anxiety about the uniqueness of Christ, and the troubling exclusivist, inclusivist and pluralist typology of Paul Knitter’s No other name?8 However the existence of such divisions at least had the benefit of helping missiology touch felt needs.
2Teaching Missiology in the 1990s
Teaching missiology in the early 1990s was something of a challenge - perhaps it always is.9 A common pattern was to look at Biblical theology of mission guided by Johannes Blauw, Missionary Nature of the Church, then already nearly 30 years old, clearly a classic – but not readily available.10 There was also Senior and Stuhlmueller11 and after 1990 Legrand’s Unity and Plurality, translated from the French.12 If the history of mission had shifted its focus from the deeds of Western missionaries to the dynamic of religious change and the influence of local leadership, it still tended to be the church history of the parts of the world not covered in a traditional Western curriculum. There were serviceable surveys, such as Stephen Neill, and the TEF study guides, but a sense of accompanying theological development was weak. The assumptions of 19th century missionary motivation and the hermeneutical centrality of the Great Commission often guided the interpretation of the periods before and since. Bosch’s Witness to the World, 1980, provided a tantalizing outline of themes that might be explored.
If there was ample material for the committed and the curious, nevertheless Andrew Walls could describe mission studies as having “Structural problems.”13 It appeared that theological education failed to reflect global realities and it was necessary to argue the usefulness of mission studies in terms of its relevance to explaining the changed demography of Christianity. The “tools of the trade” were not nonexistent, but they were hardly adequate either. The one standard dictionary of mission in English, was long out of print, some 20 years after publication.14 Useful material such as the essay collections compiled by Gerald Anderson15 and Thomas Stransky,16 were more effective in laying a ground-work, than in convincing the theological world it should warmly welcome missiology into its fold. Missiology seemed the answer to somebody else’s problems.
No single text defined the discipline or covered the historical and theological background. A compilation of North American course outlines17 on evangelism is indicative of the difficulties – people taught to their enthusiasms, glossed by the buzzwords of the day. Ralph Winter and Steven Hawthorne’s Perspectives on the World Christian Movement18 grouped readings and parish-level teaching under the headings of Biblical, Historical, Cultural, and Strategic, but the readings given too often begged the questions they were intended to address.
For some, the older polarities of Evangelical, Liberal and Catholic provided a framework of alternative visions of mission. International meetings from Edinburgh 1910, and through the history of the International Missionary Council and the WCC provided a time-line of events replete with lessons on how things should or should not be done. Despite differences over what those lessons might be, teachers of missiology had common cause that mission was not taken seriously enough either by their colleagues or by the church.
If it was probably nothing new that it was not clear where in the theological curriculum missiology belonged, it was probably also nothing new that there did not appear to be many who knew what they would do if their prayers were answered. Was the goal of missiology to establish the importance of mission by the creation or maintenance of chairs and departments, or would missiologists serve the interests of the Kingdom of God more by converting their colleagues to missionary theology, the Bible as a missionary text, church history as the history of mission in all six continents, and practical theology as reflecting the missionary nature of the church?
Without a quality text to demonstrate that missiology was an intellectually respectable discipline relevant to the practical needs of the church, such considerations were liable to be put to one side, and the position of missiology in the seminary driven by the commitments of another era or the lack of them, the partisan views of champions of particular causes, and the career needs of missiologists.
2.1Changes in the 1990s
The end of the Cold War, dramatically symbolized and advanced by the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, meant that things were going to be different for the world, and also for the church and its mission. In 1991 there appeared a number of publications, many of significance, and one in particular that took missiology to a new level.
The Evangelical Alliance (UK) published a statement that suggested a more open approach to other Faiths was acceptable among some evangelicals at least.19 This would be followed up and articulated by people such as John Stott, John Sanders20 and Clark Pinnock.
Steve Bevans’ Models of Contextual Theology provided a framework for exploring the processes and assessing the value of local theologies, including Western theologies.
The WCC brought out the Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement21 which carried articles relevant to missiology and missiological significant figures.
John Paul II issued Redemptoris Mission22which sought to invigorate Catholic commitment to evangelism.
Jon Book published Mission and Money23which still serves to provide a compelling, if not also depressing, study of the unintended messages of affluent missionaries.
And David Bosch published Transforming Mission.24
All of these proved to be significant, and are still frequently referred to. But the one publication which did most to define what missiology was about, which was of a quality that demanded attention from outside its own field, was Transforming Mission.
When it appeared in March 1991, responses to Transforming Mission were almost totally positive. Bosch lifted the quality of missiological debate. Here was writing that manifestly sought to be fair, and had something fresh to say as it took competing concerns seriously. He packed in detail, and synthesized a sustained argument from a huge range of sources. It was an intelligent, readable, text, which could be preached as well as critically studied, which could be applied to praxis as well as to pedagogy, and which related to the church while it took the world and its needs seriously. Bosch broadened people’s vision for mission, rooted it in the church, and provided a framework for reflecting on differences. It provided the resource serious missiology had lacked.
By the time of his death a year later, Transforming Mission was on it’s way to becoming the classic text of missiology of the decade, the summa missiologica of the late 20th century. Bosch had succeeded in providing a comprehensive theoretical framework for missiology that rose above the polarities of his generation. Ten years later Transforming Mission has been translated into 11 languages and continues to sell at a significant rate. Practically everywhere missiology is taught, Transforming Mission is the standard working document.
Of course friends and others have prodded and queried and at points corrected.25 It’s implicit rather than its actual claim to comprehensiveness invited queries whether that comprehensiveness was indeed complete, though it’s nearly 600-pages were already significantly reduced in number. Weaknesses in the characterization of some paradigms (such as the Eastern Orthodox)26 and gaps in relation to Third World theologians and to women, together with a lack of connection with liberationist hermeneutics were soon noted.
The appropriateness of the paradigm model in relation to missiology was queried, highlighting that the very act of periodization derives from the values and assumptions of a particular era.27 The language of paradigms has become loose in the hands of others and sometimes applied in reifying ways that ignored the qualifications Bosch provided. Bosch was aware he was dealing with generalities. He was attempting to map processes of continuity and change, doing justice to unifying factors while giving some reasonable account of the fact that ideas do change. He also acknowledged that communities are not always together in the same paradigm. He would also have been aware that transitions between paradigms are as missiologically significant as the periods of relative stability in worldview and assumptions the paradigms attempt to describe.
In his lifetime Bosch had invited colleagues to challenge what he had to say28 and since 1992 his material has continued to prove robust enough to withstand critical engagement despite some telling points.29 Norman Thomas is among those who have pointed out Transforming Mission’s lack of reference to women and to Third World writers,30 and Kirsteen Kim has added ecology and indigenous spiritualities, and the role of the Holy Spirit31 as well as feminism to the list of deficiencies. Andrew Kirk, seeking to provide a shorter text for students, found himself having to acknowledge the foundation provided by Bosch at the same time as he added to the components, already 13, of the “emerging ecumenical paradigm”.32 Kirk provides a refreshing account of Jesus and his mission, but even in focusing on cultural, justice, peace-making and environmental issues, the framework is still that of Transforming Mission. Kim refers to the 7th Assembly of the WCC at Canberra as evidence of the failure of Bosch’s “emerging ecumenical consensus” in the very year of the publication of Transforming Mission. I doubt this constitutes actual failure. New issues were emerging, the point is that old polarities had dissolved. Many people felt part of what was going on, whatever their views on feminism, indigenous spirituality and the work of the Holy Spirit outside the church.33 The old liberal and evangelical code words of loyalty in the lists34 (alluded to above) that Bosch drew up in 1980 after the WCC, Council on World Mission and Evangelism (COWME) meeting in Melbourne, and the Lausanne Consultation on World Evangelization meeting in Pattaya, no longer worked. By the early 1990s those who differed over mission emphases were as likely as not to be people from the same tradition.
Some of the noted deficiencies of Transforming Mission are surprising given Bosch’s comments elsewhere. During the 1988 IAMS conference in Rome Bosch was in debate with the French missiologist Marc Spindler over a project to approach biblical foundations of mission through a series of word studies35 Bosch advocated a “both / and” approach to doubt and faith, Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment approaches. “It is precisely as we do Missiology for our particular contexts that we contribute missiologically to the universal Christian and missionary fellowship.”36 This is not really apparent within Transforming Mission and Frans Verstraelen considers the basic reason to be that
Bosch has difficulty in giving “context” a central place in his way of theologizing. This appears the case when one considers his methodology (which … assumed its basic form in “pre-contextual” modes of doing theology in the 1980s). … Bosch, in the final analysis, continued to belong to the category of theologians who theologize from above rather than from below … following an idealist approach.37 A lack of ease with concrete contexts may be noted, but it also needs to be appreciated how much this is the nature of the case. Transforming Mission is a theological history. The question about context is partly a matter of recognizing the nature, scale and scope of the history. The paradigms themselves form “concrete” contexts38 defined in terms of the characteristic features of thinking about mission within particular cultural eras.39 Only if contextual theologizing denies the possibility of generalized discourse is Transforming Mission seriously at fault here.
Today Transforming Mission remains as a substantial expression of Bosch’s considerable legacy, a legacy of attitude (“a humble boldness, a bold humility”), of leadership in diverse missiological communities, of scholarly engagement and openness to critique, of warm encouragement of others, and of a personal faith not threatened by people’s religion - “We cannot point to any other way of salvation than Jesus Christ; at the same time we cannot set limits to the saving power of God”40 Bosch provided a framework and a text for theological education. It was probably inevitable that he was less successful in setting the agenda for the future than in providing a powerful summary of the past. At the same time the general authority of his book remains unsurpassed.
The question however remains, if Transforming Mission also transformed missiology, where does missiology now go after Bosch? While Transforming Mission can be expected to have a lasting impact, the very fact that it succeeded more by mapping convergence than describing a world whose assumptions and needs were on the point of radical change means that missiology beyond Bosch must now be addressed.
3The ten years since Transforming Mission, March 1991
At first, the main thing to do with Transforming Mission, apart from reading it, was to use it as framework and content for the biblical, historical, theological and contemporary elements in the missiological curriculum. As some of the criticisms and supplementary elements noted came available, they could be added. But as the decade progressed some deeper difficulties became apparent.
The postmodern paradigm that Bosch was beginning to address became sharper in its features, and Bosch’s comments less adequate. Spirituality in the west may have developed strange features, but it was no longer an unusual phenomenon. Indigenousness peoples began to find their voices. Postmodernism within the Western intellectual tradition, and multi-cultural and multi-religious societies in which religious minorities affirmed their identity against majorities and networked via the Internet, helped break the dominance of a desacralized world-view.
The end of the Cold War seemed to symbolize the reduction of theological as well as political boundaries, and Christianity was not alone in seeking to know what it meant to affirm local as well as global identity. The opening of nation-state borders electronically and politically facilitated massive flows of culture and capital. Electronic developments from the internet to the world wide web and the proliferation of computers and cell phones in a wired world created new cultures of digital inclusion, exclusion and immediacy. Globalization became primarily an economic term - a ready short hand for the way in which moving industries and capital made some richer and many poorer.
These have changed the way in which the world understands itself and does its business. They have changed – and must change - how churches understand mission. This situation is both radically different from, yet in important ways similar to, the intellectual framework out of which Bosch constructed his Transforming Mission.
The decade of the 1990s of course saw the production of a great many significant works on missiology besides Transforming Mission. Dictionaries and monographs have added to the “tools of the trade” and enriched understanding of the mission of the church and its theological basis immensely. Postmodernism, globalization and the impact of technology are being explored by writers and consultations. What they have not done however, is replaced Transforming Mission’s role as the discipline’s defining document.
If bickering about social action and evangelism no longer hold center stage, and broader views on the salvation of those who had never heard have quietly gained acceptance, some may also sense a weakening of overseas mission interest among introverted evangelicals not just those for whom the word “mission” has tainted associations with colonialism. The “missional church” emphasis which owes a lot to Lesslie Newbigin, as well to Bosch and something to Barth, is concerned to remind Western churches of their missionary obligation to their own culture. People who speak this language are hardly alone and are not confined to followers of Newbigin. Those who still characterize Western academic theology by its detachment41 perhaps need to note the plethora of publications that seek to make Christianity and the ministry of the church relevant. Debates over the future of missiological chairs might better be seen as a product of a different kind of missionary commitment, not just its absence. In defining missiology for the immediate future, we need to move past Bosch as we address a situation characterized by “glocalization,” postmodernism and electronic technologies. We may also need his help:
Bosch will remain significant for some time for the paradigm framework and methodology.
Within the overall period that it covers, Transforming Mission will continue to be critiqued in points of detail.
Missiology must continue to provide a key theological framework for engaging critically with whatever issues emerge in the life of the church in relation to its environment. For some time fresh issues will be dealt with in relation to Bosch by adding them to the lists – as Andrew Kirk has done in What is mission? and Wilbert Shenk has done in calling for facing the new frontiers of mission and engaging42 with the “clash of civilization” theories of Samuel Huntingdon.43
Those concerned to develop a “domestic missiology” will continue to find the mission thrust of Bosch’s vision for the church a powerful ally. The convergence of domestic and global missiological agendas can be expected to continue.
There will be attempts to close off Bosch’s last paradigm as a holistic vision of mission maintains general acceptance, and to create new paradigms, perhaps around a theology of the Holy Spirit.44
A fresh effort – perhaps by an interconfessional, crosscultural team - will soon be necessary to perform the comprehensive sort of task that Bosch attempted. A feature of Transforming Mission is that the whole is written from the perspective of a modern / early post-modern paradigm. Once that era has passed into another to the extent that a fresh, self-aware, set of values, questions and procedures are operating, the periodization, history and theology of mission will need to be visited afresh.
Missiology may itself be redefined. Dr Lalsangkima Pachuau has argued that theology of religions should be the integrating motif for missiology.45 Although he makes a strong case, I suspect missiology in general will want to address other issues as well and need a wider base for doing so.
5Conclusion: Missiology in Academy and Seminary
What do missiologists do when cognate disciplines start getting missiological? Do missiologists recognize the extent to which this is going on? Are we grateful that they have seen the light, or threatened that they are stealing our jobs? What do missiologists do, when moves are made to close their departments and tenure becomes a distant dream? Does this mark the failure of missiology, or possibly its success? Is there something to learn from Bosch in this?
Of course it is necessary to produce evidence that those claiming to be missiologists are useful and necessary members of faculty teams. Bosch provides part of an answer, in that he was able to demonstrate values of personal faith, integrity, humility, scholarship, and commitment which helped make him widely acceptable. Some outside of missiology need to be familiar with professional groups such as the American Society of Missiology and the International Association for Mission Studies. Missiologists themselves need to take a more considered approach to their colleagues in other disciplines. Nobody’s interests are served by claiming missiology can do more for the church than it properly can. A sustainable missiology may be more modest in some of its claims. Should missiologists feel the need to be evangelists in their own cause, they might wish to take some of their own advice. Some suggestions. Missiologists -
Will be content to see missiology as a dimension of ecclesiology. Theology of mission is theology of the mission of the Church, even if the church’s mission is defined by the mission of God, the missio Dei. The provocative phrase “mission is the mother of theology” might more accurately be stated as “mission is a catalyst for theology.” Somebody needs to say that it is acceptable to seek to formulate truths about God simple for the sake of doing that, quite apart from the mission value of doing so.
Will work to clarify what is meant by mission. The move from “missions” to “mission” in the late 1960s seems to have been intended to move away from seeing the mission of the church as only evangelism. That may have been helpful, but we are still in difficulty. Our use of the word “mission” needs to take seriously how the term is used in common language where, as in “mission statement”, it refers to the total purpose of a body, not just the specific missions parts of it may engage in. For the Christian church part of its total mission is to worship God. Worship takes place for the glory of God as well as for the building up of the church and for outreach. A narrow view of mission has difficulty finding a theological place for worship.
Will seek to serve the theological academy and seminary by offering its crosscultural experience and perspective, and by being willing to learn from other disciplines. Missiology needs to practice what it preaches about mission as a two way street. Servant leadership concepts might usefully apply as well. Missiology cannot expect to be heard if it is not willing to listen.
Will be willing to affirm the commitment of those in other disciplines to exploring God’s purpose for the church and the world and not regard these perspectives as its private property. Missiologists have to stop behaving like politicians who only know how to function in opposition mode.
Will be prepared to explore the question of whether missiology is a special department or a dimension of all theological disciplines in terms of “both and” not “either or”. It is not the only area where such considerations apply. Ethics and biblical theology courses have overlap issues where decisions have to be made in a particular teaching situation who has the primary responsibility and who has the secondary.
Will see the defining specialties of missiology as its theological concern for clarifying the purpose of the church and its global perspective in exploring those implications. How responsibilities are allocated depends on the gifts and interests of a particular set of teachers. A matrix model would allow missiology to be championed by one person taking a particular focus in theology, history, Biblical, religious or cultural studies. Missiology itself needs to lose its own life in order to save it.
Integration is not everything. Missiology can have an integrative function in the curriculum, but it is hardly unique in that respect. So can most subjects. What missiology can also bear witness to is the voice of the margins, the learnings from liminality, the seeking of a proper balance between minorities and the dominant cultures in history, theology and mission. As long as it does so it will never be a tidy subject. That may in fact be part of its genius!
Perhaps the most potent paradigm that Bosch has left us is a very personal one. With his combination of outstanding scholarship, in terms of the highest values of his generation, and the exercise of Christian faith in “bold humility”, he points to the calling of us all.
Aagaard, Johannes. "Trends in Missiological Thinking During the Sixties." International Review of Mission 62 (1973): 8-25.
Anderson, Gerald H., ed. The Theology of the Christian Mission. London: SCM Press, 1962.
Anderson, Gerald H., and Thomas F. Stransky. Evangelization, Mission Trends ; No. 2. New York: Paulist Press, 1975.
———. Faith Meets Faith, Mission Trends ; No. 5. New York, NY. and Grand Rapids, Mich.: Paulist Press ; and W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1981.
———. Liberation Theologies in North America and Europe, Mission Trends ; No. 4. New York: Paulist Press, 1979.
———. Third World Theologies, Mission Trends ; No. 3. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1978.
Barrett, David B., and Todd M. Johnson. Our Globe and How to Reach It : Seeing the World Evangelized by Ad 2000 & Beyond : A Manual for the Decade of Evangelization, 1990-2000. Birmingham, Ala.: New Hope, 1990.
Bevans, Stephen B. "God inside Out: Toward a Missionary Theology of the Holy Spirit." International Bulletin of Missionary Research 22, no. 3 (1998): 102–5.
Blauw, Johannes. The Missionary Nature of the Church; a Survey of the Biblical Theology of Mission. Grand Rapids, Mich.,: Eerdmans, 1974.
Bonk, Jon. Missions and Money : Affluence as a Western Missionary Problem, American Society of Missiology Series ; No. 15. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1991.
Bosch, David. "In Search of Mission: Reflections on 'Melbourne' and 'Pattaya.'" Missionalia 9, no. 1: 3-18.
Bosch, David J. "Evangelism." Mission Focus 9, no. 4 (1981): 65-74.
Bosch, David J. "Behind Melbourne and Pattaya: A Typology of Two Movements." IAMS Newsletter, no. 16-17 (1980): 21-33.
Bosch, David Jacobus. Transforming Mission : Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission, American Society of Missiology Series ; No. 16. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1991.
Burrows, William R. "Redemptoris Missio after Ten Years. Reflections from an American Perspective." (forthcoming).
———, ed. Redemption and Dialogue. Reading Redemptoris Missio and Dialogue and Proclamation. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1995.
Camps, Arnulf. Missiology : An Ecumenical Introduction : Texts and Contexts of Global Christianity. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1995.
Evangelical Alliance, (U.K.). "The Salvation of the Gentiles. Implications for Other Faiths." Evangelical Review of Theology January (1991): 36-43.
Huntington, Samuel P. The Clash of Civilisations and the Remaking of World Order. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1996.
Kim, Kirsteen. "Post-Modern Mission. A Paradigm Shift in David Bosch's Theology of Mission?" International Review of Mission LXXXIX, no. 353 (2000): 172-79.
Kirk, J. Andrew. The Mission of Theology and Theology as Mission. Edited by Alan Neely, H. Wayne Pipkin and Wilbert Shenk, Christian Mission and Modern Culture. Valley Forge, Pa. and Leominster, Herefordshire: Trinity Press International ; and Gracewing, 1997.
———. What Is Mission? Theological Explorations. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1999.
Knitter, Paul F. No Other Name? : A Critical Survey of Christian Attitudes toward the World Religions, American Society of Missiology Series ; No. 7. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1985.
Kritzinger, J. N. J., and W. A. Saayman, eds. Mission in Creative Tension: A Dialogue with David Bosch. Pretoria, South Africa: South African Missiological Society, 1990.
Legrand, Lucien. Le Dieu Qui Vient : La Mission Dans La Bible. Paris: Desclee, 1988.
———. Unity and Plurality. Mission in the Bible. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1990.
Livingston, John Kevin. A Missiology of the Road : The Theology of Mission and Evangelism in the Writings of David J. Bosch, 1992.
Lossky, Nicholas, ed. Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement. Geneva, and Grand Rapids, MI: WCC Publications, and Eerdmans, 1991.
Müller, Karl, Theo Sundermeier, Stephen B. Bevans, and Richard H. Bliese, eds. Dictionary of Mission : Theology, History, Perspectives, American Society of Missiology Series ; No. 24. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1997.
Myklebust Olav, Guttorm. Missiology in Contemporary Theological Education : A Factual Survey, 1989.
Neill, Stephen, Gerald H. Anderson, and John Goodwin. Concise Dictionary of the Christian World Mission. Nashville,: Abingdon Press, 1971.
Newbigin, Lesslie. The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. Grand Rapids, Mich: and Geneva: W. B. Eerdmans ; and WCC Publications, 1989.
Nicholls, Bruce, and Bong Rin Ro. Beyond Canberra : Evangelical Responses to Contemporary Ecumenical Issues. 1st ed. Oxford: Regnum Books, 1993.
Pachuau, Lalsangkima. "Missiology in a Pluralistic World. The Place of Mission Study in Theological Education." International Review of Mission LXXXIX, no. 355 (2000): 539-55.
Parker, Kenneth, Richard Peace, and James Singleton. Teaching Evangelism. A Collection of Syllabi from North American Seminaries: MARC, 1990.
Pillay, Gerald J. "Text, Paradigms and Context: An Examination of David Bosch's Use of Paradigms in the Reading of Christian History." In Mission in Creative Tension: A Dialogue with David Bosch, edited by J. N. J. Kritzinger and W. A. Saayman, 109-23. Menlo Park: South African Missiological Society, 1990.
Ramambason, Laurent W. Missiology : Its Subject-Matter and Method : A Study of Mission-Doers in Madagascar. Frankfurt am Main ; New York: Peter Lang, 1999.
Roxborogh, John. "The History and Scope of BISAM within IAMS: 1972 - 1992." In To Caste Fire Upon the Earth: Bible and Mission Collaborating in Today's Multicultural Global Context, edited by Teresa Okure. Pietermaritzburg, South Africa: Cluster Publications, 2000.
Saayman, Willem, and Klippies Kritzinger, eds. Mission in Bold Humility. David Bosch's Work Considered. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1996.
Sanders, John. No Other Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of the Unevangelized. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub., 1992.
Scherer, James A. "Missiology as a Discipline and What It Includes." In New Directions in Mission and Evangelization 2: Theological Foundations, edited by James A. Scherer and Stephen B. Bevans, 173-87. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1994.
Schreiter, Robert J. "Book Review : Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in the Theology of Mission. By David Bosch, Maryknoll, N.Y.; Orbis, 1991." International Bulletin of Missionary Research 15, no. 4 (1991): 180-81.
Senior, Donald, and Carroll Stuhlmueller. The Biblical Foundations for Mission. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1983.
Shenk, Wilbert. "Christian Mission and the Coming "Clash of Civilizations"." Missiology XXVIII, no. 3 (2000): 291-304.
Stackhouse, Max L. Apologia : Contextualization, Globalization, and Mission in Theological Education. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1988.
Stransky, Thomas F., Gerald H. Anderson, and Charles W. Forman. Crucial Issues in Mission Today, Mission Trends ; No. 1. New York: Paulist Press, 1974.
Sundermeier, Theo. "Missiology Yesterday and Tomorrow." In Mission in Creative Tension. A Dialogue with David Bosch, edited by J. N. J. Kritzinger and W. A. Saayman, 259-69. Pretoria: South African Missiological Society, 1990.
Taylor, William David, ed. Global Missiology in the Twenty-First Century : Reflections from the Iguassu Dialogue. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000.
Thomas, Norman E., ed. Classic Texts in Mission and World Christianity, American Society of Missiology Series ; No. 20. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1995.
Towner, Philip H. "Paradigms Lost: Mission to the Kosmos in John and in David Bosch's Biblical Models of Mission." Evangelical Quarterly 67, no. 2 (1995): 99-119.
Verstraelen, Frans J. "Mission in Bold Humility." In Mission in Bold Humilty. David Bosch's Work Considered, edited by A. Saayman Willem and Klippies Kritzinger. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1996.
Walls, Andrew F. "Missiological Education in Historical Perspective." In Missiological Education for the 21st Century. The Book, the Circle, and the Sandals. Essays in Honor of Paul E. Pierson., edited by J. Dudley Woodberry, Charles Van Engen and Edgar J. Elliston, 11-17. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1997.
———. "Structural Problems in Mission Studies." International Bulletin of Missionary Research 15, no. 4 (1991): 146-55.
Wilson, F. R., ed. The San Antonio Report. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1990.
Winter, Ralph D., and Steven C. Hawthorne, eds. Perspectives on the World Christian Movement. A Reader. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1981.
Yung, Hwa. "Transforming Mission." Review of David J. Bosh, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission, Maryknoll: NY Orbis Books, 1991. International Review of Mission LXXXI, no. 322 (1992): 319-24.
1 Bosch, David Jacobus, South African missiologist born near Kuruman, South Africa, 1929, died in a car accident, 15 April 1992. He studied at the universities of Pretoria and Basel (ThD, 1957) and served as a Dutch Reformed missionary in the Transkei. He founded the Southern African Missiological Society (SAMS) in 1968 and was first editor of its journal, Missionalia. He became professor of missiology at the University of South Africa (UNISA) in 1971. He was known for his gracious pastoral and spiritual sensitivities, enjoyed the trust of diverse groups of Christians, and in his magisterial Transforming Mission (1991) produced the summative work of classic 20th century missiology.
2 I understand missiology to refer to reflection, particularly within the Christian community, about God’s purpose for the church in the context of his purpose for creation. As usuage has developed it may be possible to understand the closely related term “mission studies” to be the study of the mission of the church particularly in terms of its effects, not just its intentions, and as carried out by all interested parties, including those in the “academy” whether or not they share a Christian commitment. Both missiology and mission studies have tended to be associated with people whose perspective relates to mission outside their own country or culture. In the 1990s both have often come to include a domestic as well as a global focus. The core academic disciplines of those seeing themselves as missiologists have often been church history, theology, cultural anthropology and religious studies, though there is no reason why biblical or pastoral studies should not be more highly represented.
3 For discussion see among other sources in the bibliography, Johannes Aagaard, "Trends in Missiological Thinking During the Sixties," International Review of Mission 62 (1973)., Arnulf Camps, Missiology : An Ecumenical Introduction : Texts and Contexts of Global Christianity (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1995)., David J. Bosch, "Theological Education in Missionary Perspective," Missiology X, no. 1 (1982)., Karl Müller et al., eds., Dictionary of Mission : Theology, History, Perspectives, American Society of Missiology Series ; No. 24 (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1997)., Guttorm Myklebust Olav, Missiology in Contemporary Theological Education : A Factual Survey (1989)., Lalsangkima Pachuau, "Missiology in a Pluralistic World. The Place of Mission Study in Theological Education," International Review of Mission LXXXIX, no. 355 (2000)., Laurent W. Ramambason, Missiology : Its Subject-Matter and Method : A Study of Mission-Doers in Madagascar (Frankfurt am Main ; New York: Peter Lang, 1999)., James A. Scherer, "Missiology as a Discipline and What It Includes," in New Directions in Mission and Evangelization 2: Theological Foundations, ed. James A. Scherer and Stephen B. Bevans (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1994)., Theo Sundermeier, "Missiology Yesterday and Tomorrow," in Mission in Creative Tension. A Dialogue with David Bosch, ed. J. N. J. Kritzinger and W. A. Saayman (Pretoria: South African Missiological Society, 1990)., and William David Taylor, ed., Global Missiology in the Twenty-First Century : Reflections from the Iguassu Dialogue (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000)..
4 Max L. Stackhouse, Apologia : Contextualization, Globalization, and Mission in Theological Education (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1988).
5 David J. Bosch, "Behind Melbourne and Pattaya: A Typology of Two Movements," IAMS Newsletter, no. 16-17 (1980).
6 Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (Grand Rapids, Mich: and Geneva: W. B. Eerdmans ; and WCC Publications, 1989).
7 David B. Barrett and Todd M. Johnson, Our Globe and How to Reach It : Seeing the World Evangelized by AD 2000 & Beyond : A Manual for the Decade of Evangelization, 1990-2000 (Birmingham, Ala.: New Hope, 1990).
8 Paul F. Knitter, No Other Name? : A Critical Survey of Christian Attitudes toward the World Religions, American Society of Missiology Series ; No. 7 (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1985).
9 Andrew F. Walls, "Missiological Education in Historical Perspective," in Missiological Education for the 21st Century. The Book, the Circle, and the Sandals. Essays in Honor of Paul E. Pierson., ed. J. Dudley Woodberry, Charles Van Engen, and Edgar J. Elliston (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1997).
10 Johannes Blauw, The Missionary Nature of the Church; a Survey of the Biblical Theology of Mission (Grand Rapids, Mich.,: Eerdmans, 1974).. Reprinted by Eerdmans in 1974.
11 Donald Senior and Carroll Stuhlmueller, The Biblical Foundations for Mission (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1983).
12 Lucien Legrand, Unity and Plurality. Mission in the Bible (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1990)., Lucien Legrand, Le Dieu Qui Vient : La Mission Dans La Bible (Paris: Desclee, 1988).
13 Andrew F. Walls, "Structural Problems in Mission Studies," International Bulletin of Missionary Research 15, no. 4 (1991).
14 Stephen Neill, Gerald H. Anderson, and John Goodwin, Concise Dictionary of the Christian World Mission (Nashville,: Abingdon Press, 1971).
15 Gerald H. Anderson, ed., The Theology of the Christian Mission (London: SCM Press, 1962).
16 Thomas F. Stransky, Gerald H. Anderson, and Charles W. Forman, Crucial Issues in Mission Today, Mission Trends ; No. 1 (New York: Paulist Press, 1974)., Gerald H. Anderson and Thomas F. Stransky, Evangelization, Mission Trends ; No. 2 (New York: Paulist Press, 1975)., Gerald H. Anderson and Thomas F. Stransky, Third World Theologies, Mission Trends ; No. 3 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1978)., Gerald H. Anderson and Thomas F. Stransky, Liberation Theologies in North America and Europe, Mission Trends ; No. 4 (New York: Paulist Press, 1979)., and Gerald H. Anderson and Thomas F. Stransky, Faith Meets Faith, Mission Trends ; No. 5 (New York, NY. and Grand Rapids, Mich.: Paulist Press ; and W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1981).
17 Kenneth Parker, Richard Peace, and James Singleton, Teaching Evangelism. A Collection of Syllabi from North American Seminaries (MARC, 1990).
18 Ralph D. Winter and Steven C. Hawthorne, eds., Perspectives on the World Christian Movement. A Reader (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 1981).
19 (U.K.) Evangelical Alliance, "The Salvation of the Gentiles. Implications for Other Faiths," Evangelical Review of Theology January (1991).
20 John Sanders, No Other Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of the Unevangelized (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub., 1992).
21 Nicholas Lossky, ed., Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement (Geneva, and Grand Rapids, MI: WCC Publications, and Eerdmans, 1991).
22 William R. Burrows, ed., Redemption and Dialogue. Reading Redemptoris Missio and Dialogue and Proclamation. (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1995)., William R. Burrows, "Redemptoris Missio after Ten Years. Reflections from an American Perspective," (forthcoming).
23 Jon Bonk, Missions and Money : Affluence as a Western Missionary Problem, American Society of Missiology Series ; No. 15 (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1991).
24 David Jacobus Bosch, Transforming Mission : Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission, American Society of Missiology Series ; No. 16 (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1991).
25 Hwa Yung, "Transforming Mission," review of David J. Bosh, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission, Maryknoll: NY Orbis Books, 1991., International Review of Mission LXXXI, no. 322 (1992)., Kirsteen Kim, "Post-Modern Mission. A Paradigm Shift in David Bosch's Theology of Mission?," International Review of Mission LXXXIX, no. 353 (2000)., John Kevin Livingston, A Missiology of the Road : The Theology of Mission and Evangelism in the Writings of David J. Bosch (1992)., John Roxborogh, "The History and Scope of BISAM within IAMS: 1972 - 1992," in To Caste Fire Upon the Earth: Bible and Mission Collaborating in Today's Multicultural Global Context, ed. Teresa Okure (Pietermaritzburg, South Africa: Cluster Publications, 2000)., Willem Saayman and Klippies Kritzinger, eds., Mission in Bold Humility. David Bosch's Work Considered. (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1996)., Robert J. Schreiter, "Book Review : Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in the Theology of Mission. By David Bosch, Maryknoll, N.Y.; Orbis, 1991," International Bulletin of Missionary Research 15, no. 4 (1991)., Philip H. Towner, "Paradigms Lost: Mission to the Kosmos in John and in David Bosch's Biblical Models of Mission," Evangelical Quarterly 67, no. 2 (1995)..
26 Personal email from Stephen Hayes, 9 March 1999.
27 See Gerald J. Pillay, "Text, Paradigms and Context: An Examination of David Bosch's Use of Paradigms in the Reading of Christian History," in Mission in Creative Tension: A Dialogue with David Bosch, ed. J. N. J. Kritzinger and W. A. Saayman (Menlo Park: South African Missiological Society, 1990)..
28 The South African Missiological Society marked Bosch’s 60th birthday by making the theme of their 1990 congress “A missiology of the road: In dialogue with David Bosch” and publishing the papers as a festschrift in his honour. What was different about these as festschrift papers was that they responded to the invitation to dialogue by being critical of Bosch and each other Kritzinger and Saayman, eds., Mission in Creative Tension: A Dialogue with David Bosch.
29 Including, J. N. J. Kritzinger and W. A. Saayman, eds., Mission in Creative Tension: A Dialogue with David Bosch (Pretoria, South Africa: South African Missiological Society, 1990)., Saayman and Kritzinger, eds., Mission in Bold Humility. David Bosch's Work Considered. and Norman E. Thomas, ed., Classic Texts in Mission and World Christianity, American Society of Missiology Series ; No. 20 (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1995)., which serves as a critique as well as a supplement to Transforming Mission.
30 Thomas, ed., Classic Texts in Mission and World Christianity., xv.
31 Kim, "Post-Modern Mission. A Paradigm Shift in David Bosch's Theology of Mission?."
32 J. Andrew Kirk, What Is Mission? Theological Explorations. (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1999).
33 Bruce Nicholls and Bong Rin Ro, Beyond Canberra : Evangelical Responses to Contemporary Ecumenical Issues, 1st ed. (Oxford: Regnum Books, 1993).. See also the statement signed by Evangelicals at Canberra, including by New Zealanders John Evans, John McKinlay and Bruce Nicholls.
34 David J Bosch, "Evangelism," Mission Focus 9, no. 4 (1981).. See alsoDavid Bosch, "In Search of Mission: Reflections on 'Melbourne' and 'Pattaya.'" Missionalia 9, no. 1.
35 Mission Studies 11, 6(1) 61-69.
36 Ibid., 64.
37 Ibid., 14.
38 The contexts were not so much cultural particularities as the large eras of human history defined and grouped as paradigms.
39 Frans J Verstraelen, "Mission in Bold Humility," in Mission in Bold Humilty. David Bosch's Work Considered, ed. A. Saayman Willem and Klippies Kritzinger (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1996). makes astute observations about the character of Bosch’s writing, but perhaps could make more allowance for this being the nature of the case for a work of theology of this nature.
40 Bosch, Transforming Mission : Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission. 489. Bosch quotes F. R. Wilson, ed., The San Antonio Report (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1990). 33 as the source of the quote. He was at San Antonio and may himself have been the author of the phrase.
41 As J. Andrew Kirk, The Mission of Theology and Theology as Mission, ed. Alan Neely, H. Wayne Pipkin, and Wilbert Shenk, Christian Mission and Modern Culture (Valley Forge, Pa. and Leominster, Herefordshire: Trinity Press International ; and Gracewing, 1997).
42 Wilbert Shenk, "Christian Mission and the Coming "Clash of Civilizations"," Missiology XXVIII, no. 3 (2000).
43 Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilisations and the Remaking of World Order (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1996).
44 See Kim, "Post-Modern Mission. A Paradigm Shift in David Bosch's Theology of Mission?.", Stephen B. Bevans, "God inside Out: Toward a Missionary Theology of the Holy Spirit," International Bulletin of Missionary Research 22, no. 3 (1998)., and a forthcoming paper by Susan Smith, “The Spirit and Contemporary Christian Mission".
45 Pachuau, "Missiology in a Pluralistic World. The Place of Mission Study in Theological Education."