GOD'S MISSION TODAY: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS*

Abstract

1. Willingen 1952 I retain four major affirmations from what has been said about the International Missionary Council (IMC) conference of 1952. Firstly, it was held in a time of major missiological crisis because of the abrupt end of missionary work in China. Under the shock of such an event, which could be repeated in other places, the conference struggled with the fundamental definition of what mission is in a time of uncertainty. There is a striking analogy with our present situation. Particularly following the major change in 1989 occasioned by the fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of the Soviet empire, and then also the 11 September 2001 attacks on the USA, we do not seem to have much confidence in what is going to happen next. Not only has the political context become very difficult to predict, the same is also true of economics (losses of financial income) and church development. Pentecostal and charismatic churches grow rapidly in some places of the world, while so-called majority churches seem to move towards minority status. To define major mission plans, if that was ever the task of the church, has become, if not impossible, a rather subjective and questionable thing to do. Secondly, Willingen, like many other such conferences, did not come to a satisfactory conclusion about missiological priorities. There was no final common decision that seemed to the participants. The conference brought to the fore the existing tensions within the Protestant missionary movement. Some speakers at our anniversary consultation even spoke of Willingen as a failure. However, the radiation of the 1952 IMC meeting proved to be of the utmost importance. This shows how difficult it is to evaluate human activities in mission. Thirdly, Willingen's most remarkable achievement was to anchor mission in the doctrine of God or, as others formulated it, to have provided a trinitarian basis for mission. That the term missio Dei itself seems not to have appeared in Willingen itself is of less importance. The influence of conferences has, anyway, much to do with how people interpret them later, as we know very well from having done so ourselves. If I have understood what Wolfgang Gunther said, the achievement of Willingen derived in great part from the preparatory work done in the USA on the simultaneity of God's action in the world and church, and the search for a trinitarian basis of mission. This would also indicate how important preparatory work is for any mission conference. Then, fourthly and lastly, I was struck by how much the reference to God as the basis and main actor in mission could be liberating for people shocked by world and church events. This is like an embodiment of Christ's promise to take away from us what is too heavy for our shoulders (cf. the German word entlastend and Matt. 11: 28-30). I can only wish that we could find a similar way today to speak of mission in the frightening context of economic, political and cultural globalization. Indeed, in that sense missio Dei is good news. 2. Elements for an evaluation of missio Dei theology A. Missio Dei theology has clearly broadened the horizon and fostered a wide understanding of and approach to mission that are of lasting importance. It seems like we have reached a point of no return. Missio Dei has helped to overcome the ecclesiocentric approach which had been highlighted since the 1930s (Tambaram). Missio Dei has been and can be a constant reminder that the church is not the ultimate goal of mission. In that sense, missio Dei plays a similar critical function to the message of the kingdom of God in the New Testament, as contributors emphasized in our consultation. Missio Dei also helped to open up the realms of politics and economics so that they became an integral part of the mission agenda. Missio Dei helped to change the post-Tambaram paradigm used in relation with people of other religions, and enabled Christians to have a more positive approach. …