We have wandered far into the thick of Bosch’s tome Transforming Mission, summarizing the various missionary paradigms throughout church history and the changes to the concept of mission throughout the centuries. I admit that this was getting a little dense, but now we have reached Part 3, and the thicket has opened up to a vista of the contemporary landscape. In Part 3, Bosch takes us on a journey “toward a relevant missiology” that explores the “emerging postmodern paradigm” in all of its facets. We will walk more slowly through these sections, and I hope you find something to appreciate. The view that Bosch produces is that of “mission as the church-with-others.”
In the middle of the twentieth century, Catholics and Protestant theologians alike started to conceive of the church as essentially missionary, with missions simply being the Church at work rather than the work of the church. Later, this became known as the “missional” dimension of every church, whether or not a particular church engaged in any work with specific missionary intention. More than Protestant theologian in the 20th century, Karl Barth developed the missional aspect of the church, identifying justification with the gathering of the church, sanctification with the upbuilding of the church, and vocation with the sending and mission of the church (Church Dogmatics, vol. 4).
In addition, the church if often called a sacrament, sign, or instrument that allows the world to experience salvation, therefore making it the only organization that exists for the sake of others (a quote by William Temple). Likewise, as Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote in a letter from prison, “the church is the church only when it exists for others.” But we need to be careful with this language, since it easily slips into the colonial, paternalistic idea of mission so common throughout the Church’s history of being and bringing the church-to-others and even church-for-others. It is better, says Bosch, to speak of mission as the church-with-others.
Many churches still have a tendency to think of the churches they have planted or support, especially abroad, as dependent on their superior model. This fails to see the church’s mission as the church-with-others, since mission is one-way instead of a solidarity and partnership, an “expression of mutual encounter, exchange, and enrichment.” Bosch observes: “The whole world is a mission field, and the distinction between sending and receiving churches is becoming pointless” (380). We must go beyond our donor and dependency syndromes and recognize that all local church’s are missional, and we all need each other.
Armonía is a part of mission as church-with-others by recognizing that when groups and volunteers come to Mexico on their mission trips, it is for the purpose of joining together on God’s mission. The purpose is not for US or UK teams to go on a mission to Mexico and for Armonía to “receive” these missionaries. The purpose is for the people of God in both places to partner together in being a sign and instrument of God’s salvation to the world. In the process, both parts of God’s church are enriched by each other, and both are transformed more into the likeness of Christ. This is mission as the church-with-others.
