EXCHANGE 43 (2014) 273-290

EXCHANGE
BRILL brill.com/exch

“Mission and Evangelism” (1982) and “Together

Towards Life” (2013)
A Comparitive Analysis o f the Two Mission Position Statements o f the
World Council o f Churches

Jan A.B.Jongeneel
Honorary Emeritus Professor of Missiology, Utrecht University
jan.jongeneel@inter.nLnet

Abstract

Since its establishment in 1948 the World Council of Churches (w cc) has produced and
approved two position statements on mission and evangelism: Mission and Evangelism:
An Ecumenical Affirmation (1982); and Together towards Life: Mission and Evangelism in
Changing Landscapes (2012). This article compares and analyses these documents. It
deals with six selected topics: vocabulary; (primary) sources; the connection between
world history and mission and church history; systematic mission theology (especially
the doctrine of the Trinity); mission spirituality; and the encounter with the adherents
of other religions and beliefs. Both documents make the World Council and its mem­
ber churches more aware of the missionary obligation. The main difference between
the documents is the shift from a Christ-centered to a Spirit-centered view on mission
and evangelism.

Keywords

World Council of Churches - mission documents - history - systematic theology -

Trinity - spirituality - encounter with other religions and beliefs

Introduction

In 1961 the World Council of Churches (w cc) established the Commission

on World Mission and Evangelism ( c w m e ) as the successor of the Inter­
national Missionary Council ( i m c ). Among other things it commissioned this

© K O N IN K L IJK E BR IL L NV, L E ID E N , 2 0 1 4 | DOI 1 0 .1 1 6 3 /1 5 7 2 5 4 3 X -1 2 3 4 1 3 2 8

274 JONGENEEL

commission to draft statements on mission and evangelism. So far two docu­

ments have been outlined by the cw m e , approved by the Central Committee
of the w cc, and thereupon published and launched: Mission and Evangelism:
An Ecumenical Affirmation (m &e ) in 1982; and Together towards Life: Mission
and Evangelism in Changing Landscapes (ttl ) in 2012.1In 2013 the latter posi­
tion statement was presented at the 10th General Assembly of the w cc in
Busan, Korea. At the time Jooseop Keum (Korea) was cw m e ’s Secretary. In 1982
Emilio Castro (Uruguay) functioned as cw m e ’s Director.
Although various mission documents were published by the cw m e , only
these two texts are official w cc position statements on ‘mission and evange­
lism’. They have a lot in common, but differ in language, size, structure, pur­
pose, and style (many question marks in t tl ). m &e has four chapters, divided
into 47 paragraphs:

Preface
The call to mission (p. 1-5)
The call to proclamation and witness (p. 6-8)
Ecumenical convictions, subdivided in seven sections (p. 9-45)
Looking toward the future (p. 46-47)

ttl has six chapters, divided into 112 paragraphs:

Together towards life: Introducing the theme (p. 1-11)

Spirit of mission: Breath of life (p. 12-35)
Spirit of liberation: Mission from the margins (p. 36-54)
Spirit of community: Church on the move (p. 55-79)
Spirit of Pentecost: Good news for all (p. 80-100)
Feast of life: Concluding affirmations (p. 101-112)

This analytical and comparative article does not take into account the latter
two parts of ttl , that is (2) ‘practical guide;’ and (3) a dvd containing video
clips on the history and activities of the cw m e , the eight preparatory study
reports to TTL, and the centenary issue of the International Review o f Missions
(ir m ). It focuses on the end product of both documents and intends to high­
light their similarities and differences. This comparative analysis deals with six
selected topics.

1 [World Council of Churches], 'Mission and evangelism — An ecumenical affirmation’,

International Review o f Mission 71/284 (1982), 427-451; Jooseop Keum (ed.), Together towards
life: Mission and evangelism in changing landscapes: With a practical guide, Geneva: w cc 2013.

E X C H A N G E 4 3 (2 0 1 4 ) 2 7 3 -2 9 0
“ M IS S IO N AND EVANGELISM" (1 9 8 2 ) AN D “T O G E T H E R TOWARDS L IF E ” (2 0 1 3 ) 275

1 Terminology

Foreign Languages
m &e did not use Hebrew and Latin terms. It merely employed two Greek terms,
occurring in the New Testament: metanoia, conversion, total transformation of
our attitudes and styles of life (p. 12); and ktisis, creation (p. 15). The former was
mentioned in explaining 'Conversion’ (the first ecumenical conviction), and
the latter in connection with the proclamation of ‘the Gospel to all realms of
life’ (the second ecumenical conviction).
ttl is less sober in using non-English terms than m &e . It refers to Biblical
and non-Biblical foreign terms. One Hebrew word is used: ru’ach, spirit (p. 12);
but no less than eight Greek terms follow: [the whole] oikoumene (p. 1,4); meta­
noia, conversion (p. 22); koinonia, communion, fellowship (p. 55, 85); kenosis,
self-emptying (p. 62); diakonia, service (p. 78, 85); martyria, witness (p. 80,85);
leitourgia, worship (p. 85); and kerygma, proclamation or preaching of the
Gospel (p. 86). The ninth Greek term, synaxis (p. 17), does not occur in the New
Testament; it originates from the Eastern Orthodox Rite of Constantinople,
pointing to the common commemoration of saints in special church services.
In addition, ttl uses one Latin term: missio Dei, mission of [the triune] God.
This term does not occur in the opening paragraphs of the document which
talked about ‘the mission of God’ (p. 1, 4), but in later paragraphs (p. 11, 43) —
why? Finally ttl quotes the Vulgate translation of 2 Corinthians 5:14: Caritas
Christi urgetnos, ‘For the love of Christ urges us on,’ in ttl freely translated as:
‘God’s love invites us’ (p. 55).
Church members who are not familiar with the Biblical languages raise
questions about the necessity of foreign terms and expressions in church state­
ments. A sober use of Biblical terms in the original languages can be justified,
but the use of Latin terms hardly. It merely demonstrates the hegemony of the
Western church and Western theology. There are no valid arguments to jus­
tify the use of synaxis and caritas Christi urget nos in a w cc document which
intends to explain ‘mission and evangelism’ to the worldwide community of
believers in Christ.

Academic Language
m &e referred to ‘theology’ and ‘theologians’ in general (p. 18-19). but ttl
seems to view the use of specific theological terms as unproblematic. It talks
frankly about ‘missiology’ (p. 16), ‘missiological [reflections, language, expres­
sions]’ (p. 40, 48,106), ‘pneumatological [focus]’ (p. 16), ‘christological [basis]’
(p. 16), ‘eschatological [coming together, kingdom of God, reality]’ (p. 17, 44),
and ‘ecclesiological [approach]’ (p. 58). But these specific terms belong to

E X C H A N G E 43 (2 0 1 4 ) 2 7 3 -2 9 0
276 JO N G E N EE L

academia; they need to be avoided both in the pulpit and in position state­
ments addressed to church members and congregations. From this point of
view, m & e is more acceptable. Because i t avoided becoming a theological
treatise.

Mission Language
Both documents talk about ‘mission and evangelism’. Since i860 these terms
have been put on a par. In 1874 Andrew N. Somerville published his Lectures
on Mission and Evangelism. Often people associated ‘mission’ with the non-
Western world, and ‘evangelism’ with the West, or: evangelism at home, and
mission abroad. In one way or another, cw m e continued this long tradition,
putting both terms on a par. I belong to the category of scholars who disagree
with this tradition because I view ‘evangelism’and ‘service’as the main goals of
doing mission. In this regard I follow the apostle Paul: ‘For Christ did not send
me to baptize, but to proclaim the Gospet (euangelizesthai) (1 Cor. 1:17).2 m &e
did not explain the link between both key terms, but ttl is quite clear and cor­
rect: ‘Evangelism is mission activity’ (p. 80).
m &e merely used the adjective ‘missionary,’ whereas ttl uses this adjec­
tive and the new adjective ‘missional’ simultaneously. On the one hand it talks
about the ‘missionary God’(p. 2), ‘missionary endeavor’ (p. 26), ‘the missionary
[nature of the] church’ (p. 58, 60, 62, 64), etc., and on the other hand about ‘to
be missional’ (p. 10), the ‘missional movement’ (p. 38), ‘missional perspectives’
(p. 40), ‘missional bodies’ (p. 111), etc. What is the difference between ‘mission­
ary activity’ (p. 41) and ‘missiona/ activity’ (p. 42)? ttl does not explain this
linguistic ambiguity. To be clear: the new term originates from those North
American mission scholars who in recent years replaced the term ‘missionary’
by ‘missiona/’ to put more emphasis upon the dynamics of Gods mission (mis-
sio Dei) in the world.23

2 Jan A.B. Jongeneel, Philosophy, Science, and Theology o f Mission in the igth and 20th Centuries:
A Missiological Encyclopedia, volume i, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang 1995,31-32.
3 Cf. Michael W. Goheen, A Light to the Nations: The Missional Church and the Biblical Story,
Grand Rapids: Baker Academic 2011. Goheen was preceded by other scholars: for instance,
Craig Van Gelder, The Missional Church and Denominations: Helping Congregations Develop
a Missional Identity, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2008; and Darrell L. Guder, Lois Barrett et al.,
Missional Church: A Vision fo r the Sending o f the Church in North America, Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans 1998.

EXCHANGE 4 3 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 2 7 3 - 2 9 0
“M IS S IO N AND EVA NGELISM ” (1982) AND “T O G E T H E R TOWARDS L IF E ” (2 0 1 3 ) 277

Key Terms
Both documents prefer terms such as 'affirmations’. At the same time, they
have their own key terms, m & e favored terms such as 'mission in Christ’s way’
(p. 28-30), ‘God’s preferential option for the poor’ (p. 34-35), and ‘a moratorium,
a halt [ o f mission, for the sake of better mission]’ (p. 38). ‘Preferential option’
is a term borrowed from the liberation theologians in Latin America, whereas
the moratorium question was powerfully raised by John G. Gatu, one of the
presidents o f the All African Council of Churches ( a a c c ).
t t l likes terms such as ‘empower’ (passim), ‘the global South and East’ (p. 5,

104), and ‘mission from the margins’ (p. 36-37). Moreover, it borrows new terms
and items such as ‘being vulnerable’ and ‘living in vulnerable positions’ (p. 38,
70, 92) from missiological publications.4 t t l follows m & e in talking about ‘the
way of Jesus’ (p. 45), ‘the way of the Servant Lord’ (p. 78), and ‘mission and
evangelism in Christ’s way’ (p. 86-92), but it does not use m & e terms such as
‘the preferential option of the poor' and ‘moratorium.’

2 Sources

The Bible and the Creeds o f the Ancient Church

Both documents quote the Bible, not only the New Testament, but also the
Old Testament, t t l excels in doing so. At the same time there are significant
differences between m & e and t t l in quoting Scriptures, m & e favored on the
one hand texts regarding self-emptying, the cross, self-denial, and leaving our
old security behind (Mt. 16:24; Phil. 2:5-11) (see p. 7, 12, 35), and on the one
hand texts on the gathering up of all things in Christ (Eph. 1:10) (see Preface,
p. 19). But t t l shows more interest in texts dealing with the Holy Spirit, such as
the blowing of the wind/Spirit where it/he wills (John 3:8) (see p. 1,15,17, 82),
and the receiving of the Spirit (John 20:22) (see p. 2,14, 57). Contrary to m & e ,
t t l quotes from the first Bible book, starting with the explanation of the role

of God’s Spirit in the creation (Gen. 1:2; 2:7) (see p. 1,12). Being a Protestant I
adhere to the old adage ‘Scriptures alone (sola scriptura)-,’ but 1like to question
the purpose of the tens of Bible texts in m & e and t t l . The many references
remind me of the old-fashioned method of ‘proof texts (loca probanda)'. I am
confident that many more people could have been willing to open the Bible
and read the passages concerned if a few fewer key texts been mentioned;
referring to a too large amount of Bible texts seems to be contra-productive.

4 David Bosch, The Vulnerability o f Mission, Birmingham: Selly Oaks 1991.

EXCHANGE 4 3 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 2 7 3 - 2 9 0
278 JO N G E N E E L

In reflecting upon the 'common witness’ of the Christian churches, m &e did
not only recognize the authority of the Bible, but also that of the creeds of
the Ancient Church (p. 19,23). But ttl does not pay attention to the Apostles’
Creed and/or the Nicene Creed, and therefore does not view ‘common witness’
as rooted in ‘the reality of a deep spiritual unity’ (p. 23), which has existed since
the Early Church. In this regard m &e is much more ecumenical than ttl .

Ecumenical and Related Sources

The text of m &e does not explicitly mention ecumenical sources. But it quotes
the Lausanne Covenant (p. 38), drafted by the Englishman John R.W. Stott and
adopted by the International Congress [of Evangelicals] on World Mission and
Evangelism at Lausanne in 1974. To the text m &e added 20 footnotes which
refer to the wcc constitution; cwme documents such as the report of the
Melbourne conference Your Kingdom Come: Mission Perspective (1980); and
denominational sources (Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism). Only
one person is mentioned by name: Philip A. Potter, the w e e ’s general secretary
(1972-1984). Besides m &e added 11 appendices, all being extensive quotes. Nine
referred to various ecumenical sources (including Philip A. Potter); but the first
two appendices dealt with the Early Church.
In addition to the text t t l offers 28 footnotes and no appendices. Except
footnote 2, they refer to ecumenical, evangelical, or denominational pub­
lications. It mentions m &e , but it does not take any of the sources of m &e
into account. It even passes over Common Witness: A Study Document o f the
Joint Working Group o f the Roman Catholic Church and the wcc (1981), which
can be viewed as the predecessor of Christian Witness in a Multi-Religious
World: Recommendations fo r Conduct (2011), jointly published by the w cc,
the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue, and the World Evangelical
Alliance (p. 90).
t t l ’s footnote 2 refers to Todd M. Johnson and Kenneth R. Ross (eds.), Atlas

of global Christianity (2009). Although an excellent study, it does not belong

to the scope of a document of the w cc as ecumenical and ecclesiastic body.
Ecclesiastic documents such as m &e and t t l need to transcend the level
of references to personal publications. Moreover, t t l ’s Foreword acknowl­
edges Ross by name. The other way around, t t l quotes a famous statement
of the Swiss theologian Emil Brunner: ‘The church exists by mission, just as a
fire exists by burning’, but without mentioning his name and his publication
(see p. 57).5

5 Emil Brunner, The Word and the World, London: SC M Press 1931, 108.

EXCHANGE 43 (2014) 273-290

“MISSION AND EVANGELISM" (1982) AND “TOGETHER TOWARDS LIFE” (2013) 2 7 9

3 World History, Mission History, and Church History

World History
m & e and t t l deal with ‘world history,’ or ‘human history’, in passing. The for­

mer seems to be more conscious of world history than the latter, m & e talked
about ‘our historical reality’ (p. n), ‘the action of the body of Christ in the his­
tory of humankind’ (p. 20), and ‘historical experience’ (p. 35). It highlighted
that God is historically at work through the people of Israel and the incarna­
tion of His own son Jesus Christ: ‘for the salvation of all’ (p. 35). In addition it
emphasized ‘God’s loving lordship over all human history’ (p. 14), and criti­
cized ‘the history books written by the conquerors’, which did not pay atten­
tion to the poor of the world (p. 36). Finally it raised ultimate theological and
philosophical questions such as: ‘what is... the goal of history?’ (p. 18). t t l
speaks about ‘World Christianity’ (p. 5, 111), but it does not add the broader
term ‘world history.’ In passing it states: ‘The church in history has not always
existed’ (p. 57).
The terms ‘cycle,’ or ‘wheel’ (symbol of Buddhism), and ‘line’ are lacking
in m & e . But t t l refers to ‘young people thinking in a non-linear, visual, and
experiential way’ (p. 72). Nevertheless it does not make a distinction between
cyclical and linear/goal-directed views of time and history. Both documents
are not grounded in thorough reflections on the nature of time and history
in general.6

Mission and Church History

m & e pointed to the story of carrying the gospel across national and conti­

nental boundaries: first from Jerusalem to Judaea and Samaria; then to Asia
Minor, Africa and Europe; and now to the ends of the earth (p. 30). ‘Christians
today are the heirs of a long history of those who left their home countries and
churches’ (p. 39). The document also discussed the expansion of the mission­
ary service of mainly Western churches to ‘all corners of the earth’ (p. 39). At
the same time, it observed that nowadays ‘the centres of the missionary expan­
sion of the church are moving from the North to the South' (p. 36).
m & e wanted to learn lessons from the past, starting with ‘the patristic lesson

that the church is the mouth and voice of the poor and the oppressed’ (p. 15).
It emphasized that the Ancient churches have exemplary significance because
‘they have proved the powerful witnessing character o f ... rooting... in the
national soil’ (p. 26). The first two appendices of m & e quoted from the writings

6 Jan A.B. Jongeneel.yesus Christ in World History: His Presence and Representation in Cyclical
a n d Linear Settings, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang 2009,26-31.

EXCHANGE 43 (2014) 273-290

28o JONGENEEL

of two Early Church authors, namely Clement of Rome and Diognetus. m &e
also noted that there were many betrayals in the history of the churches (p. 20).
But ‘the history of the church... needs to continue’ (p. 39). Nowadays it can be
observed that ‘churches have sprung up in practically every country’ (p. 25).
The house gatherings of the church in China and the basic ecclesial commu­
nities in Latin America are sketched as clear ‘indications’ of church renewal
and transformation (p. 22). The churches of the poor who spread the liberating
Gospel of Jesus Christ are a blessing for ‘the churches with a centuries-old his­
tory’ (p. 36).
t t l also pays attention to ‘the history of Christian mission’ (p. 5) and ‘the
church in history’ (p. 57), with a reference to the ‘early Christians’ (p. 25). In
passing it looks at the role of Western ‘colonial powers in the history of mis­
sion’ (p. 98). Further it points to the changing landscape in today’s setting: ‘the
majority of Christians either are living or have their origins in the global South
and East’ (p. 5). This implies a paradigm shift of the concept of mission: not
anymore ‘mission [from the West] to the margins,’ but the other way around:
‘mission from the margins’ (p. 6). ‘The shifting centre of gravity of Christianity
to the global South and East’ is a great challenge to mission theory and mission
practice (p. 106).
m &e merely referred to one institution: the w c c (p. 1). But t t l broadens the
horizon. It pays attention to the w c c and the cwme (p. 60, 65), as well as to
the imc and other para-church structures and movements (p. 64). It also talks
about ‘denominational allegiance’ (p. 62), and refers to various denominations
and bodies: ‘Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican. Protestant, Evangelical, Pentecostal,
and Indigenous’ (p. 65). But it does not mention concrete churches in specific
nations and continents like m &e did.
m &e and t t l dealt with the intimate link between ‘mission’ and ‘church.’
m &e stated that Jesus’ sending of the disciples preceded the expansion of the
church (p. 3-4). But t t l does not want to make the church the result of mis­
sion. It declares: ‘It is not possible to separate church and mission in terms of
their origin or purpose’ (p. 57). Contrary to m &e ’s historical orientation, the
observations of t t l seem to be more phenomenological.
Finally it must be noted that both documents refer to some special events
in mission and church history. But none pays specific attention to Israel as a
contemporary reality. It seems that they limit the role of ‘the people of Israel’
(m &e , p. 2,12, 35) in world history and salvation history to the Old Testament
period (neither m &e nor t t l uses the disputed term ‘salvation history’). It
is likely that this passing by has to do with the deep controversy in the w cc
regarding ‘the continued election of the Jewish people alongside the church’.
Member churches in the West, especially in The Netherlands and in Germany,

EXCHANGE 43 (2014) 273-290

“MISSION AND EVANGELISM” (1982) AND “TOGETHER TOWARDS LIFE” (2013) 28l

hold the view that the appearance of Jesus Christ in world history did not imply
the end of God’s special care for ‘the people of Israel’; but Oriental Orthodox
Churches and Protestant churches in the Middle East emphasize that ‘election
and vocation are solely in Christ’.7

4 Systematic M ission Theology

Triune God
m &e and t t l are outspoken Trinitarian documents. The former talked about
the Holy Trinity and God in Trinity — personally described as Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit (p. 1,12,15). It referred to God as Father (p. 1, 5, 8,10, 28), Lord
(p. 14), and Creator of the whole universe (p. 43); to Jesus Christ as God (p. 1),
the Son of God incarnate (p. 1, 8, 35), the Savior of the whole world (p. 1), the
Crucifies and Risen Lord/Christ (p. 1,2,4,6, 8,10,14,30,32,47), the Son of man
(p. 8), the Mediator between God and His creation (p. 6), the Word (p. 26,42),
and the High Priest offering Himself for the salvation of the world (p. 30); and
to the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of God (p. 43). This docum ent is basically Christ-
centered. The main titles given to Jesus Christ are Lord and Mediator.
t t l also refers to the Holy Trinity (p. 2,18,29), but itspeaks more often about

‘the triune God’ (p. 1, 2,11,19, 26, 55, 80, 95,101,112) — functionally described
as ‘Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer of all life’ (p. 1). God is profiled as the God
of life (p. 1,105,112), the Creator (p. 3, 22), and Father (p. 14,16); Jesus Christ as
the Life of the world (p. 1), the Son (p. 4), the servant King (p. 6), the firstborn
from the dead (p. 13), the crucified and risen Lord/Christ (p. 56,61,73); and the
Holy Spirit as the Life-giver (p. 1,25), ‘the power from on high’ (p. 14), Paraclete,
Counselor, and Advocate (p. 16), God’s Spirit (p. 19, 22, 24, 25, 37,105), Spirit
of truth (p. 17, 103), Spirit of wisdom (p. 27), Spirit of unity (p. 66), Spirit of
mission (p. 73), and Spirit of love and humility (p. 109). Moreover, t t l summa­
rizes the traditional symbols and titles of the Spirit: ‘fire, light, dew, fountain,
anointing, healing, melting, warming, solace, comfort, strength, rest, washing,
shining’ (p. 26). It seems that t t l wants to be as exhaustive as possible in its
description of the Spirit. It still honors Jesus Christ, but does not explicitly pro­
claim Him as ‘God’ (cf. the Constitution of the w c c and m & e in its wake).
Mission is not only an event between the triune God and humanity, but
also, and first of all, inside the Trinity: between the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit. The Father has sent the Son; and the Father (and the Son) has sent

7 Paul M. van Buuren, ‘Israel and the Church', in: Nicholas Lossky et al. (eds.), Dictionary o f the
Ecumenical Movement, Geneva: w cc Publications & Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1991,537.

EXCHANGE 43 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 2 7 3 - 2 9 0
282 J O N G E N E E L

the Spirit. Eastern Orthodoxy and the Roman Catholic Church profoundly dif­
fer regarding the sending of the Spirit. The former highlights the sending of
the Holy Spirit by the Father only, and the latter her sending by the Son as
well (Latin:filioque).8 Both m &e and t t l exercise caution in this regard, m &e
stated: ‘it was the Father who in the power of the Spirit sent Jesus Christ’ (p. 1).
t t l writes in a quite similar evasive way: ‘The missionary God... sent the Son

to the world’ (p. 2), and 'The Holy Spirit is seen as the continuing presence of
Christ, his agent to fulfill the task of mission’ (p. 16).

Mission as the Triune God on the Move

m &e connected mission and evangelism with the triune God. It spoke o f‘God’s
preferential option for the poor’ (p. 34-35), and viewed the poor as belonging
to ‘the missionary people of God in the world’ (p. 34, 39). At the same time, it
sketched Jesus’ resurrection as the opening up of ‘a new period of missionary
obedience’ (p. 8). Jesus is the sender of the disciples and the commissioner
of the apostles to the world (p. 3). As Mediator he called the church to be a
‘mediatory movement,’ with a ‘mission of mediation in Christ’ (p. 6), that is
a ‘mediatory mission’ (p. 6). Additionally m &e linked mission with the Holy
Spirit, defining Christian mission as 'the action of the body of Christ in the
history of mankind — a continuation of Pentecost’ (p. 20). But Jesus Christ
is at the center of the Christian mission, m &e understood the common wit­
ness of the churches as ‘the natural consequence of their unity with Christ in
his mission’ (p. 23). Their ‘obedience in mission should be patterned on the
ministry and teaching of Jesus’ (p. 28). The final sentence of m &e summarized
this Christ-centered perspective: ‘The same Lord who sends his people to
cross all frontiers and to enter into the most unknown territories in His name,
is the one who assures: “I am with you always, to the close of the age” ’ (cf.
Mt. 28:20) (p. 47).
t t l does not use m &e terms such as ‘God’s preferential option for the poor’

and ‘mediatory mission’. It transforms the former term into ‘opting to be with
the marginalized people’ p. (36), and creates its own vocabulary. It links mis­
sion with God, stating that ‘mission begins in the heart of the triune God’ (p. 2).
God is viewed as the one who invites Christians and churches to participate ‘in
the life-giving mission of the triune God’ (p. 1). t t l frequently uses the term
‘the mission of God (missio Dei)! At the same time it explicitly links mission
with Jesus Christ and the Spirit. It recognizes mission as ‘a common witness
to Christ’ (p. 101), and it contributes to a renewed appreciation o f ‘the mission

8 Jongeneel, Philosophy, Science, and Theology of Mission, volume 11, 59-60.

EXCHANGE 43 (2014) 273-290

“M IS S IO N AND EVANGELISM” (1 9 8 2 ) AND “T O G E T H E R TOWARDS L IF E ” (2 0 1 3 ) 283

of the Spirit’ (p. 2,11), within the ‘mission of the triune God’ (p. 11), viewing
‘life in the Holy Spirit’ as ‘the essence of Christian mission’ (p. 3). This docu­
ment has four Spirit-centered chapters, starting with ‘Spirit of Mission: Breath
of Life’ (p. 12-35). In this opening chapter the mission of God’s Spirit starts with
the creation; the next chapter points to her continuing work in history (p. 43),
in Jesus Christ, and in the church. ‘The Spirit empowers the church for a life-
nurturing mission’ (p. 51). ‘The Spirit of Christ... empowers the church in mis­
sion’ (p. 57). The church is not only defined as ‘the people of God,’ as ‘the body
of Christ,’ but also as ‘the temple of the Holy Spirit’ (p. 111). Contrary to the
perception of Conservative Christians, ttl sees the Spirit also at work outside
the church. ‘God’s Spirit can be found in all cultures that affirm life’ (p. 93). The
Concluding Affirmations of ttl (p. 101-112) connect‘the mission of God’s Spirit’
(p. 101) with fullness of life for all, re-creation, transformation, and the renewal
of the whole creation.
m &e talked about ‘sharing of persons and resources’ (p. 37), and ‘a halt — at
least for a time — to sending and receiving missionaries and resources across
national boundaries’ (p. 38). It agreed with the following statement of the
Lausanne Covenant (1974): ‘the reduction of foreign missionaries and money in
an evangelized country may sometimes be necessary to facilitate the national
church’ (p. 38). After the publication of the Lausanne Covenant and m &e , mis­
sionaries are not only sent from the West to the Third World, but also and
increasingly the other way around: from the South to the North. In this regard
ttl walks in the footsteps of m &e and talks about a ‘reversal of roles’ (p. 6).
But it leaves the question of the roots of the missionaries (in West and/or East)
more or less undecided: ‘Christians who lived and worked as missionaries far
away from their own cultural contexts did so with humility’ (p. 87).

5 Mission Spirituality

Spirituality in General
m &e and ttl pay considerable attention to spirituality in general and to prayer
especially. In this regard they are basically one. But they differ in the elabora­
tion of these topics.
m &e made a distinction which does not occur in t t l : it wanted to over­
come the old dichotomy between evangelism and social action. Therefore
it stated: ‘The “spiritual Gospel” and the “material Gospel” were in Jesus one
Gospel’ (p. 33). Consequently the churches ‘should share their spiritual and
material resources’ (p. 23). Ecumenical churches who ‘discovered the reality of

EXCHANGE 43 (2014) 273-290

284 JO N G E N E E L

a deep spiritual unity’ (p. 23), need to recognize ‘voluntary poverty’ as ‘a source
of spiritual inspiration’ (p. 36), and to deal with ‘the spiritual longings of those
who have not heard Christ’s name' (p. 17).
t t l talks more about spirituality than m &e did. It is convinced that ‘the
church in mission can only be sustained by spiritualities deeply rooted in the
Trinity’s com m union of love’ (p. 29). It frequently uses the term ‘mission spiri­
tuality’ (p. 3, 30, 104), stating: ‘Spirituality gives the deepest meaning to our
liv es... It is a sacred gift from the C reator... This mission spirituality has a
dynamic of transformation which, through the spiritual com m itm ent of peo­
ple, is capable of transforming the world in God’s grace’ (p. 3). Subsequently
it uses the term ‘transformative spirituality’ (p. 74), and even devotes a whole
section to this subject (p. 29-35). Spirituality — except ‘individualistic spiritu­
ality,’ that ‘makes us feel good’ (p. 21) — is seen as ‘the source of energy for mis­
sion’ (p. 104). t t l reflects upon ‘the sources of spirituality’ (p. 22) and ‘spiritual
gifts’ (p. 24-28, 76). Moreover, it points to the presence of spirituality outside
the realm of the church. The Spirit also works in ‘other faith traditions. We
acknowledge that there is inherent value and wisdom in diverse life-giving
spiritualities’ (p. 93), including the ‘spritualities that are respectful of the earth’
(p. 20). m &e only talked about ‘spirituality’ in the singular, but t t l uses the
plural three times.

Prayers and Worship

m &e occasionally dealt with prayers, sometimes in connection with worship.
It paid more attention to doxology than t t l does, m &e referred to the exam­
ple given by Jesus who spend hours in prayer (p. 28). It called the w c c and
its m em ber churches to do mission ‘to the glory of the one God, Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit’ (p. 1). The mystery of the Eucharist enables them to confess
the Lordship of Jesus Christ ‘to the glory of God the Father’ (p. 21). m &e also
connected ‘Eucharistic worship’ with thanksgiving and intercessory prayer
for all hum anity (p. 6). ‘Prayers of intercession for churches in other parts of
the world’ belong to participating ‘fully in the world mission of the Christian
church’ (p. 20, 37). Special attention is paid to the ‘restricted but serving, wait­
ing, and praying churches’ in some troubled countries (p. 30). The churches in
East and West can only resist the hard realities of daily life by having ‘faith sup­
ported by prayer, contem plation and adoration’ (p. 47). Although this phrase
does nor refer to meditation, it is obvious that m &e regarded worship as the
source of ‘wisdom,’ and prayer, m editation, contemplation, and adoration as
the source of ‘strength.’
t t l also pays attention to prayer, but in a slightly different way than m &e
did. It connects it less with ‘the glory of the triune God’ (p. 80) and the Eucharist.

EXCHANGE 43 (2014) 273-290

“ MI S S I ON AND EVANGELI SM” ( 1982) AND “T O G E T H E R TOWARDS L I F E ” ( 2013) 285

In essence it does not link prayer with worship (p. 74,104), but with specific
functions of the church, namely pastoral care and professional health (p. 50).
In other words: prayer is primarily an individual engagement, not a liturgical
commitment of faith communities, t t l speaks concretely about prayers with
and for the sick (p. 53); prayers that ‘all people may come to living knowledge
of the triune God’ (p. 95); and prayers for repentance and forgiveness (p. 105).
Whereas m &e as w c c document ends with an affirmation of faith, t t l as w c c
statement ends with a prayer of supplication: ‘God of life, lead us into justice
and peace’ (p. 112).

6 Encounters with the Adherents of Other Religions and Beliefs

General Observations
After the Uppsala assembly (1968), the w cc definitively abolished the nega­
tive term ‘non-Christians,’ and introduced a new vocabulary. It instituted a
commission for ‘Dialogue with People of Living Faiths and Ideologies’. This
bipartite name is acceptable as long as ‘Living Faiths’ is viewed as an all-over
term, pointing to both world religions and (secular) worldviews. Given the
fact that worldviews are not necessarily either religious or ideological, a tri­
partite phrase may be more satisfying. For instance: People of World Religions,
Worldviews, and Ideologies, m &e did not use a tripartite distinction, but tt l
talks about ‘faiths, ideologies, and convictions’ (p. 93).
m &e did not only talk about non-Christians as ‘neighbors’ (Preface and p. 41,
44, 45), but also as ‘people of living faiths’ (p. 41-45), 'people of every religious
and non-religious persuasion’ (p. 42), and ‘people of other faiths and ideolo­
gies’ (p. 45). It called for dialogue and encounter with these people and their
communities. At the same time the churches were called to engage in dialogue
with ‘the civil authorities’ regarding the freedom of conscience and religious
freedom (p. 44). The ‘imperialistic crusader’s spirit’ must be replaced by love
(p. 28). In their encounter with the neighbors of other faiths, Christians need
to confess their own sins, especially the sin that they ‘have often looked for
the worst in others and have passed negative judgment upon other religions’
(P- 4 i)-
ttl uses a greater variety of terms to denote non-Christians: ‘other people’
(p. 8, 83), ‘people of other religions and cultures’ (p. 9), ‘people and commu­
nities of different religious convictions’ (p. 90), ‘believers of other faiths or
no faith’ (p. 90, 93), ‘people of different cultures and faiths’ (96,106), and ‘fol­
lowers of all religions and beliefs’ (p. 96). It also calls for a serious commit­
ment to dialogue, namely ‘interfaith dialogue’ (p. 9, 93-96). Contrary to m &e ,

EXCHANGE 43 (2014) 273-290

286 JO NG ENEEL

ttl distinguishes ‘dialogue’ from ‘encounter.’ The former seems to be viewed

as a preparation of the latter: ‘Dialogue provides for an honest encounter
where each party brings to the table all that they are in an open and respect­
ful manner’ (p. 94). t t l criticizes ‘excessive assertion of religious identities
and persuasions’ (p. 82), and welcomes the document Christian Witness in a
Multi-Religious World: Recommendations fo r Conduct, in 2011 published by the
w cc, the Vatican, and the World Evangelical Alliance (p. 90). In the footsteps
of m & e it advocates religious freedom (p. 96, 110). Further it stipulates that
Christ is already present, and the Spirit already at work in other faith traditions
(p. 93> 97)- h stimulates Christians around the globe to overcome tensions in
their relations with other people, and to ‘facilitate deeper mutual understand­
ing, reconciliation, and cooperation for the common good’ (p. 90).

World Religions
Neither m & e , nor t t l speaks about concrete world religions. Therefore, they
lack insights which can advance in-depth encounters with Hindus, Buddhists,
Muslims, etc.
m & e confined itself to two general remarks and one specific observation.

Firstly, it humbly offered frank self-criticism: ‘How many of the millions of peo­
ple in the world who are not confessingjesus Christ have rejected Him because
of what they saw in the lives of Christians!’ (p. 13) Secondly, it paid attention to
'resurging religions which people embrace’ (p. 46), without indicating whether
this statement referred to established religions and/or new religious move­
ments.9 Concrete, however, is the observation that the marginalized and drop­
outs of affluent societies ‘search desperately for comfort and identity in drugs
or esoteric cults’ (Preface). The document did not give any information regard­
ing the concrete ‘esoteric cults’ it had in mind.
t t l uses a term which does not occur in m & e : ‘idolatry’ (p. 30, 31, 108). It

does not associate this term with the worship of images (in wood, stone, etc.)
of deities, but with the ‘unjust systems, politics of domination and exploita­
tion’ (p. 30), ‘mammon’ (p. 31), and ‘the free-market economy’ (p. 108), or, in
other words: ‘the god of free-market capitalism’ (p. 108). In fact the term ‘idol­
atry’ is not connection with ‘idols’ in living religions and belief-systems, but
with ‘idols’ in contemporary ideologies.

9 The term 'resurging religions’ seems to originate from the 1962 yearbook for the Evangelical
Lutheran Augustana Synod of North America. Religious Studies and other branches of aca­
demia seem to neglect this term.

EXCHANGE 43 (2014) 273-290

“MISSION AND EVANGELISM" (1982) AND “TOGETHER TOWARDS LIFE" (2013) 2 8 7

Worldviews and Ideologies

Both m &e and ttl deal with ‘ideologies.’ m &e referred to ‘ideological persua­
sions’ (p. 41) and ‘emerging new ideologies’ (p. 46) in general, whereas ttl
talks about ‘the global free market ideology’ (p. 7, 31), ‘patriarchal ideologies’
(p. 43), and other concrete ‘ideologies’ such as individualism, secularism, and
materialism (p. 8, 91).
Both documents refer to worldviews. Both deal with the following four con­
crete -isms: proselytism as an ecumenical problem; and colonialism, racism,
and secularism as larger challenges. First, m &e talked about‘the sin of prosely­
tism’ in the encounter of the churches (p. 39), whereas ttl refers to prosely­
tism as an ‘illegitimate way of practicing evangelism’ (p. 82), and as an activity
'contrary to the message of the Gospel’ (p. 110). Second, m &e discussed the
impact of'colonial and neocolonial presence’ on mission (p. 39), and ttl the
‘connection of evangelism with colonial powers’ (p. 27, 98). Third, m &e con­
nected racism with poverty and advocated programs to eliminate this -ism
(p. 12, 31, 37). But ttl connects racism with other social injustices: patriarchy,
xenophobia, and casteism (p. 43, 70, 90). Fourth, m &e interpreted secularism
as ‘the absence of any final meaning’ (p. 37), and called the churches to wit­
ness among ‘the secularized masses of industrial societies’ (p. 46), whereas
ttl points to ‘the secularizing global North’ (p. 72), and sketches secularism
as a challenge to ‘the values of the kingdom of God’ (p. 91). At the same time,
the latter document agrees with the already mentioned publication Christian
Witness in a Multi-Religious World (2011) in its rejection o f‘all forms of violence,
discrimination and repression by religious and secular authority’ (p. 90).
m &e also deals with -isms which are not mentioned in tt L, and the other way
around. The latter mentions more -isms than m &e did. m &e merely referred to
one extra item. It did not want to encourage ‘isolationism’ of churches in the
worldwide ecumenical movement (p. 40). ttl goes its own way in dealing with
individualism (p. 21, 51, 91), and some powerful -isms in society at large: con­
sumerism (p. 23,105), paternalism (p. 36, 41), a free-market capitalism (p. 88,
108), and materialism (p. 91). Moreover, it views triumphalism in the life of the
churches as a serious danger, especially when it is connected with ‘healing ser­
vices in which the healer is glorified at the expense of God’ (p. 53).
Some -isms are mentioned in both documents, but others are not at all. Why
did m &e and ttl not discuss humanism, nationalism, tribalism, and/or terror­
ism? Another question is: do m &e and ttl support specific -isms? ttl is clear:
it considers ‘new monasticism’ as a promise (p. 72), and embraces dynamism
(p. 11,29,58, 64,66,111). Due to the fact that ttl continuously talks about ‘life,’
uses the term ‘vital’ (p. 27), and regards it ‘vital’ to ‘recognize God’s mission
(p. 4), it may be appropriate to characterize it as a vitalistic document as well.

EXCHANGE 43 (2014) 273-290

288 JONGENEEL

If required, m &e can also be characterized as ‘dynamic’ and ‘vitalistic.’ At least

it used the word ‘vital’ (p. 37), and viewed local congregations as ‘a vital instru­
ment for the fulfillment of the missionary vocation of the church’ (p. 25).

Final Observations

In essence m &e is a more modest document than ttl . It presents seven ecu­
menical convictions without pretending to give a complete overview of mis­
sion and evangelism in today’s world. But ttl seems to pretend that it has
made a complete survey.
m &e and ttl are great contextual documents, commonly and separately
making the w cc and its member churches more aware of the missionary obli­
gation. The fact that three decades after m &e the w cc decided to produce a
new document is encouraging. Because it takes into account that each gen­
eration needs to make a fresh approach to the missionary tasks ahead. This
study analyzed and compared both documents in their peculiarities. It pic­
tured ttl as a document which is more homogenous than its predecessor.
This positive quality can be viewed as an advantage; but it is a disadvantage
as well. Although ttl pays considerable attention to ‘the margins,’ it still is
more addressed to the elite of both the church and society at large than m &e ,
which consciously avoided to use both non-Biblical foreign terms and theo­
logical terms such as christology, pneumatology, ecclesiology, and missiology.
At the same time it must be noted that ttl , more than its predecessor, con­
tributed to overcoming the wide gap between the w cc, on the one hand, and
the Pentecostal Movement and the Charismatic Renewal, on the other hand.
Both documents treated world history, mission history, and church history,
but without having a clear view on the nature of time and history. They did
not systematically deal with the cyclical and linear views of time and history,
and did not picture Jesus Christ as the ‘axis’ of world history. But m &e seems
to be more conscious of this issue than ttl . Because it stated: ‘Through the
resurrection, God vindicates Jesus, and opens up a new period of mission­
ary obedience until He comes again’ (p. 8); and: ‘Jesus Christ... is in God’s
wisdom the centre of all creation’ (p. 19). In this way it referred to ‘before’ and
‘after’ the axial Christ event. Nevertheless this insight did not imply aware­
ness that all pre-Christian religions — except Judaism (the Hebrew prophets)
and Zoroastrianism — are cyclical belief-systems; and that post-Christian
religions such as the Islam, post-Christian world-views such as humanism
and evolutionism, and post-Christian ideologies such as capitalism and

E X C H A N G E 43 (2 0 1 4 ) 2 7 3-29 0
“MISSION AND EVANGELISM" (1982) AND "TOGETHER TOWARDS LIFE” (2013) 2 8 9

communism are linear, due to the fact that in one way or another they are
influenced by the Judaeo-Christian belief in God as the Creator and Governor
of the universe, who in due time will bring all things to their final destina­
tion. It is very questionable whether mission position statements which do not
take the paradigm shift from the cycle to the line into account, will be of ulti­
mate value.
m & e has insights which do not occur in t t l , and the other way around. In

addition to the many small points of difference between both documents, there
is at least one major point. The Christ-centered message of m & e is replaced
by the Spirit-centered outlook of t t l . This paradigm shift is due to a combi­
nation of factors.10 First, the special emphasis put by the Eastern Orthodox
in the frame of the w cc on the presence of the Spirit in the creation of the
universe. Second, the friendly relations between the w cc and the Pentecostal
Movement and the Charismatic Renewal established in the past decades.
Third, the doctrine of the Holy Spirit being more comprehensively outlined by
today’s systematic theologians than by their colleagues thirty years ago. And
finally, dialogue with the adherents of other religions and belief-systems ben­
efiting more from the contemporary pneumatological insights than from the
past christological perspectives.*11
It is very good that the w cc delegates the daily responsibility for doing mis­
sion, evangelism, and dialogue to the c w m e and the Dialogue program. It is
even better that at given moments the w cc herself takes a position. Her posi­
tion statements, m & e and t t l , make it quite clear that the w cc is not only an
ecumenical body, but also a missionary body. The w cc is a world council ‘in
mission,’ rooted in the 19th and early 20th century missionary movement. As a
global missionary/missional body the w cc affirms ‘the meaning of God’s love
in Jesus Christ for every person and for every situation’ ( m & e , p. 46), and the
‘fullness of life for all’ (t t l , p. 107).

Jan A.B.Jongeneel (b. 1938) studied law, theology, and philosophy in Utrecht,
Gottingen, Groningen and Leiden. He taught systematic theology in two
theological colleges in Indonesia, and subsequently missiology in Utrecht

10 Cf. Gijsbert van den Brink and Cornelis van der Kooi, Christelijke dogmatiek, Zoetermeer:
Boekencentrum 2012,474-481.
11 Cf. James D.G. Dunn, Pneumatology, Edinburgh: Clark 1998; Najeeb Awad, God without a
Face? On the Personal Individuation o f the Holy Spirit, Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck 2011; Amos
Yong, Pneumatology and the Christian-Buddhist dialogue: Does the Spirit Blow through
the Middle Way?, Leiden: Brill 2012.

E X C H A N G E 43 (2 0 1 4 ) 2 7 3 -2 9 0
290 JO N G E N E E L

University. After retirement he was appointed as a guest professor at the

Yale Divinity School in New Haven and became life time member of the
International Association for Mission Studies. His latest publications areJesus
Christ in World History: His Presence and Representation in Cyclical and Linear
Settings (2009); and Utrecht University:375 Years Mission Studies, Mission Activi­
ties, and Overseas Ministries (2012).

E X C H A N G E 43 ( 2 0 1 4 ) 2 7 3 - 2 9 0
Copyright of Exchange is the property of Brill Academic Publishers and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.