VULNERABLE MISSION

Vulnerable Mission: Questions from a
Latin American Context
greg mcKinzie
Vulnerable Mission, as the Alliance for Vulnerable Mission articulates it, comprises important missiological
concepts. These concepts are not new to missiology, though they have often been under-practiced.
Vulnerable Mission is thus a welcome call to more conscientious and thorough application of sound missiological
principles. Yet, at least in the Latin American context, some questions remain as to the universality
and absoluteness with which missionaries should apply Vulnerable Mission methods.
CLARIFYING THE CONTRAST BETWEEN VULNERABLE MIS-
SION AND MAINSTREAM MISSIOLOGY
The Alliance for Vulnerable Mission (AVM) is promoting a conversation that Christian
missionaries can ill afford to ignore. I am grateful that Abilene Christian University,
through the initiative of Dr. Chris Flanders, has brought the conversation into
the realm of missiological reflection among Churches of Christ. I wish to respond to
the proposals of Vulnerable Mission (VM) from my particular location. 1 The reader
might triangulate my location with a few key coordinates: I write as an Anglo-American,
trained missiologically in an a cappella Church of Christ university, serving as a missionary
in urban Peru. From this vantage point, the basic impulse of VM looks beneficial.
The AVM homepage states:
“Vulnerable mission” may be seen as part of the movement toward contextualization of
the Gospel of Jesus, which we regard as the theory of many and the practice of few. We
would like to see more people take the risks of contextualization and vulnerability in order
to reap the rewards that only come to those who value local resources and invest in local
languages. 2
The notion that there is a disconnect between mission theory and practice is plainly
true. The bifurcation exists on a variety of levels: academy versus ministry, missiology
versus missions, ideals versus realities, goals versus potentialities, and the list goes on. The
fundamental issue is how to overcome the divide, and VM is attempting to provide a
solution: “VM does not propose different goals than mainstream mission and missiology.
We are arguing that the mainstream methods of reaching those goals are not achieving
them very well.” 3 To be clear, though, the problem is not that mainstream missiology (just
“missiology” hereafter) has failed to provide methodological direction. 4 While there are
1 I restrict my comments to the conference material published in the present issue of Missio Dei, with primary
reference to Stan Nussbaum’s article (and his related article “Vulnerable Mission Strategies” in the latest issue
of Global Missiology) and secondary reference to other conference papers.
2 Vulnerable Mission, “Alliance for Vulnerable Mission,” http://vulnerablemission.org.
3 Stan Nussbaum, “Vulnerable Mission Strategies vis-à-vis Mainstream Mission and Missiology,” Missio Dei:
A Journal of Missional Theology and Praxis 4, no. 1 (February 2013): 70.
4 I do not attempt to delimit mainstream missiology here but assume with VM advocates that common
MISSIO DEI 4.1 (FEBRUARY 2013): 110–133