VULNERABLE MISSION

VULNERABLE MISSION: QUESTIONS FROM A LATIN AMERICAN CONTEXT
still cross-cultural workers who are not cognizant of missiology, I believe this conversation,
directed at an audience that attends missiological conferences and reads missiological
journals, must really be about the best practices that many missionaries know about
but find difficult to implement.
“Contextualization and sustainability are widely preached; imperialism and dependence
are widely practiced,” states Stan Nussbaum with salutary directness. 5 The criterion by
which we can evaluate VM, then, is its effectiveness in bringing about contextualization
and sustainability where missiology has failed. VM’s intention, in other words, is to provide
a practical handle for actually propagating the “three selves” that have been missiology’s
Sisyphean task for over a century. In Nussbaum’s taxonomy, that practical handle
consists of three methods: local language, local resources, and local thinking style. 6
Nussbaum grants that there are “major improvements to the ethnocentric model” found
in “partnership methods.” 7 He lumps “most advocates of partnership,” represented
especially by Mary Lederleitner at the ACU conference, with “missiologists.” Lederleitner’s
book Cross-Cultural Partnerships is a popular-level example of the way missiology
brings anthropological study to bear on cross-cultural interactions. 8 Thus, it is not fair to
missiology that Nussbaum represents the alternatives to VM as either (1) the “ethnocentric
model” or (2) a partnership model that would use English as much as local languages
and would opt for a simplified message instead of considering local modes of thought: 9
Goal VM methods Partnership methods
Contextualized Local language English or local
Sustainable Local resources
Prime the pump, or top up
local resources
Missional Local thinking style Simplify the message
theory and practice, as reflected in peer reviewed and edited publications and in Christian missions all over the
world in the last century, have recognizable tendencies. It is important to note, however, that VM’s argument
assumes there is a great divide between what we say (missiology) and what we do (practice), and then it attributes
the failure back to missiology. The problem with this procedure is twofold. One, it relegates missiology
to theory. In fact, missiology is among the practical theological disciplines and is in large part about methods.
Two, it falsely attributes to missiology the failure of implementation as a failure of methodology. Yet, VM
advocates would not want the same standard applied to themselves: the failure to put VM methods into practice
would not necessarily signify a failure of VM methods. By “missiology,” therefore, I mean typical mission
methodology, both before and after it is put into practice.
5 Stan Nussbaum, “Vulnerable Mission Strategies,” Global Missiology 10, no. 2 (2013):
http://ojs.globalmissiology.org/index.php/english/article/view/1135/2630.
6 Nussbaum, “Vulnerable Mission Strategies vis-à-vis Mainstream Mission and Missiology,” 71.
7 Ibid.
8 Mary T. Lederleitner, Cross-Cultural Partnerships: Navigating the Complexities of Money and Mission (Downers
Grove, IL: IVP, 2010).
9 Nussbaum’s taxonomy undoubtedly has heuristic value, and my point is not to criticize the exigencies of
table formatting.
111