VULNERABLE MISSION

PREFACE TO THE ISSUE
Dependency, whether financial, theological, cultural, linguistic, psychological, technological,
or personal, remains among the greatest challenges for mission in the twenty-first
century.
A recent incarnation of the age-old dependency/resources conversation is that of “Vulnerable
Mission” (VM). Taking its cue from biblical (e.g., Luke 10) and contemporary
(modern studies on western aid and development activities) resources, the VM conversation
takes as central the call to address these important issues with vigor. VM advocates
that some missionaries take seriously a model of mission that steers away from using the
power of non-local resources for mission. Instead, VM advocates capacity-building missionaries
that rely upon local resources.
As Stan Nussbaum reminds us in his article, VM as an approach is something with which
most of us are already quite familiar. Three modern mission stories of note (the independent
and African-initiated churches in Africa, the modern Chinese house-church
movement, and certain Pentecostal movements in Latin America) all rely upon what VM
advocates suggest as the best ways to achieve the goals of mission.
The papers in this issue of Missio Dei represent some of the current and best thinking on
VM. On the Campus of Abilene Christian University in March of 2012, the Halbert
Institute for Mission (ACU), the Alliance for Vulnerable Mission, and TransWorld Radio
jointly hosted the first global conference on VM. It was simultaneously livecast on the
internet with participants from every continent.
Whether one adheres fully to the principles advocated by Vulnerable Mission proponents,
the questions they raise demand serious consideration from a church that often
takes easy, conventional wisdom. In particular, VM forces us to grapple with both priority
in mission and our mode. What is the goal of mission? What is of most importance?
What way(s) are most consistent for participating in God’s reconciling reach toward the
world? VM advocates contend that often our goals and our mode do not properly match.
Is VM something new? In one sense, it is not. VM represents the age-old questions
of missions, use of resources, and dependency. Yet, the new context in which we find
ourselves presents different challenges and calls us to evaluate our mission practice anew.
This new context involves the massive surge in short-term mission, the growing vibrancy
of the non-Western church, the continued financial dominance of the Western world,
and the ambivalence created by post-colonial global commitments.
This is what constitutes the conversation we call Vulnerable Mission. It is a renewed
probing of the hard questions that we must ask in order to see our ultimate goal fulfilled—churches
fully reflecting the glory of God in their local contexts.
What does this conversation mean, then, for missions in Churches of Christ and Christian
Churches? Particularly in these two branches of Stone-Campbell churches, mission
has operated primarily without the denominational structures of a mission agency. One
consequence of this is that anyone, anywhere, can send or do missions, regardless of
their qualifications, preparation, or approach. With the current swell of short-term mission
efforts, the number of “missionaries” has vastly increased. Yet, many of these “missionaries”
unwittingly create and perpetuate structures of dependency.
7