My concern focuses on our basic conception of the mission and goals of MCC, and with the strategies and programs we follow to accomplish these goals. I am concerned that we underscore and strengthen the Christian spiritual nature of our mission and goals in contrast to their more secular (or neutral) character. I think that this is the same issue that Ray Brubacher addresses when he calls for a more explicit "missiology." And it is definitely related to the kinds of issues that Tim Lind raised in his "Indochina/Thailand Evaluation Report" (June 1993). The evangelism/service, and proclamation/presence issues need to be worked out in this larger context.

I am convinced that a missiology adequate to carry us into the future must be one that encompasses both mission boards and service organizations. We begin to lose our integrity when we insist on two separate parallel tracks, one for service and one for evangelism. Perhaps we should think of the two kinds of organizations as the two rails making up one track heading to one destination. Such a unified missiology will have important implications for mission boards as well as service organizations.

Within MCC there are differences of opinion about the mission. Our missiology has been largely implicit and arrived at pragmatically. In part it reflects a negative assessment of a type of "spirituality" and evangelism that seems reductionist and narrow to us. In our reaction against we struggle to find an adequate, authentic, holistic alternative to the old model. Both in MCC and in our mission boards we struggle with the spiritual-physical schizophrenia of our sharply dualistic cultural heritage. We speak of "holistic ministries," but we find it hard to integrate the spiritual, psychological and physical dimensions. (E.g., we do not have an adequate theology of work.) (Cf. Miroslav Volf, Work in the Spirit, Oxford, 1991.)[1]

In both MEDA and MCC development work we have largely assumed that a "free market" economy is the basic paradigm for Christian relief and development work. We have downsized, contextualized and personalized the development model. We have worked self-consciously in the context of the local churches of the host countries to improve the lives of those we attempt to help. We have added explicit religious ministries such as translation of Bible commentaries, loans for church buildings, teaching in Bible schools and seminaries.

All this I affirm. But new economic realities, new cultural developments and sensitivities, new theological insights from liberation theology, and new practical experiences in the contexts of violence challenge us to reexamine our economic assumptions, and to define more clearly just what kind of "development" we want to promote. And this requires that we be more explicit about the fundamentally spiritual nature of our purpose and program strategies.

To further complicate the matter this redefinition must be done in the context of religious pluralism and the theological position which holds that God is equally at work for the salvation of individuals through all religions. For some people this has raised the issue of MCC's explicit christocentrism. Does Christianity have a distinct spirituality and ethic that should guide us and be reflected in our program priorities and strategies? What does it mean for local organizations and programs to say that what we do is "In the Name of Christ"? How significant is it that the name of Jesus be verbally identified?

From the opposite direction, the Evangelicals are insisting on the priority of verbal proclamation of the gospel and the formation of churches as we know them in the West. Except for the most conservative fundamentalistic groups, they insist that this "church growth" approach be conceived in the context of a "holistic" mission that recognizes the physical and social aspects of life as well. However, they continue to clearly distinguish between spiritual and social and insist on the priority of the spiritual. (Actually MCC belongs in this tradition and has had a very creative influence on this ongoing discussion.)

This raises a different set of questions. How explicit need we be in advocating the name of Jesus Christ? How do we define "holistic"? Does it imply that social, cultural and physical aspects of life are dimensions of the "salvation" which Christ proclaimed? How are the healing, reconciling, economic sharing -- the peacemaking and social justice aspects of life, involved in "spiritual" salvation? And is there a specific priority and order to these dimensions? Is there a strategic procedural order that must be followed in witness to the kingdom?

I have stated my own perspective in the prefacing chapter. There I said, "My thesis is that MCC is an institution for agapeic intervention." When I use the word agape I am referring to a specifically Christian concept which was embodied in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. When I say that we are interventionist, I am simply identifying MCC as an institution representing the continuing mission of God begun in Christ's incarnational ministry. Jesus Christ is God's intervention into the human scene, and the church through the presence and empowerment of the Spirit of Christ continues that intervention ministry.

Although we will be discussing it more at a later session, I might add here that I think that we need to give an explicit witness to Christ. This for two reasons. First, we must disassociate ourselves from Western Christianity as a cultural religion. This is especially true in Asia. Second, we need to identify the source and enabling power for the new possibilities and patterns we offer. We are not offering a Mennonite presence and package!

Catalytic Intervention -- the Incarnational Style

The term that we have used for at least the last quarter century to describe our missionary and service stance is "incarnational." We took it for granted that we should intervene with the gospel and with material and social services, but we have become increasingly sensitive to the way in which we stepped into situations of need. Now I am suggesting the word "catalytic" as a synonym of incarnational in order to indicate the way in which we attempt to bring about change.

While we are clearly interventionist, like most medical doctors we prefer "non-intrusive intervention" when at all possible. Webster defines intrusion as "the act of wrongfully entering upon, seizing, or taking possession of the property of another" -- an uninvited forcible entry. To intrude is "to thrust oneself in without invitation, permission or welcome." E.g., the United Nations' intervention into Somalia was intrusive. Our concern is to not be intrusive.

According to an incarnational model, where the change agent is from the outside, it is important that the innovations should not be forced or manipulated. As Luzbetak says of applied anthropology, "we wish through cooperation rather than manipulation of any kind, to influence the society's patterns of behavior" (The Church and Cultures, Orbis, 1988, 168). The innovations should be culturally relevant and "whenever possible be presented as something that will complete and perfect the existing cultural design" (ibid. 161).

The fact of cultural change is not problematic. Cultures are dynamic, highly adaptive, and constantly adjusting to new circumstances. What kind of change and how that change is brought about is of concern. Sometimes the change agent is from within the culture (innovation); sometimes from outside (diffusion). The Christian gospel is concerned with the nature and goals of change. Indeed, change (metanoia or repentance) is at the heart of the gospel.

Thus the outside change agent must be ready to adapt to the host culture, especially in its "overt" aspects, namely the physical and psychological-social. So far as the "covert," or ideational, i.e., belief, thought patterns, and emotional evaluation aspects are concerned, empathy and honesty are required. One should view the cultural expressions "emically," i.e., from the inside, rather than bring foreign cultural norms and meanings into the context as an immediate basis of judgment.

This calls for respect, understanding, honest self-examination, and non-threatening authentic communication. It does not require an indiscriminate adoption of the host culture ("going native") in the hope of being accepted. Indeed, such a response is dishonest.

Such a stance does not necessarily imply a radical cultural relativity, i.e., that there are no absolutes and every cultural expression is as valid as every other. Rather it implies that every culture is a human creation and has the potential of expressing authentic human community under the covenant of the Creator. It also implies that every human culture is at best a relative expression of the absolute norm of agape (self-giving mutuality and interdependence).

To say that all cultural systems are relative implies further that all cultural systems, including Christian culture, have dysfunctional elements which degrade and alienate human beings. It simply is not true that every cultural pattern or religious value is equally functional and effective for authentic human development. As cross-cultural catalysts, however, we must be careful to heed the warning of Jesus, namely, that we do not try to take the speck of dust out of the other culture's eye while ignoring the log in our own culture's eye (Matt. 7:3).

As change agents we are attempting to introduce innovations that will change dysfunctional aspects of the cultural system whether they be economic, social, or religious and moral values and practices. We are not simply trying to help individuals escape the system. Of course we must begin with individuals, but our aim is to introduce innovations into the system through changed individuals and relationships. That is why the contextualization, or as the Roman Catholics put it, the inculturation, of the new personal-social possibility (gospel) is so necessary. This is the reason for our insistence upon the change agent's identification with or incarnation into the culture.

What Kind of Intervention?

To determine what kind of intervention is needed we must first analyze and make a diagnosis. How do we view those we serve, and how do we understand the problem we have come to address? Is the problem basically maldistribution of the world's goods? Then finding ways to share material aid and working out fair trade policies is the solution. Is it technological? Then appropriate technology and "development" would seem to be the answer. Is it conflict and violence? Then mediation? Is it spiritual poverty and deviancy? Etc. Of course the actual situational problems are complex and vary in any time and place. But we bring basic presuppositions and definitions to each of these situations.

The biblical-christian view of humans is that they are spiritual covenant animals in contrast to Aristotle's view that they are rational social animals. They are more than "economic animals" as Adam Smith's theory of work and economic consumption seems to imply. More than "psycho-somatic" creatures, i.e., a single unified body of mental and physical processes and activities, which is the modern secular view. In these terms they are pneumo-somatic, i.e., creatures whose mental-physical bodies (soma) have a transcendent or spiritual (pneumatikos) destiny in God. Their ultimate self-identity is found in their relationship to God, not only to their physical world and one another.

Defining the Spiritual

Before this talk about a spiritual God-dimension can be very useful in our service strategy, we will need to define the spiritual dimension. I would identify it as follows:

1. the self-understanding of ourselves and others as children of God in the image of the Creator, namely, that characteristic which makes it worth a Mother Teresa's self-sacrifice to give a fellow human being a meaningful death in a compassionate setting.

2. the personal quality of human beings that opens them to the transcendent dimensions and moral demands of life, namely, submission to and trust in God (faith) which enables them to put compassion and self-sacrifice (love) ahead of their own egocentric (sarx) desires and fears.

3. the intuition of a destiny beyond physical mortality (hope) which leads them to risk death in the pursuit of human value and well being.

4. the self-awareness that humankind's highest self-identity and ultimate meaning is found in solidarity (koinonia) under the loving dominion of the God whom Jesus called Father.

The human spirit is not a separate part of our individual being like an arm is part of the body. It is not something distinct from and added to our bodies and minds and somehow more essential than they are. Rather, spirit is a holistic term. Spirit describes the whole human being in his/her wholeness made "in the image of God;" for example, not as an "economic animal," or a "tool-making animal," but as a "spiritual animal." The whole self is more than the sum of the parts. In theological terms, it is a creation of the Spirit of God and shares in that Spirit.

So the spiritual describes the texture of our total being. It is the distinctly human dimension of our being both individually and socially. We might speak of it as both a transcendent and depth dimension which involves us in relationship to God and to each other -- what the Bible calls the "heart," i.e, the personal depth of our being. It expresses itself most clearly in our self-image which is simply the under side of our God-image; in our motivations, our underlying assumptions and rationalizations. It is expressed in our human cultures.

Thus to say that the human problem is fundamentally spiritual does not locate the problem in some religious or mystical realm, but rather, locates the material, the economic, the physiological and psychological dimensions within the context of the larger holistic and transcendent reality. It defines the problem, not in reductionist but in holistic terms, not simply in behavioral patterns but in terms of personal-social dynamics and values.

If the human problem, then, is basically a spiritual problem and we do not deal with it, our relief, development, and mediation work will be superficial. As Luzbetak observes, "technical development by no means implies that a technologically advanced society is necessarily able to deal more successfully with its social problems or that it has a greater capacity to cope with its ideational environment more satisfactorily than a less technologically developed society" (The Church and Cultures, 1988, p. 314). Or as Walter Wink puts it, "Structural change is not enough, the heart and soul must also be freed, forgiven, energized..." (Naming the Powers, 1984, p. 117).

This means that in our goals and strategies we must also deal with the elements of culture which inhibit and defeat the goals of holistic human development (salvation). These are "spiritual" inhibitions -- fatalism, depression of spirit, self-depreciation ("nobodies"), a sense of powerlessness which is the result of internalized oppression, structures and values that create co-dependency, and self-centered anxiety that often justifies or excuses deceitful and manipulative behavior.

Defining the Change we Want

Terry Alliband, who writes from his experience in India makes "modernization" the goal of development. "Modernization is a process in which group prejudices and group-thinking disintegrates, or, at least, is greatly reduced by the forces of individualism. The individual begins to regard his or her personal fortune as being of greater importance than that of one's hereditary group. . . . This shifting of allegiance is the basic transformation involved in the modernization process" (Catalysts of Development, 1983, pp. 102-03. The emphasis is mine.)

This, he says,demands a "comprehensive human development" approach, not merely technological and economic development. The problem, he says, is one of ongoing motivation, and he sees this as the work of community development overcoming the inhibitions of an oppressive tradition. He holds that the only way to modernize Indian culture is to educate and advance the values of individualism.

Dor Bahadur Bista, a Nepali anthropologist, implies the same thing in his Fatalism and Development: Nepal's Struggle For Modernization (1991). In page after page he documents the virtual impossibility of introducing the benefits of modern technology and a free market into a society like Nepal that is ruled by fatalism and the caste system which was introduced from India.

I tend to agree with this analysis of the problem which development workers face, but I have serious reservations about their proposed solution. India with its fatalistic doctrine of individual karma is plagued by individualism and a lack of social responsibility. Indeed, the Gandhian social experiment foundered on this rock, and I see little hope that the substitution of modern individualism will remedy the situation. We need a much more radical solution.

What kind of changes, then, do we want? In theological terms the mission is to be an anticipatory sign of and witness to God's rule in our history, to be instruments of God's justice and peace (shalom). The goal is to promote alternative communities of mutual concern, of shalom-justice that will operate as salt and light within the present world systems. This will mean motivating and energizing individuals as well as producing corrective structural changes in society.

To be more concrete I would suggest five basic social-personal changes which we want to stimulate through our catalytic action: (1) the liberation/conversion of individuals from patterns of violence and self-seeking; (2) the modification of inhibiting fatalistic traditions that stifle and repress hope; (3) the end of oppressive hierarchial social structures that create and maintain co-dependency; (4) the replacement of dysfunctional ideologies (superstitions) that control human behavior, rationalize oppression, and are used to explain disease, disasters and accidents; (5) the introduction of technologies that will effectively improve the human quality of life.

It is simply not enough to change individuals economically, culturally or spiritually and leave them to function in the old system. On the other hand it is futile to change the social and economic structures if the hearts of individuals have not changed. And such metanonia is possible only through the motivating power of the Spirit of Christ.

[1]. Miroslav Volf is an evangelical voice from Romania, now teaching at Fuller Theological Seminary. He speaks of the "materiality of salvation" and "God's desire to bring integrity to the whole human being including the body, and to the whole of injured reality." (p. 104)