A great deal has been written about "presence" in contrast to proclamation or evangelization. Too often the issues are stacked from the beginning by the way in which the words are defined. Characteristics often associated with "presence" are compassion, empathy, respect, humility, openness, dialogue. Words associated with evangelization are pity, monologue, arrogance, exclusivism, intrusion. Issues like the relative value of action and word, the relation between act and word, the imposition -- perhaps well-intentioned, but nonetheless imposition -- of one culture/religion upon another, the importance of a verbalized "gospel" for salvation are involved in this discussion.

Many of the same words associated with "proclamation" would also be associated with "intervention" -- imposition, patronizing, implicit cultural arrogance which leads to well-meant ignorance and presumption. This negative association is so strong that we hesitate to admit that MCC is a service institution for agapeic intervention, much less an institution for relief and development. We do not like to be identified as a social "change agent." We just want to be a "presence" -- to stand alongside, "to suffer with," "identify with," and "learn from."

But what if we add the adjectives empathetic, respectful, humble, or dialogical to intervention? Is that a kind of "presence?" And suppose we add the words compassionate, respectful, and dialogical to the word "proclamation?" Is that an oxymoron?

My thesis is that MCC is an institution for agapeic intervention in situations of need. It does not send service workers into the various parts of the world merely to be respectfully and sympathetically present, but to be catalytic and dialogical change agents. This is fundamentally implicit in its explicit Christian identity as a part of the God-Movement (Kingdom) inaugurated by Jesus Christ.

First, then, let me explain what I mean by "catalytic." In chemistry, of which I know very little, a catalytic agent is one that induces change without compounding with and changing the molecular structure of its host elements. "Catalysis," however, is a process of modification, of releasing the host element from inhibitive obstructions and inducing intrinsic changes in it.

Using this as a metaphor I would describe a social catalyst as a change agent that induces desired modifications in the host culture which are integral and intrinsic to its well being. The implication is that although the changes are desirable and desired, there are inhibiting elements that prevent the changes taking place. The catalyst attempts to work respectfully and unintrusively to induce changes that will enhance the host culture.

This leads to our second term, "dialogical." Dialogue is the method of social catalysis. It is first of all a relationship before it is an activity -- a relationship in which one is open to and respectful of the partner. It seeks to avoid all imposition. David Lochhead points out that it is a relationship implicit in the Christian concept of agape (The Dialogical Imperative, Orbis, 1988). The evangelical goal of dialogue is respectful, but frank and sincere, communication in order to establish voluntary human community on its highest possible moral and spiritual level. And, of course, from the Christian perspective Jesus Christ represents the pinnacle of human community.

In order to have a genuine dialogue several things are necessary. First, the dialogical partners must have clear self-identities. It is extremely difficult to dialogue with a "nobody." Second, they must be willing to sincerely identify with the partner and listen to her/him. Such identification does not mean uncritical agreement. Rather, it means an empathetic willingness to put oneself in the others' place and see from their perspective.

And third, dialogical partners must be willing to share frankly and intelligently from their own experience. Remember, the goal of catalytic dialogue is not to find the lowest common denominator, but to generate change toward the highest common denominator. In case you are thinking that this does not sound very theological let me comment that this is the heart of what we call "incarnational" disclosure.

This brings us to the concept of "presence." What do we mean by presence as a missiological term? A lot of the debate about presence as a service strategy stems from the ambiguity of the term. In the first place the word has a strong theological association. The New Testament word is parousia which is translated coming, arrival or presence. In theology we speak of Christ's first and second parousia. Thus the concept of presence is closely associated with incarnation in the first instance, and with the final realization God's purposes in Christ at the end of history.

In missiological usage, then, "presence" indicates an incarnational identification with others. What does it mean to be truly present to someone? Or to be cross-culturally present? When we speak of the significance of "presence," whose or what presence do we mean? And how is that presence to be identified?

Much of the discussion of presence treats it simply as a mode or strategy of service. It speaks to the question how I as an individual should present myself in the service context. For example, shall I be present as a "nice guy," i.e., an exemplary humanitarian servant? an expert with helpful technical knowledge to share? a compassionate Christian ready to share the burdens? (E.g., see Sandra Franklin and Melody Rupley, "Presence vs. Intervention," Intercom, February 1993.)

Actually, it is virtually impossible to be present simply as "I-myself-and-me." Simply entering into the situation from the outside raises the questions where we come from, and who we represent. Further, a western origin almost inevitably raises a presumption of suspicion. We inevitably carry a socio-cultural identity that qualifies the presence we project. For example, we learned in India that house servants have a favorable bias toward Americans in contrast to British.

Is the identity we present that of an institutional North American church program (MCC) of which we are the "presence"? Is it the identity of western liberal Christianity which is received as basically a sympathetic secular presence? Is it the presence of a confessing fellowship of Christians, perhaps local, of which I am a part? Is it the identity of a religious proselytizer, or of a developer who wants to help me modernize?

Or is it the presence of God as he was present to us in Christ that we want to make explicit? And if so, how do we do this? Some years ago I visited a Roman Catholic project among the Muslims of Garisa, Kenya. A monastic order was running a secondary education program for Muslim children, and on the basis of theological as well as pragmatic principles they carefully avoided influencing children to become Christians. In fact, they strongly discouraged conversion. They justified their presence simply as a worshiping, sacramental presence there. "The sacramental presence of Christ in the eucharist sanctifies the work and brings salvation into the situation," they told me.

In our own church tradition we have emphasized the presence of the Spirit of Christ manifest in actions and words of his followers. We have been promised that the Spirit/spirit of Christ will make God present in our actions and words. Thus MCC workers go "im Namen Christi," that is, in the style and under the authority of Christ. To go in the name of Christ means to go explicitly as his representative signifying his presence and power at work inaugurating the rule of God.

But this raises a very real question. How do we communicate that it is God's/Christ's presence which is the basic reality, and not merely our own cultural-religious presence or that of some service organization? Can we do it with actions only? Can we separate actions and words? Is not speaking an act?

When we were in Chengdu, China we were buying some wall hangings from a local artist who knew a little English. We were trying to rivet his Chinese name into our minds when he said simply, "My Christian name is Timothy." It was as if he had quietly drawn the fish symbol in the sand! His unassuming verbal identification changed the whole relationship paradigm. It gave his pictures of birds and flowers a new ambience.

The manner of our presence is part of our identity. For example, tourists have a definite presence and identity. What kind of presence is indicated in our role, attitude, and pattern of relationships? Is it a managerial presence? A presence of power and privilege? A serving presence? A sympathizing presence? An official presence? A patronizing presence? A learner's presence? A teaching presence? On several occasions when I was first introduced into a new situation and culture I was asked, "Well, what did you come to teach us?" The missioners, both missionaries and service workers, who had preceded me had left the impression that they were the "teachers."

Related to this is the question of how we are perceived to be present. Is our presence understood as a "mission"? If so, how does that affect the possibility of real identification? One of our Japanese leaders once raised the question, "What is the difference between the missionaries and the Japanese church leaders?" And he answered his own rhetorical question, "After awhile the missionaries go home." In any case we must be careful not to confuse our presence with the PRESENCE we have come to re-present. We do not want to leave the impression that the presence of the Spirit of Christ leaves when we go.

With this in mind I would like to consider with you the conception of our ministries; the spiritual formation necessary to intervention ministries; the nature of the evangelization process as we attempt to enculturate the gospel; and the nature of the world system that we are confronting in our ministries.