The field of missiology features many passionate voices. This reality stems partly from a strong belief that God’s mission in redemptive history serves as a primary locus of meaning for our lives.
Yet because many within this field research and write out of such a deep-rooted passion for the gospel and gospel ministry, disagreements between various voices can assume a greater intensity. As a result, missiological conversations often lead more toward entrenchment than rapprochement between parties involved.
In the midst of such tense debates on missiological issues, how can we maintain intellectual integrity as we research, write, and converse with one another? Below are three admonitions for all of us who write about missiological issues, whether formally through academia or informally through blogs and social media.
Be careful how you present
First, do not present the opposing party’s position, argument, or stance on an issue in terms with which they would disagree. This is argumentation 101. We must be able to accurately explain what someone else believes and/or practices in order to offer a legitimate counterargument.
We have no right to critique someone’s position if we cannot truly and fairly explain that person’s position in terms they would affirm as accurate. In many cases, this requires actually talking with that person to truly understand their position. When we have truly understood and fairly presented their position, only then are we in a position to critique.
Be careful how you paint
Second, do not paint those whom you oppose with too broad of a stroke. The field of missiology is complex and features a wide range of convictions and practices, even within certain camps that might appear monolithic. Generalization can be helpful in some cases. However, if we are quick to generalize a person or position, we will often overlook important nuances and differences within supposedly uniform camps or subsets.
Not only does hasty generalization lead to unfair portrayals of others, it also undermines our own contribution to the discussion. When we do not account for variances in conviction and practice, others—sensing that they have been unfairly lumped together alongside those with whom they disagree—are likely to dismiss our critiques. Such cases foster entrenchment rather than mutual understanding and fruitful dialogue.
Be careful how you posture
Finally, do not present your case in such a way that, while recognizing value in an opponent’s claims, unfairly postures yourself as the more biblical authority while framing your opponent as well-meaning but simplistic or not adequately concerned with the fullness of biblical theology.
For example, one might assert regarding his or her opponent, “John has a laudable desire to reach the lost and is certainly correct in his claim regarding evangelism. Yet we must press further by seeking to make mature disciples.”
Such a statement postures John as unconcerned with spiritual maturity. Granted, if John is indeed unconcerned with the maturation of new disciples, then the above assertion and the way it is framed would be fair.
However, if John does, in fact, value and cultivate spiritual maturity among new disciples, then the statement above would be quite unfair to him. Why? Because by framing John in contradistinction to an emphasis on spiritual maturity, that statement would unfairly posture him as someone who does not care about spiritual maturity among new disciples and is therefore a less trustworthy authority on biblical mission.
Such literary gestures are subtle, yet not uncommon in missiology. They build up the author at the expense of others.
While this kind a passive-aggressive approach toward recognizing merits of an opponent’s claims may appear charitable at first glance, it can actually be quite uncharitable. We should avoid countering someone’s claims by stating something with which that person would agree. Doing so unfairly diminishes the other person’s position and postures them as naive or immature in their missiological perspective.
———
When our writing fairly presents, paints, and postures other people, it can lead to mutual understanding, deeper insight, and potential rapprochement.
Moreover, considering that we serve the God of Truth, we should all seek to fairly represent others without blurring or twisting the truth regarding what they believe and practice. In all of our missiological conversations, let us thus remain charitable to others, not merely in appearance but also in truth.
