Those two models however do not exhaust the shape of mission. There is one other model, among others of course, that could be mentioned here. Along with presence and proclamation, we also need to emphasise ‘prophetic witness’ as a significant model of mission. Focusing on proclamation alone has tended to become a ‘pie in the sky’ type of answer to the problem of sin. We know from our study of the scriptures however that salvation is much more than that. Focusing on prophetic witness as well therefore has the potential to make our proclamation meaningful in the day to day affairs of the world; in the expression of and living out of the Christian answer to the sin problem, both in its personal dimension as well as in its structural manifestations. Prophetic witness may take many forms yet whatever form it assumes it will proclaim the kingdom of God that Jesus Christ inaugurated and announced in and through his life, death and resurrection.

Proclamation, presence and prophetic witness are three models that commend themselves to us as being biblically rooted ways of serving the purposes of God. Each validates the other and confirms that the gospel is holistic and constructive. Each stresses that the gospel implicates life in the here and now just as it implicates life in the hereafter. Emphasising one without the other tends to upset the balance that we need to maintain as a church that has been gifted an important role in God’s mission. An integrative approach seems to be the biblical way to live in and share the gospel of Jesus Christ.    

In India, where I am from, often the ‘proclamation’ approach alone does not make significant difference in local communities. This, among other things, is because for the most part the Indian psyche has been stamped with an impression that Christianity is a foreign religion that will rob one of all Indian roots and patriotism. Christianity came to India, so it is believed, with colonial powers and so has little to do with peace loving and tolerant India, its diverse cultures and peoples. Adopting that foreign religion, whatever its inner meaning may be, implies rejecting one’s culture, ones people and ones heritage. ‘Proclaiming’ the gospel therefore meets with innumerable philosophical and psychological hurdles. For the most part some churches do little to allay such fears and prejudice. In fact they often reiterate such clichés through some of their life and practices.

When on the other hand, we are able to adopt the presence and prophetic models of mission and thus live out the gospel by being present in society and speaking prophetically against injustice and oppression and for peace and societal welfare, then we earn a hearing, we are taken as having something legitimate to say. Our proclamation then gains a weight that it otherwise may not have had; it breaks down walls of prejudice and allows people to recognise that the gospel of Christ speaks to the heart of the human condition. It is seen as part of the total life of the Christian community in the land, and not as disembodied propaganda for some foreign power. Truth when lubricated with grace is a powerful witness to the gospel of Christ. The gospel thus seen as life, as service and as truth, has a greater persuasive power, not least because we are being true to the gospel itself, as God’s design for life.

While I affirm the importance of proclamation, I would like to suggest that we couch such discussion equally and firmly within the practices of the presence and prophetic witness models of Christian mission. Perhaps then we will reflect more clearly the Lausanne tagline: ‘the whole church taking the whole gospel to the whole world’, and perhaps more importantly, we will be ‘gospel people’ that calls for an integration of being, acting and speaking in the world.

Paul Joshua, India