Kirsteen Kim is the Paul E. Pierson Chair in World Christianity and associate dean for the Center for Missiological Research at Fuller Seminary. Doing theology from the context of world Christianity and for missional purposes, she has research interests in the areas of theology of mission, pneumatology, world Christianity, Korean studies, and development studies. An editor and author of multiple publications, she is the editor of the book series Theology and Mission in World Christianity and is the author of A History of Korean Christianity and Christianity as a World Religion, written in collaboration with her husband and Fuller professor Sebastian C. H. Kim, in addition to many other works.
Chantelle Gibbs: You were recently installed as Fuller’s Paul E. Pierson Chair of World Christianity. “World Christianity” is multifaceted and nuanced, but how would you summarize what it looks like today in the 21st century?
Kirsteen Kim: “World Christianity” in my title refers to two related things: first, to the fact that Christianity is globally widespread, locally rooted, and interconnected. It always has been, and it is now more so than ever. The early church spread in all directions from Jerusalem, into Judea, Samaria, Ethiopia, Asia Minor, around the Mediterranean, and to the capital of the Roman Empire, as we can read in the Acts of the Apostles. The data shows that, during the first millennium, the Christian population was far larger east of Jerusalem than it was west of it, spread across the Middle East and Asia along the trade routes all the way to China and India. Now more than two-thirds of the world’s Christians live outside the West. The continent with the largest number of Christians is no longer Europe but Africa, with about a quarter of the world’s Christian population.
Second, “world Christianity” refers to the study of the above phenomenon. In addition to analyzing the data, this academic field can be approached from several perspectives. Historical and social-scientific methods reveal different episodes in the Christian story and the different experiences of missions and Christian communities in varied contexts. Missiological theories like inculturation, liberation, interfaith relations, and personal and social transformation can help us understand the impact of Christianity on peoples and nations. The study of local or contextual theologies can reveal how the Christian faith is received by a community and how a church becomes locally rooted. Studies of globalization and ecumenics reveal how Christianity around the world is interconnected through global churches and networks, diaspora communities, and transnational agents, while also revealing inequities of the church worldwide.
The demographics of Christianity are an indication that the character of Christianity as a whole is changing. Theologically, as churches and Christian communities beyond the West grow in numbers, maturity, and well-being, issues and voices from the Global South and East, and from their diasporas in the North and West, are playing a larger role. But other aspects of Christianity take longer to change, such as the colonial legacy of superior attitudes by white Christians towards people who are racially, ethnically, culturally, religiously, and socially different. A leveling of the playing field in world Christianity has wide implications that may be hard for Western Christians to accept. The process of decentering the West to be part of world Christianity, rather than over it, is only
just beginning.
CG: Speaking of decentering the West in world Christianity, a current dialogue within missiology is grappling with a deconstruction of old models to make way for new ones. What are the challenges in this task? What are the guiding principles?
KK: Yes, indeed, it is—although not everywhere. In some circles, doing mission “as it has always been done” focuses on evangelism, church planting, and the unreached. Those who are rethinking mission are regarded as being disobedient to “the Great Commission” (meaning Matthew 28:18–20, interpreted in a particular way). In this view, mission is regarded as a task that must be completed by all means. Such missiology embraces the tools of the secular social sciences but rejects the study of history and theology. But it is precisely in the fields of mission history and mission theology that deconstructing old models and making way for new ones has been happening. These disciplines raise critical questions about what has been done under the banner of Christian mission, the rationale for mission, and how it is carried out.
The deconstruction of mission history started towards the end of the European colonial era, in the mid-20th century, as churches that had been founded by European missions pressed for their independence and generally received it before their nations did. Independence leaders, many of them educated at mission-founded schools, nevertheless accused missionaries of complicity with colonialism, and even worse, “colonizing the mind” so that the colonized were stripped of their own culture and thought and became captive to Western modernity.
The relationship between mission and colonialism is complex. On the one hand, it is undeniable that, in the last 500 years, white missionaries and mission organizations have been complicit in atrocities encouraged by processes of colonization, such as the genocide of Native Americans, enslaving Africans, and the abuse of children in their care. Such failure is indefensible.
On the other hand, over so many centuries and in so many different regions, there have been many variations in missions and in the treatment of indigenous people. Although their work was made possible by the colonial world order, not all Western missionaries were close to colonizers; some missionaries challenged colonial policies and defended local people; others openly criticized Western culture and encouraged indigenous forms of church; and some supported independence movements. The recipients of missionary work express varying views. In many regions, Christians remember the reasons they converted, revere the first missionaries, and celebrate the early history of their church. To assume that Christians in colonized countries became so unwillingly, or for ulterior motives, is to neglect their agency, impugn their character, and undermine their identity.
Nevertheless, five centuries of the expansion of the European peoples across the globe, mostly bearing with them a sense of white supremacy and entitlement, has impacted most peoples of the world, formed the current world order, and shaped global networks—including the academy, dominating fields such as missiology. Acknowledging this reality makes deconstructing and reconstructing missiology an imperative.
It is important to critically examine how mission has been practiced and justified in order to reimagine it. This reimagining will be in accordance with Scripture, shaped by our understanding of God in Christ, and
tested by the best of our knowledge of what is good for human beings.
CG: Based on your commitment to the teaching of missiology for a number of years, both at master’s and doctoral levels, what would you name as the subject that has evolved the most?
KK: I would say that there are two areas that have evolved the most in evangelical missiology: mission theology and integral mission.
From mid-century discussions of mission theology arose the paradigm of missio Dei—the mission of God or God’s mission. Missio Dei is multifaceted. Taking its cue from John 20:21, missio Dei means that we participate in God’s mission in Christ, rather than expecting God to support ours. If this is what Jesus gives us the Holy Spirit to do (John 20:22), then the church must be missionary—or missional—by its very nature. Furthermore, this theology applies to churches all over the world, not just the Western ones, so every church must be responsible for mission both in its own community and also to the rest of the world, making mission polycentric and a partnership activity between the world’s churches. It is also necessary to be critical of missio Dei, given that it was formulated as a way of preserving a world missionary movement that was largely Western-led (although Majority World theologians were also integral to its development).
Nevertheless, the paradigm is changing not only the understanding of mission but also the way that it is done. If, by being baptized, we are participating in Christ’s mission, and ultimately God’s mission, then the way we do mission must be Christ’s way. Mission should no longer be thought of as a defined task that must be accomplished by whatever means possible. Mission is integral to following Christ and to discipleship, as Matthew 28:18–20 also makes clear. I understand the recent reconstitution of the School of Theology and the School of Intercultural Studies (formerly School of World Mission) at Fuller as one School of Mission and Theology to be an expression of this truth. Mission is integral to formation.
Another area that has evolved in evangelical missiology is “transformational” or “integral” mission. Although colonial missions (but not all missions in that period) were holistic in the sense of attending to social concerns (education, healthcare, agriculture, etc.) as well as religious ones, the missio Dei paradigm, following the way of Christ, must be concerned for the whole person in context, all peoples, and the whole world.
However, “transformational” or “integral” mission arises more directly from two sources. One is the “mission as transformation movement” initiated by Vinay Samuel and Chris Sugden, inspired by experiences in India, that encouraged evangelicals to embrace social responsibility by engaging in development activities. The other source was the “integral” mission pioneered by René Padilla and Samuel Escobar from Latin America that responded to calls for social justice and advocacy. Both were undergirded with biblical and theological resources, especially from the Gospels, and particularly Luke 4:18–20 where Jesus describes his mission as good news to the poor by release from captivity, blindedness, oppression, and indebtedness. Most of the students I teach at Fuller now take it for granted that mission includes concern for the poor and social justice.
CG: Earlier you touched on one of the focuses of “doing mission” as evangelism. What would you say is the biggest obstacle facing the church today in understanding its role in evangelism or an uncommon misconception about evangelism that you feel doesn’t get talked about enough?
KK: Evangelism is commonly, but not universally, understood today to be a subset of mission—that part of mission practice which verbally declares the message of salvation. This may be in the form of proclaiming, preaching, prophesying, persuading, publishing, or other dissemination, with a view to seeing people turn to Christ, join the church, and in turn evangelize others. Often evangelism is seen as primary, as an essential activity without which mission practice is suspect. Other aspects of mission, which may be grouped together as “social responsibility,” are regarded as peripheral, optional add-ons by those who are less committed to Christian truth. I think it is unfortunate that evangelism has been reduced in this way.
I argue that, in order to understand evangelism and mission, we need to read the Bible, especially the four Gospels, and preferably also with Christians from other cultures and regions for a fuller understanding. Now, in the Gospels, I do not see in Jesus’ own mission, or in what he taught his disciples, a division between “evangelism” and “social responsibility.” Jesus approached people as whole human beings with bodies as well as souls. Insofar as his mission was the proclamation of a message, Jesus practiced what he preached and did what he taught, and he expected his disciples to do the same. His way of being in the world, as sent from the Father, was about more than conveying a verbal message or a set of beliefs. Jesus actually lived the gospel and embodied it in every aspect of his being. His mission made a difference not just in the lives of people who joined the church but also in the wider world for centuries until today.
In other words, if we look at Jesus as the archetypal missionary, evangelism and mission are coextensive. Sharing the gospel or the good news involves both. I find the term “evangelization,” used synonymously with mission at the World Missionary Conference in 1910, useful to express this. Mission could be a secular term but evangelization expresses the process of transformation according to the good news (evangel) that is most fully revealed in and through Jesus Christ, the Word Incarnate.
CG: So what has given you hope in missiology in the current landscape of world Christianity? Do you have a tangible story that you’d be willing to share?
KK: In 1987, when I married Sebastian C. H. Kim (who is currently serving as the interim dean of the School of Mission and Theology) and moved to South Korea, I believed that our shared Christian faith would overcome the national and other differences that might divide us. By the grace of God, we are still together. In my life, I have lived and worked in different contexts—in the UK, South Korea, India, and the US. I have also been part of many global Christian gatherings through the Lausanne Movement and the World Council of Churches and in international academic conferences around the world. I have engaged with churches of all types: Catholic, Independent, Orthodox, Pentecostal, and Protestant—evangelical and ecumenical. I have been experiencing world Christianity as a fact as well as studying it. My experience gives me great hope.
Most Christians do not have this privilege, and many are unaware that Christianity is not a Western but a world faith. But from my research and experience, translatability and receptivity are essential characteristics of Christianity that are demonstrated in the Gospels by Jesus, who reached out to all and whose message was received by people of many different backgrounds. They are encapsulated in the commission of Jesus to his disciples in each Gospel. These might be summarized as to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:18–20), preach to all creation beginning in Galilee (Mark 16:7, 15–16), be witnesses to Christ from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth (Luke 24:48–49 and Acts 1:8), and live in the world as Jesus lived (John 20:21–23). This final injunction is the culmination of the story, coming after Jesus’ resurrection, but its meaning is back-filled by each Gospel’s account of Jesus’ life and teaching.
In my experience, Christians the world over are trying to do what they believe Jesus expects of them, although, as in each Gospel, this may look different according to the context. There are vibrant Christian communities around the globe who care about one another and who want to work together for the sake of the world.
Chantelle Gibbs is content producer and managing editor of FULLER magazine.
Kirsteen Kim is the Paul E. Pierson Chair in World Christianity and associate dean for the Center for Missiological Research at Fuller Seminary. Doing theology from the context of world Christianity and for missional purposes, she has research interests in the areas of theology of mission, pneumatology, world Christianity, Korean studies, and development studies. An editor and author of multiple publications, she is the editor of the book series Theology and Mission in World Christianity and is the author of A History of Korean Christianity and Christianity as a World Religion, written in collaboration with her husband and Fuller professor Sebastian C. H. Kim, in addition to many other works.
Chantelle Gibbs: You were recently installed as Fuller’s Paul E. Pierson Chair of World Christianity. “World Christianity” is multifaceted and nuanced, but how would you summarize what it looks like today in the 21st century?
Kirsteen Kim: “World Christianity” in my title refers to two related things: first, to the fact that Christianity is globally widespread, locally rooted, and interconnected. It always has been, and it is now more so than ever. The early church spread in all directions from Jerusalem, into Judea, Samaria, Ethiopia, Asia Minor, around the Mediterranean, and to the capital of the Roman Empire, as we can read in the Acts of the Apostles. The data shows that, during the first millennium, the Christian population was far larger east of Jerusalem than it was west of it, spread across the Middle East and Asia along the trade routes all the way to China and India. Now more than two-thirds of the world’s Christians live outside the West. The continent with the largest number of Christians is no longer Europe but Africa, with about a quarter of the world’s Christian population.
Second, “world Christianity” refers to the study of the above phenomenon. In addition to analyzing the data, this academic field can be approached from several perspectives. Historical and social-scientific methods reveal different episodes in the Christian story and the different experiences of missions and Christian communities in varied contexts. Missiological theories like inculturation, liberation, interfaith relations, and personal and social transformation can help us understand the impact of Christianity on peoples and nations. The study of local or contextual theologies can reveal how the Christian faith is received by a community and how a church becomes locally rooted. Studies of globalization and ecumenics reveal how Christianity around the world is interconnected through global churches and networks, diaspora communities, and transnational agents, while also revealing inequities of the church worldwide.
The demographics of Christianity are an indication that the character of Christianity as a whole is changing. Theologically, as churches and Christian communities beyond the West grow in numbers, maturity, and well-being, issues and voices from the Global South and East, and from their diasporas in the North and West, are playing a larger role. But other aspects of Christianity take longer to change, such as the colonial legacy of superior attitudes by white Christians towards people who are racially, ethnically, culturally, religiously, and socially different. A leveling of the playing field in world Christianity has wide implications that may be hard for Western Christians to accept. The process of decentering the West to be part of world Christianity, rather than over it, is only
just beginning.
CG: Speaking of decentering the West in world Christianity, a current dialogue within missiology is grappling with a deconstruction of old models to make way for new ones. What are the challenges in this task? What are the guiding principles?
KK: Yes, indeed, it is—although not everywhere. In some circles, doing mission “as it has always been done” focuses on evangelism, church planting, and the unreached. Those who are rethinking mission are regarded as being disobedient to “the Great Commission” (meaning Matthew 28:18–20, interpreted in a particular way). In this view, mission is regarded as a task that must be completed by all means. Such missiology embraces the tools of the secular social sciences but rejects the study of history and theology. But it is precisely in the fields of mission history and mission theology that deconstructing old models and making way for new ones has been happening. These disciplines raise critical questions about what has been done under the banner of Christian mission, the rationale for mission, and how it is carried out.
The deconstruction of mission history started towards the end of the European colonial era, in the mid-20th century, as churches that had been founded by European missions pressed for their independence and generally received it before their nations did. Independence leaders, many of them educated at mission-founded schools, nevertheless accused missionaries of complicity with colonialism, and even worse, “colonizing the mind” so that the colonized were stripped of their own culture and thought and became captive to Western modernity.
The relationship between mission and colonialism is complex. On the one hand, it is undeniable that, in the last 500 years, white missionaries and mission organizations have been complicit in atrocities encouraged by processes of colonization, such as the genocide of Native Americans, enslaving Africans, and the abuse of children in their care. Such failure is indefensible.
On the other hand, over so many centuries and in so many different regions, there have been many variations in missions and in the treatment of indigenous people. Although their work was made possible by the colonial world order, not all Western missionaries were close to colonizers; some missionaries challenged colonial policies and defended local people; others openly criticized Western culture and encouraged indigenous forms of church; and some supported independence movements. The recipients of missionary work express varying views. In many regions, Christians remember the reasons they converted, revere the first missionaries, and celebrate the early history of their church. To assume that Christians in colonized countries became so unwillingly, or for ulterior motives, is to neglect their agency, impugn their character, and undermine their identity.
Nevertheless, five centuries of the expansion of the European peoples across the globe, mostly bearing with them a sense of white supremacy and entitlement, has impacted most peoples of the world, formed the current world order, and shaped global networks—including the academy, dominating fields such as missiology. Acknowledging this reality makes deconstructing and reconstructing missiology an imperative.
It is important to critically examine how mission has been practiced and justified in order to reimagine it. This reimagining will be in accordance with Scripture, shaped by our understanding of God in Christ, and
tested by the best of our knowledge of what is good for human beings.
CG: Based on your commitment to the teaching of missiology for a number of years, both at master’s and doctoral levels, what would you name as the subject that has evolved the most?
KK: I would say that there are two areas that have evolved the most in evangelical missiology: mission theology and integral mission.
From mid-century discussions of mission theology arose the paradigm of missio Dei—the mission of God or God’s mission. Missio Dei is multifaceted. Taking its cue from John 20:21, missio Dei means that we participate in God’s mission in Christ, rather than expecting God to support ours. If this is what Jesus gives us the Holy Spirit to do (John 20:22), then the church must be missionary—or missional—by its very nature. Furthermore, this theology applies to churches all over the world, not just the Western ones, so every church must be responsible for mission both in its own community and also to the rest of the world, making mission polycentric and a partnership activity between the world’s churches. It is also necessary to be critical of missio Dei, given that it was formulated as a way of preserving a world missionary movement that was largely Western-led (although Majority World theologians were also integral to its development).
Nevertheless, the paradigm is changing not only the understanding of mission but also the way that it is done. If, by being baptized, we are participating in Christ’s mission, and ultimately God’s mission, then the way we do mission must be Christ’s way. Mission should no longer be thought of as a defined task that must be accomplished by whatever means possible. Mission is integral to following Christ and to discipleship, as Matthew 28:18–20 also makes clear. I understand the recent reconstitution of the School of Theology and the School of Intercultural Studies (formerly School of World Mission) at Fuller as one School of Mission and Theology to be an expression of this truth. Mission is integral to formation.
Another area that has evolved in evangelical missiology is “transformational” or “integral” mission. Although colonial missions (but not all missions in that period) were holistic in the sense of attending to social concerns (education, healthcare, agriculture, etc.) as well as religious ones, the missio Dei paradigm, following the way of Christ, must be concerned for the whole person in context, all peoples, and the whole world.
However, “transformational” or “integral” mission arises more directly from two sources. One is the “mission as transformation movement” initiated by Vinay Samuel and Chris Sugden, inspired by experiences in India, that encouraged evangelicals to embrace social responsibility by engaging in development activities. The other source was the “integral” mission pioneered by René Padilla and Samuel Escobar from Latin America that responded to calls for social justice and advocacy. Both were undergirded with biblical and theological resources, especially from the Gospels, and particularly Luke 4:18–20 where Jesus describes his mission as good news to the poor by release from captivity, blindedness, oppression, and indebtedness. Most of the students I teach at Fuller now take it for granted that mission includes concern for the poor and social justice.
CG: Earlier you touched on one of the focuses of “doing mission” as evangelism. What would you say is the biggest obstacle facing the church today in understanding its role in evangelism or an uncommon misconception about evangelism that you feel doesn’t get talked about enough?
KK: Evangelism is commonly, but not universally, understood today to be a subset of mission—that part of mission practice which verbally declares the message of salvation. This may be in the form of proclaiming, preaching, prophesying, persuading, publishing, or other dissemination, with a view to seeing people turn to Christ, join the church, and in turn evangelize others. Often evangelism is seen as primary, as an essential activity without which mission practice is suspect. Other aspects of mission, which may be grouped together as “social responsibility,” are regarded as peripheral, optional add-ons by those who are less committed to Christian truth. I think it is unfortunate that evangelism has been reduced in this way.
I argue that, in order to understand evangelism and mission, we need to read the Bible, especially the four Gospels, and preferably also with Christians from other cultures and regions for a fuller understanding. Now, in the Gospels, I do not see in Jesus’ own mission, or in what he taught his disciples, a division between “evangelism” and “social responsibility.” Jesus approached people as whole human beings with bodies as well as souls. Insofar as his mission was the proclamation of a message, Jesus practiced what he preached and did what he taught, and he expected his disciples to do the same. His way of being in the world, as sent from the Father, was about more than conveying a verbal message or a set of beliefs. Jesus actually lived the gospel and embodied it in every aspect of his being. His mission made a difference not just in the lives of people who joined the church but also in the wider world for centuries until today.
In other words, if we look at Jesus as the archetypal missionary, evangelism and mission are coextensive. Sharing the gospel or the good news involves both. I find the term “evangelization,” used synonymously with mission at the World Missionary Conference in 1910, useful to express this. Mission could be a secular term but evangelization expresses the process of transformation according to the good news (evangel) that is most fully revealed in and through Jesus Christ, the Word Incarnate.
CG: So what has given you hope in missiology in the current landscape of world Christianity? Do you have a tangible story that you’d be willing to share?
KK: In 1987, when I married Sebastian C. H. Kim (who is currently serving as the interim dean of the School of Mission and Theology) and moved to South Korea, I believed that our shared Christian faith would overcome the national and other differences that might divide us. By the grace of God, we are still together. In my life, I have lived and worked in different contexts—in the UK, South Korea, India, and the US. I have also been part of many global Christian gatherings through the Lausanne Movement and the World Council of Churches and in international academic conferences around the world. I have engaged with churches of all types: Catholic, Independent, Orthodox, Pentecostal, and Protestant—evangelical and ecumenical. I have been experiencing world Christianity as a fact as well as studying it. My experience gives me great hope.
Most Christians do not have this privilege, and many are unaware that Christianity is not a Western but a world faith. But from my research and experience, translatability and receptivity are essential characteristics of Christianity that are demonstrated in the Gospels by Jesus, who reached out to all and whose message was received by people of many different backgrounds. They are encapsulated in the commission of Jesus to his disciples in each Gospel. These might be summarized as to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:18–20), preach to all creation beginning in Galilee (Mark 16:7, 15–16), be witnesses to Christ from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth (Luke 24:48–49 and Acts 1:8), and live in the world as Jesus lived (John 20:21–23). This final injunction is the culmination of the story, coming after Jesus’ resurrection, but its meaning is back-filled by each Gospel’s account of Jesus’ life and teaching.
In my experience, Christians the world over are trying to do what they believe Jesus expects of them, although, as in each Gospel, this may look different according to the context. There are vibrant Christian communities around the globe who care about one another and who want to work together for the sake of the world.
Chantelle Gibbs is content producer and managing editor of FULLER magazine.
Eric Sarwar (PhD ICS ’21) talks about his work of using music and the Psalms to foster meaningful connections between Christians and Muslims.
