Michael McCabe, SMA
The Frontiers of Mission "ad gentes"

Eugene Hillman’s recent article, "Ministry Missionary or Pastoral" (SEDOS Bulletin, vol. 33, no. 6), is an opportune and challenging reflection on the nature and precise focus of the specific missionary vocation ad gentes. While I find myself in sympathy and agreement with Hillman’s concern to distinguish the mission ad gentes from the general mission of the Church and to underline its importance, I have some reservations about his understanding of the frontiers of this mission.

 

The Gap between Theory and Practice

Hillman is rightly concerned about the growing gap between theory and practice in the Church’s commitment to the mission ad gentes. The Church’s official teaching could hardly be clearer about the paramount importance of the mission ad gentes. It is, according to Pope John Paul II’s Redemptoris Missio, "one of the Church’s fundamental activities: it is essential and never-ending" (RM, n. 31); it is "the first task of the Church" (RM, n. 34); and today it "still represents the greatest challenge for the Church" (RM, n. 40). In practice, however, these statements have not been matched by any significant increase in the allocation of personnel and other resources to this mission. To the contrary, as Hillman points out, commitment to the mission ad gentes seems to be diminishing. According to David B. Barrett’s recent statistics, less than 10 per cent of professional missionaries are deployed in this service, while more than 90 per cent are serving Christian populations. If true, this statistic is certainly alarming.

A Fuzzy Missiology

Among the variety of reasons, pastoral and canonical, for the continuing decline in the Church’s commitment of personnel and resources to the mission ad gentes, Hillman highlights and critiques what he terms the "fuzzy missiology" being propogated by some mission theolgians. These so broaden the concept of mission that it ends up signifying nothing in particular. Hillman is especially critical of Donal Dorr, a well-known Irish writer on topics of missionary interest, whose recent book, Mission in Today’s World, he claims, applies the missionary label to a wide spectrum of faith-inspiried activitites in which Christians are currently engaged.

In identifying several "new frontiers" towards which the mission ad gentes ought to be directed today, Dorr is, in Hillman’s jugement, "reading into" Redemptoris Missio something that is simply not there. For Hillman, the new frontiers mentioned by Dorr, e.g., ecology, refugees, debt relief, inter-faith dialogue, inculturation, etc., fall within the ambit of the Church’s ordinary pastoral care, or into the category of "other ecclesial activities", which are not the direct concern of the mission ad gentes.

Hillman himself opts for a very precise and traditional definition of the mission ad gentes. It is "missionary activity proper" and is directed to peoples among whom the Church has not been firmly established and whose cultures have not yet been influenced by the Gospel. Furthermore, these peoples and cultures are to be found in specific "geographical areas". In Hillman’s view, this is the understanding of mission ad gentes clearly endorsed by Redemptoris Missio, which was written to "clear up doubts and ambiguities regarding the specific nature of missionary activity ad gentes" (RM, n. 2).

Hillman’s criticism of Dorr, then, is very serious. He is effectively accusing him of misinterpreting Redemptoris Missio in identifying frontiers of mission ad gentes beyond the boundaries of specific geographical areas. But is Dorr in fact misinterpreting Redemptoris Missio? Could it be that it is Hillman who is being selective in his interpretation of the Encyclical’s teaching on the mission ad gentes? Let us take a closer look at what Redemptoris Missio has to say about the frontiers of mission ad gentes.

The Frontiers of Mission "Ad Gentes"

While much of Redemptoris Missio is concerned with the Church’s missionary mandate in general, the specific theme of chapter four is the mission ad gentes. Spelling out the distincitve nature and permanent relevance of this mission today, this chapter is especially concerned to show that horizons of this mission today are "wider than ever" (RM, n. 34). Why "wider than ever"? Surely not because of the discovery of new geographical regions of the world where the Church has not yet established a presence? After all, the Church is today more geographically dispersed than ever before in its history. True enough, Redemptoris Missio acknowedges that, despite the growth in the number of new Churches in recent times, there "still remain vast regions still to be evangelised" (RM, n. 37). Moreover, the criterion of geography, is "still a valid indicator of the frontiers towards which missionary activity must be directed" (ibid.). However, the Encyclical makes is quite clear that geography cannot be the sole criterion for determining the frontiers of the mission ad gentes today for it is "somewhat imprecise and always provisional" (RM, n. 37).

In a world "characterised by rapid and profound transformations … having a powerful effect on the overall missionary picture", the criterion of geography needs to be supplemented by other sociological and cultural criteria. Hence Redemptoris Missio goes on to identify "new worlds and new social phenomena" and "cultural sectors — the modern equivalents of the Areopagus", towards which "the Church’s missionary activity ought to be directed" today (cf. RM, n. 37).

Under these "new worlds", paragraph 37 makes explicit mention of the following categories:

• the megacities of our world "where a new humanity, so to speak, is emerging, and where new models of development are taking shape" (ibid.);

• the youth who cannot be evangelised by "the ordinary means of pastoral work" (ibid.);

• migrants and refugees;

• those living in situations of poverty;

• the new culture emerging in the mass media;

• and new areas of activity such as "commitment to peace, development and the liberation of peoples, the rights of individuals and peoples, especially those of minorities, the advancement of women and children, safeguarding the created world" (ibid.).

Three points can be made about these new worlds mentioned in Redemptoris Missio, n. 37. Firstly, they are not coterminous with specific geographical areas but rather cross over territorial boundaries. Secondly, these worlds are inhabited by people who have yet to be evangelised. Thirdly, new cultures are emerging in some of these worlds (e.g., the world of young people and the world of the media), which have not been influenced by the Gospel. These worlds, therefore, require an outreach quite "beyond the ordinary means of pastoral work" (RM, n. 37) and, hence, constitute legitimate new frontiers for the mission ad gentes today.

If, then, the mission ad gentes is "still in its infancy" (RM, n. 37) and if its horizons today are "wider than ever" (ibid.), this is not primarily because there are geographical areas of our world where the Church is not yet present – though there are indeed such areas on all six continents. It is mainly because there are whole new worlds emerging to which the Gospel must be proclaimed and in which it must be incarnated. These worlds also constitute "the vast horizons" of the mission ad gentes today and provide new opportunities and challenges for missionaries.

Conclusion

Hillman, then, is incorrect in accusing Dorr of "reading into" Redemptoris Missio in viewing the new worlds mentioned in paragraph 37 as a legitimate extension of the frontiers of the mission ad gentes. However, in fairness, I should add that Dorr gives less weight to the geographical criterion in determining the frontiers of the mission ad gentes than Redemptoris Missio would warrant. Even if the Church is present on every continent, there still exist "countries and geographical and cultural areas which lack indigenous Christian communities … particularly in Asia, towards which the Church’s mission ad gentes ought chiefly to be directed" (RM, n. 37). Again a few paragraphs later the same point is reiterated: "We need therefore to direct our attention towards those geographical areas and cultural settings which still remain uninfluenced by the Gospel" (RM, n. 40).

A balanced interpretation of Redemptoris Missio’s teaching on the mission ad gentes would need to integrate the old and new frontiers mentioned in paragraph 37. If Hillman’s criticism of Dorr’s reading of this paragraph is unwarranted, Dorr’s criticism of "most Catholic missionary congregations and societies" for being slow to move away from "the geographical approach to mission" (Mission in Today’s World, p. 206) is too harsh. Missionary Congregations and Societies have striven over the past twenty-five years to respond to the new frontiers of mission mentioned in Redemptoris Missio, while continuing to work within the specific geographical regions they were sent to evangelise.

I agree with Dorr in calling on missionaries to be more open "to the Spirit in working out a model of mission appropriate to our time and world" (ibid., p. 213). However, I am not sure that the desire to hold on to the geographical criterion of mission ad gentes is evidence of a refusal to live in the present or to be open to the Spirit. Might it not flow from a profound spiritual wisdom, embedded in the communal experience and established traditions of these Congregations?

 

Ref.: Text from the Author (e-mail: mmcabe@pcn.net). November 2001.