국제위클리프 선교학 자문회의 보고서 Report on WBTI Missiological Consultative Process 정민영, WGA 들어가며 – 배경 미전도종족의 말로 성경을 번역해주는 위클리프 성경번역선교회가 왜 이런 작업(선교학 자문회의)을 해야만 하는가? 최소한 두 가지 현저한 이유를 들 수 있다. 1) 세계선교는 성경번역보다 크다. 성경번역이란 세계선교의 유기적인 부분이므로 선교에서 성경번역이 차지하는 적법한 위치와 독특한 역할에 대한 규명이 반드시 필요하다. 분석적 사고가 유발하는 근시안적 아전인수의 오류를 피하고, 분업화의 관행 속에서 자칫 놓치기 쉬운 큰 그림을 붙들어야 하는데, 이는 “숲을 보고 나무를 보라”는 인식의 원리에 부합하는 일이다. 2) 남은 과업은 위클리프 홀로 완수할 수 없다. 이는 실용적인 이유인데, 그러한 작업이 제대로 이뤄지지 않으면 세계교회가 성경번역의 중요성과 시급성을 보지 못할 것이고, 그 결과 세계교회의 자원과 잠재력을 성경번역 사역에 동력화하는 데 실패하게 되어 비전 2025의 성취가 불가능해질 것이기 때문이다. 위클리프 성경번역선교회가 지난 70여 년간 세계선교에 공헌한 바를 굳이 여기서 거론할 필요는 없겠다. 그러나 성경번역이라는 사역적 특성과 전문성을 오랜 기간 독점하면서 자충족한 단체로 발전하게 되었고, 그 결과 세계교회 및 선교계와 유기적으로 교류하고 영향력을 주고받으며 서로 세우고 바로잡는 관계를 상당 부분 상실한 면이 있었다. 아직도 자기네 모어로 기록된 성경이 없는 미전도종족의 말로 성경을 번역해주는 일이 늦어도 2025년까지 최소한 시작되게 하자는 ‘비전 2025’는 남은 과업의 신속한 완수라는 긴박성을 주요과제로 던지고 있는데, 이 야심만만한 목표는 위클리프 스스로 노력해서 성취될 수 없고 세계교회가 같은 비전을 품고 함께 손잡고 매진해야 비로소 가능하다는 사실을 절감하게 되었다. 한국교회뿐 아니라 세계교회는 전반적으로 성경번역의 전략적 가치에 대한 이해가 태부족한 상태이다. 따라서 위클리프는 성경번역과 세계선교의 유기적 상관관계를 규명함으로써 자신의 안목도 바로잡고 세계교회의 이해와 동참을 유도해야 할 책임 앞에 서 있다. 성경번역이라는 초점사역에 헌신한 위클리프의 입장이 아니라, ‘세계선교 속의 성경번역’이라는 통합적 접근과 아울러 대부분의 교회와 그리스도인이 견지하는 선교일반의 관점에서 출발하여 성경번역에 도달하는 귀납적 접근이 절실히 필요한 셈이다. 제1차 국제위클리프 선교학 자문회의 WBTI Missiological Consultative Process 2006 비전 2025의 성취뿐 아니라 위클리프의 건강한 사역을 위해 성경번역과 선교학을 통합하는 일이 반드시 필요하다는 사실은 오래 전부터 필자를 포함한 수많은 위클리프 지도자들과 회원들이 통감하던 터였다. 2006년 초에 열린 위클리프 파송단체장 모임에서 이러한 작업의 필요성이 확인되었는데, 여러 지도자들은 그간 위클리프가 자체사역에 대한 계획과 전략, 예산, 결과 등에 대해서는 제대로 초점을 맞춰 훌륭하게 일을 감당해왔으나 세계교회와 더불어 선교를 논하고 협력을 추구하는 부분이 매우 부족했음을 인정하였다. 해서 국제 위클리프는 세계 선교계에서 인정받는 지도자를 초청해서 위클리프의 사역과 역할에 대한 객관적 평가와 자문을 받는 자리를 마련하기로 결정하고 동년 8월 미국 위클리프 본부가 있는 올랜도에서 역사적인 첫 모임을 갖게 되었다. 자문역할을 위촉 받은 사람은 세계복음주의연맹(WEA) 전 선교분과장 빌 테일러 박사였다. WEA 선교분과의 모토인 ‘반추하는 실천가’(Reflective Practitioner)를 삶으로 구현하는 테일러 박사보다 이 일에 더 적합한 사람은 없었다. 참석자들의 면면은 의도적으로 다양하게 배분되었다. 국제본부에서는 필자를 포함해서 세 나라(호주, 한국, 과테말라) 출신 3인이 참석했고, 위클리프 단체들로부터 8인이 선정되었는데 그들 또한 여섯 나라(남아공, 미국, 호주, 파푸아뉴기니, 싱가포르, 스위스) 출신이었다. 총 11명의 참석자 모두는 각자 속한 조직과 위치에서 지도력을 발휘하는 지도자들이었다. 첫날부터 열기와 기대감이 충일했고, 70여 년 국제위클리프 역사상 매우 독특하고 전환기적인 ‘카이로스’(kairos) 시점이 도래했다는 공감대가 강하게 형성되었다. 첫 자문회의는 세계교회로 하여금 성경번역에 참여하도록 만들기 위해 위클리프 지도자들이 인식하고 다뤄야 할 선교학적 이슈들을 확인하고 정리하는 일을 일차적 목표로 세웠다. 하나님의 복합적 선교의 한 요소인 성경번역은 급변하는 사회적, 문화적, 경제적, 정치적, 종교적 상황 속에서 다양한 형태로 진행되고 있는데, 성경적 원리와 상황적 다양성을 아우르는 선교학적 진단과 처방을 도출하기 위한 기초작업으로 참석자들은 몇 가지 중요한 책들과 소논문들을 미리 소화해야 했다. 다음은 그 목록이다: • “Bible Translation and the Cross-cultural DNA of the Church,” by Patrick Johnstone (Momentum Magazine, January/February 2006) • “The Vernacular Treasure: A Century of Mother-tongue Bible Translation,” by Harriet Hill (International Bulletin of Missionary Research, April 2006) • “The Role and Significance of the Translation of the Bible into African Languages in the Consolidation of the Church and its Expansion into Unreached Areas,” by Prof Kwame Bediako (unpublished paper, 2001) • Global Missiology for the 21st Century, edited by William Taylor (chapters 1-3) (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2000) • Whose Religion is Christianity? The Gospel Beyond the West, by Lamin Sanneh (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2003) • One World or Many: The Impact of Globalization on Mission, by Richard Tiplady (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2003) 위의 글들을 미리 다 읽고 온 자문회의 참석자들은 별도의 시간을 할애해 독후감을 나눴고, 테일러 박사는 각각의 참석자에게 개인적으로 가장 크게 부각된 한 가지 이슈를 발표하게 했다. 그 결과 오늘의 위클리프에 영향을 미치는 20가지 중점 이슈들이 확인되었고, 그 중요도에 따라 점수를 매겨 8가지 현저한 이슈들을 도출하게 되었다: 1) 단기선교운동의 영향 2) 교회와 문화에 팽배한 소비주의 3) 성경번역의 선교학적 중요성 4) 하나님 나라의 삶과 이 세상의 삶 혼재 5) 교회와 문화 속의 정보홍수 6) 디아스포라 선교동원 7) 비서구 선교사들이 당면한 도전들 8) 선교에 대한 대형교회의 영향력 이번 자문회의 의장이며 차기(2008년부터) 국제 위클리프 총재로 선임된 커크 프랭클린 선교사는 참석자들에게 각자의 지도력과 소속단체에 영향을 미치는 독특한 이슈들을 문의한 결과 44가지 주제를 얻었는데, 그것을 그는 다음 8가지 항목으로 분류했다: 1) 세계교회 전반 2) 교회와 성경번역 3) 교회와 위클리프 4) 비전 2025의 현주소 5) WBT/SIL의 공동체적 연합 6) 모어의 중요성 7) 지역적 이슈들 8) 훈련의 선교학적 이슈들 거론된 모든 주제를 충분히 다루기에는 시간적 제약이 너무 크다는 사실이 명백해지자 테일러 박사는 주께서 우리가 그 자리에서 반드시 다루기 원하신다고 여겨지는 가장 중요한 주제가 무엇일지 기도하며 결정하자고 제안했다. 놀랍게도 우리는 큰 어려움 없이 다음 세 가지 핵심이슈에 합의하게 되었다. 1) 교회 – 위클리프에 대한 교회의 의미(significance) 2) 성경번역 – 그 선교학적 근거와 상황 3) 비전V2025 – 그 선교학적 중요성 자문회의의 나머지 시간은 대부분 이 세가지 핵심이슈를 심층적으로 논하는 데 할애되었다. 토의내용을 간단히 요약하면 다음과 같다: 1. 교회 – 위클리프에 대한 교회의 의미(significance) 하나님의 선교에 교회가 중심적 역할을 감당한다는 것은 국제 위클리프의 핵심가치이다. 그러나 위클리프의 역할 및 교회와의 관계에 종종 혼동이 있었다. 우리는 교회와 위클리프의 관계를 신학적으로 정립하는 일에 그리 성공적이지 못했다는 사실을 깨달았다. 테일러 박사는 만일 우리의 교회론이 약하면 우리의 선교론도 약할 수밖에 없다며 ‘위클리프의 교회론’을 작성해볼 것을 권했다. 위클리프가 출범하여 오늘에 이르기까지 교회에 관한 위클리프의 이해는 WBT/SIL 공동체문화에 의해 형성되었다. WBT/SIL이 태동하던 1920-40년대는 (서구)교회가 타문화권 선교에 대해 무관심하던 시기여서 대안적 병행단체의 출현이 불가피했다. 그러나 테일러 박사는 교회에 대해 비판적인 선교단체는 하나님의 축복으로부터 멀어질 수밖에 없다며 교회를 사랑하라고 격려했다. 참석자들은 성경번역의 신학적 정리를 포함한 선교신학적 이해가 위클리프 지도자들에게 큰 도움이 될 것이고, 세계교회의 확장에 성경번역이 미친 영향 등 교회역사에 관한 지식이 그들에게 꼭 필요하다는 사실을 공감했다. 그러한 이해를 가진다면 교회 지도자들과 교류하는 데 큰 힘을 받게 될 것이다. (이번 포럼에서 권성찬 선교사가 정리하여 발표하게 되는 Andrew Walls 박사의 세미나는 바로 이런 맥락에서 이뤄진 것이다.) 2. 성경번역 – 그 선교학적 근거와 상황 위클리프는 성경번역의 선교학적 적절성(relevance)을 규명해야 한다. 그 일을 위해서는 성경번역의 역사적 중요성, 세계선교에서 성경번역이 감당해온 핵심적 역할, 그리고 성경번역이 미전도종족 대상 전도 및 교회개척에 얼마나 중요한 기초가 되었는지에 대한 확인 및 정리가 필요하다. (Andrew Walls 박사의 세미나는 이런 작업을 위한 중요한 초석을 놓았다.) 3. 비전V2025 – 그 선교학적 중요성 비전 2025를 위클리프가 어떻게 이해하는지에 대한 해석적 질문이 있다. 비전 2025는 믿음인가 동인인가? 2025년이라는 시한에 대해 위클리프는 얼마나 집착하는가? 위클리프는 비전 2025의 핵심주제인 ‘긴박성, 지속성, 역량구축, 창의적 전략, 동역’의 성경적, 신학적, 선교학적 기초를 잘 알아야 한다. 또한 비전 2025가 위클리프 외부에서 어떻게 인식되고 있는지 고려해야 한다. 그 비전을 받은 위클리프는 마땅히 그것을 해명해야 할 책임이 있다. 후속 조치 자문회의 의장인 커크 프랭클린 선교사가 WEA 선교분과 정기간행물(Connections)에 기고한 보고서(부록 1)의 제목(The journey of reflection has only just begun)이 시사하듯이 이 중요한 작업은 제1차 자문회의를 통해 시작되었고, 주요이슈들에 대한 해답을 얻기보다 핵심문제를 확인하는 것으로 첫 발걸음을 떼었을 뿐이다. 일단 진단이 나왔으니 향후 지속적인 연구와 토론을 통해 그 처방을 얻어야 할 것인데, 이 자문회의를 통상적 표현인 ‘Consultation’이라 하지 않고 굳이 ‘Consultative Process’라 명명한 이유가 바로 여기에 있다. 두고두고 풀어가야 할 위클리프의 숙제를 정리하기 위해 제1차 자문회의와 후속과정을 통해 배운 여섯 가지 교훈을 아래 나눈다(정리: 커크 프랭클린): 1) 우리는 위클리프 지도자들이 ‘반추적 사고’(reflective thinking)가 다소 약하다는 사실을 깨달았는데, 이는 우리의 성향이 실천적 과업내지 사역 중심이었기 때문일 것이다. 위클리프 안에 선교학 전문팀이 형성되어 그 관점에서 소리를 발하고 포럼을 개최하여 WBT/SIL 전반에 반추의 분위기를 조장한다면 큰 유익이 있을 것이다. 2) 우리는 ‘반추하는 실천가’가 되는 일의 긍정적 가치와 필요성을 절감했다. 3) 자문회의의 결과를 확산하는 과정에서 위클리프 안에 상당수의 선교학자들이 공헌할 기회를 엿보고 있음을 깨달았는데, 그들은 이제 WBT/SIL에 선교학적 공헌을 본격적으로 시작할 수 있을 것이다. 4) 우리는 상당수의 위클리프 단체들이 성경번역의 건강한 성경적 기초를 원한다는 사실을 깨달았다. 2006년 11월에 열린 국제지도자회의(Global Leadership Meeting)에서 첫 자문회의 결과를 보고받은 지도자들 중 25명이 향후 지속될 자문과정에 참여하고 싶다는 의사를 밝혔다. 5) 우리는 세계 교계와 선교계가 위클리프와 효과적인 대화를 원한다는 사실을 깨달았다. 6) 만일 우리가 이 핵심이슈들을 진지하게 주목하고 다루지 않는다면 위클리프와 교회간의 간격을 메울 길이 없으리라는 사실을 깨달았다. 제2차 국제위클리프 선교학 자문회의 WBTI Missiological Consultative Process 2007 제2차 선교학 자문회의는 금년 8월14-17일 싱가포르에서 열렸다. 2008년부터 위클리프 국제본부가 미국으로부터 싱가포르로 이전할 예정이어서 모임장소로서 의의가 컸다. 국제본부의 이전은 세계선교의 무게중심이 종전의 서구에서 2/3(또는 다수)세계로 옮겨가는 상황을 위클리프가 인식한다는 상징적 의미를 갖는다. 서구와 비서구의 경쟁이나 힘겨루기가 아니라 지구촌 곳곳에서 모여든 다양한 참석자들이 특정집단의 위세에 눌리지 않고 자유롭게 의견을 개진하고 나누는 자리라는 점에서 싱가포르는 매우 적절한 모임장소였다. 자문위원으로 테일러 박사를 다시 모시기 원했으나, 금년에 WEA 선교분과장 직을 내려놓은 후 은퇴하여 안식년을 보내는 중이어서 비서구 선교학자인 말레이지아의 강산탄(Kang San Tan) 박사가 그 역할을 대신했다. 세계선교의 흐름이 서구중심에서 지구촌 선교시대로 옮겨진 현 상황을 고려할 때 오히려 시의적절한 하나님의 섭리가 아니었나 생각된다. 이번 모임은 당연히 첫 번째보다 더 많고 다양한 참석자들(17명)이 한 자리에 모였고, 그간 쌓아온 터 위에 벽돌 한 장을 더 놓는 자리였다. 특히 이번에는 현직 국제위클리프 총재와 부총재를 포함하여 차기 총재와 국제본부 지도자 팀이 상당수 참석했기 때문에 자문회의의 결과가 향후 위클리프에 미칠 긍정적 파급효과가 크게 기대되는 상황이 되었다. 특별히 첫날은 국제OMF 총재 Patrick Fung과 선교연구 책임자 Warren Beattie, 전 싱가포르 트리니티 신학교 강사 Grace Toh , 위클리프 싱가포르 이사 Tang Shin Yong, 싱가포르 침례교단장 및 인터서부 싱가포르 이사장 Edwin Lam을 초청하여 외부인사들의 의견을 청취하는 기회도 가졌다. 외부자의 평가와 기여는 내부자모임에서 자칫 간과하기 쉬운 맹점을 찾아내고 균형 잡힌 시각을 유지하는 데 유익하기 때문이다. 첫 번째 모임처럼 모든 참석자는 상당분량의 논문과 책을 미리 읽은 후 각자 인상 깊게 느끼거나 새롭게 배운 중요한 교훈을 나누는 시간을 가졌다. 다양한 참석자들이 취득한 다양한 깨달음이 이 ‘반추적 과정’을 통해 공유되고 확산되는 유익한 시간이었다. 제2차 자문회의의 도서목록은 다음과 같다: (첫 모임에 참석하지 않은 사람은 그때의 도서목록을 추가로 읽어야 했다.) • An abstract of The World is Flat by Thomas Friedman • The Future of Globalizing Mission: What the literature Suggests by Marty Shaw and Enoch Wan • Globalization and the Gospel, Rethinking Mission in the Contemporary World from the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization • Demographics, Power and the Gospel by Andrew Walls • A Body of Christ Missiology by Kent Parks • Celebrating and Shaping Our Work with Churches by Cheryl Catford • Truth with a Mission by Chris Wright with Steven Coertze’s introductory comments • Christology and Culture by Kang-San Tan • Liberating Word: The power of the Bible in the Global South by Philip Jenkins • The Failure of the West and Can the South Save the West? by Jonathan Ingleby • Reclaiming the M-Word: The Legacy of Missions in Nonwestern Societies by Robert D Woodberry • The Big 3 Missiological Issues (from the August 2006 WBTI Missiological Consultation) edited by Kirk Franklin 이번 자문회의의 의의가 “현 상황에서 위클리프의 지도자들과 관계자들이 성경번역을 교회에 알리는 데 영향을 미치는 선교학적 이슈들을 확인하는 틀을 제공하기 위한 자리”라는 존 와터스 국제위클리프 총재의 도입으로 본격적인 모임이 시작되었다. ‘선교학’(Missiology)의 정의는 사무엘 에스코바가 정리한 내용(‘an interdisciplinary approach to understand missionary action [looking] at missionary facts from the perspectives of the biblical sciences, theology, history and the social sciences.’ Global Missiology, 101쪽)을 준용하기로 했다. 세 차례에 걸친 강산탄 박사의 주제강연은 제2차 자문회의의 흐름과 방향을 설정하는 뼈대가 되었고, 매번 강연 직후에는 토론질문에 따른 전체토의 또는 소그룹토의를 거쳐 내용을 소화하고 확대하는 작업이 뒤따랐다. 다음은 주제강연 주제 및 토론질문이다: 주제강연 1: 선교학의 주요 이슈들 (강연 및 토의 내용은 부록 2 참조) 토론질문: 1) 당신의 사역이나 지역에 특별한 의미가 있는 주요 선교학적 이슈는 무엇인가? 2) 향후 20년간 위클리프가 당면하게 될 주요 신학적 도전은 무엇일 거라 생각하는가? 위클리프는 그 도전에 대해 어떻게 대응해왔는가? 3) 제1차 자문회의에서 확인한 3대 선교학적 이슈(교회, 성경번역, 비전 2025)를 돌아보고 이번 모임에서 추가해야 할 선교학적 이슈가 무엇인지 토론하라. 4) 당신의 개인적 관심사 및 염려는 무엇인가? 주제강연 2: 선교학적으로 반추하는 실천가 만들기 (강연 및 토의 내용은 부록 2 참조) 토론질문: 1) 위클리프 내에 반추하는 실천가 공동체를 형성하는 이슈에 대한 당신의 비전은 무엇인가? 반추하는 실천가 공동체의 핵심가치는 무엇인가? 그러한 가치를 어떻게 위클리프 내에 형성할 수 있겠는가? 2) 위클리프의 선교동원과 선교현장의 새로운 사역자, 그리고 지도력을 위해 가장 절박하게 필요한 연구 및 훈련은 무엇인가? 이 부분은 평가와 연구를 요구하는데, 연구결과가 나온다면 어떻게 활용할 것인가? 3) 위클리프 내에 선교학적 반추를 활성화하기 위한 효과적인 구조와 자원(사람과 재정)은 무엇인가? 주제강연 3: 변화를 일으키는 회심: 회심으로부터 문화적 변혁으로 (강연 및 토의 내용은 부록 2 참조. 이 주제에 대한 토론은 별도의 도입질문 없이 진행되었다.) 강산탄 박사의 주제강연 외에도 위클리프의 선교학자인 스티븐 코에르츠의 특별강연(‘위클리프의 선교학: 미래지향적 가능성’)이 있었고, 제1차 자문회의에서 다뤘던 3대 선교학 이슈(교회, 성경번역, 비전 2025)에 대한 재고 및 평가의 시간이 있었다. (자세한 내용은 부록 2 참조.) 제2차 자문회의를 통해 얻은 소득 (정리: 커크 프랭클린) • 위클리프의 선교학적 기초와 표현은 이제 세계교회의 관점에서 정리된다. • 위클리프는 스스로를 의도적으로 국제선교학적 참여자의 위치에 설정한다. • 국제위클리프 및 파송단체의 다양한 지도자들은 이제 선교학적 토론의 적극적 참여자이다. • 위클리프와 현장체제(SIL)가 이 관점에서 효율적으로 교류해야 할 과제가 아직 남아있다. • 외부의 자문위원을 활용하는 것은 우리 자체의 한계를 뛰어넘도록 돕는 방도이다. • 반추하는 실천가 문화를 배양하기 위한 다자간 협력이 요구된다. • 제1차 자문회의에서 확인한 3대 선교학 이슈는 더 많은 시간을 두고 발전시켜야 할 것이며, 다양한 상황과 대상에게 다양한 형태로 제기될 필요가 있다. • 국제위클리프의 선교학 자문회의가 제대로 방향을 잡고 진행되고 있다는 공감대가 형성되었다. • 이 과정을 주요 리더십이 적극적으로 수용하고 있다. 미래지향적 제안 (정리: 커크 프랭클린) 1) 선교학적으로 반추하는 핵심집단을 형성하자. 2) 반추적으로 사고하는 일꾼들을 제도적으로 개발하자. 3) 2008년 위클리프 국제총회에서 이 의제를 나누고 확산하자. 4) 국가별, 대륙별, 권역별 포럼을 활성화하자. 5) 정규훈련을 통해 전문가를 양성하자. 6) 선교학적 개발을 위한 재정을 확보하자. 7) 3대 선교학 이슈를 꾸준히 발전시키자. 8) 반추와 연구의 문화를 위클리프 내에 정착시키자. 9) 다양한 문화적 관점에서 시행되는 전문적 연구에 투자하자. Appendix 1 The journey of reflection has only just begun [Article for WEA Mission Commission Connections Magazine reporting on the Wycliffe International Missiological Consultative Process] By Kirk Franklin Eight years ago, when I became a mission leader, I started wondering if I should have an understanding of how missiology could contribute to my leadership. I didn’t begin thinking that way overnight. It was a process brought about by interaction with church, mission and Bible college leaders in Australia. In conversations with these leaders, I often felt something was missing on my side of the conversation. I was lacking confidence in some areas but I couldn’t pinpoint what it was. I know I was more interested in the task, ministry goals and results than I was about having a working theology of mission and applying that to leading the ministry. Then I met Les Henson, senior lecturer in Mission Studies at Tabor College in Melbourne. It didn’t take long for Les to convince me that he could help me. I enrolled in the study program he set up without realizing that I would soon be grappling with missiological issues dealing with mission leadership. In time, it became clear to me and those around me that I had begun a journey that would significantly impact my worldview. Fast-forward to early last year. I discovered there were other Wycliffe leaders that were feeling something was missing in their leadership. These leaders were focused on plans, strategies, budgets, and of course, results. But many felt they had no voice with the church, Bible colleges and seminaries, mission leaders, and missiologists. They were under pressure to find their leadership voice and influence. The Missiological Consultative Process An idea grew that something should be done to help any or all of the leaders of Wycliffe organizations spread around the world find this voice. As we shared our thoughts with our International Executive Director, John Watters, he proposed setting up a Wycliffe International Consultative Process and asked me to take charge of it. The aim of the Process is to provide a framework for our leaders to identify missiological issues that affect the church’s involvement in Bible translation in their various contexts. In order to accomplish Vision 2025 (“a Bible translation project in process for every language that needs it by 2025”), a considerable increase in the number of people, both national and expatriate is needed. We recognize that Bible translation is only one facet of the overarching mission of God. The gathering of resources for Bible translation takes place in a rapidly changing social, cultural, economic, political and religious environment in each nation and at the global level. These are some of the realities affecting us and why we need the opportunity to reflect missiologically in relation to pursuing our ministry in a changing world. The Orlando Consultation The first face to face meeting of this Process was held for three days in late August 2006 at the Wycliffe USA Center at Orlando. The words “historic” and a “kairos moment” quickly came to the surface as we finished our first day together. It was obvious that the Lord had been preparing us for a special time of grappling with issues. It was evident the Lord guided in the selection of who should participate, including Dr Bill (William) Taylor, who graciously agreed to be our facilitator. Each day was like enjoying a delicious feast as we interacted with Bill through his biblical and missiological insights, packaged in his journey in life and ministry. The participants were intentionally diverse. Three came from Wycliffe International (a Guatemalan, Australian and Korean) and eight from Wycliffe organizations (South Africa, US, Australia, Papua New Guinea, Singapore and Switzerland). All of the participants held executive-level leadership roles in their respective organizations. Bill, having just completed his responsibilities as Director of the WEA Mission Commission, ably served us in his role as WEA Global Ambassador (a fitting title which attests to his wealth of experience). Preparing through reading and reflection In setting up the consultative process, we wanted a reflective methodology that stimulated the participants as they considered missiological issues affecting the organizations they lead. Therefore, each participant was asked to read articles and books that Bill and I had pre-selected before they arrived at Orlando. These were: • “Bible Translation and the Cross-cultural DNA of the Church,” by Patrick Johnstone (Momentum Magazine, January/February 2006) • “The Vernacular Treasure: A Century of Mother-tongue Bible Translation,” by Harriet Hill (International Bulletin of Missionary Research, April 2006) • “The Role and Significance of the Translation of the Bible into African Languages in the Consolidation of the Church and its Expansion into Unreached Areas,” by Prof Kwame Bediako (unpublished paper, 2001) • Global Missiology for the 21st Century, edited by William Taylor (chapters 1-3) (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2000) • Whose Religion is Christianity? The Gospel Beyond the West, by Lamin Sanneh (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2003) • One World or Many: The Impact of Globalization on Mission, by Richard Tiplady (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2003) I asked the participants to come with their summaries of their reflections from their readings. When we gathered at Orlando, each person was given ten minutes to share what they had learned. Then Bill asked each person for the one point that significantly impacted them. As a result, the participants were learning, if they hadn’t already, the value of reading and reflection that would inform their missiological understanding of mission, the church, the world, etc. Processing the missiological issues An aim of the consultative process was to identify key issues affecting our Wycliffe family of organizations in today’s world. I had gathered a list of 20 issues from various sources. Well ahead of the Orlando meeting (by email), I asked the participants to rank them according to importance in their contexts. Eight issues emerged as most significant: a) the impact of short-term missions; b) consumerism in the church and culture; c) the missiological importance of Bible translation; d) living in the Kingdom of God versus living in the kingdom of this world; e) the saturation of information in the church and culture; f) engaging the Diaspora in mission; g) challenges for non-Western missionaries; and h) the impact of the mega-church on missions. Then I asked each participant to email me their own issues affecting their leadership and organizations. Forty-four topics were submitted, and I categorized them into eight headings: a) the church in general; b) the church and Bible translation; c) the church and Wycliffe; d) Vision 2025 today; e) Corporate unity; f) the importance of the mother-tongue; g) regional issues; and h) missiological issues in training. On the first day of meeting together in Orlando, we had the task of distilling these 64 issues into a manageable group. Due to time constraints, I suggested that we could only process 5-6 issues. Bill wisely invited us to prayerfully reflect on the issues that the Lord was directing us to discuss. Quite quickly and in a very unifying way, three issues emerged as the most critical (somewhat a synthesis of most of the above 16 issues). The three we focused on (which we began referring to as ‘the Big 3’) were: a) The church—its significance to us; b) Bible translation—its missiological basis and context; and c) Vision 2025—its missiological importance. Much of our remaining time was spent discussing these issues and then processing them in small groups. In our groups, we developed outlines highlighting essential aspects about them. Some of the salient points of our discussions are: a) The church—its significance to us: The importance of the church as central in God’s mission is a core value for Wycliffe International. However, our role and relationship with the church is often confused. We felt that we have not always done well at theologizing the relationship between the church and Wycliffe. Therefore, Bill thought it would be helpful if we wrote “an ecclesiology of Wycliffe” because he said, “If we are soft on ecclesiology then it is likely we are soft on missiology.” We felt that all of our leaders would benefit from a working knowledge of a theology of mission, including a theology of Bible translation. An awareness of mission history including the significance of Bible translation to the growth of the church is also essential. This understanding provides empowerment for interfacing with church leaders. Our understanding of the church, from the beginning of Wycliffe to today, is shaped by our corporate culture. Wycliffe was formed in the faith mission movement phase of the 1920-40’s because the church wasn’t interested in cross-cultural missions. However, Bill encouraged us to love the church. He said, “Agencies that begin to get critical of the church are on their way away from God’s blessings.” b) Bible translation—its missiological basis and context: We need to define the missiological relevance of Bible translation. To do this we should revisit the historical importance of Bible translation and the key role it has played in mission and how it has been foundational to evangelism and church planting for unreached people groups. c) Vision 2025—its missiological importance: There is a hermeneutical question about how we understand Vision 2025. Is it a faith and/or a motivational issue? How strongly are we attached to the year, per se? We need to know the biblical, theological and missiological foundations of Vision 2025’s themes (e.g., partnership, sustainability, capacity building, and urgency). We also have to consider how Vision 2025 is being interpreted outside of Wycliffe. The Vision was given to us, so we are responsible for explaining it. We decided that these issues need further exploration. Bill’s encouragement was to develop them into future articles and resources that serve the leaders of our movement. Developing the reflective process We had this deep sense of awareness that the Lord had brought Bill into our midst for a special purpose and so we eagerly wanted to learn from him. Bill began each day with reflections on the triune missional community expressed in the dance together (perichoresis) of the triune God, which defers and listens to each other. As we progress to becoming more reflective ourselves, we have the challenge of listening to the Godhead and to each other. Bill laid the foundation of our consultation by referring to Samuel Escobar’s definition of missiology: “An interdisciplinary approach to understand missionary action [looking] at missionary facts from the perspectives of the biblical sciences, theology, history, and the social sciences” (Global Missiology, p. 101). Upon this platform, Bill challenged us to consider becoming “reflective practitioners”—leaders who are “of both action and reflection, committed to God’s truth; obedient in the power of God’s Spirit to the Great Commission in all its fullness” (Global Missiology, p. 5). This concept was new to many of the participants. But we grasped the significance—as we seek to lead change and better accelerate the work in a new and different type of world, we need to balance our “practicing” with reflection. As the consultation unfolded, each of us had begun our journey to becoming more reflective. What happens next? The consultative process is not intended to answer all the questions we grappled with regarding the changing context of our world and ministry. We recognized from the outset that many of the topics we discussed would take time to process and filter through our organizations. So the goal was to come up with clarification and definition of major topics, issues, and problems that we face in the domain of being missional. The Orlando consultation provided us with valuable lessons that will guide us, including: 1) We discovered Wycliffe leaders are weak in terms of reflective thinking, as we have been more orientated to action related tasks and ministry. We will benefit from a missiological team, voice, and/or forum with the intent of stimulating further reflection throughout our organizations. 2) We discovered the positive implications and necessity of being reflective practitioners. 3) As we circulated the results of our consultation, we discovered that there are a number of “missiologists” in the closet waiting to break out and make a contribution. Such people are feeling a release to begin making a solid contribution now and in the future. 4) We discovered that large parts of our Wycliffe organizations are craving for a sound biblical foundation for our ministry. When we shared the outcomes of the Orlando consultation with Wycliffe leaders at our Global Leadership Meeting in November, about 25 of them asked to be included in further missiological thinking and formation. 5) We discovered that the church and the missions world “out there” is waiting for us to effectively dialogue with them. 6) We discovered that if we do not give this serious attention we are not going to bridge any gaps separating Wycliffe from the church. We realize our need to keep our missional essence as an overriding focus for Wycliffe. This is not to suggest that we become a missiological organization, such as a department of missiology equivalent to what exists at a seminary. Rather, Wycliffe and our major partner, SIL, will continue as action-oriented organizations. However, we hope a foundation is being set for a new blend of missional thinking and missional practice—a missiological lens as part of the lenses through which we operate. We want to expose ourselves to current missiological information from both the West and non-West. We hope to see a growing and deepening interaction with missional thinking, reflection and dialogue. This will empower our leaders by informing and enriching them and their decision making. The beginning of a new journey As I reflect upon the progress we’ve made in less than a year, I am astonished—it can only be God’s Spirit prompting and guiding us into this path. There have been immediate benefits as well. For example, in October, I participated in a small consultation looking at ways to involve Pacific Islanders (from Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, etc.) in Bible translation initiatives in places like the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, and Papua New Guinea. Essentially, the meeting was going to be about developing strategies, training courses, partnering with the local churches, etc.—all important. However, in the lead up to the meeting, we discovered that William Carey Library had republished Allan Tippett’s noteworthy book, “The Deep Sea Canoe—The Story of Third World Missionaries in the South Pacific.” We arranged copies for each participant and asked them to read the book before coming to the meeting and to each share a couple of salient points from the book that would aid our discussion. As we went around the room listening to each person, I was struck how this had changed the tone of the meeting. Rather than just focusing on strategy like we normally would do, we were reflecting on the missiological significance of what God did in the early advance of the Gospel in the Pacific Islands 150 years ago. I was so pleased to see how they each had been drawn into an exercise of reflection, and this in turn provided a firm foundation for the remainder of the meeting where strategies and goals were also formulated. Just like the early missionaries paddling in their canoes across to various Pacific Islands to share the Gospel, so too has our journey just begun. Our voyage is the missiological consultative process and will need many more discussions in the weeks, months and years ahead. The voyage of transitioning from a pragmatic oriented organization to a missiological one will take time. But I believe we are now committed to the process and off to a good start. Appendix 2 Report of the second WBTI Missiological Consultation 15-17 August 2007 – Singapore By Kirk Franklin, WBTI Missiological Consultative Process Chairman 26 September 2007 Background To reach Vision 2025 substantially more people of all nations need to be involved. We recognize that Bible translation is only one facet of the overarching mission of God. We also recognize that the mobilization of resources for Bible translation takes place in a rapidly changing social, cultural, economic, political and religious environment in each nation and at globally Given these realities, Wycliffe leaders need opportunities to reflect on Scripture, mission history, theology and contemporary missiology as they relate to pursuing the ministry of Bible translation in a changing world. Therefore the second face-to-face WBTI Missiological Consultation was held in Singapore in August 2007. In introducing the Consultation, John Watters, Executive Director of WBTI outlined the purpose of the missiological consultative process: ‘to provide a framework in which WBTI leaders and interested people can identify the missiological issues that affect our communication of Bible translation to the church in our current contexts.’ The general principles guiding the missiological consultative process are: • Encourage interaction and sharing of ideas within and among the WMOs as well as among individual members and other interested individuals. • Develop a reflective process to aid Wycliffe leaders as they serve in a globalized and changing world and church. This is being achieved through: • Beginning to identify major issues through a process of roundtable discussions with members of the consultative process and others. • Processing of issues with a wider body of people followed by discussion of possible recommendations. • Developing a set of prioritized recommendations relevant to the major issues. These recommendations are then given to the WBTI Executive Director for further processing as appropriate within WBTI. Goals for the missiological process are: • To become reflective practitioners as we develop our missional leadership. • To discuss issues and problems WBTI and the WMOs face in being missional. • To integrate the missiological consultative process within WBTI, now and in the future. The major venues used for processing WBTI’s missiological reflections have been: • The first roundtable at Orlando, August 2006. This was the initial face-to-face meeting for missiological reflection facilitated by Dr William Taylor of the World Evangelical Alliance Missions Commission. • The WBTI Area Directors-Vice Presidents Meetings in October 2006: The Area Directors received updates from the roundtable. • The WBTI Global Leaders Meeting in November 2006: Presentations from the roundtable were given and discussion with the WMO Directors was invited. • The second roundtable at Singapore, August 2007: The follow-up face-to-face meeting for missiological reflection was facilitated by Dr Kang-San Tan of Redcliffe College, UK. 1. The participants The group at the second roundtable was intentionally diverse representing a cross-section of WBTI leaders from around the world: • Daniel Bianchi, WBTI Board member (Argentina) • Tony Chan, WBTI Asia-Pacific Area, JAARS Board, Wycliffe Singapore (Singapore) • Nicky Chong, Wycliffe Singapore Director (Singapore) • Stephen Coertze, Wycliffe South Africa Director (South Africa) • Bob Creson, Wycliffe USA President (US) • Jose de Dios, WBTI Americas Area Director (Guatemala/US) • Kirk Franklin, Chairman of WBTI Missiological Consultative Process and WBTI Executive Director-Designate (Australia/US) • David Gela, PNG Bible Translation Association Executive Director (Papua New Guinea) • Min-Young Jung, WBTI Asian Diaspora Director (Korea) • Michel Kenmogne, Cameroon Association of Bible Translation and Literacy Director (Cameroon) • Darryl Kernick, WBTI Associate Executive Director (Australia) • Sung-Chan Kwon, Global Bible Translators Director (Korea) • Angelika Marsch, Wycliffe Germany Director (Germany) • Todd Poulter, SIL International and WBTI networker (US) • Joel Trudell, Wycliffe International Africa Area Director (US) • Susan Van Wynen, WBTI Corporate Communications Director (US) • John Watters, WBTI Executive Director (US) The composition of the meeting reflected a healthy balance including representatives from the Wycliffe Areas. The key positions held by the participants in various contexts in the organization are also worth noting: Several will be serving on the future WBTI Global Leadership Team; two are Area Directors; three serve on the WBTI Board; most of the rest are Directors of various Wycliffe organizations. The input of the WBTI Executive Director and Associate Executive Director reinforced the importance of this consultation. Collectively the group provided a good platform to learn and discuss what the important issues are that need to be grappled with missiologically. The diversity of the group reminded us that we should no longer think missiologically only from a western church and western academic perspective – we are part of the global church and therefore we are wise to think and act accordingly. During the first day of the consultation the following guests, invited by Wycliffe Singapore, joined us: • Patrick Fung, General Director for OMF International • Warren Beattie, Director of Mission Research for OMF International • Tang Shin Yong, Wycliffe Singapore Board member, CMS Singapore • Grace Toh, former missions lecturer at Trinity Theological College, former WBT member • Edwin Lam, Chairman of the Singapore Baptist Convention, pastor of Calvary Baptist Church, Singapore, Chairman of Interserve Singapore, Chairman of FOMOS (Forum of Mission Organizations of Singapore) The presence of these key people was welcomed and helped us raise our intention of missiological reflection to a different level. We have now in a sense come out of the closet into the worldwide missiological realm. The special guest and facilitator for the consultation was Dr Kang-San Tan, lecturer in Mission Studies at Redcliffe College, UK. As with the 2006 Consultation and the facilitation of Dr Bill Taylor, we saw the hand of God in choosing the right person for this moment. Kang-San gave valuable input to the process, quickly sensed where we were at, and led us to find a significant way forward. The benefit of an external facilitator helped us think wider than our normal ways of thinking. Kan-San’s background helped us interact on a much different spiritual and cognitive level. It was very apparent that using this kind of facilitator is beneficial to our own experience and processes. 2. The venue Of great significance to this consultative process was the choice of Singapore as a host nation, Wycliffe Singapore as the host organization and the venue of Grace Chinese Church (a supporting church of Wycliffe Singapore) as the meeting place. The fact that this meeting was held in Asia has more than symbolically shifted our understanding and intention to the majority world church. We were able to reflect and discuss in the midst of a different worldview. It was easier for the group to hear and interact with the Asian voice than it would have been if we met at a venue in a more monocultural society. As a result our desire for our missiological foundation and expression in Wycliffe to be better represented by the worldwide church became more apparent. 3. Preparing through reading and reflection A primary goal of the consultative process was to develop reflective methodology designed to stimulate the participants in their consideration of missiological issues affecting the organizations they lead. In preparation for this consultation the participants agreed to read specific articles and summarize their reflections in a report. During the consultation each participant was given time to share the highlights of their reflection. (Most of the individual reports are available from Kirk Franklin.) Even though some participants were not part of the first consultation, all gave excellent contributions from their reflective readings. There is a noticeable depth taking place in the reflective process which highlights the benefit of what we are doing. The reflective thinking was somewhat dictated by the reading list but this is to be expected. Being reflective practitioners is a new experience for many of the participants. As leaders our initial response is to immediately attempt to solve systems, structures and processes. Learning to reflect first requires some reorientation. Therefore the reading and reflection process helps us begin to act differently. Articles used for reading and reflection at this consultation: • An abstract of The World is Flat by Thomas Friedman • The Future of Globalizing Mission: What the literature Suggests by Marty Shaw and Enoch Wan • Globalization and the Gospel, Rethinking Mission in the Contemporary World from the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization • Demographics, Power and the Gospel by Andrew Walls • A Body of Christ Missiology by Kent Parks • Celebrating and Shaping Our Work with Churches by Cheryl Catford • Truth with a Mission by Chris Wright with Steven Coertze’s introductory comments • Christology and Culture by Kang-San Tan • Liberating Word: The power of the Bible in the Global South by Philip Jenkins • The Failure of the West and Can the South Save the West? by Jonathan Ingleby • Reclaiming the M-Word: The Legacy of Missions in Nonwestern Societies by Robert D Woodberry • The Big 3 Missiological Issues (from the August 2006 WBTI Missiological Consultation) edited by Kirk Franklin 4. Defining missiology and reflective practitioners Samuel Escobar’s definition of missiology has been used from the outset of the first roundtable: ‘an interdisciplinary approach to understand missionary action [looking] at missionary facts from the perspectives of the biblical sciences, theology, history and the social sciences’ (Global Missiology, pg 101). The consultative process has focused on the place of the reflective practitioner as related to missiology. Reflective practitioners are people ‘of both action and reflection, committed to God’s truth; obedient in the power of God’s Spirit to the Great Commission in all its fullness’ (Global Missiology, pg 5). An outcome of the consultative process is the development of a pool of reflective practitioners within WBTI. 5. Plenary presentations Dr Kang-San Tan’s daily presentations are available in a separate report called ‘WBTI Missiological Consultative Process – Second Face-to-Face Meeting – Plenary Presentations’ from Kirk Franklin. Kang-San’s main points are summarized below. Plenary 1: Key issues in missiology In this presentation Kang-San outlined 16 issues arising from his missiological reflections on the current status of the mission enterprise and its global impact including Bible translation. • Mission is the mother of theology because theology has its origins as an accompanying manifestation of Christian mission. • The origin of mission is not in the lostness of the world or the Great Commission, but in God’s salvation that overflows into His creation. • Mission is God’s ‘job description’ outlining who he is and what he does. • The demographics of mission have changed – there is only one mission field, the whole world. • The impact of globalization means market forces rather than religious ideologies have become the organizing principle for society. A result is that the poor have become more marginalized. • The church of the global south is the major mission force whereas Christianity in the west is in recession. • There is a new spirit of interdisciplinary dialogue and ‘bold humility’, of listening to other Christian voices that are ecumenical, interdenominational and marginal. • Mission takes place in an increasingly hostile world where the most difficult conflicts are between peoples belonging to different ‘cultural entities’. • Spiritual growth without depth is not pleasing to God. • The church is ‘missionary by its very nature’. Mission exists before the church; not the church has a mission but mission has a church. • The church’s survival is at stake because it has welcomed practices and doctrines that are essentially pagan. • The church’s mission is comprehensive: stewardship of resources of creation; serving human kind; witnessing to the truth; engaging in God’s justice in society; and demonstrating a reconciled and liberated community. • Mission moves beyond the nature of the church to an understanding of being the people of God, the body of Christ who continue the Holy Spirit’s mission to society. • The Holy Spirit brings God’s mission to fulfilment. Missionaries were not the first bearers of the gospel but followers of the Spirit who had gone ahead of them. • The search is on for a non-western representation of Jesus where he is understood in his total mission and ministry of preaching, serving and witnessing to the Reign of God. • The encounter between Christianity and non-Christian religions is an important yet controversial and divisive missiological issue for the church to deal with. • Bible translation has played a key role in empowerment of the poor and marginalized and therefore in the development of indigenous Christian communities. • Bible translation stimulates the missiological issue of Scripture as a basis and method for mission. Questions for discussion • Discuss key missiological issues that are of special significance to your work or region? • What do you think are significant theological challenges facing WBTI in the next 20 years? How have WBTI responded to these challenges? • Review WBTI Big 3 Missiological Issues: Church, Bible Translation and Vision 2025. Other issues in missiology to be discussed in this consultation? • What are your passions and concerns? Summary of feedback from the participant • The concerns for self-understanding in view of more aggressive patterns in mission among Koreans: Korean missions ignore its historical heritage and cultural ways of doing mission. There’s desperation to survive; confrontational; reflective of our cultures; through our trials and errors. Even the prayer movements have adopted the triumphalistic approach. • What are the unique contributions from Asian mission, not just to follow Western approaches of the past? We need a critique of the ‘crusading’ approaches. • How should global and non-Western missions be carried out? We should encourage the use of local languages (rather than English), which later could be translated into English for wider communication. When the NT was written in Greek, Hellenistic dualism was brought in. Likewise, English tends to bring in Western thinking. • In Francophone Africa the churches are largely indifferent to Bible translation as a church’s responsibility. Historically Bible translation was done by expatriates. We have not been engaging with national church leadership. What would it take to involve the local church? How is that done? Christianity is growing enormously in Africa yet Bible translation is not seen as central. What is the role of colonial languages (like French)? • Africa needs to engage with the broader church and take responsibility for Bible translation. There are great challenges when it comes to the support issues especially in lower income communities. How does Bible translation get done from the church of the poor? • In Latin America we changed outmoded paradigms. Ecclesiology is always part of missiology with an emphasis on the role of the church but lacking a focus on God being the initiator of mission. Latin American missions are a child of North American mission because people look to North America as the channel. • Future missiological readings should reflect African and Latin American sources. • In the US church context there is still confusion of who we are due to the non-sectarian approach in SIL. We’re called by our missionary God but there is a gap between that call and how we describe ourselves. • SIL also needs a missiology for their existence. Can theology of the kingdom provide a critique of scripture use, literacy and promotion? The process of translation is divorced from various aspects of transforming the whole community. • The history of SIL and WBTI sees us as experts on technical aspects but we lack the theology of who we are and what are our tasks. • At the pragmatic level praxis flows out of theological assumptions; academic linguistic exercise. In the process of Bible translation we are doing theology. • We need to do research on local communities and how the Bible can be a resource for local theology. • There is a serious tension between SIL’s non-sectarian stand and the contextual and incarnational aspects of mission. What are the models for SIL? • Our responsibility is to locate ourselves where the wind is blowing whereas we can be preoccupied with our stories and strategies as the only way to work. • Different ecclesiological models – cell churches and mission oriented. Theology develops out of doing mission; new theologies comes into turbulent conversations; tidal wave wash over and we are left behind. • Change our paradigm from being professionals to serving as ‘little Christs’ involved in Bible translation. Plenary session 2: building mission reflection Kang-San outlined the value of reflection within a mission endeavour with the following perspectives: • Developing a community of reflective practitioners which will increase the effectiveness of our missionaries as they learn and grow through connecting theory (theology, missiology, and ecclesiology) and practice (current ministry in the field). • Wisdom is needed in mission using the example of the psychology of the sage (from Proverbs 24:30-34). Our rapidly changing contexts require understanding the times so we know what to do – this is the purpose of Old Testament wisdom literature. • The Old Testament has four instruments necessary to build God’s Kingdom: the priest who represented the people to God; the king as the political representative of God; the prophet who persuaded with the word of God; and the wise men who observed and learned in ways that enabled Israel to live as it should. Which has priority? All had God’s anointing and this is reflected in the New Testament concept of the priesthood of all believers. When our leaders are godly the church prospers. When they aren’t the church suffers. • The church has a significant role in a broken world where it can process insider’s perspectives, stimulate incarnational ministry and experience God authentically. • WBTI can develop as a community of reflective-practitioners with various options: a research centre; a research director; theological/missiological advisor(s); research teams or outside consultants; or working with partner institutions. • The vision for WBTI’s missiological research and reflection could be for to develop a community of learners that serve the worldwide church through deeper mission reflection and contributing toward Vision 2025. • The mission for WBTI’s missiological platform could be to equip its people through the inter-disciplinary studies of Christian mission so they can better serve the fields with cultural sensitivities. Furthermore WBTI could work closely with other institutions to assist the global church to reflect biblically and to respond to the challenges facing Christian mission contextually. • What kind of research could WBTI have? Field issues, leadership and policy direction that require research and theological reflection, mission advance, historical research, archives, educational and training, networking and contributing to mission agendas. • The strategy for achieving this could be to encourage staff to reflect through publications, seminars and conferences. WBTI could develop a network of thinkers who reflect missiologically on specific theological and strategic issues. This could be done as a research team who function as a think-tank for the WBTI leadership. Field- based research could be undertaken to address key theological challenges faced in each field and present these findings at policy meetings or conferences. Training modules could be taught on issues such as cultural research tools, doing theology cross culturally, missiological readings of scriptures and Bible translation. Networking could be led with mission and theological institutions in order to address challenges facing Christian mission. WBTI reflective-practitioners could contribute to mission journals and global mission networks. Issues for discussion • What is your vision (what do you want to see happen) with regards to building a community of reflective practitioners in WBTI? What are the core values of a community of reflective practitioners? How do we build these values in WBTI? • What kind of research/training is most needed for 1) mobilization work; 2) new workers on the fields; 3) leadership in WBTI? Needs assessments and Research Priorities. How will we use these research outcomes? • What are the most appropriate structure and resources to facilitate mission reflection in WBTI? Resources (people and money) and organizational issues. Reports from group discussion Group #1: Vision and values • WBTI and WMOs could have missiologists in residence who serve as advisors and provide training. It shouldn’t just be an internal group. This would bring Bible translation to the attention of theologians. • Core values for missiological reflection: listening to insiders and outsiders, being open to the Holy Spirit, good stewardship, integration of theory and practice; Christ-likeness; looking for continuity and connections across contacts; cross cultural. • How do we build these values? • Making it part of an emerging identity • Communication • Training and orientation • Repetition • Developing strategies by dialoguing initially with our leaders • Building bridges • Develop a virtual community Group #2: Training • Materials for mobilisation that include Bible translation as mission. Investigate what other groups are doing that could be helpful to us. • Updating the membership, especially knowing how to help the older members understand the new contexts – this requires reorientation through the ‘Winter Training for Missiology’. • We need to emphasize flexible approaches such as what has happened in the Americas areas where SIL services are provided to the churches. Therefore what are examples of the missiological basis for flexibility? • What are the local capacities for missiological training? Survey the members and find out what training they already have had that is available and also what the gaps are that need to be filled. • Training of current and new Wycliffe leaders will require intentional mentoring. • Develop articles about WBTI’s theology of leadership. Group #3: Structures and resources What are the most appropriate structures and resources to facilitate mission reflection in WBTI? Naturally, content should come before structure and resources (research is not new to us – we have research groups, guidance teams), but the focus on missiology is new. Structures Representation: Have a research component at the International leadership level (this also serves as an example for WMOs). This needs to be a person with a vision for missiological issues (we might also need someone to implement decisions). Methodology: • Have a ‘loose’ network (regional/steering group – with SIL representation too): A task force or think tank that can take the non-flat realm of missiology and assure that reflections and discussions are at a higher level (not ‘stories’, but results of research). The findings will feed into SIL’s work and will be helpful to them. • Maintain our conversation with SIL | 
