Talk:Christian mission

message: The following paragraph was added a few weeks ago at the end of the article. Largely intelligible due to poor English, it contains though some aspects of criticism which might need incorporation in more appropriate places within the article. I have therefore addded it here for whoever to do with whatever canbe done.
However, the mass conversions made by these missionaries have led to Westernization, cultural destruction, destructions of minor tribal religions, killings, suicides and internal displeasure from many people. According to one source, when a man converted to Christianity in order to attain priesthood, his father got so angry and killed himself. This, however, according to the pope, that killing another man whether by direct or indirect means is considered a very great sin. Millions of people, however, responded to what the missionaries have done and formed movements and organizations either to stop the missionaries from converting tribal group or to preach Christian tribal groups in another religion. 
Refdoc 10:39, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I'm troubled by this paragraph
As Christianity has spread to other peoples, it has simultaneously declined in most of the sending nations. This generation witnesses the mission nations returning missionaries to the sending nations, to evangelize and to establish churches, there. However, at the same time, their atrocities have greatly contributed to the extinction, or decline of indigenious religions, customs and culture. Examples include the tribes in North-east India, Korea and many Asian countries.
The word "atrocities" is surely a big fat POV?  Can I put "activities" in its place?
Nor do the third and fourth sentences hang together well with the first two sentences.  For instance, "their" would naturally refer to  the mission nations, but I think whoever put in these sentences meant the sending nations.
Stolzi 18:32, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A paragraph of concern 

message: Why is the name "Mission (Christian)"?  It does not include missions of all Christianity.  The scope of the article is too narrow to have such a broad term in its name.
:What do you suggest?  KHM03 11:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The name of the article is all right. It does need to be expanded to include "mission" from the standpoint of all branches of Christianity and all of its meanings. For example, in the Roman Catholic and Anglican churches, a "mission" often refers to a new congregation or a congregation that is unable to support itself.Rockhopper10r 21:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also have no problem with the name, but many key missions are totally missing. This page could be much longer and have many more links. I have added a few important agencies today but many more, need to be added. Also, an entire section on Catholic missions would be appropriate. This is very slanted towards evangelical missions as it stands. Xphilosopherking (talk) 07:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of Article 

message: I modified the final paragraph of the intro in order to make the article conform better to Wikipedia standards. Specifically, qualified statement that "Most missionaries [promote secular behavior]... because [it] promotes the glory of God." Also modified broad claim about "standard" Christian doctrine causin "most missions to give aid without requiring conversion." Feel free to discuss. ;)
Izau 10:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final paragraph of introduction 

message: I fail to see a real connection with the recent addition of the Possible Examples and the focus of the rest of the page.  I don't want to just remove them based on my opinion though.  What do others think?
Sweepthelegnate 02:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the recent addition of Possible Examples 

message: I think this page should be expanded to include a broader definition of missions beyond "a church planting movement"  I am going to start working toward that end.  If there are any ideas, objections, or areas you feel should be expanded leave it here.
Sweepthelegnate 01:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is definitely a problem here. We need to get get the hierarchy of meanings right so that "mission" in the sense of sending missionaries out flows out of the greater mission of the church. I'm having similar problems with religious ministry (Christian) because whoever started that article was focused on the idea of specific ministries and then usd that as a springboard for talking about models of ministry. The two articles need to work together, to a degree; in the big picture ministry is about what Christians do to further the ministry of the church. But both words have this collection of derivative meanings which somehow have to be fitted in coherently. Mangoe 11:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I agree. a section on 'concepts of mission' would be good. For example there are many Christian missionaries today who do not focus on making converts OR starting churches at all. The present material could go under the heading of one specific concept of mission. It is not incorrect per se, just incomplete. Xphilosopherking (talk) 07:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding this page 

message: Putting the headings "Negative effects" and "Positive effects" is hardly a neutral point of view. For example, the sentence "This can lead to conflict between persons' identity as Christians and their indigenious ethnic culture and rites, which are often rooted in animistic rituals and beliefs." can hardly be objectively said to be a negative effect. In some people's opinions it might be, but in others it might be considered a positive effect. If someone questions his belief in polygamy, for example, then I would consider that a positive effect. --203.122.201.194 10:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral point of view? 

message: I suggest this article be broken up into more specific pages. It is too unwieldy and the context, culture and methods of Christian missions has changed so drastically that it's impossible to put modern aspects and issues together with historical ones without making it huge. There are too many varieties of mission organisations, too many different approaches geographically and historically. I think there needs to be a main overview, then regional pages each with their own history. And I think that issues, particularly critical cultural issues should have their own pages. "Mission (Christian)" is not an Article, it's a Category.   —  Rexparry sydney 11:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, Rexparry, I have started to do this. I divided the history section into three parts. And I have divided the concepts section into subsections as well. It still needs a lot of work though. Xphilosopherking (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too big, too wide in scope: needs breaking up 

message: My suggestion is that evangelism be considered a component in a  much larger image/vision of the Christian Mission (Misso Dei), not the whole focus of the article -- a schema for organizing logic could look something like this:
Christian Mission includes (and likely not limited) to:  
-Evangelism Scriptural sources include MK 1:15,; Acts 1:8, MT 28:19-20 (church planting stuff a part of this)
-Seeking Justice, Love , PeaceScriptural sources include EX 23:6; MT 12:11ff, MT 23:1ff; 1 COR:1ff (this is this the social justice componant of mission -- preference for the poor and suffering after the example of Christ (John 15: 1-4) and through the gifts of the Spirit -- standing with the poor and oppressed is Christian mission! The social justice component is HUGE for contemporary Christians).
- Healing and Wholeness: Praying and "working" for the healing and wholeness of ALL of creation (earth, environment,human creatures, all creatures, illness of/in all creation -- all aspects of creation in need of healing) are aspects of Christian mission.
Evangelism only is too narrow an approach to the topic in the contemporary context -- think abolitionists, sufferettes, World Vision and such.
:I agree. This article is appallingly narrow in its focus and would be better as an article about Evangelism. Not even a mention of David Bosch's Transforming Mission (widely regarded as the definitive text on the subject) - Ironically the article on Bosch does link here. Ray Ellis (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree. If I have time I may try to organize better this page. Maybe the three trends from Bevins can be used? Xphilosopherking (talk) 07:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian Mission is more than evangelism 

message: Paragraphs have been added to the article on the controversial aspects of evangelizing in non western countries from the POV of many in the third world.  They are from the main Missionary article.  It was proposed to move them here to this article which is specifically about Christian missionarizing.  I think it is only fair to include the views of what is probably the majority of natives in these countries (I say majority since these countries have not converted en-masse to Christianity).  Yet these opposing views have been continually deleted for a variety of reasons.  But at base what it smacks of is censorship - evangelical Christians don't seem to want people to know other points of view about missionaries.  That's neither honest nor fair.  Please allow other views to be heard unmolested, otherwise it just looks like they are right that Christians are intolerant of other religions.  Hereis an extensive discussion archived from the talk page of the Missionary article. 4.246.204.27 04:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure there's a good reason for it's removal (unreferneced, not NPOV, etc...). --RucasHost 09:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't know what you're talking about.  It's quite well referenced.  "I'm sure there's a good reason" is not a good reason.  I've restored the section though from the history it would appear to bean uphill battle against the dishonest. 69.107.224.129 16:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy Section

message: I believe that a much simpler definition of a Christian Mission should be given before even attempting to reference the Lausanne Congress, that would work wonders towards removing the strong POV of this article.
I propose something along the lines of "A Christian Mission is a group of people of the Christian faith that visit a non christian nation or region to promote their religious views upon people of different beliefs". Schicchi (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say "among" rather than "upon"! --Orange Mike  | Talk 21:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Any other opinions?  Should we go ahead and change the introduction? Schicchi (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with the "among". However, this only captures one aspect of Christian mission (albeit the historically prominent one). The other aspect, which is increasing, is interfaith dialogue - especially in the Christian ecumenical movement (see Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement)  Interfaith dialogue happens in Christian countries as well as in non-Christian countries.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwikatze (talk • contribs) 01:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of Mission

message: As I stated in the Religious violence in India talk page, I'm giving up as I do not have the time nor the inclination to fight a ridiculous and endless war with bozos who can just keep on deleting, reverting obfuscating ad-infinitum and rationalizing it with every spurious idea they can think up.  That's the major shortcoming with Wikipedia, and it's unfortunately inherent to wikis.  The information presented and decided on is dependent upon how many people one particular side in a debate can muster - it's truth by numbers/votes, and it's ultimately decided upon by who has the power on a particular Wikipedia page and his/her particular partisan bent NOT by the actual facts.  It also depends on who outlasts who in the reversion wars.  That's why Wikipedia is said to be unreliable for citiation.  Sad.  For those who may want to view the facts that have been removed and compare it to some future version, here is a link . 63.196.193.225 (talk) 04:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I frequently have thought the same as you, actually. I don't think that anyone has more 'power' on this page than anyone else, of course. Relata refero (talk) 08:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, perhaps it is a new day and a good time to update the page? The older discussions happened quite a long time ago. Xphilosopherking (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Giving Up

message: shouldn't the great commission be mentioned? Rds865 (talk) 00:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes. That's the hub of Christian Missions. It should be mentioned. I've added a link to the "Great Commission" page in the first paragraph. ~Jonathan (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Great Commission

message: it is fact that missionaries have changed cultures. an example is Hawaii, where they introduced the MuuMuu. Also, however, Hawaii was influenced by secular means as well. Missionaries often try to improve the life of the natives as well. And have tried to spread other Western ideas. Christianity had much success partly due to it providing freedom for women. Also, no mention is made on how missionaries adapt to the host culture. This article mentions criticisms about Christianity changing cultures, with the assumption that the change is bad. Or does it mention outlawing evangelism is prohibiting freedom of religion.  Rds865 (talk) 00:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: effects of missionaries

message: I have to agree with 'Rexparry sydney' above (#Too big, too wide in scope: needs breaking up), that this article is really a category in its own right, and the theme being to unwieldy to handle in a thorough manner in only one article. With mission being a subdiscipline of theology, and having its own chairs and professorates at universities and colleges, it should at least have a comprehensive main article. With regard to what is already written, I think it is necessary to zoom out somewhat and try to do an overview of what this page should include, in a structural manner. Per now, it is e.g. somewhat centered on Protestant mission, although the section on history seems to be a bit wider in scope. But altogether, the article is not as comprehensive as the topic warrants.
Based on a wide approach to the subject, I would suggest to widen the present basic structure to something
similar to the following, and also to apply it more strictly:
# Introduction: Short explanation with etymology of the "mission" in a Christian context
# History of Christian Mission: A short history with the main emphasis of documenting the spread of Christianity through missionary efforts, from the time of the Acts of the Apostles. There should be a wide scope with regard to Christian traditions and denominations. The methods utilized through the various periods should however be treated below.
# Christian Theology of Mission: A short summary of different ways of understanding the mission through. with an emphasis on th major ways of understanding mission in the contemporary context, embracing the full range of understandings of mission ranging from fundamental evangelicalism to the most liberal ecumenical views. 
# Practice of Christian Mission: Mission methods, ranging from the violent methods of earlier times, to modern concepts of "living together", etc.
The above should then be clearly categorized in several sub-sections.
This could of course be structured in different ways. The point is that the subject is so wide that an overview has to be done in order for the article to be objective enough, with regard to both history, theology and methods. The sections on criticism and counter-criticism is interesting, and also appropriate. But there are many issues connected to mission which should be described. Perhaps an additional main section on "Issues in Christian Mission" could be considered, embracing problems such as "gospel and sword", the link with colonialism, culture imperialism, mission and politics, mission and aid, etc. in a categorized and precise way.
Kriswdue (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Have started to do just this...could use some help! Xphilosopherking (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  A call for major restructuring 

message: There could maybe be an entry on World Mission Sunday, which was created by Pope Pius XI in 1926 as the day of prayer and propaganda of missions.  ADM (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: World Mission Sunday

message: I will start to remove controversial and negative opinions from these sections. Case in point: undocumented comment by a Thai person. I could find many Thai people who would disagree with this comment, but the scope of this article is to educate on Christian missions, not spotlight people who criticize missionaries. These opinions should all be included in the article Criticism of religion, rather than fill every article about Christianity with a myriad negative criticisms. (Comments welcome) R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Controversy and Christian missionaries" section cleanup

message: There seems to be no information about African Christian missions and their history. David Livingstone is not mentioned. This should be corrected over time. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Christian Missions (Africa) 

message: I see from earlier discussions that this has been an issue before. I'll get to work when I have time. It won't be today. But I think that quite important perspectives have been left out in the section about modern missionary practices, and I am going to make some suggestions in line with WP:BRD. --benjamil (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral point of view 

message: There is no sentence about India in the article.  See i.e. William Wilberforce   
--Neun-x (talk) 12:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  India  

message: I do not edit Wikipedia articles, nor am I well-versed in Wikipedia rules, but two minor points of criticism for such a controversial subject is frankly ridiculous.
The objection of Westernisation is not only from 'isolated, indigenous populations'. It is in fact a major point of criticism shared by a great many scholars all over the world. 
There is no mention of Rice Christians and the 'incentives' often involved in conversions. Actually... My mistake, there is some mention:
"Christian doctrines (such as the "Doctrine of Love" professed by many missions) permit the provision of aid without requiring religious conversion."
Well, that is certainly not a generalisation. It also isn't biased and historically inaccurate. I guess that issue is resolved. <<<Sarcasm here.
There is also no mention of Christian missionaries building churches atop other religious temples, and little mention of any negative social aspects of Christian missionary work. Homophobia would certainly not be as big an issue in South Africa today if not for Christian missionary work.
A bit of impartiality would be appreciated. Cheers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.236.144 (talk) 05:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism? 

message: From what I can tell, Christian ministry is redundant to this article. I'd suggest to merge potentially relevant content from there into this article. --S.K. (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundancy with [[Christian ministry]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Mission (Christianity). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090415042516/http://www.bwanet.org:80/default.aspx?pid=437 to http://www.bwanet.org/default.aspx?pid=437
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Much of the content of this article is based on an assumption, explicitly stated in the phrase in the lead I flagged, that missionary activities are justified by their own authority, which also assumes that the beliefs and culture of the targeted population are inferior.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There are long lists of readings, but entire sections without inline citations.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: There is a thread on the Definition of Mission earlier in the talk page. This is a problematic area. Currently the opening sentence reads - 'A Christian mission is an organized effort to spread Christianity to new converts.'
This sentence needs to be changed, here are my 3 arguments for the same 
1-One can not 'spread' christianity to those who are already christians (new converts).  One can however say missionaries spread deeper teachings/rituals etc. associated with the christian faith to new converts.
2-It is a well established fact that, the missions not only help the spread the gospel/teachings of christianity to new converts, but their aim is also to convert hitherto non chritstians into christians.  At this time I am not supporting this claim with good sources, but can and will do so if the same is needed.
3- The source cited for the opening sentence is here taken from https://www.britannica.com/topic/missions-Christianity, Britannica itself defines a mission as ' mission,  in Christianity, an organized effort for the propagation of the Christian faith.' 
If we are going to use britannica.com as a source, surely we should use what it actually says. The definition of a 'mission' in britannica.com seems better balanced and does away with potential issues like the engagement of missions with christians only OR the engagement of missions with christians AS WELL as their attempts to convert people of other faiths to christianity. I suggest we use the definition from brittanica.com as it is stated in their website and not obfuscate things or get into unnecessary polemics on the actual goals and activities of christian missions Suksane (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I will wait for a few more days before editing the page with the changes mentioned in #3, unless someone obects Suksane (talk) 08:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening sentence : definition of christian mission