+

In an address given to the All-Asia Mission Consultation

in Seoul, Korea, in August 1973 (the founding of the Asia
Missions Association), Ralph Winter describes the forms
that Gods two redemptive structures take in every hu-
man society, and have taken throughout history. His thesis
has two major implications: (1) We must accept both struc-
tures, represented in the Christian church today by the local
church and the mission society, as legitimate and necessary,
and as part of Gods People, the Church; and (2) non-
Western churches must form and utilize mission societies if
they are to exercise their missionary responsibility.
!
t is thc thcsis ol this articlc that whcthcr Chris
tianity takcs on Vcstcrn or Asian lorm, thcrc
will still bc two basic kinds ol structurcs that will
makc up thc movcmcnt. Most ol thc cmphasis will
bc placcd on pointing out thc cxistcncc ol thcsc two
structurcs as thcy havc continuously appcarcd across
thc ccnturics. Tis will scrvc to dcnc, illustratc and
comparc thcir naturc and importancc. Tc writcr will
also cndcavor to cxplain why hc bclicvcs our corts to
day in any part ol thc world will bc most ccctivc only
il both ol thcsc two structurcs arc lully and propcrly
involvcd and supportivc ol cach othcr.
Redemptive Structures
in New Testament Times
First ol all, lct us rccognizc thc structurc so londly
callcd thc Ncw Tcstamcnt Church as basically a
Christian synagoguc.
1
Pauls missionary work consistcd
primarily ol going to synagogucs scattcrcd across thc
Roman mpirc, bcginning in Asia Minor, and mak
ing clcar to thc Jcwish and Gcntilc bclicvcrs in thosc
synagogucs that thc Mcssiah had comc in Jcsus Christ,
thc Son ol God, that in Christ a nal authority cvcn
grcatcr than Moscs cxistcd, and that this madc morc
undcrstandablc than cvcr thc wclcoming ol thc Gcn
tilcs without lorcing upon thcm any litcral cultural
adaptation to thc ritual provisions ol thc Mosaic Law.
An outward novclty ol Pauls work was thc dcvclop
mcnt cvcntually ol wholly ncw synagogucs that wcrc
not only Christian but Grcck.
\cry lcw Christians, casually rcading thc Ncw Tcsta
mcnt (and with only thc Ncw Tcstamcnt availablc to
thcm), would surmisc thc dcgrcc to which thcrc had
bccn Jcwish cvangclists who wcnt bclorc Paul all ovcr
thc Roman mpirca movcmcnt that bcgan 100
ycars bclorc Christ. Somc ol thcsc wcrc thc pcoplc
whom Jcsus himscll dcscribcd as travcrsing land and
sca to makc a singlc prosclytc. Saul lollowcd thcir
path, Paul built on thcir corts and wcnt bcyond thcm
with thc ncw gospcl hc prcachcd, which allowcd thc
Grccks to rcmain Grccks and not bc circumciscd and
culturally assimilatcd into thc Jcwish way ol lilc. Paul
had a vast loundation on which to build: Pctcr dc
clarcd Moscs is prcachcd in cvcry city (ol thc Roman
mpirc) (Acts 15:21).
Yct not only did Paul apparcntly go to cvcry cxisting
synagoguc ol Asia,
2
altcr which hc dcclarcd, all
Asia has hcard thc gospcl, but, whcn occasion dc
mandcd, hc cstablishcd brand ncw synagoguctypc
lcllowships ol bclicvcrs as thc basic unit ol his mission
ary activity. Tc rst structurc in thc Ncw Tcstamcnt
sccnc is thus what is oltcn callcd thc Ncw Tcstamcnt
Church. !t was csscntially built along Jcwish synagoguc
Te Two Structures
of Gods Redemptive Mission
Ralph D. Winter
Tis articlc is rcprintcd with pcrmission lrom:
Vintcr, Ralph . and Stcvcn C. Hawthornc, cds. Perspectives on the World Christian Movement: A Reader. Tird dition. Pasadcna, CA: Villiam Carcy
Library, 1999. Pagcs 220230.
+8o Tnv Two S:vic:ivvs ov Gobs Rvbv:v:ivv Missiox
lincs,
3
cmbracing thc community ol thc laithlul in any
givcn placc. Tc dcning charactcristic ol this structurc
is that it includcd old and young, malc and lcmalc.
Notc, too, that Paul was willing to build such lcllow
ships out ol lormcr Jcws as wcll as nonJcwish Grccks.
Tcrc is a sccond, quitc dicrcnt structurc in thc Ncw
Tcstamcnt contcxt. Vhilc wc know vcry littlc about
thc structurc ol thc cvangclistic outrcach within which
prcPaulinc Jcwish prosclytizcrs workcd, wc do know,
as alrcady mcntioncd, that thcy opcratcd all ovcr thc
Roman mpirc. !t would bc surprising il Paul didnt
lollow somcwhat thc samc proccdurcs. And wc know
a grcat dcal morc about thc way Paul opcratcd. Hc
was, truc cnough, scnt out by thc church in Antioch.
8ut oncc away lrom Antioch hc sccmcd vcry much on
his own. Tc littlc tcam hc lormcd was cconomically
scllsucicnt whcn occasion dcmandcd. !t was also
dcpcndcnt, lrom timctotimc, not alonc upon thc An
tioch church, but upon othcr churchcs that had riscn as
a rcsult ol cvangclistic labors. Pauls tcam may ccrtainly
bc considcrcd a structurc. Vhilc its dcsign and lorm
is not madc concrctc lor us on thc basis ol rcmaining
documcnts, ncithcr, ol coursc, is thc structurc ol a Ncw
Tcstamcnt congrcgation dcncd concrctcly lor us in
thc pagcs ol thc Ncw Tcstamcnt. !n both cascs, thc ab
scncc ol any such dcnition implics thc prccxistcncc
ol a commonly undcrstood pattcrn ol rclationship,
whcthcr in thc casc ol thc congrcgational structurc or
thc missionary band structurc which Paul cmploycd
carlicr as Saul thc Phariscc, and latcr, at thc timc thc
Antioch congrcgation in Acts 13:2 rclcascd Paul and
8arnabas lor missionary work.
Tus, on thc onc hand, thc structurc wc call thc Ncw
Tcstamcnt church is a prototypc ol all subscqucnt
Christian lcllowships whcrc old and young, malc
and lcmalc arc gathcrcd togcthcr as normal biologi
cal lamilics in aggrcgatc. n thc othcr hand, Pauls
missionary band can bc considcrcd a prototypc ol all
subscqucnt missionary cndcavors organizcd out ol
committcd, cxpcricnccd workcrs who aliatcd thcm
sclvcs as a sccond dccision bcyond mcmbcrship in thc
rst structurc.
Notc wcll thc additional commitmcnt. Notc also that
thc structurc that rcsultcd was somcthing dcnitcly
morc than thc cxtcndcd outrcach ol thc Antioch
church. No mattcr what wc think thc structurc was,
wc know that it was not simply thc Antioch church
opcrating at a distancc lrom its homc basc. !t was
somcthing clsc, somcthing dicrcnt. Vc will considcr
thc missionary band thc sccond ol thc two rcdcmptivc
structurcs in Ncw Tcstamcnt timcs.
!n conclusion, it is vcry important to notc that ncithcr
ol thcsc two structurcs was, as it wcrc, lct down lrom
hcavcn in a spccial way. !t may bc shocking at rst to
think that God madc usc ol cithcr a Jcwish synagoguc
pattcrn or a Jcwish cvangclistic pattcrn. 8ut this must
not bc morc surprising than thc lact that God cm
ploycd thc usc ol thc pagan Grcck languagc, thc Holy
Spirit guiding thc biblical writcrs to lay hold ol such
tcrms as kurios (originally a pagan tcrm), and pound
thcm into shapc to carry thc Christian rcvclation. Tc
Ncw Tcstamcnt rclcrs to a synagoguc dcdicatcd to
Satan, but this did not mcan that Christians, to avoid
such a pattcrn, could not lcllowship togcthcr in thc
synagoguc pattcrn. Tcsc considcrations prcparc us
lor what comcs ncxt in thc history ol thc cxpansion
ol thc gospcl, bccausc wc scc othcr pattcrns choscn
by Christians at a latcr datc whosc origins arc just as
clcarly borrowcd pattcrns as wcrc thosc in thc Ncw
Tcstamcnt pcriod.
!n lact, thc prolound missiological implication ol all
this is that thc Ncw Tcstamcnt is trying to show us how
to borrow eective patterns, it is trying to lrcc all luturc
missionarics lrom thc nccd to lollow thc prccisc lorms
ol thc Jcwish synagoguc and Jcwish missionary band,
and yct to allow thcm to choosc comparablc indigcnous
structurcs in thc countlcss ncw situations across history
and around thc worldstructurcs which will corrc
spond laithlully to thc lunction ol pattcrns Paul cm
ploycd, il not thcir lorm! !t is no wondcr that a consid
crablc body ol litcraturc in thc cld ol missiology today
undcrlics thc lact that world Christianity has gcncrally
cmploycd thc various cxisting languagcs and culturcs ol
thc worldhuman communitymorc so than any othcr
rcligionand in so doing, has cast into a shadow all
corts to canonizc as univcrsal any kind ol mcchanically
lormal cxtcnsion ol thc Ncw Tcstamcnt churchwhich
is thc pcoplc ol God howcvcr thosc individuals arc
organizcd. As Kralt has said carlicr, wc scck dynamic
cquivalcncc, not lormal rcplication.
4
Te Early Development of Christian
Structures within Roman Culture
Vc havc sccn how thc Christian movcmcnt built itscll
upon two dicrcnt kinds ol structurcs that had prccx
Ralph D. Winter +8+
istcd in thc Jcwish cultural tradition. !t is now our task
to scc il thc lunctional cquivalcnts ol thcsc samc two
structurcs wcrc to appcar in latcr Christian cultural
traditions as thc gospcl invadcd that largcr world.
l coursc, thc original synagoguc pattcrn pcrsistcd as
a Christian structurc lor somc timc. Rivalry bctwccn
Christians and Jcws, howcvcr, tcndcd to dclcat this as
a Christian pattcrn, and in somc cascs to lorcc it out
ol cxistcncc, cspccially whcrc it was possiblc lor Jcwish
congrcgations ol thc dispcrsion to arousc public pcrsc
cution ol thc apparcntly dcviant Christian synagogucs.
Unlikc thc Jcws, Christians had no ocial liccnsc lor
thcir altcrnativc to thc Roman !mpcrial cult.
5
Tus,
whcrcas cach synagoguc was considcrably indcpcndcnt
ol thc othcrs, thc Christian pattcrn was soon assimilat
cd to thc Roman contcxt, and bishops bccamc invcstcd
with authority ovcr morc than onc congrcgation with
a tcrritorial jurisdiction not altogcthcr dicrcnt lrom
thc pattcrn ol Roman civil govcrnmcnt. Tis tcndcncy
is wcll conrmcd by thc timc thc ocial rccognition
ol Christianity had its lull impact: thc vcry Latin word
lor Roman magistcrial tcrritorics was appropriatcd
thc dioccscwithin which parishcs arc to bc lound on
thc local lcvcl.
!n any casc, whilc thc morc congrcgational pattcrn
ol thc indcpcndcnt synagoguc bccamc pcrvasivcly
rcplaccd by a conncctional Roman pattcrn thc ncw
Christian parish church still prcscrvcd thc basic con
stitucncy ol thc synagoguc, namcly, thc combination ol
old and young, malc and lcmalcthat is, a biologically
pcrpctuating organism.
Mcanwhilc, thc monastic tradition in various carly
lorms dcvclopcd as a sccond structurc. Tis ncw, widcly
prolilcrating structurc undoubtcdly had no conncc
tion at all with thc missionary band in which Paul
was involvcd. !ndccd, it morc substantially drcw lrom
Roman military structurc than lrom any othcr singlc
sourcc. Pachomius, a lormcr military man, gaincd
3,000 lollowcrs and attractcd thc attcntion ol pcoplc
likc 8asil ol Cacsarca, and thcn through 8asil, John
Cassian, who laborcd in southcrn Gaul at a latcr datc.
6

Tcsc mcn thus carricd lorward a disciplincd structurc,
borrowcd primarily lrom thc military, which allowcd
nominal Christians to makc a sccondlcvcl choiccan
additional spccic commitmcnt.
Pcrhaps it would bc wcll to pausc hcrc lor a momcnt.
Any rclcrcncc to thc monastcrics givcs Protcstants
culturc shock. Tc Protcstant Rclormation lought
dcspcratcly against ccrtain dcgradcd conditions at thc
vcry cnd ol thc 1000ycar Mcdicval pcriod. Vc havc
no dcsirc to dcny thc lact that conditions in monastcr
ics wcrc not always idcal, what thc avcragc Protcstant
knows about monastcrics may bc corrcct lor ccrtain
situations, but thc popular Protcstant stcrcotypc surcly
cannot dcscribc corrcctly all that happcncd during thc
1000 ycars! uring thosc ccnturics thcrc wcrc many
dicrcnt cras and cpochs and a widc varicty ol monas
tic movcmcnts, radically dicrcnt lrom cach othcr, as
wc shall scc in a minutc, and any gcncralization about
so vast a phcnomcnon is bound to bc simply an unrcli
ablc and no doubt prcjudiccd caricaturc.
Lct mc givc just onc cxamplc ol how lar wrong our
Protcstant stcrcotypcs can bc. Vc oltcn hcar that thc
monks cd thc world. Comparc that idca with this
dcscription by a 8aptist missionary scholar:
Tc 8cncdictinc rulc and thc many dcrivcd lrom it prob
ably hclpcd to givc dignity to labor, including manual
labor in thc clds. Tis was in striking contrast with thc
aristocratic conviction ol thc scrvilc status ol manual
work which prcvailcd in much ol ancicnt socicty and
which was also thc attitudc ol thc warriors and non
monastic ccclcsiastics who constitutcd thc uppcr middlc
classcs ol thc Middlc AgcsTo thc monastcricswas
obviously duc much clcaring ol land and improvcmcnt
in mcthods ol agriculturc. !n thc midst ol barbarism, thc
monastcrics wcrc ccntrcs ol ordcrly and scttlcd lilc and
monks wcrc assigncd thc duty ol roadbuilding and road
rcpair. Until thc risc ol thc towns in thc clcvcnth ccntury,
thcy wcrc pionccrs in industry and commcrcc. Tc shops
ol thc monastcrics prcscrvcd thc industrics ol Roman
timcs. Tc carlicst usc ol marl in improving thc soil
is attributcd to thcm. Tc grcat Frcnch monastic ordcrs
lcd in thc agricultural colonization ol Vcstcrn uropc.
spccially did thc Cistcrcians makc thcir houscs ccntrcs
ol agriculturc and contributc to improvcmcnts in that oc
cupation. Vith thcir lay brothcrs and thcir hircd laborcrs,
thcy bccamc grcat landcd proprictors. !n Hungary and
on thc Gcrman lronticr thc Cistcrcians wcrc particu
larly important in rcducing thc soil to cultivation and
in lurthcring colonization. !n Poland, too, thc Gcrman
monastcrics sct advanccd standards in agriculturc and
introduccd artisans and craltsmcn.
7
For all ol us who arc intcrcstcd in missions, thc shat
tcring ol thc monks cd thc world stcrcotypc is cvcn
+8: Tnv Two S:vic:ivvs ov Gobs Rvbv:v:ivv Missiox
morc dramatically and dccisivcly rcinlorccd by thc
magniccnt rccord ol thc !rish peregrini, who wcrc
Ccltic monks who did morc to rcach out to convcrt
AngloSaxons than did Augustincs latcr mission lrom
thc South, and who contributcd morc to thc cvangcli
zation ol Vcstcrn uropc, cvcn Ccntral uropc, than
any othcr lorcc.
From its vcry inccption this sccond kind ol structurc
was highly signicant to thc growth and dcvclopmcnt
ol thc Christian movcmcnt. vcn though Protcstants
havc an inbuilt prcjudicc against it lor various rcasons,
as wc havc sccn, thcrc is no dcnying thc lact that apart
lrom this structurc it would bc hard cvcn to imaginc
thc vital continuity ol thc Christian tradition across
thc ccnturics. Protcstants arc cqually dismaycd by thc
othcr structurcthc parish and dioccsan structurc. !t
is, in lact, thc rclativc wcakncss and nominality ol thc
dioccsan structurc that makcs thc monastic structurc
so signicant. Mcn likc Jcromc and Augustinc, lor
cxamplc, arc thought ol by Protcstants not as monks
but as grcat scholars, and pcoplc likc John Calvin lcan
vcry hcavily upon writings produccd by such monks.
8ut Protcstants do not usually givc any crcdit to thc
spccic structurc within which Jcromc and Augustinc
and many othcr monastic scholars workcd, a structurc
without which Protcstant labors would havc had vcry
littlc to build on, not cvcn a 8iblc.
Vc must now lollow thcsc thrcads into thc ncxt
pcriod, whcrc wc will scc thc lormal cmcrgcncc ol thc
major monastic structurcs. !t is sucicnt at this point
mcrcly to notc that thcrc arc alrcady by thc lourth ccn
tury two vcry dicrcnt kinds ol structurcsthc dioccsc
and thc monastcryboth ol thcm signicant in thc
transmission and cxpansion ol Christianity. Tcy arc
cach pattcrns borrowcd lrom thc cultural contcxt ol
thcir timc, just as wcrc thc carlicr Christian synagoguc
and missionary band.
!t is cvcn morc important lor our purposc hcrc to notc
that whilc thcsc two structurcs arc lormally dicrcnt
lromand historically unrclatcd tothc two in Ncw
Tcstamcnt timcs, thcy arc ncvcrthclcss lunctionally
thc samc. !n ordcr to spcak convcnicntly about thc
continuing similaritics in lunction, lct us now call thc
synagoguc and dioccsc modalitics, and thc missionary
band and monastcry sodalitics. lscwhcrc ! havc dcvcl
opcd thcsc tcrms in dctail, but bricy, a modality is a
structurcd lcllowship in which thcrc is no distinction
ol scx or agc, whilc a sodality is a structurcd lcllow
ship in which mcmbcrship involvcs an adult sccond
dccision bcyond modality mcmbcrship, and is lim
itcd by cithcr agc or scx or marital status. !n this usc
ol thcsc tcrms, both thc dcnomination and thc local
congrcgation arc modalitics, whilc a mission agcncy
or a local mcns club arc sodalitics.
8
A sccular paral
lcl would bc that ol a town (modality) comparcd to a
privatc busincss (a sodality)pcrhaps a chain ol storcs
lound in many towns. Tc sodalitics arc subjcct to thc
authority ol thc morc gcncral structurcs, usually. Tcy
arc rcgulatcd but not administcrcd by thc modali
tics. A complctc statc socialism cxists whcrc thcrc arc
no rcgulatcd, dcccntralizcd privatc initiativcs. Somc
dcnominational traditions, likc thc Roman and thc
Anglican, allow lor such initiativcs. Many Protcstant
dcnominations, taking thcir cuc lrom Luthcrs rcjcc
tion ol thc sodalitics ol his timc, try to govcrn cvcry
thing lrom a dcnominational occ. Somc local con
grcgations cannot undcrstand thc valuc or thc nccd lor
mission structurcs. Paul was scnt o not scnt out
by thc Antioch congrcgation. Hc may havc rcportcd
back to it but did not takc ordcrs lrom it. His mission
band (sodality) had all thc autonomy and authority ol
a travcling congrcgation.
!n thc carly pcriod bcyond thc pagcs ol thc 8iblc,
howcvcr, thcrc was littlc rclation bctwccn modality
and sodality, whilc in Pauls timc his missionary band
spccically nourishcd thc congrcgationsa most sig
nicant symbiosis. Vc shall now scc how thc mcdicval
pcriod csscntially rccovcrcd thc hcalthy Ncw Tcsta
mcnt rclationship bctwccn modality and sodality.
Te Medieval Synthesis
of Modality and Sodality
Vc can say that thc Mcdicval pcriod bcgan whcn thc
Roman mpirc in thc Vcst startcd to brcak down.
To somc cxtcnt thc dioccsan pattcrn, lollowing as it
did thc Roman civilgovcrnmcntal pattcrn, tcndcd to
brcak down at thc samc timc. Tc monastic (or so
dality) pattcrn turncd out to bc much morc durablc,
and as a rcsult gaincd grcatcr importancc in thc carly
Mcdicval pcriod than it might havc othcrwisc. Tc
survival ol thc modality (dioccsan Christianity) was
lurthcr compromiscd by thc lact that thc invadcrs ol
this carly Mcdicval pcriod gcncrally bclongcd to a
dicrcnt brand ol Christian bcliclthcy wcrc Arians.
As a rcsult, in many placcs thcrc wcrc both Arian and
Catholic Christian churchcs on oppositc corncrs ol
Ralph D. Winter +8
a main strcctsomcthing likc today, whcrc wc havc
Mcthodist and Prcsbytcrian churchcs across thc strcct
lrom cach othcr.
Again, howcvcr, it is not our purposc to downplay thc
signicancc ol thc parish or dioccsan lorm ol Chris
tianity, but simply to point out that during this carly
pcriod ol thc Mcdicval cpoch thc spccializcd housc
callcd thc monastcry, or its cquivalcnt, bccamc cvcr
so much morc important in thc pcrpctuation ol thc
Christian movcmcnt than was thc organizcd systcm
ol parishcs, which wc oltcn call thc church as il thcrc
wcrc no othcr structurc making up thc church.
Pcrhaps thc most outstanding illustration in thc carly
Mcdicval pcriod ol thc importancc ol thc rclation
ship bctwccn modality and sodality is thc collabora
tion bctwccn Grcgory thc Grcat and a man latcr
callcd Augustinc ol Cantcrbury. Vhilc Grcgory, as
thc bishop ol thc dioccsc ol Romc, was thc hcad ol a
modality, both hc and Augustinc wcrc thc products ol
monastic houscsa lact which rcccts thc dominancc
cvcn thcn ol thc sodality pattcrn ol Christian structurc.
!n any casc, Grcgory callcd upon his lricnd Augustinc
to undcrtakc a major mission to ngland in ordcr to
try to plant a dioccsan structurc thcrc, whcrc Ccltic
Christianity had bccn dccply woundcd by thc invasion
ol Saxon warriors lrom thc contincnt.
As strong as Grcgory was in his own dioccsc, hc simply
had no structurc to call upon to rcach out in this intcnd
cd mission othcr than thc sodality, which at this point
in history took thc lorm ol a 8cncdictinc monastcry.
Tis is why hc cndcd up asking Augustinc and a group
ol othcr mcmbcrs ol thc samc monastcry to undcrtakc
this rathcr dangcrous journcy and important mission
on his bchall. Tc purposc ol thc mission, curiously, was
not to cxtcnd thc 8cncdictinc lorm ol monasticism. Tc
rcmnant ol thc Ccltic church in ngland was itscll a
nctwork ol sodalitics sincc thcrc wcrc no parish systcms
in thc Ccltic arca. No, Augustinc wcnt to ngland to
cstablish dioccsan Christianity, though hc himscll was
not a dioccsan pricst. !ntcrcstingly cnough, thc 8cncdic
tinc Rulc (way ol lilc) was so attractivc that gradually
virtually all ol thc Ccltic houscs adoptcd thc 8cncdic
tinc Rulc, or Rcgula (in Latin).
Tis is quitc charactcristic. uring a lcngthy pcriod
ol timc, pcrhaps a thousand ycars, thc building and
rcbuilding ol thc modalitics was mainly thc work
ol thc sodalitics. Tat is to say thc monastcrics wcrc
unilormly thc sourcc and thc rcal local point ol ncw
cncrgy and vitality which owcd into thc dioccsan
sidc ol thc Christian movcmcnt. Vc think ol thc
momcntous Cluny rclorm, thcn thc Cistcrcians, thcn
thc Friars, and nally thc Jcsuitsall ol thcm strictly
sodalitics, but sodalitics which contributcd massivcly to
thc building and thc rcbuilding ol thc Corpus Cristia
num, thc nctwork ol dioccscs, which Protcstants oltcn
idcntily as thc Christian movcmcnt.
At many points thcrc was rivalry bctwccn thcsc
two structurcs, bctwccn bishop and abbot, dioccsc
and monastcry, modality and sodality, but thc grcat
achicvcmcnt ol thc Mcdicval pcriod is thc ultimatc
synthcsis, dclicatcly achicvcd, whcrcby Catholic ordcrs
wcrc ablc to lunction along with Catholic parishcs and
dioccscs without thc two structurcs conicting with
cach othcr to thc point ol a sctback to thc movcmcnt.
Tc harmony bctwccn thc modality and thc sodality
achicvcd by thc Roman Church is pcrhaps thc most
signicant charactcristic ol this phasc ol thc world
Christian movcmcnt and continucs to bc Romcs
grcatcst organizational advantagc to this day.
Notc, howcvcr, that is not our intcntion to claim that
any onc organization, whcthcr modality or sodality,
was continuously thc champion ol vitality and vigor
throughout thc thousands ol ycars ol thc Mcdicval
cpoch. As a mattcr ol lact, thcrc rcally is no vcry
imprcssivc organizational continuity in thc Christian
movcmcnt, cithcr in thc lorm ol modality or sodal
ity. (Tc list ol bishops at Romc is at many points a
most shaky construct and unlortunatcly docs not cvcn
providc a locus lor thc cntirc Christian movcmcnt.)
n thc othcr hand, it is clcar that thc sodality, as it
was rccrcatcd again and again by dicrcnt lcadcrs, was
almost always thc structural primc movcr, thc sourcc ol
inspiration and rcncwal which ovcrowcd into thc pa
pacy and crcatcd thc rclorm movcmcnts which blcsscd
dioccsan Christianity lrom timc to timc. Tc most
signicant instancc ol this is thc acccssion to thc papal
thronc ol Hildcbrand (Grcgory \!!), who brought
thc idcals, commitmcnt and disciplinc ol thc monastic
movcmcnt right into thc \atican itscll. !n this scnsc
arc not thcn thc papacy, thc Collcgc ol Cardinals, thc
dioccsc, and thc parish structurc ol thc Roman Church
in somc rcspccts a sccondary clcmcnt, a dcrivation
lrom thc monastic tradition rathcr than vicc vcrsa:
!n any casc it sccms appropriatc that thc pricsts ol
thc monastic tradition arc callcd rcgular pricsts, whilc
+8 Tnv Two S:vic:ivvs ov Gobs Rvbv:v:ivv Missiox
thc pricsts ol thc dioccsc and parish arc callcd sccular
pricsts. Tc lormcr arc voluntarily bound by a rcgula,
whilc thc lattcr as a group wcrc othcr than, outsidc
ol (cut o) or somchow lcss than, thc scconddcci
sion communitics bound by a dcmanding way ol lilc,
a rcgula. Vhcncvcr a housc or projcct or parish run by
thc rcgular clcrgy is brought undcr thc domination ol
thc sccular clcrgy, this is a lorm ol thc sccularization
ol that cntity. !n thc lcngthy !nvcstiturc Controvcrsy,
thc rcgular clcrgy nally gaincd clcar authority lor at
lcast scmiautonomous opcration, and thc scculariza
tion ol thc ordcrs was avcrtcd.
Tc samc structural dangcr ol sccularization cxists
today whcncvcr thc spccial conccrns ol an clitc mis
sion sodality lall undcr thc complctc domination (c.g.
administration not just rcgulation) ol an ccclcsiastical
govcrnmcnt, sincc thc Christian modalitics (congrcga
tions) incvitably rcprcscnt thc much broadcr and, no
doubt, mainly inward conccrns ol a largc body ol all
kinds ol Christians, who, as rstdccision mcmbcrs,
arc gcncrally lcss sclcct. Tcir dcmocratic major
ity tcnds to movc away lrom thc highdisciplinc ol
thc mission structurcs, and dcnominational mission
budgcts tcnd to gct smallcr across thc dccadcs as thc
church mcmbcrship broadcns.
Vc cannot lcavc thc Mcdicval pcriod without rclcrring
to thc many unocial and oltcn pcrsccutcd movcmcnts
which also mark thc cra. !n all ol this, thc 8iblc itscll
sccms always thc ultimatc primc movcr, as wc scc in
thc casc ol Pctcr Valdo. His work stands as a powcr
lul dcmonstration ol thc simplc powcr ol a vcrnacular
translation ol thc 8iblc whcrc thc pcoplc wcrc unablc to
apprcciatc cithcr Jcromcs classical translation or thc ccl
cbration ol thc Mass in Latin. A largc numbcr ol groups
rclcrrcd to as Anabaptists arc to bc lound in many
parts ol uropc. nc ol thc chicl charactcristics ol thcsc
rcncwal movcmcnts is that thcy did not attcmpt to clicit
mcrcly cclibatc participation, although this was onc
ol thcir traits on occasion, but oltcn simply dcvclopcd
wholc ncw communitics ol bclicvcrs and thcir lamilics,
attcmpting by biological and cultural transmission to
prcscrvc a high and cnlightcncd lorm ol Christianity.
Tcsc groups usually laccd such strong opposition and
gravc limitations that it would bc vcry unlair to judgc
thcir virility by thcir progrcss. !t is important to notc,
howcvcr, that thc avcragc Mcnnonitc or Salvation Army
community, whcrc wholc lamilics arc mcmbcrs, typicd
thc dcsirc lor a purc church, or what is oltcn callcd a
bclicvcrs church, and constitutcs a most signicant cx
pcrimcnt in Christian structurc. Such a structurc stands,
in a ccrtain scnsc, midway bctwccn a modality and a
sodality, sincc it has thc constitucncy ol thc modality
(involving lull lamilics) and yct, in its carlicr ycars, may
havc thc vitality and sclcctivity ol a sodality. Vc will
rcturn to this phcnomcnon in thc ncxt scction.
Vc havc spacc hcrc only to point out that in tcrms ol
thc durability and quality ol thc Christian laith, thc
1000ycar Mcdicval pcriod is virtually impossiblc to
account lor apart lrom thc rolc ol thc sodalitics. Vhat
happcncd in thc city ol Romc is mcrcly thc tip ol thc
iccbcrg at bcst, and rcprcscnts a rathcr supcrcial and
political lcvcl. !t is quitc a contrast to thc loundational
wcllsprings ol 8iblical study and radical obcdicncc
rcprcscntcd by thc various sodalitics ol this momcntous
millcnnium, which almost always arosc somcwhcrc clsc,
and wcrc oltcn opposcd by thc Roman hicrarchy.
Te Protestant Recovery
of the Sodality
Tc Protcstant movcmcnt startcd out by attcmpting
to do without any kind ol sodality structurc. Mar
tin Luthcr had bccn discontcntcd with thc apparcnt
polarization bctwccn thc vitality hc cvcntually discov
crcd in his own ordcr and thc vcry nominal parish lilc
ol his timc. 8cing dissatiscd with this contrast, hc
abandoncd thc sodality (in which, ncvcrthclcss, hc was
introduccd to thc 8iblc, to thc Paulinc cpistlcs and to
tcaching on justication by laith,) and took advan
tagc ol thc political lorccs ol his timc to launch a lull
scalc rcncwal movcmcnt on thc gcncral lcvcl ol church
lilc. At rst, hc cvcn tricd to do without thc charactcr
istically Roman dioccsan structurc, but cvcntually thc
Luthcran movcmcnt produccd a Luthcran dioccsan
structurc which to a considcrablc cxtcnt rcprcscntcd
thc rcadoption ol thc Roman dioccsan tradition. 8ut
thc Luthcran movcmcnt did not in a comparablc scnsc
rcadopt thc sodalitics, thc Catholic ordcrs, that had
bccn so promincnt in thc Roman tradition.
Tis omission, in my evaluation, represents the greatest
error of the Reformation and the greatest weakness of the
resulting Protestant tradition. Had it not bccn lor thc
socallcd Pictist movcmcnt, thc Protcstants would
havc bccn totally dcvoid ol any organizcd rcncwing
structurcs within thcir tradition. Tc Pictist tradition,
in cvcry ncw cmcrgcncc ol its lorcc, was vcry dcnitcly
Ralph D. Winter +8
a sodality, inasmuch as it was a casc ol adults mccting
togcthcr and committing thcmsclvcs to ncw bcgin
nings and highcr goals as Christians without conict
ing with thc statcd mcctings ol thc cxisting church.
Tis phcnomcnon ol sodality nourishing modality
is promincnt in thc casc ol thc carly work ol John
Vcslcy. Hc absolutcly prohibitcd any abandonmcnt
ol thc parish churchcs. A contcmporary cxamplc is
thc widcly inucntial socallcd East African Revival,
which has now involvcd a million pcoplc but has vcry
carclully avoidcd any clash with thc lunctioning ol lo
cal churchcs. Tc churchcs that havc not lought against
this movcmcnt havc bccn grcatly blcsscd by it.
Howcvcr, thc Pictist movcmcnt, along with thc Ana
baptist ncw communitics, cvcntually droppcd back to
thc lcvcl ol biological growth, it rcvcrtcd to thc ordi
nary pattcrn ol congrcgational lilc. !t rcvcrtcd lrom thc
lcvcl ol thc sodality to thc lcvcl ol thc modality, and in
most cascs, rathcr soon bccamc inccctivc cithcr as a
mission structurc or as a rcncwing lorcc.
Vhat intcrcsts us most is thc lact that in lailing to
cxploit thc powcr ol thc sodality, thc Protcstants had
no mcchanism lor missions lor almost thrcc hundrcd
ycars, until Villiam Carcys lamous book, An nquiry,
proposcd thc usc ol mcans lor thc convcrsion ol thc
hcathcn. His kcy word mcans rclcrs spccically to thc
nccd lor a sodality, lor thc organizcd but nonccclcsias
tical initiativc ol thc warmhcartcd. Tus, thc rcsulting
8aptist Missionary Socicty is onc ol thc most signicant
organizational dcvclopmcnts in thc Protcstant tradi
tion. Although not thc carlicst such socicty, rcinlorccd
as it was by thc latcr stagcs ol thc powcrlul vangcli
cal Awakcning and by thc printing ol Carcys book,
it sct o a rush to thc usc ol this kind ol mcans lor
thc convcrsion ol thc hcathcn, and wc nd in thc ncxt
lcw ycars a numbcr ol socictics lorming along similar
lincs12 socictics in 32 ycars.
9
ncc this mcthod ol
opcration was clcarly undcrstood by thc Protcstants, 300
ycars ol latcnt cncrgics burst lorth in what bccamc, in
Latourcttcs phrasc, Tc Grcat Ccntury. 8y hclping to
tap thc immcnsc spiritual cncrgics ol thc Rclormation,
Carcys book has probably contributcd morc to global
mission than any othcr book in history othcr than thc
8iblc itscll!
Tc 19th Ccntury is thus thc rst ccntury in which
Protcstants wcrc activcly cngagcd in missions. For
rcasons which wc havc not spacc hcrc to cxplain, it was
also thc ccntury ol thc lowcst cbb ol Catholic mission
cncrgy. Amazingly, in this onc ccntury Protcstants,
building on thc unprcccdcntcd world cxpansion ol thc
Vcst, caught up with 18 ccnturics ol carlicr mission
corts. Tcrc is simply no qucstion that what was donc
in this ccntury movcd thc Protcstant strcam lrom a scll
containcd, impotcnt uropcan backwatcr into a world
lorcc in Christianity. Looking back lrom whcrc wc
stand today, ol coursc, it is hard to bclicvc how rcccntly
thc Protcstant movcmcnt has bccomc promincnt.
rganizationally, howcvcr, thc vchiclc that allowcd thc
Protcstant movcmcnt to bccomc vital was thc structural
dcvclopmcnt ol thc sodality, which harvcstcd thc vital
voluntarism latcnt in Protcstantism, and surlaccd in ncw
mission agcncics ol all kinds, both at homc and ovcrscas.
Vavc altcr wavc ol cvangclical initiativcs translormcd thc
cntirc map ol Christianity, cspccially in thc Unitcd Statcs,
but also in ngland, in Scandinavia and on thc Conti
ncnt. 8y 1840, thc phcnomcnon ol mission sodalitics was
so promincnt in thc Unitcd Statcs that thc phrasc thc
vangclical mpirc and othcr cquivalcnt phrascs wcrc
uscd to rclcr to it, and now bcgan a tricklc ol ccclcsiastical
opposition to this bright ncw cmcrgcncc ol thc sccond
structurc. Tis brings us to our ncxt point.
Te Contemporary Misunderstanding
of the Mission Sodality
Almost all mission corts in thc 19th Ccntury, whcth
cr sponsorcd by intcrdcnominational or dcnomina
tional boards, wcrc substantially thc work ol initiativcs
indcpcndcnt ol thc rclatcd ccclcsiastical structurcs. To
ward thc lattcr hall ol thc 19th Ccntury, thcrc sccmcd
incrcasingly to bc two scparatc structural traditions.
n thc onc hand, thcrc wcrc mcn likc Hcnry \cnn and
Rulus Andcrson, who wcrc thc stratcgic thinkcrs at thc
hclm ol oldcr socicticsthc Church Missionary Socicty
(CMS) in ngland and Amcrican 8oard ol Commis
sioncrs lor Forcign Missions (A8CFM), rcspcctivcly.
Tcsc mcn championcd thc scmiautonomous mission
sodality, and thcy voiccd an attitudc which was not at
rst contradictcd by any signicant part ol thc lcadcrs
ol thc ccclcsiastical structurcs. n thc othcr hand, thcrc
was thc ccntralizing pcrspcctivc ol dcnominational lcad
crs, principally thc Prcsbytcrians, which gaincd ground
almost without rcvcrsal throughout thc lattcr twothirds
ol thc 19th Ccntury, so that by thc carly part ol thc
20th Ccntury thc onccindcpcndcnt structurcs which
had bccn mcrcly rclatcd to thc dcnominations gradually
+86 Tnv Two S:vic:ivvs ov Gobs Rvbv:v:ivv Missiox
bccamc dominatcd by thc churchcs, that is administcrcd,
not mcrcly rcgulatcd. Partially as a rcsult, toward thc
cnd ol thc 19th Ccntury, thcrc was a ncw burst ol totally
scparatc mission sodalitics callcd thc Faith Missions,
with Hudson Taylors China !nland Mission (C!M)
taking thc lcad. !t is not widcly rccognizcd that this pat
tcrn was mainly a rccrudcsccncc ol thc pattcrn cstab
lishcd carlicr in thc ccntury, prior to thc trcnd toward
dcnominational boards.
All ol thcsc changcs took placc vcry gradually. At
titudcs at any point arc hard to pin down, but it docs
sccm clcar that Protcstants wcrc always a bit unsurc
about thc lcgitimacy ol thc sodality. Tc Anabaptist
tradition consistcntly cmphasizcd thc conccpt ol a
purc community ol bclicvcrs and thus was unintcrcstcd
in a voluntarism involving only part ol thc bclicving
community. Tc samc is truc ol Alcxandcr Campbclls
Rcstoration tradition and thc Plymouth 8rcthrcn.
Tc morc rcccnt sprinkling ol indcpcndcnt Char
ismatic Ccntcrs, with all thcir cxubcrancc locally,
tcnd to scnd out thcir own missionarics, and havc not
lcarncd thc lcsson ol thc Pcntccostal groups bclorc
thcm who cmploy mission agcncics with grcat ccct.
U.S. dcnominations, lacking tax support as on thc
Contincnt, havc bccn gcncrally a morc sclcctivc and
vital lcllowship than thc uropcan statc churchcs, and,
at lcast in thcir youthlul cxubcrancc, havc lclt quitc
capablc as dcnominations ol providing all ol thc ncccs
sary initiativc lor ovcrscas mission. !t is lor this lattcr
rcason that many ncw dcnominations ol thc U.S. havc
tcndcd to act as though ccntralizcd church control ol
mission corts is thc only propcr pattcrn.
As a rcsult, by thc Sccond Vorld Var, a vcry ncarly
complctc transmutation had takcn placc in thc casc ol
almost all mission corts rclatcd to dcnominational
structurcs. Tat is, almost all oldcr dcnominational
boards, though oncc scmiautonomous or vcry ncarly
indcpcndcnt, had by this timc bccomc part ol uni
cd budgct provisions. At thc samc timc, and partially
as a rcsult, a wholc host ol ncw indcpcndcnt mission
structurcs burst lorth again, cspccially altcr thc Sccond
Vorld Var. As in thc casc ol thc carlicr cmcrgcncc ol
thc Faith Missions, thcsc tcndcd to pay littlc attcntion
to dcnominational lcadcrs and thcir aspirations lor
churchccntcrcd mission. Tc Anglican church with
its CMS, USPG, ctc., displays thc Mcdicval synthcsis,
and so, almost unconsciously, docs thc Amcrican C8A
with its associatcd C8FMS (now C8!), C8HMS
(now MTTA) structurcs. Tus, to this day, among
Protcstants, thcrc continucs to bc dccp conlusion about
thc lcgitimacy and propcr rclationship ol thc two
structurcs that havc manilcstcd thcmsclvcs throughout
thc history ol thc Christian movcmcnt.
To makc mattcrs worsc, Protcstant blindncss about
thc nccd lor mission sodalitics has had a vcry tragic
inucncc on mission clds. Protcstant missions, bcing
modalitymindcd, havc tcndcd to assumc that mcrcly
modalitics, c.g., churchcs, nccd to bc cstablishcd. !n
most cascs whcrc mission work is bcing pursucd by cs
scntially scmiautonomous mission sodalitics, it is thc
planting ol modalitics, not sodalitics, that is thc only
goal. Mission agcncics (cvcn thosc complctcly indc
pcndcnt lrom dcnominations back homc) havc tcndcd
in thcir mission work to sct up churchcs and not to
plant, in addition, mission sodalitics in thc socallcd
mission lands.
10
Tc marvclous Tird Vorld Mission
movcmcnt has sprung up lrom thcsc mission cld
churchcs, but with cmbarrassingly littlc cncouragcmcnt
lrom thc Vcstcrn mission socictics, as sad and surpris
ing as that may sccm.
!t is astonishing that most Protcstant missionarics,
working with (mission) structurcs that did not cx
ist in thc Protcstant tradition lor hundrcds ol ycars,
and without whosc cxistcncc thcrc would havc bccn
no mission initiativc, havc ncvcrthclcss bccn blind to
thc signicancc ol thc vcry structurc within which
thcy havc workcd. !n this blindncss thcy havc mcrcly
plantcd churchcs and havc not ccctivcly conccrncd
thcmsclvcs to makc surc that thc kind ol mission
structurc within which thcy opcratc also bc sct up on
thc cld. Many ol thc mission agcncics loundcd altcr
Vorld Var !!, out ol cxtrcmc dclcrcncc to cxist
ing church movcmcnts alrcady cstablishcd in lorcign
lands, havc not cvcn tricd to sct up churchcs, and havc
workcd lor many ycars mcrcly as auxiliary agcncics in
various scrvicc capacitics hclping thc churchcs that
wcrc alrcady thcrc.
Tc qucstion wc must ask is how long it will bc bclorc
thc youngcr churchcs ol thc socallcd mission tcrrito
rics ol thc nonVcstcrn world comc to that cpochal
conclusion (to which thc Protcstant movcmcnt in
uropc only tardily camc), namcly, that thcrc nccd to
bc sodality structurcs, such as Villiam Carcys usc ol
mcans, in ordcr lor church pcoplc to rcach out in vital
initiativcs in mission, cspccially crosscultural mission.
Tcrc arc alrcady somc hopclul signs that this tragic
Ralph D. Winter +8
dclay will not continuc. Vc scc, lor cxamplc, thc out
standing work ol thc Mclancsian 8rothcrhood in thc
Solomon !slands.
Conclusion
Tis articlc has bccn in no scnsc an attcmpt to dccry or
to criticizc thc organizcd church. !t has assumcd both
thc ncccssity and thc importancc ol thc parish structurc,
thc dioccsan structurc, thc dcnominational structurc,
thc ccclcsiastical structurc. Tc modality structurc in thc
vicw ol this articlc is a signicant and absolutcly cs
scntial structurc. All that is attcmptcd hcrc is to cxplorc
somc ol thc historical pattcrns which makc clcar that
God, through His Holy Spirit, has clcarly and con
sistcntly uscd a structurc othcr than (and somctimcs
instcad ol ) thc modality structurc. !t is our attcmpt hcrc
to hclp church lcadcrs and othcrs to undcrstand thc
lcgitimacy ol both structurcs, and thc ncccssity lor both
structurcs not only to cxist but to work togcthcr harmo
niously lor thc lulllmcnt ol thc Grcat Commission and
lor thc lulllmcnt ol all that God dcsircs lor our timc.
End Notes
1
nc can hardly conccivc ol morc providcntially supplicd mcans lor
thc Christian mission to rcach thc Gcntilc community. Vhcrcvcr
thc community ol Christ wcnt, it lound at hand thc tools nccdcd
to rcach thc nations: a pcoplc living undcr covcnant promisc
and a rcsponsiblc clcction, and thc Scripturcs, Gods rcvclation
to all mcn. Tc opcn synagoguc was thc placc whcrc all thcsc
things convcrgcd. !n thc synagoguc, thc Christians wcrc ocrcd
an inviting door ol acccss to cvcry Jcwish community. !t was in
thc synagoguc that thc rst Gcntilc convcrts dcclarcd thcir laith
in Jcsus. Richard F. cRiddcr, Te Dispersion of the People of God
(Ncthcrlands: J.H. Kok, N.\. Kampcn, 1971), p. 87.
2
!n Pauls day Asia mcant what wc today call Asia Minor, or
prcscntday Turkcy. !n thosc days no onc drcamcd how lar
thc tcrm would latcr bc cxtcndcd.
3
Tat Christians in Jcrusalcm organizcd thcmsclvcs lor worship
on thc synagoguc pattcrn is cvidcnt lrom thc appointmcnt
ol cldcrs and thc adoption ol thc scrvicc ol praycr. Tc
provision ol a daily dolc lor widows and thc nccdy rccctcd
thc currcnt synagoguc practicc (Acts 2:42, 6:1). !t is possiblc
that thc cpistlc ol Jamcs rccctcd thc prcvailing Jcrusalcm
situation: in Jamcs 2:2 rclcrcncc is madc to a wcalthy man
coming into your asscmbly. Tc tcrm translatcd asscmbly
is litcrally synagoguc, not thc morc usual word church.
Glcnn V. 8arkcr, Villiam L. Lanc and J. Ramscy Michacls,
Te New Testament Speaks (Ncw York: Harpcr and Row Co.,
1969), pp. 12627.
4
ynamic quivalcncc Churchcs, Missiology: An International
Review, 1, no. 1 (1973), p. 39.
5
Christians, it said, rcsortcd to lormation ol burial clubs,
which wcrc lcgal, as onc vchiclc ol lcllowship and worship.
6
Latourcttc, Kcnncth Scott, A History of Christianity (Ncw York:
Harpcr & 8rothcrs, 1953), pp. 181, 22134.
7
Latourcttc, Kcnncth Scott, A History of the Expansion of Chris-
tianity , vol. 2, Te Tousand Years of Uncertainty (Ncw York:
Harpcr & 8rothcrs, 1938), pp. 37980.
8
Vintcr, Ralph ., Tc Varp and thc Vool ol thc Christian
Movcmcnt, in his and R. Picrcc 8cavcrs, Te Warp and Woof:
Organizing for Christian Mission (South Pasadcna, CA.: Vil
liam Carcy Library, 1970), pp. 5262.
9
Tc London Missionary Socicty (LMS) and thc Ncthcrlands
Missionary Socicty (NMS ) in 1795, thc Church Missionary
Socicty (CMS) in 1799, thc CF8S in 1804, thc Amcrican
8oard ol Commissioncrs lor Forcign Mission (A8CFM) in
1810, thc Amcrican 8aptist Missionary 8oard (A8M8) in
1814, thc Glasgow Missionary Socicty (GMS) in 1815, thc
anish Missionary Socicty (MS) in 1821, thc FM in
1822, and thc 8crlin Mission (8M )in 1824.
10
Vintcr, Ralph ., Tc Planting ol Youngcr Missions, in
Church/Mission Tensions Today, cd. by C. Pctcr Vagncr (Chi
cago: Moody Prcss, 1972).