No Shortcut to Missiological Research

I do not remember when a book generated the vitriol that we see in contemporary missions like No Shortcut to Success: A Manifesto for Modern Missions. Authored by a seasoned missionary and published by 9Marks, Matt Rhodes lives in North Africa and works on a church planting team.

Certainly there have been other theological volumes penned to defend or argue against a position. The debates surrounding Free Grace Theology in the 1990s come immediately to mind. In our current time, the debates between complementarianism and egalitarianism might be equally vitriolic. Certainly the woke versus Christian nationalists compare.

However, No Shortcut to Success and the response of antagonists and protagonists reach new heights in criticism; at least new heights in missiological discourse. Zane Pratt and Mark Steven’s recent recommendation that “no one read, distribute, or teach from this book” and Rhodes’ response seem characteristic of the contentious debate. The more balanced view of Warrick Farah and Pam Arlund in Global Missiology represents a generous tone. Although, Rhodes takes issue with their review as well.

A Movement Skeptic

When the book appeared last year, I knew what to expect. 9Marks, Mark Dever, along with a host of other critics have vocally and combatively spoken against movements. In fact, I have been a thoughtful skeptic myself in spite of having the privilege of working with Steve Smith briefly before his death. Indeed, Ephesiology: A Study of the Ephesian Movement was written to give perspective to a proper New Testament missiology of movements. Even so, No Shortcut to Success surprised me. In my review on Amazon, I wrote:

Amazon Review

It seems clear that to move beyond the decline of Christianity in the United States, we need a shift in the manner in which we think about church planting. Continued claims of it as an evangelistic methodology also need further examination. The data discussed in this essay seems to indicate that, even though there are certainly more churches [since 1950], there are fewer people attending those churches.

Missiological Research

In the meantime, academic discourse has been reduced to building straw-men. But, what are we to expect in a climate where everyone is right. In spite of this, missiologists and missionaries alike should be openly examining phenomenon around the world. We of all people should be most interested in understanding the movement of the Holy Spirit and the growth of the church. We should be engaging in thoughtful research and dialogue with each other.

I am genuinely discouraged by the lack of rigor in No Shortcut to Success. Equally discouraging is how others–even scholars–cite the book favorably. It reflects much more than a contentious cultural climate. It causes me to wonder about the state of missiological education and missionary training. More than a shortcut to missions, Rhodes’ volume has taken a shortcut to missiological research.