Responding to Popular Critiques of Movements

Earlier this year, No Shortcut to Success: A Manifesto for Modern Missions (9Marks, Matt Rhodes) was published. The book aims to promote missionary professionalism by critiquing what is likened to “shortcuts” and “miracle cures for covid” among Western missionaries. Notably, CPM/DMM “movements methodologies” are the author’s primary concern and what he views as deeply problematic. No Shortcut is highly reviewed on Amazon, although you can also note a few critical reviews as well.

In April, Global Missiology published two contrasting reviews of No Shortcut, one positive by Jackson Wu and another critical review by Dave Coles. Subsequently, the editor Nelson Jennings asked myself and No Shortcut’s author Matt Rhodes to write articles in dialogue with one another about improving today’s missiological discourse on movements. I was pleased that Pam Arlund graciously agreed to coauthor the article with me as I respect her wisdom and experience in these matters.

This process of writing in dialogue took several months and is covered nicely in the editorial written by Nelson: “Missiological Iron Sharpening.” Matt Rhodes’ article, which is a response to Dave Coles’ critical review and to Motus Dei, is here: Advancing Conversations about Proclamational and Movements Methodologies. The abstract:

Movements methodologies have spread throughout much of today’s missions world. The prevalence of these methods necessitates conversation about their validity. This article provides constructive critique of movements methodologies, addresses responses to previous critique, and suggests paths for conversation going forward.

In dialogue with Matt, Pam and myself wrote a response to No Shortcut and attempted to “zoom out” and respond to popular critiques of movements: Discussing and Catalyzing Movements: An Invitation to Research, Sacrifice, and Commitment. The abstract:

As a global discussion and a significantly large phenomenon in the world today, church planting movements (CPM) or disciple making movements (DMM) have attracted much attention and enthusiasm in the missions community. They are widely accepted, and many different agencies have adopted movemental approaches to ministry in the past two decades. However, there is also a minority view of detractors who disagree with the voluminous case studies and published literature on movements. This article responds to some of those critics—represented here by the recently published No Shortcut to Success—by engaging that book’s important critiques but also what this article’s authors believe to be misinformation and ambiguous logic inherent in the book’s arguments. The authors hope that this approach will foster a helpful, constructive, and ongoing dialogue on movements missiology for the missions community.

I encourage you to read the reviews by Wu and Coles before reading the two articles, assuming you have read No Shortcut already. I want to thank everyone in the Motus Dei Network who reviewed earlier drafts of our article and also Pam, Nelson, and Matt for their friendship and cooperation throughout this process.