MAINTENANCE CHRISTIANITY WITHIN CHURCHES: AN ANALYSIS

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Chapter 4 HOLISTIC AND COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO MISSION

Introduction

As mentioned in the conclusion of the previous chapter, this chapter focuses on some key ways of understanding mission from a holistic and comprehensive perspective, in order to make suggestions and provide some solutions for churches in the North Kivu Province. This is to be achieved through an exploration of the following three issues: mission as missio Dei, i.e. mission as the action of the Trinitarian God through His sovereign and eternal plan of love, care, salvation and restoration of human beings and the whole of creation; mission according to Jesus Christ, i.e. mission in word and deed or proclamation and participation, including cross-cultural mission; and mission as the church’s participation in God’s mission: the meaning of church mission, church mission as contextualisation, and church mission as action in unity. In light of the examination of the abovementioned issues, this chapter will attempt to provide answers to mission challenges in the North Kivu Province, as highlighted in Chapter 3, notably: the misunderstanding of mission, the lack of well-skilled visionary church leaders, maintenance Christianity, tribalism, and poverty. Before beginning in earnest with this chapter, it is best to first briefly define the key concept of “holistic mission.” As far as this concept will be talked about in one way or another throughout this chapter, “holistic mission” can merely be understood as the fact that the church’s mission in the world includes gospel proclamation, as well as socio-political, economic, and health dimensions. “Holistic mission” is thus concerned with ministry to the whole person through the transforming power of the Gospel. It views the functional uniqueness of evangelism and social responsibility as inseparable from the ministry of God’s kingdom. It is therefore the intentional integration of building the church and transforming society (McConnell, in Moreau 2000:448). The term “holism” is derived from a philosophical theory, according to which a whole system of beliefs must be analysed, instead of only its individual components. In terms of the theory of health, “holism” implies the theory of the importance of taking all of a person’s physical, mental and social conditions into account in the treatment of illness (“Holism”, in Microsoft Encarta 2006). According to Jeganathan (2000:163-164), “holism” means that the word and deed or proclamation and participation are inseparable with regard to Christian mission. He adds that biblical witnesses, traditions, cultures, theological reflections and contextual realities are the basic foundations for identifying the basic truths as to what is meant by “holistic”1. The implementation of a holistic approach to mission implies a comprehensive understanding of mission. This is the reason why, throughout this study, the terms “holistic” and “comprehensive” are used in a complementary way.

Mission as missio Dei

When dealing with mission, it is important to bear in mind that this is primarily God’s mission. To express this reality, theologians use the Latin phrase missio Dei. What does this phrase mean? Over the centuries, mission has been understood in a variety of ways. It was often associated with soteriology, ecclesiology, culture and/or history. After the First World War, however, missiologists began to take note of recent developments in biblical and systematic theology, and Karl Barth became one of the first theologians to refer to mission as an activity of God (Bosch 1991:389). Before Karl Barth, however, the concept missio Dei had already been used for the first time by Augustine, during the Trinitarian discussions. Since the Willingen meeting of the IMC (1952), therefore, the understanding of mission as missio Dei has been embraced by virtually all Christian persuasions (Bosch 1991:389; Nyasulu 2004:17-18). Mission was hence defined in relation to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, for the mere reason that it derives from the very nature of God. It was therefore understood, as Reilly (1978:136-137) depicts, as God’s own ongoing process, which is Trinitarian in its initiation, Trinitarian in its realisation, and Trinitarian in its fulfilment. Mission is not something that occurred once in history, but rather a process that continues in history under the direction of the Holy Spirit to its ultimate fulfilment, when men/women shall be united with God, and the kingdom fully established. In short, according to Marie-Joseph, quoted by Reilly (1978:136), “mission is from the Father, by the Son, in the Holy Spirit – in the Holy Spirit, by the Son, back to the Father.” Indeed, God not only created humankind in His image, and after His likeness, but He also loves, cares for and saves human beings, and is hoping for the restoration of the whole universe (2 Pet 3:10, 13 & Rom 8:18ff). This is God’s sovereign and eternal plan for humankind. The missio Dei thus springs from God’s love. God is also known as the one who comes down, in order to be actively involved in the whole life of his creation. The ultimate intention of His mission is to save and transform (Kirk 1994:6-8). Due to the fall of humankind in the Garden of Eden, the Trinitarian God, through His fourfold sovereign and eternal plan, decided to go to human beings. Therefore, it is clear from the Scriptures that God the Father sent his only Begotten Son, and God the Father and the Son sent the Holy Spirit, and thereafter, God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit sent the church into the world. After the sending of the church, the process of sending has to continue until the Gospel has been effectively proclaimed “to the ends of the earth”. Without a doubt, a quick look at the Scriptures reveals that the Bible is indeed full of references to “sending” and “being sent”. In terms of this new dimension of understanding, the theology of mission is essentially Trinitarian. The mission is thus the action of the Triune God in His sovereign and eternal plan of love, care, salvation and restoration of human beings and the whole of creation (John 3:16). However, Bosch (1991:391) draws attention to a fundamental point, which is the fact that missio Dei hinges on the doctrine of the Trinity, rather than on the doctrine of ecclesiology1 or soteriology. In this regard, Reilly (1978:136) points out that “because of its Trinitarian origin, direction, and end, mission is not primarily an affair of men, the mission of the church, or the mission of the Christian community, but rather the mission of God.” According to Russel (1993:88), on the other hand, “the church does not have a mission; rather it participates in God’s mission, in the redemption of humanity and the restoration of all creation.” Rogers (2003:17) maintains that mission involves the entire scope of God’s activities over the course of human history, as He works to achieve His purposes. God may use the church to assist Him in accomplishing part of His mission in the world, but He is not restricted to working through the church. The main focus of the term missio Dei is on God’s purpose, not on the church’s activities in working with Him to achieve His purpose. Finally, Bosch maintains that, Since God’s concern is for the entire world, this should also be the scope of the missio Dei. It affects all people in all aspects of their existence. Mission is God’s turning to the world in respect of creation, care, redemption and consummation. It takes place in ordinary human history, not exclusively in and through the church. God’s own mission is larger than the mission of the church. The missio Dei is God’s activity, which embraces both the church and the world, and in which the church may be privileged to participate. (…) The church serves the missio Dei in the world (…) missio Dei means that God articulates himself without any need of assisting him through our missionary efforts in this respect (Bosch 1991:391-392).
The approach of missio Dei, which is theocentric rather than ecclesiocentric, is very important. As mission is primarily and entirely God’s initiative and duty, no one can engage in it without referring to God. In fact, the church in general and individual Christians in particular become agents of God’s mission, since Jesus commissioned his disciples by saying: “Just as the Father has sent me, I also send you” (John 20:21). From this point on, the mission of God through Jesus Christ became the raison d’être of the church, and thereafter, the foundation of the church’s mission throughout the world. In line with Mpinga’s (2007:31) viewpoint, one may thus conclude that the church does not have any mission other than to participate in the missio Dei. The church has no mission by and for itself – rather, it must only fulfil the mission of the one who sent Jesus to the world to be His messenger. The mission of God determines the mission of the church. It is also the agenda and content of the mission of the church. In support of this, Kirk (1999:31) says that the church has no freedom to invent its own agenda. It is rather a community in response to the missio Dei, bearing witness to God’s activity in the world through its communication of the Good News of Jesus Christ in word and deed. Mission as missio Dei or divine task, however, needs to be understood in terms of an important point. Indeed, Nyasulu (2004:19) suggests, an over-emphasis on the divine task of mission poses a danger to the whole concept of mission, because in so doing, human responsibility disappears. Practically speaking, mission is not only God’s task – it is also the task of the church. God provides everything for His mission, but the church is there to implement it. This suggests the need to learn more about mission according to Jesus Christ and mission as the church’s participation in God’s mission.

Mission according to Jesus Christ

In his article entitled “Jesus and Mission”, Elwell (Moreau 2000:517) maintains that the concept of mission is central to an understanding of Jesus, because Jesus and his mission are virtually synonymous. This means that the main reason for the coming of Jesus into the world was really his mission. In this respect, Jesus was well aware of his mission. More than 32 times in the Gospel according to John, Jesus claims to be sent by his Father (John 3:34, 4:34…). What was his understanding of mission? In responding to this question, the following points cover two important aspects that describe the missionary nature of Jesus Christ’s work: mission in word and deed or proclamation and participation, and cross-cultural mission.
4.3.1 Mission in word and deed or proclamation and participation
Throughout the New Testament, the ministry of Jesus Christ and, thereafter, that of his disciples, may be described by two main terms: word and deed or proclamation and participation. Hence, the mission of Jesus and that of the church can be summed up according to this twofold dimension: the verbal mission, i.e. preaching, teaching, witnessing, evangelising; and the mission in deed, i.e. healing the sick, liberating people from demons and oppression, seeking and saving those who are lost, feeding hungry people, rising from the dead, etc. In order to more clearly explain this twofold dimension of the mission of Jesus, Musolo w’Isuka points out that Jesus, who was a perfect God, “took up place among human beings” as a perfect Man, and cared for human beings as a whole through his mission. Jesus deliberately concerned himself with the spiritual, physical and social troubles of humankind. He did not only proclaim the coming of God’s kingdom, but also participated in healing, saving castaways, liberating people from demons, rising from the dead, and reinstating the marginalised into society, such as lepers and prostitutes. Jesus’ mission was truly crowned and achieved through teachings in word and deed, proclamation and participation. He, for instance, called upon people to be fed by the word, which comes from God’s mouth. However, he then gave himself to hungry crowds. Jesus declared that “blessed are the poor in spirit”, but he contributed to the success and joy of a wedding celebration in Canaan, by providing good wine (Musolo w’Isuka 1999:73-74). In light of this, one may attempt to define mission as being the word plus service in the world – the service of the church as the body of Christ. With regard to Jesus’ mission, Schnabel (2005:265) reports the fact that Jesus was known to be a teacher, on the same level as his contemporary rabbis. His teaching ministry differed from that of the rabbis of his time. He walked from settlement to settlement and taught men and women, large crowds and small groups, in synagogues and in open fields, in public markets and in private houses. In reality, Jesus dealt with both the ministry of preaching and teaching, and the ministry of healing and feeding, without any contradiction between the two. Bearing witness to his own mission as being in word and deed, proclamation and participation, Jesus eloquently states that, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim Good News to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and the regaining of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour” (Luke 4:18-19, NET). In his article entitled “Once again: what is mission?”, Saayman (1983:87-89) identifies Luke 4:18-19 as a starting point for understanding the mission of Jesus. According to this passage, he states, Jesus performed his ministry with distinguishable but inseparable dimensions, namely those of evangelising, healing, compassion, social, political and economic justice, and fellowship or community. All these dimensions, he concludes, should be reflected in the mission of the church. Whoever neglects any of these dimensions also neglects the entire mission. However, the conception of mission as word and deed, and proclamation and participation has provoked huge debate among scholars, even at conferences of the International Missionary Council (IMC) from the time of Willingen (1952) onwards. Some scholars reduced the mission to a mere verbal proclamation of the message of the Gospel, and confused the missionary with the evangelist, and the missionary action with the programme of evangelisation. Confirming such a tendency in the Indian context, Prabhakar bears witness to the fact that: There is a conventional perception that the main concern of the church is most specifically on spiritual and religious areas. Most churches look at the questions of social justice, political or economic issues as concerns that are outside the purview and activity of the church. Some Christian leaders sometimes have the tendency that the church does not have adequate power or authority to address areas other than spiritual or evangelistic (Prabhakar 2006:48-49).Others held the position that mission was the establishment of Shalom in the sense of social harmony, and focused more on the social deed than on the word. This is the reason why, since the meeting of the WCC Commission on World Mission and Evangelism (CWME), held in Bangkok from December 1972 to January 1973 on the theme of “Salvation Today”, a theme which strongly emphasised the social and political commitment of the church, non-Pentecostal Protestantism has been divided into two movements: the ecumenical and the evangelical. On the one hand, the evangelical movement called for withdrawal from the ecumenical CWME and convened the International Congress of Lausanne (1974), at which it established its own guidelines called the “Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization” (LCWE). Within the LCWE, absolute priority was given to evangelisation of the world, without much commitment in terms of social issues. On the other hand, the ecumenical movement met in Melbourne in 1980, and committed itself to pursuing the CWME alongside the LCWE. The ecumenical movement emphasised the fact that God prioritises poor and marginalised people. However, these two main movements in contemporary Protestantism began to try to improve their mutual relations by the end of the 1980s. There were thus fruitful and official encounters between these two Protestant movements (Bria et al. 2003:62; Briggs 2000:108). In order to distinguish between the two Protestant movements, Elwell (1984:726) says, on the one hand, that evangelicals are still chided for a mission theology that ignores the kingdom of God and focuses almost entirely on eternal life. On the other hand, Elwell reports that the ecumenical movement or Conciliar Protestants are accused of being so captivated by immediate social and human issues that they take unwarranted liberty with the Bible and bend its texts until evangelism is reconceptualised as politics. The church’s obligation to evangelise “unreached people” is dismissed as irrelevant, and a religious encounter is confined to the sort of friendly conversation that eschews all thoughts of conversion and establishment of churches. However, it seems to be very clear, through the four Gospels, that Jesus held a view close to that of the evangelical movement. On the other hand, he also recognised people’s rights and responsibilities. He thereafter recognised the spiritual and physical needs of the human being as well, because the human being is by his very nature both body and soul. Indeed, one cannot care about the soul while neglecting the body, and care about the body while neglecting the soul. Moreover, the needs of the body impact very strongly on the needs of the soul, and the needs of the soul impact strongly on the needs of the body. Accordingly, in terms of the current understanding of mission, the “word’ and the “deed” are twins that cannot be separated. In order to sustain this scriptural reality, Nissen (2004:32) writes that mission is not only a verbal proclamation, but also a healing action (cf. Matt 4:32; 9:35) which strives not only for “church growth” (as if the church were an end in itself), but also for the wholeness of creation, that is, for the total integration of human and cosmic history into the fullness of the eschatological Kingdom (Matt 10:7). Keeping the above reality in mind, however, it is necessary to consider the social deed as a logical consequence of the proclamation of the Gospel, because considering it as a means for evangelisation leads to the risk of forming materialistic interests in Christians. In addition to the above debate on whether mission takes place through “word” or “deed”, Shenk (1999:28-29) advocates for a withdrawal of the two concepts. He submits that the flaw in the “word and deed” paradigm is that it encourages Christians to focus attention on the parts rather than the whole, which is God’s new order. According to Shenk, when this partial way of looking by a Christian witness is accepted, it is impossible to arrive at the whole. Instead of focusing on the “word and deed” paradigm, he suggests instead a focus on recovering the fullness of the Gospel. Thus, mission must be thought of beyond “word and deed” (Shenk 1999:24-29). Through this last statement, Shenk seems to create a misunderstanding. Rightly speaking, mission cannot be thought of beyond word and deed. Since the Scriptures are very clear about mission both in word and deed, and that the Lord Jesus himself practised his own mission in word and deed, there is no way to escape these two essential aspects of mission. Christians should rather take into account the position held by Presler (2001:8), who maintains that the church does not have to make an either – or, but rather a both – and choice. In keeping with his view, the church, in its mission, may not need to choose, for instance, either evangelisation or social justice, but may be called on to embrace both. The Good News might be expressed through a justice ministry, an evangelic conversation might suggest an affordable housing initiative, and meals with the homeless might lead to the Eucharist. Ultimately, mission according to Jesus is not only in word and deed, but also involves cross-cultural mission.
4.3.2 Cross-cultural mission
The mission of Jesus Christ was not only in word and deed, but also a cross-cultural mission. It was initially fated for Jews, but then applied to all nations. Thus, in the beginning, Jesus concentrated on and limited himself to the Jews, the elected people, in order to offer them the reign of God which had been promised to them (Matt 15:24; 10:5-7). In support of this viewpoint, Shenk regards the focus of Jesus on the Jews, from the perspective of church growth, in the following way:
God planned well for the growth of the church. The plan included geopolitical strategy. God didn’t want Jesus locked into any box. He placed his son in Palestine. That is the bridge between the continents of Asia, Africa, and Europe. Palestine is the crossroads of the world. Israel located in Palestine was at the right place for maximum influence throughout the earth. God had called Israel to be the light to the nations; Palestine was an ideal location for that light to penetrate into Africa, Asia and Europe. Jesus of Nazareth lived within this same meeting place of the continents (Shenk 1994:111).
Through this statement, Shenk explains why Jesus was born in Palestine. With reference to Nissen (2004:27), however, it is also important to point out that there are still problems in defining the real targets of mission. The universality of the final commission according to Matthew is in striking contrast to the particularity of the mission instruction in Matthew 10:5-6 (NET): ‘Do not go to Gentile regions and do not enter any Samaritan town. Go instead to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.’ The final commission also differs from Mark 13:10 (NET), according to which ‘The Good News must first be proclaimed to all nations’. This leads to a contradiction, and there have been many attempts to solve this. Accordingly, Nissen proposes a solution to the problem as follows:
The best solution is probably to suppose that Matthew is operating with a two-stage scheme of salvation history implying two stages in the mission of Jesus. The mission of the earthy Jesus is a centripetal mission directed to Israel in the hope that the conversion of his people will inaugurate the “eschatological pilgrimage of nations to the mountain of God” (cf. Isa 2:2; Mic 4:1) and so lead to the salvation of the world. But the Jews reject this mission (cf. Matt [sic] 21:33-46; 22:1-14). (…) This leads to the death of Jesus, making the end of his centripetal mission to Israel. But the vindication of the death by God through the resurrection invests Jesus with “all authority in heaven and on earth” (28:16) and opens the way for a universal post-Easter to all nations (28:18-20). (…) The transition from Matt 10:5-6 to Matt 28:18-20 has often been understood as if Jesus proceeded from a mission to Israel to a mission to the nations – that is a kind of quantitative augmentation, or a transition from “home” mission to “foreign” mission (Nissen 2004:27-28).
Thereafter, Jesus adopts a new perspective, which shows that he is also interested in other nations. Some scriptures will thus prove that Jesus was involved in cross-cultural mission, despite his home mission among the Jews. In Matthew 15:21-28, Jesus challenges traditional thinking when he speaks with the Canaanite woman and heals her daughter through her faith. It is said (v. 30) that Jesus also healed those who were not true Jews, and through this act, crowds returned glory to the Almighty God of Israel (v. 31). In John 4:4-26, the conversation of Jesus with the Samaritan woman also presents strong proof of the extraversion aspect of Jesus’ mission. In Matthew 16:4, Jesus evokes Jonah’s example in order to explain his death and resurrection, but also to sustain the movement towards mission. Mark 11:15-19 deals with the sellers who are driven away from the temple. Here, the fundamental sense is that God’s house will be called a house of prayer for all nations (v. 17), whereas for the pagans, it is only a square that has been reserved for them for prayer. Therefore, Jesus understood his mission as being both centripetal and centrifugal. Thus, with regard to the notion that mission is not to be kept at home or within a framework of cultural boundaries, Jesus opened the eyes of his disciples when telling them that the differences between sacred and profane things did not have value anymore (cf. Matt 15 & Acts 10:15, 34-35). Indeed, the major focus of Jesus, in his relationship with his disciples, was to prepare them for a holistic and comprehensive mission. In order to achieve this goal, Jesus, among his disciples, dealt with mission as a worldwide mission, a mission beyond borders.
Whereas Jews adopted a xenophobic mentality, refusing to interact with foreigners socially, politically and religiously, Jesus created a new understanding of mission, by presenting himself as a sociable man who loved and looked after people beyond his own borders. Jesus reveals the ultimate meaning of his mission in his last speech to his Apostles, as Luke relates in Acts 1:8, saying that, “… you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” In this scripture, the universality of mission is clearly shown, to the extent that noone can regard it any longer as a mission restricted to Jews. This section examined mission according to Jesus Christ, which is a model for the church’s participation in mission, the following section will focus on church mission in relation to God’s mission. This issue is very important in terms of understanding mission according to a holistic and comprehensive perspective.

Mission as church participation in God’s mission

In order to draw attention to what the church is really there for, Rogers asks three relevant questions: “What is the church? What is it in relation to God, to the world, to the saved, to the lost? Is there a difference between what the church is and what the church should be?” As he puts it, it is not about simple questions which must be quickly debated in order to arrive at simple answers. Rather, Christians must spend a great deal of time reflecting on the church – its identity, its mission, and how to more effectively be who and what God wants them to be (Rogers 2003:66-67). In fact, dealing with mission from a holistic and comprehensive perspective requires that particular attention should be paid to the fact that the church plays a participatory role in God’s mission.
4.4.1 Church mission
With regard to the church and mission, there is a threefold truth that needs to be stated in terms of the fact that mission is primarily and essentially God’s mission. Firstly, the church stems from God’s mission. Without God’s mission, the church would have no reason to exist. Secondly, the church is not itself the whole of God’s mission, but rather the privileged part of it. In His sovereignty, God remains a living, missionary God before the birth of the church, through the church, and beyond the church’s sphere of activity. In terms of Reilly’s (1978:136) view, God’s mission works through the church’s mission, but at the same time, it is wider than the church’s mission. It is not a church-centred activity, but rather a God-centred one. According to Rogers (2003:17), God has always worked independently of his people in order to achieve His purposes, because mission does not refer to the specific things that God may do in an individual’s life, or even in the life of the church. Despite the fact that God’s mission is to be regarded as going beyond the church, the church is at the heart of God’s mission. In fact, “it is the church that evangelises, finds appropriate cultural channels to express the faith in the name of Jesus Christ, participates in the struggle for justice and the care of the environment, engages in dialogue with people of other faiths, and builds peace” (Kirk 1999:205). Thirdly, the church is called on and sent to do God’s mission. In this respect, the church is more the one that is sent than the one that sends (Bosch, 1991:370). Its fundamental mission is God’s mission. On the one hand, mission does not come from the church, but it is from the perspective and in terms of mission that the church has to be understood (Prabhakar 2006:110). On the other hand, however, the church does not have its own mission. Its mission is meaningless and dangerous without God’s mission. According to Mpinga (2007:31), who shares the point of view of Bosch (1991) and Russell (1993), the church is called on to participate in God’s mission and to be an instrument in the hands of God for the fulfilment of His redemptive purpose for humankind. In this regard, Prabhakar (2006:110) stresses that the church, as the people of God, is not the centre and goal of mission, but rather the means and instrument. It participates in God’s mission in terms of what God is doing in the world. In this respect (Kirk 1999:218), the church is not what it does, but rather what God does. Jeganathan highlights the calling of the church and the fact that it is an instrument for God’s mission by stating that:

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ABSTRACT
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Statement of the problem and research question
1.2 Hypothesis and objectives of the study
1.3 Potential benefit of the study
1.4 Scope and limitations of the study
1.5 Literature review
1.6 Methodological approach
1.7 Author’s motivation and background to the study
1.8 Brief overview of the study
Chapter 2 BACKGROUND TO MISSION IN THE NORTH KIVU PROVINCE
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Overview of the North Kivu Province
2.3 Historical background to mission
2.4 Conclusion
Chapter 3 MAINTENANCE CHRISTIANITY WITHIN CHURCHES: AN ANALYSIS
3.1 Introduction
3.2 The concept of maintenance Christianity
3.3 The CEPAC, CEBCE and CBCA
3.4 Origins and causes of maintenance Christianity within the target   communities
3.5 Consequences of maintenance Christianity
3.6 Conclusion
Chapter 4 HOLISTIC AND COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO MISSION
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Mission as missio Dei
4.3 Mission according to Jesus Christ
4.4 Mission as church participation in God’s mission
4.5 Attempt at answers to mission challenges in the North Kivu Province
4.6 Conclusion
Chapter 5 STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR AN EFFECTIVE MISSION
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Awakening the consciousness to mission
5.3 Creating a network for mission mediasation
5.4 Moving from dependency towards self-reliance in ministry
5.5 Implementing the concept of “to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8)
5.6 Targeting neglected social groups
5.7 Conclusion
Chapter 6 CONCLUSION
6.1 Appraisal and conclusion
6.2 Recommendations
6.3 Suggestions for further research
BIBLIOGRAPHY

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
FROM MAINTENANCE CHRISTIANITY TO A HOLISTIC  AND COMPREHENSIVE UNDERSTANDING OF MISSION: A Case Study of Churches in the North Kivu Province of the Democratic Republic of the Congo