Mission in a Network Society

The concept most frequently used to describe and explain socio-economic trends in the world today is undoubtedly globalisation. This powerful yet ambiguous term is typically used to indicate that individuals, organisations and states in one part of the world are influenced or affected by forces or agents elsewhere on the planet. They are interconnected in various ways, both harmful and beneficial; and will subsequently respond in positive, negative and ambivalent ways.

In this edition of Vista, we focus on one key expression of interconnectedness – the network, a form that in some ways epitomises modern society, and has increasingly been used by Christians in service of God’s kingdom.

In a world that is increasingly complex, networks “are becoming the paradigm to uncover the hidden architecture of complexity.”(1) The last 20 years in particular have seen much progress in network science and theory, allowing a certain level of abstraction and way of looking at the world. Network theory can help us understand how things are related to one another, as well as how groups emerge and evolve.

In a highly influential trilogy (2) published between 1996 and 1998, sociologist and theorist Manuel Castells described what he termed the “network society,” a new form of human society that resulted from socio-cultural and technological developments at the end of the twentieth-century. The impact of this network society is hard to overstate, being no less than “a transformation of space and time in the human experience.”(3) Individuals experience this through more connections between the local and the global (leading, to tensions between universal tendencies and local, rooted identities).

The first lesson for those interested in mission within Europe, is that the missional context has changed. Western society is less linear and more multi-directional, more connected, than ever before. Good mission practice depends on understanding our missional context, and that context is increasingly characterised by the networks we belong to, whether personal social media networks or more formal networks linking institutions we work for or with.

Secondly, we should be asking how networks can be established, utilised or harnessed as Christians participate in God’s mission in Europe: what do networks help us do (or be)? What might they look like? What problems might they cause or alleviate? And how do we know if they’re working? Some of these questions are at least partially answered in the articles that follow.

We can identify at least five major types of network relevant to our discussion:  geographical, demographic, denominational, special interest and resourcing

TYPES OF NETWORK

Geographical (e.g. local, national, regional)

Networks based on local, national or regional  geographical areas. These have a long tradition and a clear logic; they also tend to be effective at ensuring coverage and representation. Europe-wide examples include EEA and EEMA, and national examples include AEM (Germany) and EZA (Netherlands).

Demographic (e.g. based on ethnicity, gender, age, etc.)

Based on commonalities or similarities amongst participants such as ethnicity, gender or age, for example the Mission-Net movement and congress for 16-30 year olds across Europe.  Strengths of this type of network are common identities and, to an extent, shared values and experiences. But there may be a narrowness or lack of awareness of alternative perspectives, given their relative homogeneity.

Denominational

Whilst interdenominational collaboration is certainly a feature of European mission, it is equally true that some networks are based on a shared identity, practice and theology, such as the European Baptist Federation.

Special interest

These networks are a comparatively recent development and based around issues ranging from church planting and unreached people groups, to advocacy, Muslim ministries and refugees.5 This development means that some forms of missions network have become highly specialised and focussed.

Resourcing

To an extent, all networks are resourcing networks, especially when one considers information and knowledge as a key resource. However, some networks exist specifically to resource individuals and organizations, whether financially or through other means of support, including prayer, training and member care.

There will be, of course, variations within these different types of network: they may be predominantly online/virtual, or mainly physical; they may be more or less hierarchical; they may be relatively open or more closed; more or less tightly defined or regulated. Some networks straddle two (or more) of the five types identified here; and we should also acknowledge the existence of meta-networks (networks or clusters of networks), which may connect different regions or diverse special interests.

What are some of the anticipated benefits of such networks? In a recent article on networks across the global church, Kärin Butler Primuth identified three: access to information and resources; opportunities to partner; and leveraging mutual strengths to achieve more together. (4) Aside from these practical or efficiency gains, there is surely a positive missional impact: when Christians, churches and agencies cooperate or collaborate, their unity and mutuality are a positive expression of the very Gospel they proclaim.

Despite these benefits, however, there are three dangers that we need to be aware of. Firstly, networks have the potential to be exclusionary if they are not connecting all the relevant people: are there barriers to entry that prevent certain types of people from joining any given network? These may not be apparent at first but are worth trying to identify. Secondly, networks may potentially exacerbate the “bubble effect”, whereby we only hear from – and engage with – those who are like ourselves. Recent research has indicated that social media networks such as Facebook have contributed to this tendency. And thirdly, we need to ensure that networks are not purposelessly duplicated, instead asking what is the additional value of any proposed network. Not only is duplication inefficient, it can also lead to competition between networks ostensibly working towards the same goals. For networks involved in Christian mission, it is important to recognise each network’s particular strengths and contribution to mission, and to develop a spirit of cooperation and collaboration.

A final thought returns us to one of our opening observations: that modern life is increasingly characterised by interconnectedness and what was termed “the network society.” The question is whether mission-minded Christians are making the most of existing, alternative networks – outside of the Christian networks outlined here, and elsewhere in this issue of Vista. For all our focus on starting or joining missions networks, are there other (‘secular’) networks that we could utilise? Joining such networks will at times be more effective, more strategic and more productive than exclusively Christian alternatives: it may be more appropriate, for example, to join a social justice network or group of community activists, rather than creating a parallel (or conflicting) network specially for Christians.

Those who pause to reflect on theological aspects of networks, and their implications, typically refer to one of two passages, each of which conveys a powerful image: the vine and branches from John’s gospel; and the church as body in Paul’s letters, most notably 1 Corinthians. Each of these images is instructive for Christian networks, communicating a deep interconnectedness, akin to elements of a living organism – and, crucially, connection to Christ. A different but complementary view is to see secular networks across Europe as opportunities to “let your light shine before others” in effective and strategic ways. That is to say, networks are both tools for further mission and mission fields in their own right.

Chris Ducker

1 Caldarelli, G. & Catanzaro, M. (2012) Networks – A Very Short Introduction, p.6.

2 Castells, M. The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture trilogy – Volume 1: The Rise of the Network Society (1996, 2009); Volume 2: The Power of Identity (1997, 2009); Volume 3: End of Millennium (1998, 2010).

3 Castells, M. (2010, p.xxxi).

4 Primuth, K. (2015) “Mission Networks: Connecting the Global Church,” EMQ 51, pp.214-218.

5 See www.lausanne.org/all-issue-networks and www.linkingglobalvoices.com for examples.