Critical missiology from the periphery in relation to Christian transformative witness in Uzbekistan

The second half of the twentieth century, as never before, has been remarkably characterized by various discussions and debates on the subject of mission. New prospects and fresh interpretations have emerged from academics and practitioners as a result of relating the Church mission to a constantly changing context in which Christianity has found itself. Missiologists started to realize that the previously dominating approaches had become irrelevant and acknowledged the urgency of rethinking the mission across the globe. As a result of this, a different treatment of the mission took place which not only broke with previous conventional ways of viewing mission but also competed with and, even in some instances, contradicted other new approaches. At this point, it is already commonly known that mission has come to mean different things to various people depending on their backgrounds, positions, premises. It is still debated whether this or that interpretation or approach is valid. This plurality of interpretations and polarity of opinions has led many to be confused and anxious. Although they do have some reasons for concern and anxiety, there is still a sense of desire for a unified and monolithic approach to the mission, which in turn, simplifies and reduces the great and diverse Mission of God.

Is there any chance for us to overcome our particularities and find a solution out of this tension of interpolations? Only by carefully listening to one another and acknowledging the right of the whole Christian community to participate in the formation of a missiological agenda and enterprise, are we able to get rid of our own ignorance, bias, and fear. Today more than ever, I feel the need to reconsider the missionary venture as the common work of all God’s people. Mission must now be from all nations and to all nations. Since the current global missiological discourse is characterized by a multitude of perspectives, there is a danger of reducing God’s diverse and multifaceted mission to a merely homogeneous and monolithic enterprise.

This succinct essay briefly outlines the shift that has “already, but not yet” happened in missiological circles across the globe from exclusivity to inclusion, from isolation to embrace, from arrogance to the need for each other to create a place for missiological discourse. Special attention is given to the marginalized, and the often called “critical missiology from the periphery” perspective with all additional related concepts and its relevance to the current context of Uzbekistan.

Missiological Venture as a Global Partnership

For a long period of time, the western world was considered the Centre of the Christian world and the source of the entire mission enterprise. All movements and actions in missions were flowing in the same direction, from the Christian Western world to the other parts of the world. The latter were conceived as missionary targets. Most of the current and available literature on missiology, considering this approach to mission (mission from Christendom), confesses that this was not only the desire to fulfil the so-called “great commission” but also the dispersal and expansion of Western civilization, culture, ideas and values. It was often characterized by a power of dominance, colonization and imperialism. In this regard, Andrew Walls in his introductory statement to his book Mission in the 21st Century – Five Marks of the Global Mission writes that from the 16th to the 20th century, all classical missionary movement was bound up to the great “migration” of Europeans to the other regions of the world (Walls & Ross 2008). While he avoids giving a superficial assessment of this approach and writing off its achievements, he stresses the results of the changes that have happened in the world. According to him, the current world does not have a center or a neutral flow of resources, information, and wisdom from one part to the other (Walls & Ross 2008).

There is no need to point to the inadequacy and fallacy of this perspective as it already has been widely recognized and criticized both the Christian and the secular world (Dunch 2002). The criticism was so strong that some even refused to use the term “mission” in the following year due to a negative association with the imperial tendencies of the Western world. A representative of the Catholic world, such as Bevans, talks about the prophetic dialogue instead of “mission” when referring to the activity of the church today (Bevans 2004), while members of the Anabaptist missiology speak of the term “witness” (Shenk 2001). The famous school of Mission Studies in Pasadena, California was renamed to the Centre of Intercultural Studies (Wrogemann 2018). This ambiguity brought the Christian world to a series of conferences that took place in the 20th century which were focused on rethinking the mission.

Much of the debate was on the issue of the nature of mission, its aims and foundation. Before that, “mission” was used in a univocal sense. It at least had a circumscribed set of meanings which was understood from the perspective of the expansion, conversion, and planting of churches. The traditional understanding began to be questioned and new broader vistas of interpretation came out which modified the classical understanding. The Trinitarian foundation of mission was emphasized, and the focus of mission shifted from the Church to God. Neither the Church nor even missionary organizations are the initiators or authors of the mission, but God himself is. This is “Missio Dei” God’s mission (Newbiggin 1995).

The changes also affected the very nature of the Church. The entire existence of the church is now characterized as a missionary existence, where mission is an intrinsic part of the nature of the Church (Goheen 2018). In the light of these changes, mission is primarily about being a community of God’s people, whose aim is not only to proclaim the good news but to demonstrate it in deeds of love and mercy (Samuel 2009), relating Salvation to the present needs of society (Myers, 2011) since the accent has shifted from sending to being. In other words, through rethinking, the mission has taken on a broader meaning where it is not limited to the preaching of the Gospel and planting of churches. It absorbs and integrates social involvement and the transformation of society and culture.

One of the advocates of a broad definition of mission, Wright (often called the representative of “Missio Dei” perspective), introduces a broad definition of mission that encompasses all elements. According to him, “mission is the activity that the church undertakes, under the Lordship of Christ, in building the church, caring for creation, and serving society” (Wright 2006). Along with others (Newbiggin 1995; Bosch 2011; Wilbert 2007; Goheen 2016; Köstenberger, & O’Brien 2007), he insists on rediscovering the missiological nature of the whole Scripture providing a more solid and grounded theological basis founded on the overarching narrative of the whole Scripture (Wright 2006). In contrast to the classical foundation for mission which Bosch characterized as a minimum and fragile approach (Bosch 2011:4) that bases mission on some familiar and fragmented texts, representatives of the new approach talk about the missiological foundation of the whole Bible and the Bible as a missiological document.

Historically there has been a long debate in the twentieth century among different Christian groups, especially after Lausanne 74 and Wheaton 83, over the narrow and wide interpretation of mission, between prioritization and holism, between a vertical dimension of Salvation and a horizontal one, where representatives of the first world argued about the former, while the adherents of the third world emphasized the latter. Even though some Christian circles continue to affirm that these are mutually exclusive entities, most scholars see the need for an integrated approach where all efforts transform the lives of people and societies holistically. Despite different understandings, there is a clear consensus that evangelism and socio-political action are an integral part of the goal of mission. Our task here is not to thoroughly reveal the rethinking of the mission, nor to immerse our self in long debate but to try to understand the reasons that led to this reconsidering and revision of the mission.

Obviously, there were certainly many reasons for this revision, but there is one that characterizes current Christianity and is highlighted by many authors as the main contribution to the reassessment of mission – the contemporary global nature of Christianity (Walls 1996; Bosch 2011; Hiebert 2009; Engel 2000). As we are going to discuss current missiological implications of the global nature of current Christianity, we must stress the fact that this phenomenon has affected different conversations. Because World Christianity supposes that churches in different parts of the world will approach theology differently, it encourages the “church” and “mission” to be thought of from particular angles and with certain premises in fresh ways that make sense to them and stem from their own context.

Besides the global nature of Christianity which has already emphasized the diversity of Christianity and highlighted the polarities of theologies, there is now a Global mission community that is polycentric with many sending and receiving centers (Robert 2016). It is worth noting that interest in global missiological reflection as a common partnership of the whole Christian world is increasing (Tiplady 2013). Walls gives missiological significance to what he calls “the massive southward shift of the Centre of gravity of the Christian world” and the theological consequences that such a shift has for the self-image of churches in both the North and the South (Walls 1996:78). With the transition of Christianity to southern countries, the Church of the South will have to engage in mission in its own way. What they already do, and their special missionary voice will become more powerful for the Christian world.

A similar idea comes from Escobar who states that after World War 2, Evangelicals started to understand mission as a global task in which the churches of the North Atlantic world enter creative patterns of partnership with churches in the Third World (Escobar 2000:32). This common partnership is particularly important because this process brought up new and valid missiological reflections that addressed the issue of social transformation, poverty alleviation, human rights, social and political dimensions of missionary action which reflected the Third World settings. According to Walls, in a new global Christian world, “we have started a journey of discovering new facets and faces of mission within different contexts” (Walls and Ross 2008). The “context” concept with all its different versions, has become mostly used by scholars because of the transition of Christianity to the Global South where a new and fresh dimension of missions has been discovered. All this has led missiologists to question their own capacity to give a comprehensive definition of the term “mission.” Since Bosch’s fabulous and magnificent work, Transforming Mission (Bosch 2011), missiologists today talk more about the facets or paradigms of mission (Bevans 2004; Walls 1996; Bosch 2011; Schreiber 2005). As Bosch stressed, a comprehensive and universal definition of mission remains indefinable (Bosch 2011).

Critical Missiology from the Periphery

The hegemony of the West in the theological and missiological enterprise is declining with the shift of church gravity to the non-western world. The benefits brought by Third World countries to the “common table” were well noted in theological reflections in the emergence of local theologies, such as African, South American, and Asian theologies. The full insights for missional reflection are still not fully recognized and have yet to be discovered. A proper understanding of the current global nature of Christianity will prompt us to allow representatives of the wide world to be involved in reflections about mission. As Christianity penetrated Third World countries in a completely different cultural, political, religious, economical context from where it came from, it acquired new colors as people tried to make sense of the Gospel and make it significant to their reality. A particular way of doing and reflecting about mission has been formed while people thought about witnessing in their own specific context. This peculiar way of approaching mission has been captured and designated by Samuel Escobar as “critical missiology from the periphery.” At the World Evangelical Association (WEA) Iguassu Missiological Consultation, held in Brazil in October 1999, Escobar delivered a paper where he discussed the future of Evangelical missiology (Escobar 2000:107). As he reflected on the future of mission among Evangelicals, he describes current trends or schools of Evangelical missiology that emerged after World War 2 and which in his view, epitomize the present missiological trajectory of Evangelicals across the globe. Escobar suggested three missiological schools or approaches that he felt were important within Evangelicalism. The schools he introduced were “managerial missiology,” “post-imperial missiology”, and “critical missiology from the periphery” (Escobar 2000:108).

While this triple framework interacts with different missiological trends in North America or Europe, his particular interest turned towards the missiology of the non-Western World (Beattie 2007:148). He designated this particular way of doing and reflecting on mission developed in the Third World context “critical missiology from the periphery”. By this, he means a group of people who belong to a specific school or have a common approach to mission. He chooses this specific title for the school because it reflects not only a common geographical origin and shared pains, suffering, life experience of poverty and oppression, but also because of the still insignificant power of influence on the missionary enterprise and, as yet a weak ability to define the missionary discourse worldwide (Escobar 2000). It is critical in the sense of going beyond the previous western approach to mission, which predominantly views mission from the numeric or quantitative perspective.

Critical missiology from the periphery refers to missiologists who adopted a more critical stance to missiological themes and approaches popular in the 20th century, who take serious account of their own social settings as they reflect on mission in their own context (Beattie 2007:148). This school of mission is characterized by the shared common missiological themes and emphases which provide a solid basis for Christian commitment to the transformation of the society. This missiological thrust is devoted to a deep study of the social significance of the Christian truth and is distinguished by the fact that socially transformative dimensions are unavoidable in any reflection and practice of mission.

In Escobar’s view, this is precisely a missing point of the “Managerial missiology” and crucial for those who are witnessing to a Kingdom in a struggling context. Representatives of this group have an interest in common theological and biblical themes in relation to the mission of the church, such as the Kingdom of God and Creation. These themes are constantly rehearsed in missiological reflections from authors such as Padilla 2010, Escobar 2014, Samuel 2002, Sudden 2003, Maggay 2004, Wright 2006, Engel 2000, Goheen 2016, and many others and are directly linked with social dynamism of the Gospel and the transformative power of the conversion to Christ as a foundation for social transformation.

Moreover, this school has a strong emphasis on the role of a community of the Kingdom. This community within context advocates for change and hope and shows the implication of the Biblical themes such as Creation and the concept of the Kingdom of God not merely for Christian belief but for Christian living (Beattie 2007:85). While there are different emphases within this school recognized by many authors, there is a common and shared commitment to a social transformation as an integral part of the mission of the church (Beattie 2007:76). Obviously, thanks to this school of mission, rethinking of the mission towards a wide interpretation that embraces all aspects of human existence has happened.

We are able to expand Escobar’s framework, adding some ramifications. Although Escobar originated the concept of “mission from the margins” or “mission from bellow” as part of Third World missiological reflections, in another article, “Mission from the Margins to the Margins: Two cases from the Latin America” (Escobar 1998), and in his paper “Peering the Future of Evangelical Missiology” he uses the term “periphery” virtually in terms of the role of the Third World in formation of missiological agenda and preoccupation of the West in imposing, as the former center.

Inspired by post-colonial academical studies where the interplay between the concepts of “center and periphery” and other associations such as “power and powerless,” “authority and weakness” and “superiority and subordination” (Cohen 2000) are widely used, he turns this discussion to the formation of a missiological agenda, exposing the power of the Western world in this process. By expanding the term “periphery”, I think it is quite legitimate to relate similar a concept “mission from the margins” with “critical missiology from the periphery,” since the southern regions, where Christianity has moved, are marginalized in terms of economic development and cultural hegemony, moreover, they are communities of minorities in their own context. This understanding is overlapping with Costa’s model of “contextual evangelization from the periphery” (Costas 2002) and the Anabaptist model of the Shenk “mission from the margins” (Wilbert 2007).

All these quite similar movements contributed to the re-imaging of the mission of the church in the world and rediscovered a new Biblical model of mission which is closer to the New Testament type of mission in the pre-Constantine period. They suggested a new and radically different vantage point that not only helps to understand how God’s mission is realized and His will is fulfilled in this world (through weakness, meekness and suffering) but also offers a unique vantage point from which to see and experience the impact of forces that deny and thwart God’s desire for this world to have fullness of life so that participation of the church in God’s missional activities in this world might be truly life-affirming and transformative (Mitchell 2012).

Possible and Potential Correlations

One of the problems is that this school is virtually unknown to Central Asian churches. As other Post Soviet churches have been isolated from a Global Evangelical missiological discourse for a long period of time, and then remained in a relative political freedom with one conversational partner, North American Fundamentalists. Since these Fundamentalists predominantly shaped our understanding of theology and mission, it is not surprising that this approach to mission is ignored. Whatever the case might be, we have to look carefully at this particular school and see whether a creative correlation of this model within the Uzbek contemporary context is possible. What shape will mission take if missionary vocation becomes popular among the people who live as margins of the society and not as mainstream? How will people from the margins be engaged in mission? The western models of mission are less of use here because they have been shaped in a quite different context – mission from above, from the position of power and progress. One of the possibilities is to consider the application of the model of “mission from the margins/periphery” to the Uzbek Christian community and verify whether this approach is adequate for enabling and encouraging the witness of the Uzbek local church in their own settings.

I believe this approach to mission has some insights that might bring vitality to the mission of the Uzbek churches and renew its missional vocation since there are certain similarities between the context in which the mission from the periphery emerged and the Uzbek context. Like Christians from other Third World countries, Christians in Uzbekistan are struggling under an oppressive regime and unjust economic structures, religious persecution, and as a result, there are many social issues, poverty and oppression which bring people suffering and hardships. As a Post-Soviet country, Uzbekistan is still struggling to break with the pernicious patterns of the Soviet legacy from one side and fear of radical Islamic groups and Islamization of the country from the other. The country has been considered one the most restrictive and violent regimes in Central Asia by International organizations from its independence until the present day.^[1]

Moreover, marginality is embedded in the genes of the Evangelical movement in Central Asia, not only because of the small number (less than one percent in Uzbekistan), but also due to its past. The Evangelical movement in Central Asia began with being marginalized and Evangelicals were outcasts in the society. After long absence and disappearance of Christianity in Central Asia, the new wave of Christianity began through exiled people. Some of these people were sent to Central Asia as prisoners (my grandmother was a devoted Ukrainian Orthodox Christian who was sent to gulags of Kazakhstan in cattle wagons together with her family), some as “new land explorers,” while others as part of the resettlement program. As they suffered, they prepared the ground for the Gospel and left marks in the spiritual history of the countries to which they went, and these stories continue to influence the communities they have founded.

It is not surprising that the majority of believers in Central Asia are women. Among post-Soviet Evangelical Christians, as it is globally, the number of women is higher than the number of men. It is interesting to note that the recent revivals and awakenings in Uzbekistan were connected with the women. One of the first and prominent indigenous churches in Uzbekistan was started by a man who was converted and appointed to this ministry by a woman. There is no need to talk about the status of women in the Islamic culture here, but it is quite surprising that precisely through women God continues to work in Asia. The history of the conversion of my large extended family (more than 70 people) began with the conversion of one woman – my aunt. And there are dozens of such fascinating stories where God used simple people in a simple place. Most of the people in the church are dregs and victims of the society, people who have been rejected by society, former drug addicts, alcoholics, homeless people and exploited poor. The majority of people in the country consider themselves to be Muslim and, though most of them could be characterized as a nominal, religion still plays an important role in society. When someone comes to Jesus, he experiences tremendous persecution, rejection, betrayal and alienation from his family and community, as it is perceived as a shameful and condemnable act. There has been a strong and severe persecution during the Karimovs dictatorial and paranoiac regime and, fortunately, it was reduced when another leader came to power. All this will lead us to conclude that a believer in Uzbekistan is marginalized in all senses of the word, without mentioning church scrutiny of finances, missing Global partnerships, lack of resources etc.

Now, one has to ask a question: specifically, how can such an approach to mission help believers in Uzbekistan and what theological resources can this school of thought offer to strengthen church witness? In my view, the theological emphasis of this particular school of thought is capable of equipping simple believers in Uzbekistan because it shows an implication of the Biblical themes of Creation, Kingdom of God, and Missional Ethics. It promotes not merely Christian belief, but Christian living. Specifically, for those who don’t have any theological training or other opportunities, it is a daily possibility to find ways to faithfully live out the Gospel across the whole spectrum of human life in the midst of the society that is shaped by different religious beliefs. Resources provided by this school of thought will empower local believers to be a transformative witness on a daily basis wherever she or he is. This is precisely what is missing in mission in Uzbekistan: a model that inspires and encourages for radical life for the Kingdom and helps to focus on mission-shaped vocation, converting ordinary and everyday life into witness to the transforming presence of God, engaging in fierce struggle for life, justice and dignity despite weakness and marginality.

Moreover, this school of thought is stimulating a theological conversation since it encourages the rediscovery of the comprehensive scope and restorative nature of the Gospel and of the other related teachings and concepts. It is precisely theological convictions and assumptions that shapes and determine our understanding of missional engagement in the world. One of the urgent tasks of today for Uzbek Evangelicals is to focus on theological aspect of their practice of mission. In fact, the concept of “mission theology” is utterly unknown to Central Asian Evangelicals either in publications or in ecclesiastical discourse.^[2] The Theological enterprise is predominantly understood in terms of dogmatic/systemic theologies and less in terms of biblical theology. Unfortunately, the theological assumptions of the most Evangelicals in Central Asia that are critical to the church’s mission are otherworldly, dualistic, narrowed and inwardly focused. This is precisely what must be rethought and rearticulated if we want to return to the full-orbed mission of the church where the community cannot see any part of its life outside of its mission to witness to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, this model of mission provides a solid theological foundation for the reassessment of the marginalized condition and position, offering an alternative missional explanation of the suffering, hardships and marginalization that Uzbek believers are experiencing, bringing some theological and missiological resources for integral transformation. From this perspective, the image of suffering of the church does not fuel the expectation of the “coming end” and does not form an apocalyptic and escapist mind-set as what used to be the unequivocal case during the persecution for almost all Evangelicals across the former Soviet Union. In contrast, this view transforms our perception of participation in the “Missio Dei”, where the church is no longer perceived primarily as being over against or above the world, rather as sent into the world and existing for the sake of the world in the way and attitude of Jesus.

There is also practical implication of this approach for the interactions and engagement with our Muslim friends in our own context. As we engage and witness to Muslim people we have to do this not from the perspective of superiority, exclusivity and dispute, as some western aggressive and “brave” spokesmen and apologists insist and still believe. Conversely, “mission from the margins” implies an attitude of dialogue, since dialogue is the way to describe God’s own attitude towards humanity: service, suffering and hope. This approach prompts us to understand that witness to Jesus Christ can only be rendered in ordinary daily life, in the midst of relationship friendship and mutual respect.

Conclusions

So far, mission is virtually a western enterprise and the dominance of the western world is still visible in many reflections, but as the author suggests, the shift has “already but not yet” happened and we are witnessing how other voices become more resonant and louder. Exercises of defining and reflecting on mission have to be an ongoing common process of the all people of God across the Globe as prominent and internationally known missiologists warn us (Padilla 2012; Samuel 2009; Bosch 2011; Walls 1996; Escobar 2014; Wilbert 2007).

In light of today’s global Christian reality, we have no other chance than to involve the whole “world” in the way we think and reflect about mission. This generic and broad definition of mission which was given by the representatives of the “Missio Dei” perspective, in my opinion, leaves space for collaboration and partnership, because it allows mission to be dynamic, flexible, fluid and context-specific, but at the same, time generic and global.

One of the prominent voices that has modified traditional mission is a “critical missiology from periphery” approach which has relevance to renew the missional calling of the church and revive the missionary strength of the church in Uzbekistan, bringing insights and fresh perspectives. A marginal/peripheral approach to mission does indeed have far-reaching implications for mission renewal in Central Asia. As an afterward, I want to quote from Tom Wright: “The whole point of the Kingdom of God is Jesus has come to bear witness to the true truth, which is non-violent. When God wants to take charge of this world, He doesn’t send in the tanks. He sends in the poor and the meek”.^[3]

Bibliography

Books:

1. Bevans, Stephen B, Roger P. Schroeder. Prophetic Dialogue: Reflections on Christian Mission Today. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2011.
2. Bevans, Stephen B, Schroeder, Roger P. Constants in Context. A Theology of Mission for Today. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2004.
3. Bosch, David. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2011.
4. Costas, Orlando E. Liberating News: A Theology of Contextual Evangelization. Reprint edition. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2002.
5. Engel, James. Changing the Mind of Missions: Where Have We Gone Wrong? Illinois: IVP Books, 2000.
6. Escobar, Samuel. Evangelical Missiology: Peering into the Future at the turn of the Century. In: Global Missiology for the 21st Century the Iguassu Dialogue. ML: Grand Rapids, 2000.
7. Goheen, Michael W. Church and Its Vocation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2018.
8. Hiebert, Paul. The Gospel in Human Contexts: Anthropological Explorations for Contemporary Missions MI: Baker Academic, 2009.
9. Maggay, Melba Padilla. Transforming Society: Reflections on the Kingdom and Politics. 2nd ed. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2004.
10. Myers, Bryant L. Walking with the Poor. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2011.
11. Newbigin, Lesslie. The Open Secret: An Introduction to the Theology of Mission. Revised ed. edition. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995.
12. Padilla, C. René. Mission Between the Times: Essays on the Kingdom. Carlisle: Langham Monographs, 2010.
13. Penner, Ubeuvolk, Rusin, Zagidulin. Novie Gorizinti Missii 2. Cherkassy: Colloquium, 2019.
14. Samuel, Vinay. Gospel, Culture, and Transformation: A Reprint with a New Introduction of Part Two Seeking the Asian Face of Jesus. Oxford: Regnum, 2000.
15. Schreiter, Robert J. Constructing Local Theologies. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2015.
16. Walls, Andrew F. Missionary Movement in Christian History: Studies in the Transmission of Faith. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1996.
17. Walls, Andrew and Cathy Ross. Mission in the Twenty-First Century: Exploring the Five Marks of Global Mission. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2008.
18. Willbert, Shenk. Mission from the Margins. In: Anabaptism and Mission. Joseph, MI: Herlad Press, 2007.
19. Wright, Christopher. The mission of God: Unlocking the bible’s grand narrative. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006.
20. Wrogemann, Henning. Theologies of Mission. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2018.

Articles:

1. Dunch, Ryan. Beyond Cultural Imperialism: Cultural Theory, Christian Missions, and Global Modernity. In: History and Theory, 2002, 41/3:301–325.
2. Mitchell, Beverly Eileen. Introducing ‘Mission from the Margins’: Introducing ‘Mission from the Margins’’. In: International Review of Mission, 2012. 101/2:415–417.
3. Robert, D. L. Shifting Southward: Global Christianity since 1945. In: International Bulletin of Missionary Research, 2000, 24/2:50–58.

Thesis:

1. Beattie, Warren R. Transformational Missiology: An Emerging Trend in Evangelical Missiology in Asia: An Analysis with Reference to Selected Asian Writers. Ph.D thesis, University of Edinburgh, 2007. http://hdl.handle.net/1842/18710.

Notes:

1. Personal note from the Tom Wrights presentation: Sounding and compass points: The Biblical basis for spiritual disciplines. Taken at St Andrews Church, Oxford, UK. 4.03.2020.

---

[1] While some reforms and changes have happened when the new president came to power, the future of Uzbekistan is still uncertain and unpredictable.

[2] The only exceptions are relatively few authors from Central Asia who participated in the writing of the two-volume of “New Horizon of Mission”. A common project written by Post Soviet missiologists and reflective practitioners.

[3] Personal note from the Tom Wrights presentation: Sounding and compass points: The Biblical basis for spiritual disciplines. Taken at St. Andrews Church, Oxford, UK. 4.03.2020.