Post-conference reflection by the African public theologian Israel Orofinjana encourages the majority of world Christian leaders to propose a mythology rooted in the reality of suffering rather than local contexts, the work of the Holy Spirit, and not in Western management models or import theology, and to reclaim the institutions on a global mission.
Olofinjana, director of the One People Committee of the Evangelical Alliance in the UK, writes after a gathering of the Conversation of the Majority Christian Leaders (MWCLC) that brought about around 115 theologians, mythology, pastors and practitioners from Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East. He said the Dubai Conference called for “rethinking Christian faith and mission” by giving space to the majority world voices to define priorities without Western control in theology, methods, finance and infrastructure.
He noticed a strong diversity, but also acknowledged a gap in expression, including the absence of French-speaking Africans and Oceania, as well as few participants from the Caribbean. Still, he said that the conversation crystallized four interlocking themes that form the majority world agenda: identity, the Holy Spirit, mission, disciples.
Interrogating identity in the shape of a colonial morphology
The central thread is the lasting imprint of colonization on Christian identity, disciples and missions, Olofinjana said. Based on Latin American colonial thinkers, reflection summed the “coloniality of power” (racial economic class), the “coloniality of knowledge” (privileges of European epistemology”, the “coloniality of existence” (restraints of language, culture, and dignity), and the “coloniality of belief” (extension of European Christianity” (extension of European Christianity).
He argued that the decolonization mission required recognition of regional differences, including the dynamics of Palestinian (re)settlers, the legacy of Africa’s enslavement and occupation, the history of Latin American conquerors, and the distribution and domination of empires throughout Asia.
Fragmentation persists through linguistic, tribal, doctrinal and socioeconomic divisions that promote duplication and competition, he said. Conversely, Western institutions can often homogenize majority world identities and select single diaspora leaders to “facing” for a vast and diverse community. Olofinjana urged majority world Christians to challenge stereotypes and build a collaborative structure that reflects actual community representation.
The shape of the Holy Spirit and Mythology
The reflexes pressed pneumatically grounded mythology, warning that administration could overturn mental identification. Olofinjana has contrasted with “management mythology” and “pneumatic missions,” but he pays attention to caricatures. Some Western missions are spirit-based, and some majority world organisations are highly bureaucratic. The question he wrote is, “defining our methodology to the extent that impulses are “crippled by the other.”
He also weighed the relative influence of Western reformed traditions with indigenous Pentecostal streams. Given the historical prosperity of Pentecostal renewal in numerous world contexts, from the indigenous churches in Africa to the revival of Jamaica, the Mukti mission in India, to the early 20th century movements in Korea, he asked why Pentecostal insights remain “secondary” in the accepted mission theology. He argued that majority world theology should not be drawn from ancient Christian traditions (e.g. Coptic and Indian Orthodox) and be limited to the framework of European reform.
A disciple who surpasses metrics
Calling suffering “norms in missionary agendas,” Orofinjana questioned the model of disciple driven by numerical growth, donor-friendly reporting, and step-by-step formulas. He warned that people can reduce to statistics that provide institutional goals rather than thriving as disciples. He said an effective model should integrate both competent management and mentally driven preparation into expensive contexts, and form followers who embrace and equip the theology of suffering.
Context missions and contested languages
In mission practice, Orofinjana highlighted an open question: Who leads contextualization? How does Asia engage in inter-fictional reality, should Africa stand up to the renaissance of African religions and the rise of harmful cults, and does Latin America apply free hermeneutics to indigenous, Catholic and sociopolitical realities?
He further asked whether the majority world church should reconsider the very vocabulary of “missions, missionaries, missionaries” given that colonial baggages could be carried and instead develop Indigenous minority phors and symbols for comprehensive witnesses.
Characteristics of mission studies in the majority world
From his research and conference dialogue, Olofinjana has identified two core features of mission studies in the majority world. At first I’m suffering. With all 50 countries on the latest persecution watch list in the majority world, he argued that credible mythology must consider the “martian mission,” a theology shaped in a context in which faith often makes sacrifices. He also warned of Western triumphs publicly highlighting the suffering of others without addressing the deeper meaning of justice.
The second is liberation. Given the long history of imperialism, colonization, conquest and enslavement, the majority of world theology have developed a free perspective on seeking freedom from the constraints imposed in Latin American liberation theology, South African black theology, Palestinian liberation theology, and American black theology.
Olofinjana urged the majority world churches to bring these free insights to a global mission and speak to issues that Western Christianity often ignored or contested. He specifically called the suffering of Palestine and Gaza the “mythological crisis” of the global church, and called for prophetic solidarity accordingly.
He also named Climate and Environmental Justice a common prioritization, noting that the crisis is global but its impact will be disproportionate to the majority global community. He argued that the contextual and overall worldview of Africa, Asia, Mena, America, Northern Europe and Oceania requires a mythology that integrates creative care with biblical fidelity.
From dependence to interdependence
Olofinjana said the durable path involves building a majority world agency in identity, witness, theology and leadership. He proposed a practical “colonial framework” of questions to assess partnerships. Does this initiative create dependencies or interdependencies? Who ultimately benefits and whose sacrifices are being made? Where is the electricity concentrated?
He encouraged young leaders and continued investment in theological formations that resist “epistemistic colonization,” noting that many world scholars are trained in the western paradigms. He states that the long-term purpose is an indigenous, contextual and prophetic mission that serves world Christianity, including Western expressions, by integrating in the care of suffering, liberation and creation;
“The majority world is growing numerically,” he said.
Orofinjana argued that “if the majority of world Christians become independent first before entering into interdependence with Western Christianity, we must develop our own institutions and self-determination,” resisting the colonial framework, “reimagining our existence without such constraints and continuing to build an inherent theology that addresses global issues.
They concluded that these steps form a “unique majority world mission” that ultimately benefits churches across the world, including the West.
The full text is available here.
