This article seeks to answer the question: how can a migrant ministry be developed in such a manner that it is theological, but at the same time practically relevant? In answering this question, the article proposes a conceptual model for a practical migrant ministry with the following dimensions: theological reflection, public theology, practical theology and ecclesiology. Firstly, the article problematises the issue by locating migrant ministry within a holistic ministry framework. Secondly, it outlines some presuppositions that should inform the model design. Thirdly, it presents the proposed model. The article aims to conceptualise the design of a holistic migrant ministry by employing a public practical theology and operative ecclesiological approach. The approach entails churches understanding their public practical theological position and responsive role within their communities and social settings, resulting in advocating and leveraging church resources to respond to people’s needs.

The expectation of churches to provide practical assistance to migrant people is expected to increase despite compassion fatigue due to burn out and the enormity of the task (Louw 2015:1–2; Schjonberg 2017:1):

Theologically, churches’ practical interventions to migrants are understood from the perspective of holistic mission. Holistic ministry or mission is denoted by terms such as integral mission, compassionate ministry, Christian development, transformation, and many others (Chester 2004:62–64; Magezi & Mutowa 2018:124). A holistic ministerial approach entails helping people both materially and spiritually. Holistic ministry is traced back to God as a God of holistic mission. The argument for holistic mission is that the theme of missions begins in the book of Genesis and is seen throughout the entire Old Testament and the New Testament (Timothy n.d). Holistic mission scholars maintain that mission begins with the creation of the world in perfect harmony under the Lordship of God (Gn 1–2) and humans in relationship with their creator as stewards of the creation (Gn 1:27–30). The Bible presents the story of God’s mission through God’s people in their engagement with God’s world for the sake of the whole of God’s creation, which was distorted by sin. In view of this, the Bible should be understood messianically and missionally. Therefore, it is important to view the churches’ participation in reaching out to the world from a holistic ministry stance (Andrews 2017; Bosch 1991; Chester 2004; Padilla 2004; Timothy n.d; Tizon 2010; Wright 2017).

Bosch (1991:512) maintains that Christian mission should integrate word and deed (integrated) in order to be holistic in its approach. ‘Christians across the divide agree that integral mission is the appropriate way of doing Christian ministry’ (Magezi & Mutowa 2018:124). Therefore, it is imperative for churches to be involved in holistic ministry (Samuel 2010:128–136). The involvement of churches in practical ministry defines their ‘being’. Christianity changes peoples’ hearts. Faith inspires good works (Woolnough 2010). Local churches and denominations are the bedrock of community transformations (Miles & De Villiers 2010:149–159; Raistrick 2010:138–148). Despite the clearly agreed position by most Christians that Christian ministry should be holistic, appropriate and relevant, there is lack of clarity on how such holistic mission should be done in practice (Magezi & Mutowa 2018). Holistic mission is characterised superficially with little in-depth reflection (Myers 2010:121). Notably, the concept of holistic ministry is influenced by the ministry context. However, there is a gap on specific ministry practice guidelines. While this study focuses on ministry to migrants as a ministerial approach, it falls under holistic ministry. Thus, the holistic ministry guides should be applied.

Stott’s (1996) Historic mission documents from the Lausanne Movement 1974–1989 exposition is instructive regarding holistic missions’ developments. Stott (1996) has been involved in holistic mission for about five decades starting from the 1960’s until the 1974 Lausanne conference consensus with other theologians like Padilla, Samuel, Sugden and many others.

Having been involved in holistic mission for many decades, Stott (1996) observes that from the 1960’s until 1974, holistic mission was characterised by thorough theological thinking, which is not the case in recent years (Myers 2010:120–122). Therefore, Stott (1996) warns that, as time has passed since the Lausanne covenant (1974) and the Manila Manifesto (1989), there is a younger generation of Christian leaders who are unfamiliar with the important theological and missiological thinking incorporated in these important documents. Thus, different to the theological debates on holistic mission in the 1970s and 1980s, Myers (2010:121) observes that the current holistic mission situation is characterised by two aspects. Firstly, ‘holistic mission (evangelism and social action) is now a historical footnote’ (Myers 2010). Secondly, ‘people and organisations are just getting on with transformational development (holistic mission) with little or no reflection’. The idea that the holistic mission debate is now a historical footnote and theologians are simply getting on with holistic mission, suggests a simplistic assumption that the theological underpinnings are well understood and exhausted. Therefore, it is important to note that’ at the current moment in holistic mission, Stott’s warning in 1996 of uninformed young Christians was expressed as a reality in a lamenting manner by … Myers (2010) who states that:

Theological reflection is one side of the holistic mission gap, while actual practice is the other. It seems unclear how Christian non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and churches should do integral mission in real life. It is difficult to clearly distinguish the activities of churches deemed integral (i.e. integrating word and deed) from those of Christian organisations and secular organisations. Magezi and Mutowa (2018:126) rightly question: ‘should the programmes be different? How? Why? This lack of clarity on the practicality of integral mission makes it operationally questionable and suspicious as a concept.’ Therefore, it is critical to theologically reflect and conceptualise integral ministry in practice. Such a theological and practical ministry design conceptualisation contributes to addressing Myers’ … question (2010:121): What … in the world does it mean to say, ‘get on with holistic mission’, both conceptually and operationally? The ‘get on with holistic mission’-approach attitude resulted in Christians having ‘agreed on the gospel validity of both evangelism and social action, stopping to work conceptually and theologically’ (Myers 2010).

In view of the above discussion, migration is our holistic intervention issue in consideration. Notably, in implementing migrant holistic interventions, churches should be understood as different to other organisations. At stake is the question: How should church driven migrant interventions look like? How should such a holistic ministry or intervention differ from a non-church ministry? These questions are at the heart of the integral mission vacuum. There is need for clarity on what church, or Christian driven migrant practical ministry interventions should look like. For instance, is there a difference between a church that provides a shelter to migrants or NGOs also providing the same service? If there is a difference, how should it look like? In this light, Magezi and Mutowa (2018:126) ask the following question: How does a church driven children ministry differs from a similar intervention being done by Plan international, World Vision or any other NGO?

Further to being, a holistic mission’s issue that is the design of migrant interventions entails a practical ministerial approach. As such it is a practical theological approach. Practical theology focuses on developing theories of praxis (Hermans & Schweitzer 2013; Louw 2014; Osmer 2008). Accordingly, it is critical to reflect and explore praxis theories of migrant ministry intervention approaches. It should be underlined that for a practical theological approach such as migration intervention driven by churches to be located within practical church ministry, it should be considered a theological endeavour. Ganzevoort (2009) notes that, despite the differences that practical theologians have, they all agree that practical theology is a theological enterprise. What does it mean to say a practical theological approach should be theological? A sociologist engaging in migrant ministry or an NGO practitioner may be involved in migrant ministry using the same methodologies as a theologian, but a theologian focuses on the divine (Ganzevoort 2009). Thus, migrant ministry as a practical theological approach, probes how the interventions intentionally relate to the divine in terms of its goals and motivation.

Theory formation in migrant ministry as a practical theological ministry, should maintain clarity between church, its mission, goal and society. On the one hand, the ministry should be clearly theological, but at the same time practically relevant and applicable to address people’s practical challenges. This dichotomy is inevitable. Louw (1998), writing within the context of pastoral care, indicates that practical theologians call this tension ‘principle of bipolarity’. In locating bipolarity directly in practical theological thinking, Louw (2014) advises that:

The principle of bipolarity indicates that knowledge is embedded in different polarities influencing the process of knowing and responding to life situations. Osmer (2008) clarifies and applies the interplay of these polarities by explaining that practical theology has a descriptive task (What is going on?) and an interpretive task (Why is this going on?), which draws from social sciences and other theories. Furthermore, to these tasks is the third task called a normative task (i.e. What ought to be going on?). The knowledge generated from social sciences (polarity 1) and the ideal knowledge from God’s perspective drawn from the biblical text (polarity 2) are integrated to develop practical strategic ministry interventions, which is a pragmatic task (How might we respond?).

Thus, in theory formation, the ongoing interaction of theory and praxis should be observed. Regrettably, the weakness in some practical approaches is that responses are pragmatic (praxis), but with little theological reflection (theory), while the other responses focus on theological reflection (theory) with little practical application (praxis). Therefore, theory and practice should cooperate and integrate to practically inform, shape and respond to real life issues. When practical theology results in shaping real life interventions and issues, it becomes a life science (Louw 2017:1). Theoretical formulations should be embedded in intentional practical implications.

Migrant ministry praxis should be underpinned by a clear theological theory. At stake is … the following question: How can a migrant ministry be thoroughly theological, but at the same time practically relevant? Formulated differently: What migrant practical ministerial approach can be conceptualised to maintain clarity on the uniqueness of the church and social ministry?

This article proposes a conceptual model for a practical migrant ministry with the following dimensions: theological reflection, public theology, practical theology and ecclesiology. The proposed conceptual approach is public, practical theology and operative ecclesiology.

Several presuppositions that undergird a migrant practical ministry to make it theological and practical should be identified. The presuppositions highlight the critical aspects in the interface between practical theology, public theology, congregational ministry and the practical service to society. Kamp (2001) rightly advises that presuppositions are important to guide our understanding of a ministerial approach. Thus, these presuppositions inform the model and guide our understanding of the proposed approach as well as provide a point of departure for the ministerial approach. Hence, it is important to understand how they arise. The presuppositions will serve as guiding principles for our model design:

In view of the above presuppositions and the previous discussion, what conceptualisation of a public, practical theology and operative ecclesiological migrant ministry approach should be proposed?

The proposed migrants’ ministry model or approach is called a public operative ecclesiological model (POEM). POEM is about a church that understands its public practical theological position and responsive role within the community and its social setting. It is about a church that leverages its resources to respond to people’s needs by ensuring that a church becomes operative and functional in response to pressing social issues (operative ecclesiology) such as migration. This entails that a church develops ‘an ecosystem of care for spiritual and physical needs of migrants’ (Magezi 2018:325). Such a church can be deemed a public church. The church is aware of the current situation of migration and the challenges associated with both migrants and host communities. The model can be systemically presented as a diagrammatic web of interrelated responses represented by arrows indicating pathways on interventions (Figure 1).

POEM is an attempt to conceptualise a public, practical theology and operative ecclesiological migrant ministry. Central to the model is the need for the church to maintain its distinction as a spiritual entity amid social challenges affecting her and her members. This distinction should be an explicit assumption. Responding to migrants’ needs is part of churches’ holistic ministry. The presuppositions driving such a ministry should be public, practical and theological in nature. It has been argued and POEM presented as a model for a church that understands its public practical theological position and responsive role within the community and its social setting. In this context, the church leverages its resources to respond to people’s real-life needs.