A post-conference reflection by African public theologian Israel Olofinjana urges Majority World Christian leaders to reclaim agency in global mission, proposing a missiology rooted in local contexts, the work of the Holy Spirit, and the lived reality of suffering rather than Western managerial models and imported theologies.

Olofinjana, director of the Evangelical Alliance’s One People Commission in the United Kingdom, wrote after the Majority World Christian Leaders Conversation (MWCLC) gathering, which brought about 115 theologians, missiologists, pastors and practitioners from Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Middle East/North Africa. He said the Dubai meeting sought to “rethink Christian faith and mission” by giving space to Majority World voices to define priorities without Western dominance in theology, methods, finance and infrastructure.

While he noted strong diversity, Olofinjana also acknowledged gaps in representation, including the absence of Francophone Africans and Oceania, and fewer participants from the Caribbean. Even so, he said the conversation crystallized four interlocking themes shaping a Majority World agenda: identity, the Holy Spirit, mission and discipleship.

Interrogating colonially shaped identity

A central thread, Olofinjana said, was the enduring imprint of colonization on Christian identity, discipleship and mission. Drawing on Latin American decolonial thinkers, the reflection summarized “coloniality of power” (race-economy hierarchies), “coloniality of knowledge” (the privileging of European epistemologies), “coloniality of being” (the suppression of language, culture and dignity) and “coloniality of belief” (the imposition of European Christianity as the sole orthodox interpretation).

He argued that decolonizing mission requires recognizing regional differences—such as (re)settler dynamics in Palestine, the legacies of enslavement and occupation in Africa, conquistador histories in Latin America, and imperial partition and control across Asia—and resisting both homogenization and “divide and rule” patterns that still fracture cooperation.

Fragmentation persists, he said, through linguistic, tribal, doctrinal and socioeconomic divides that foster duplication and competition. Conversely, Western institutions often homogenize Majority World identities, selecting a single diaspora leader to “stand in” for vast, diverse communities. Olofinjana urged Majority World Christians to challenge stereotyping and to build collaborative structures that reflect real community representation.

Holy Spirit and the shape of missiology

The reflection pressed for a pneumatologically grounded missiology, warning that administration can eclipse spiritual discernment. Olofinjana contrasted “managerial missiology” with “pneumatic missiology,” while cautioning against caricatures: some Western missions are Spirit-responsive and some Majority World organizations are highly bureaucratic. The question, he wrote, is which impulse “defines our methodology to the extent that it cripples the other.”

He also weighed the relative influence of Western Reformed traditions and indigenous Pentecostal streams. Given the historical flourishing of Pentecostal renewal in Majority World contexts—from African Indigenous Churches to the Jamaican Revival, India’s Mukti Mission and Korea’s early-20th-century movements—he asked why Pentecostal insights often remain “secondary” in accepted mission theologies. Majority World theology, he argued, should also draw from ancient Christian traditions (e.g., Coptic and Indian Orthodox) and not be confined to European Reformation frameworks.

Discipleship beyond metrics

Calling suffering “normative in the missionary task,” Olofinjana questioned discipleship models driven by numerical growth, donor-friendly reporting and step-by-step formulas. He warned that people can be reduced to statistics serving institutional goals rather than flourishing as disciples. Effective models, he said, should integrate both competent administration and Spirit-led preparation for costly contexts, forming believers who embrace a theology of suffering and are equipped for it.

Contextual mission and contested language

On mission practice, Olofinjana highlighted unresolved questions: Who leads contextualization—the messenger entering a context or the receivers within it? How should Asia engage interfaith realities, Africa confront a renaissance of African religions and the rise of harmful cults, and Latin America apply liberative hermeneutics to indigenous, Catholic and socio-political realities?

He further asked whether Majority World churches should rethink the very vocabulary of “mission(s), missionary and missional,” given the colonial baggage the terms can carry, and instead develop indigenous metaphors and symbols for holistic witness.

Distinctives of a Majority World missiology

From his research and the conference dialogue, Olofinjana identified two core distinctives of a Majority World missiology. The first is suffering. With all 50 countries on the latest persecution watch lists located in the Majority World, he argued that a credible missiology must reckon with a “martyrology missiology”—a theology shaped in contexts where faith often comes at a cost. He also cautioned against Western triumphalism that publicly highlights the suffering of others without grappling with its deeper implications for justice.

The second is liberation. Given long histories of imperialism, colonization, conquest and enslavement, Majority World theologies have developed liberative perspectives—reflected in Latin American liberation theology, South African Black theology, Palestinian liberation theology and U.S. Black theology—that seek freedom from imposed constraints.

Olofinjana urged Majority World churches to bring these liberative insights into global mission, speaking into issues that Western Christianity has often ignored or disputed. He specifically named Palestinian suffering and Gaza as a “missiological crisis” for the global church and called for a prophetic solidarity in response.

He also named climate and environmental justice as a shared priority, noting that while the crisis is global, its impacts disproportionately fall on Majority World communities. Contextual, holistic worldviews in Africa, Asia, MENA, the Americas, Northern Europe and Oceania, he argued, require missiology that integrates creation care with biblical fidelity.

From dependence to interdependence

Olofinjana said a durable path forward involves building Majority World agency in identity, witness, theology and leadership—moving from dependence on Western funding and frameworks toward genuine interdependence “on equal terms.” He proposed a practical “colonial framework” of questions to assess partnerships: Does this initiative create dependency or interdependence? Who ultimately benefits, and at whose expense? Where is power concentrated?

He urged continued investment in younger leaders and in theological formation that resists “epistemic colonization,” noting that many Majority World scholars were trained in Western paradigms. The long-term aim, he said, is an indigenous, contextual, prophetic missiology that serves world Christianity—including Western expressions—by engaging suffering, liberation and creation care with integrity.

“The Majority World is numerically growing,” he said, “yet power, resources and theological frameworks remain largely controlled by Western Christianity.”

Olofinjana argued that “if Majority World Christians are to first become independent before entering an interdependent relationship with Western Christianity, we must develop our own agency and self-determination,” resist colonial frameworks, “re-imagine our existence free of such constraints,” and continue building indigenous theologies that address global issues often overlooked—or opposed—by Western churches.

These steps, he concluded, will form “a distinctive Majority World missiology” that ultimately benefits the global Church, including the West.

The full text is available here.