





































Ecclesial Futures
2023 – Volume 4 – Issue 2

A R T I C L E

74
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef13329

DOI: 10.54195/ef13329

The LIMM Model: Paradigm for Missiological 
Research

Pieter Hendrik Johannes Labuschagne

Abstract
This article proposes a missiological research model, guided by three key missiological 
concepts: missio Dei, Christocentricity and contextuality (MDCC). The model is derived 
from a practical theology model that was developed by the Loyola Institute for Ministry 
(LIM). The new missiological model is called the LIMM model, where the added ‘M’ 
represents missional action.
Since the introduction of the term missio Dei during the last century, the focus has 
shifted from missions initiated and conducted by the church, to the one true mission: 
God’s mission. In the missio Dei, God sends his Son and the Spirit to the world, and 
through them sends people to the ends of the earth. This means that God is the sender 
and the content of mission Dei. The incarnation of God’s message in every culture is of 
great importance.
The LIMM model is characterized by the three key missiological terms mentioned 
above, and it directs the research, from defining the research topic all the way to the 
practical suggestions for improved ministry. If a research topic does not correlate with 
MDCC principles, it does not belong I the field of missiological research and another 
field of theology should be considered.

Keywords: Missiological research model, Missio Dei, Christocentricity, Contextuality.

1 Introduction
Ever since his earthly ministry, people have been spreading the gospel in obedience 
to Christ, yet no designated term existed to described this mission. The Latin word 
missio was reserved for the Father sending the Son and the Spirit. This changed in 
the mid-sixteenth century when Ignatius of Loyola started to refer to the places and 
tasks to which Jesuits were assigned as “missions” (Kollman 2011: 425–26). Similarly, 
missiology as independent theological discipline, was only established in the late 



75
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef13329

nineteenth century (Langmead 2014: 68). As it is a young field, some seminaries still 
do not recognize it as an autonomous discipline but relegate it to a sub-section of 
another field, like practical theology. When research methods from these fields are 
used, it strips missiology of its distinct character.

One such method is as an in-house research approach to practical theology that was 
developed by the Loyola Institute for Ministry (we will call it the LIM model). Even 
though it is a practical theology model, LIM is also suited for missiological research 
and some postgraduate students at the South African Theological Seminary (SATS) 
have used it for their research. This article proposes adaptations to the LIM model 
to repurpose it as a missiological research model. This will be accomplished in three 
stages:
– Describe the LIM model.
– Define the three key missiological terms to be incorporated into the model.
– Adapt the model for missiological use.

2 Methodology: integrative literature review
Integrative Literature Review was used as research model in this article. It is “a distinc-
tive form of research that generates new knowledge about a topic by reviewing, criti-
quing, and synthesizing representative literature on a topic in an integrated way 
such that new frameworks and perspectives on the topic are generated” (Torraco, 
2016: 62). The following principles were adhered to:
– Limited publications exist on the LIM model. To describe the LIM model and its 

historical development, the author used the following as anchor publications: the 
summary by Smith (2016) and publications by Professor Barbara Fleischer, of the 
Loyola Institute for Ministry.

– The author looked at three foundational aspects of missiology: missio Dei, Christo-
centricity and contextuality. We refer to the combination of these terms as MDCC. 
There is a close proximity between the concepts, and they are inter connected, 
defining the essence of missiology.

– The author holds that missiology is an independent field of theology, which 
directly fulfils the missio Dei and that missiological research models should be 
guided by missiological concepts.

– Through analysis and synthesis of the research findings, the LIM model was 
adapted for missiological purposes. This aligns with Torraco’s (2016: 66) sugges-
tion that Integrative Literature Review, as research approach, must generate new 
knowledge and pose new questions and propositions for future research.



76
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef13329

3  The LIM model
3.1  Introduction to the LIM model
During the last few decades the Loyola Institute for Ministry (LIM) developed an 
in-house approach to practical theology (Lamont 2018: 2). The only external effort to 
describe the model is Smith’s (2016: 151–60) summary of the model, which is based 
on a single course document, written by Michael Cowan (2000) of the Loyola Institute 
for Ministry. Woodbridge (2014: 89–121) briefly referred to the LIM model in an article 
but used Smith’s article as only source of information. The current article delves 
deeper and provides a detailed description of the LIM model, based on additional 
publications by professors from the Loyola Institute for Ministry.

The development of the model started with Cowan’s (2000: 3) introduction of a 
process of “pastoral praxis” where theological reflection is in constant dialogue with 
action. Lamont (2018: 3) described this dialogue as a horizontal relationship that 
requires mutual trust between the conversation partners, as it “creates a democratic, 
trusting space that welcomes, encourages, and listens to all voices” (Lamont 2018: 9). 
Dialogue is a slow, deep conversation that exposes hidden assumptions and leads to 
new insights, awareness and understanding.

Cowan (2000 :1) stated that practical theology is not only concerned with under-
standing the world as it is, but to “contribute to the world’s becoming what God 
intends that it should be”. He identifies four characteristics of practical theology, 
namely the correlational, hermeneutical, critical and transformative. The correlational 
character of practical theology refers to the fact that two things, the world as it is 
and the world as it should be, stand in a reciprocal relationship. The hermeneutical 
character highlights the importance of interpreting our world and our traditions. The 
critical requires that we evaluate our own understandings that influence our inter-
pretations and actions. It is transformational because it brings “the real world into 
greater harmony with the Creator’s intentions”.

3.2 Historical development of the LIM model
For Imbelli and Groome the major methodological shift in practical theology in the 
twentieth century was theological inquiry, grounded in the human experience of 
those doing theology (Fleischer 2000: 23). Since 1983 when the Loyola Institute for 
Ministry Extension Programme (LIMEX) began, the focus was on an experientially 
based method of theological reflection, founded on the work of David Tracey and 
Bernard Lonergan (Fleischer 2000: 24). Tracey’s revisionist model was based on a 
critical correlation between Christian tradition and contemporary understanding 
of human existence. Lonergan identified four levels of critical consciousness which 
formed the basis for the LIMEX programme: (i) identify an experience to reflect on 



77
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef13329

(ii)  express an initial understanding of this experience (iii) test this initial under-
standing, and (iv) arrive at a new decision about the initial understanding and future 
action plan.

The LIMEX programme was further influenced by the work of James and Evelyn 
Whitehead. Where Tracy’s model focused on Christian tradition and contemporary 
understanding of human experience, the Whiteheads’ model of theological reflec-
tion identified three sources of context: (i) Christian tradition, (ii) personal experi-
ence, and (iii) the resource of culture. The Whiteheads’ contribution was employed 
in LIMEX for more than seventeen years (Fleischer 2000: 26). Charles Winters of 
Loyola University New Orleans added a fourth source to the Whiteheads’ tri-polar 
model. “That fourth source, or ‘context’ as he called it, was the institutional context 
of ministry: the organizational dynamics and structures that largely shape how 
ministry is legitimized and who is authorized for what roles in any ministry site” 
(Fleischer 2000: 29).

Theology that is focused primarily on abstract, universal, or static truth, pays little 
attention to the dynamics of human conversion. That is why the contributions of 
Lonergan are important: he “proposes that as a human endeavor, theology proceed 
through the phases that all human learning follows; learning begins with experience 
and moves through initial understanding, judging (or critical reflection), and deci-
sion” (Fleischer 2000: 30). Lonergan, thus, shifted the focus of practical theology 
from starting with theological truth, to starting with experience. This approach turns 
from “deductivism to an empirical approach, from the static to the dynamic, from the 
abstract to the concrete, from the universal to the historical totality of particulars, 
from invariable rules to intelligent adjustment and adaptation” (Lonergan 1968: 11). 
Lonergan’s four operations (experiencing, understanding, judging and deciding) 
became the basis for the LIMEX programme (Fleischer 2000: 35). It also forms the 
basis of the four phases of the LIM model:

3.3  The LIM model
3.3.1  Phase One: Identify a real-life problem (Experiencing)
Researchers identify a ministry, life experience, or experience of a text that they 
want to reflect on (Cowan 2000: 2). This is something that exists in one’s context that 
affects the life of believers or the church. Researchers must pay attention to (i) the 
details of their experience, (ii) significant aspects of the experience, and (iii) emotions 
stirred by the experience. This is an experiential phase: there is no scientific observa-
tion and reflection in this step; one simply states the problem and the reasons why 
you believe it exists (Fleischer, 2000: 35; Lamont 2018: 2).



78
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef13329

This makes the first phase of the LIM model refreshingly unique because it invites 
researchers to express their own, unresearched experience and understanding 
of a situation. In fact, this phase cannot be undertaken without the researcher’s 
involvement, expressing his or her own subjective understanding and experience 
of a situation, without having to justify it with research data. In this regard, Smith 
missed an important aspect of the LIM model that distinguishes it from other prac-
tical theology approaches. In his summary of the model (2016: 153) he mentions the 
initial, non-scientific opinion of the researcher, based on his or her understanding, 
but in his description of how a thesis would look when using LIM, Smith (2016: 154) 
omits this distinctive feature of the model.

3.3.2  Phase Two: Interpret the world as it is (Understanding)
This phase seeks to understand the experience, evaluates the researcher’s initial 
views, and lays bare meanings, interpretations and questions that arose in the first 
phase. A dialogue develops between the researcher’s initial experience and the 
meaning that emerges through the research. A disciplined, practical investigation 
is conducted to determine the what, the how and the why of the problem (Cowan 
2000: 2). It is important to determine what the real situation is because one might 
have been mistaken in your initial experience. This phase uses descriptive research 
based on literary and/or empirical methods. A historical survey of published works, 
archived records and interviews are useful to get a clear picture of the historical 
development of the situation.

An important part of Phase Two is how the problem developed and why it is the way 
it is. One wants to determine which forces are at work and led to this problem. This 
sets the direction for the biblical and practical response in the next phase (Smith 
2016: 155; Fleischer 2000: 35).

3.3.3  Phase Three: Interpret the world as it should be (Judging)
The judging or testing phase is the heart of the reflective process that interprets 
the world as it should be. For evangelical theologians the Bible takes centre-stage 
in this phase, and other sources as seen as secondary. The focus is on one’s minis-
terial praxis in light of the four contexts of ministry defined by the Whiteheads 
and Lonergan: (i) Christian tradition; (ii) personal experience; (iii) culture; and (iv) 
the institutional context of ministry. This phase is a hermeneutical task that offers 
a summary of insights gained and judges one’s understanding of Christian tradi-
tion and human experience, and arrives at suggestions for responsible living (Fleis-
cher 2000: 36).



79
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef13329

This phase develops a theological model, based on biblical perspectives and the 
sources of context that were discussed earlier. Smith (2016: 155) suggests that the 
biblical aspect should take the form of a survey or overview analysis of Scriptural 
teachings related to the research problem. One must work though the Scriptures 
and explain how they address the topic. The works of authoritative biblical scholars 
must be consulted.

3.3.4  Phase Four: Interpret your contemporary obligations (Deciding)
The decision phase is a summary of the new insights that were gained in the previous 
phases. It leads to new action in the praxis cycle, which has the potential of bringing 
positive change to the situation (Fleischer 2000: 35). This action plan must reflect 
the theological findings of the previous step. Though implementation of the find-
ings does not form part of the LIM model, one should offer concrete and detailed 
recommendations to remedy the problem that exists, with reference to (i) the histor-
ical and empirical analysis of the present situation, (ii) the synopsis of biblical and 
theological findings, and (iii) practical suggestions to correct the current problem 
(Smith 2016: 156).

This must be done with sensitivity toward the people involved, and the recommen-
dations must be described in terms of the context of the contemporary church.



80
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef13329

Figure 1 Schematic representation of the LIM model1

4  Key aspects of missiological research
In order to adapt the LIM model for missiological use, we briefly summarize three key 
concepts which are indispensable for missiology.

4.1  Missio Dei
For several centuries, the church saw itself as the ‘author’ or ‘authority’ on mission, 
travelling to foreign lands, taking the gospel from Western countries to the so-called 
uncivilized. This view has undergone major changes in the last century, and in 
modern missiology there is only one mission – the missio Dei (Whitworth 2019: ix, 5). 
The basic meaning of the Latin term missio Dei is ‘the sending of God’ (Whitworth 
2019: 3). This connects well with the LIM model, which takes place “within the wider 
meta-context of all God’s Creation …transcend the limits of human knowing … to 
learn from  Creation by listening to God’s voice in the diversity of the natural world” 
(Lamont 2018: 2).

The starting point of missio Dei is not the ecclesia or the missio humanitatis, but God 
himself (Rosin in Whitworth, 2019: 4). We are not sent by the church to make disciples 
that conform to our ways; we are sent by God, through the missio Dei, to draw people 

1 This is the author’s own schematic representation of the LIM model.



81
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef13329

to him (Niles 2002: 363). Through the missio Dei, we become part of God’s family, 
witnessing to, and participating in God’s work of saving and reconciling people to 
him ( Johnson 2016: xvi). Missio Dei is God’s mission, which becomes our mission. It 
propels the church from “worship and fellowship into the frontiers of God’s reign” 
(Sunquist 2013: 16; Teer 2020: 535, 553; Whitworth 2019: 3). In missio Dei (i) God sends 
his Son and the Holy Spirit; but (ii) God is also the content of this sending (Heik-
kilä 2018: 79).

Already in the early church, Irenaeus and Tertullian taught that the Son was sent 
from God. Athanasius and the Cappadocian fathers expanded this sending of the 
Son from the Father, by adding that the Holy Spirit was sent from the Father through 
the Son. Augustine referred to it as the “sentness” of Jesus by the Father (Ubeilvolc 
2016: 7). An important turning point came in the last century with the formal intro-
duction of the term missio Dei. It started with Karl Barth who gave a lecture in 1932 on 
the relationship between the Trinity and mission (Voss 2016: np; Langmead 2014: 69; 
Newbigin 1989: 119). He believed that theologians and the church have wrongly 
defined mission from an anthropocentric vantage point (Whitworth 2019: 4).

Barth’s concept was further developed at the 1952 IMC gathering at Willingen, 
Germany; the focus shifted to the fact that the church’s mission was grounded in the 
divine mission (Konz 2018: 336; Kollman 2011: 433). This was further developed in 
Georg Vicedom’s book, which was published in 1958, entitled Missio Dei (Konz 2018: 
336). The goal of God’s mission is not the Church but his kingdom, and therefore God 
acts both in and apart from die Church (Moreau 2000: 637; Pocock, van Rheenen 
and McConnell 2005: 503; Mashau 2018: 132). God is missionary by nature, and he 
calls the Church to participate in this activity (Heikkilä 2018: 83; Voss 2016; Moltmann 
1977: 64; Langmead 2014: 69). Three significant changes took place in the under-
standing of mission in the second half of the previous century: (i) missio Dei became 
the foundation of all mission; (ii) this led to a shift from missions to mission; and (iii) 
a missional ecclesiology emerged (Ott Straus & Tennent 2010: 376).

All fields of theology need to contemplate how the missio Dei affects their respective 
domains. If indeed God is a missionary God, all theology should centre around this. 
And if the focus of Christian faith is on God’s Son who was sent to forgive and save, 
then all theology should seek to understand the missio Dei and promote it (Lang-
mead 2013: 70). Bosch (2011: 494) states that the Church stops being the Church if it 
is not missionary. Similarly, theology that is not missiological is not theology. Missio 
Dei is the essence of mission and missiology (Bosch, 2011: 494–96; Langmead 2013: 
67;Whitworth 2019: x, 14–15; Wright 2006: 20).



82
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef13329

Whitworth (2019: 7–8) presents four views of missio Dei, defined by prominent missi-
ologists over the last century. (i) David Bosch focused on God’s nature and activity 
as the centre of missio Dei. The church participates with God, who is involved in the 
world. (ii) Johannes Verkuyl emphasized God’s reign over creation and humanity, with 
the aim of establishing his kingdom. (iii) For Emilio Castro, the mission of God was 
focused on God and his activities, and Christians and the church were drawn into 
communion with him. (iv) Christopher Wright described missio Dei as our participa-
tion as God’s people, at God’s invitation and command, in God’s own mission within 
the history of God’s world for the redemption of God’s creation (Whitworth 2019 :8).

We can conclude this summary of missio Dei in Kritzinger’s (2011: 52) words, “It is 
about the Reign of God that has entered into this broken world as a transformative 
power in Jesus; that continues to be manifested transformatively in our midst by the 
work of the Holy Spirit … so that we too may encounter other people, thus creating 
the church as the community of the kingdom, working for and waiting for the coming 
Reign of God.”

4.2  Christocentricity
It is impossible to conceive of mission without focusing on Christ, who is the centre 
of God’s mission. He is the Son of God who became flesh to take away the sin of 
humanity ( Jn 1). Driven by the missio Dei and his sacrificial love, Jesus emptied himself 
to become one of us.2 “To see the gospel, and our mission, as being not only about 
spiritual good news, and not even only about people, but about God’s good plans for 
the whole created order is a fundamental shift in mission thinking” (Ross & Smith, 
2018).

4.2.1  Divinity of Jesus
Jesus shares the identity of YHWH, and performs actions that are uniquely and exclu-
sively associated with YHWH: Jesus is Creator,3 Ruler,4 Judge5 and Saviour,6 The New 
Testament made no distinction between Jesus and the God of the Old Testament 
(Wright 2006: 121–22). If you have seen Jesus, you have seen the Father ( Jn 14.9). The 
Father sent the Son and the Son obeyed God’s mission to Israel and beyond. “The 
God of Israel, whose declared mission was to make himself known to the nations 

2 Isa. 7.14; 8:8; Mt. 1.22-23; 28.20; Jn 1.14; 3.16; Phil. 1 & 2; Rev. 21.3.
3 Jn 1.3, 10; 1 Cor. 8.6; Col. 1.16; Heb. 1.2.
4 Jn 18.36; Eph. 1.20-21; 1 Tim. 6.13-16; Heb. 1.3-4; Rev. 1.5-6; 10.13, 16; 17.14.
5 Mt. 19.28; Jn 5.22, 27; 9.39; Acts 10.42; 17.31; 2 Cor. 5.10; 2 Tim. 4.8; Rev. 19.11.
6 Mt. 1.21; Lk. 2.11; 19.10; Jn 4.42; Acts 4.12; 13.23; Eph. 5.23; Phil. 3.20; 1 Tim. 1.15; 2 Tim. 1.10; Tit. 2.13; 1 

Jn 4.14.



83
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef13329

through Israel, now wills to be known to the nations through the Messiah, the one 
who embodies Israel in his own person and fulfills the mission of Israel to the nations” 
(Wright 2006: 123).

The missio Dei expresses God’s desire to make himself known. He did that throughout 
the Old Testament using various messengers, he did it in the New Testament through 
his Son, and he does it today through every obedient servant. Wright (2006: 129) 
points out that our involvement with God’s mission is both humbling and reassuring. 
It is humbling because it reminds us that we are not the initiators of mission but only 
secondary messengers and participants. It is reassuring because it reminds us that 
we are part of the greatest mission of all, with Christ at its centre.

4.2.2  The supremacy of Jesus
Christ is supreme over all, and he is exalted above horizontal comparisons with 
founders of other religions. The only comparison that is possible, is with God himself, 
and in that lies the truth of Jesus’ divine identity. “Christocentric biblical monotheism 
is profoundly missionary … YHWH is God in heaven above and the earth beneath, and 
there is no other, and that Jesus is Lord, and there is no other name under heaven 
given to humanity by which we must be saved” (Wright 2006: 131). Verster (2021: 
122) rightly points out that “without the eternal existence, the cross, and the resur-
rection of Jesus, there is no mission. Without the deep Christological implications of 
the Divinity of the Man Jesus Christ, the clear understanding of mission is blurred. 
A Theologia Crucis, or theology of the cross, must always be the main element of 
mission and missiology.”

Missiology is Christocentric, and cannot exist without focusing on the cross. “Without 
the cross, no hope and salvation is possible … the cross is followed by the resurrec-
tion as proof of Jesus as Son of God … at the cross, God is present in this tragic world. 
At the cross, one sees God’s reply to the world. The glory of the resurrection fulfils 
what happened on the cross” (Verster 2021: 123). Mission gives hope to a lost world 
(Verster 2021: 125). “When human beings in this world have nowhere to turn to, the 
church through the missio Dei in mission reaches out to them. This is the hope of the 
cross. Only then will mission and missiology have a future” (Verster 2021: 130).

4.3  Contextuality
In our discussion of contextuality, we focus on the integration between the contexts 
of the researcher and the research topic.



84
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef13329

4.3.1  All theology is contextual theology
Bevans (2018) is famous for stating that universal theology, with universal applica-
tion, does not exist – the only theology that exists is contextual theology. A particular 
place, time and culture form the basis of theology. Contextual theology comprises 
two elements: (i) the experience of the past, represented by Scripture and tradition, 
and (ii) the experience of the present, represented by the real-life situation of Chris-
tians in a particular time and place (Bevans 2018: 2; Ngubane 2013: 93).

Contextual theology requires critical dialogue between past and present experiences. 
The Scriptures and tradition aid us in measuring, judging, interpreting, and criticizing 
our present experiences (Bevans 2018: 2). Likewise, our experiences measure, judge, 
interpret and critique the classical sources. According to Bevans, contextual theology 
consists of four elements: (i) the spirit and message of the gospel; (ii) the traditions 
of Christian communities; (iii) the culture of a particular group or region; and (iv) the 
social changes that occur within each of these communities.

Pocock, van Rheenen and McConnell (2005: 502) state that the term contextualiza-
tion was introduced in 1972 in order to encourage mutual understanding between 
the researcher and the research context. Our participation in the missio Dei requires 
sensitivity to our context and the research context. Jesus’s incarnation was an 
example of contextual sensitivity because he emptied himself and took on human 
form (Phil. 2.1-11). Contextual research can only succeed if we approach it with an 
open mind, inviting critical dialogue between the conversation partners (Ngubane 
2013: 144). Some skills to help with this include “‘I’ statements, concreteness, 
appropriate self-disclosure, gatekeeping, and inviting more information” (Fleischer 
2016: 80, in Lamont 2018: 4).

4.3.2 The dangers of universal theology
Niles (2002: 363) states that “the Word in isolation in and of itself is not good news, 
but the proclamation and action that shows how the Word has become flesh in 
specific situations, is good news”. Historically, missionaries colonized those who 
were perceived as inferior, by conveying a message that was isolated in and of itself. 
It is not good news for the oppressed to hear that their ways are evil, and that the 
only remedy is to conform to the ways of their oppressors. In fact, that is rather grim 
news (Kraft 2011: 6–10).

Duraisingh (in Barnes-Davies, 2002: 592) blames two social forces for this, (i) you 
either stand opposed to the “other”, or (ii) you assimilate life elements and call it 
“your own”. We must not succumb to forces that silence the “other” but must rather 
value the “other” as “other”. This shifts missiology from a quest for power and 



85
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef13329

control to a place of service. Instead of only focusing on our own story, which rejects 
and excludes the “other”, we must allow multi-voiced inter-contextual communion, 
listening to the different narratives of the “other” and maintaining a creative tension 
between us and them (Duraisingh in Barnes-Davies 2002: 601).

4.3.3  Questioning as key to contextuality
Questioning formed part of the Jewish-Christian tradition, and is a still an effective 
way of contextualization and mutual transformation (Kritzinger 2002: 144–45). Ques-
tioning establishes a special connection between God and humanity. God connects 
to us through questions and our responses to his questions lead to accountability. 
Humans can also ask God questions and in the process gain understanding.

In Mark 8.29 Jesus asked his disciples who they thought he was.7 When we read the 
passage today, the same question confronts us. There is no final answer to Jesus’ 
question and traditional orthodoxy and colonial missions were wrong to presume 
that they had the answer to this question and simply had to export this answer to the 
rest of the world (Kritzinger 2002: 145). “What the church of Christ … should seek is 
not the definitive answer to this question but tentative and provisional answers in 
concrete contexts … to discover who Jesus is for us today and therefore what our 
missions in his name could look like in our respective contexts” (Kritzinger 2002:145).

Inasmuch as the researcher questions the context, the context questions the 
researcher. Like the examples from Scripture, the goal of this questioning is not 
to find definitive answers but to ask probing questions. In the process we learn 
about the research context and our own context. “When LIM students explore their 
concerns within their personal ministry context; for example, they often analyze 
their personality type and explore the strengths and weakness in their communica-
tion skills” (Lamont 2018 :4). Our horizon (Thiselton 1992: 44–46), our context, or our 
cultural environment (Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov, 2010) influences our episte-
mology and determines how we interpret the world. “When we do not understand, 
for example, how much our culture influences our theology, we are easily seduced 
into believing that we are communicating a gospel free of cultural bias, when, in 
fact, we may be blind to our own cultural and deminational ethnocentrism. We will 
confuse what is cultural with what we think is biblical” (Whiteman 1997: 137; also see 
Kraft 2011: 30).

7 Other examples of questions asked by Jesus include Mk 8.27, 29; 15.34; Lk. 18.41; Jn 5.6; 6.67; 8.10; 21.15; 
Acts 9.4. 



86
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef13329

Western logic seeks truth that is applied universally. “This happens when a religion, a 
nation or a culture is made into a centre, and is the same logic which operated in the 
colonial conquests, and today continues in the neo-colonial dynamics of globaliza-
tion” (Duraisingh 2002: 363; Kraft 2011: 7, 30). Missiology departing from this premise 
promotes an “us” and “them” mentality where the “other” from another context is 
seen as inferior, and in need of redemption from their ways. Missional contextuality 
is needed where the researcher and the “researched” as partners, or co-workers, 
learn from one another. “Mission as praxis is about concrete transformation…among 
people, and between the living God and people, leading to people being called, sent, 
healed, and empowered” (Kritzinger 2011: 52).

5  The LIMM model of missiological research
For the LIMM model of missiological research, we kept “LIM” in recognition of the 
work done by the Loyola Institute for Ministry but added an additional “M” to repre-
sent missional action. We renamed each step of the model to correspond to the 
acronym LIMM:
L  =  Life-situation
I  =  Interpret the life-situation
M  =  Model preferred scenario
M  =  Missional action

Missio Dei, Christocentricity and contextuality (MDCC) are three distinct terms that 
are interrelated and impossible to separate because (i) the Father sends the Son, 
(ii) the Son comes to live in our context, and (iii) he sends us out to make him known 
in all contexts (to the ends of the earth, Mt. 28.19). MDCC has a key function in the 
formulation, examination and explanation of every phase of the LIMM model. It is 
not necessary to describe every phase of the research in terms of all three concepts 
because in certain cases one aspect might be more applicable than another.

5.1  The LIMM model
At the time of writing, the LIMM proposal is nothing more than an experimental 
model. However, the author intends to test the model in the near future, by 
researching the challenges faced within the context of his own church, as the church 
is transitioning from a traditional church model to a cell-church that meets in the 
homes of believers.



87
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef13329

5.1.1  LIMM Phase One: Life-situation
Guided by MDCC, the researcher shares his or her own experience and under-
standing of the topic under investigation, expounding (i) the details of the expe-
rience, (ii)  important aspects of the experience, and (iii) emotions aroused by the 
experience. This is not based on scientific observations and reflections but the 
researcher simply states his or her understanding of the problem and the reasons it 
exists (Fleischer 2000: 35; Smith 2016: 153).

In this phase, MDCC principles are used to examine, evaluate and formulate the 
research in missiological terms. The researcher uses his or her understanding of 
MDCC to evaluate the research topic. Here are some examples of questions that 
could be asked:
– To what extent is the missio Dei promoted or neglected in the current situation?
– Does the situation sufficiently focus on the proclamation of Christ, and how will 

the research advance the proclamation of Christ?
– What are the differences between the researcher’s context and the research 

context? How does the researcher’s context affect his or her view of the topic? 
What questions are being asked by the researcher and to the researcher?

This phase ends with a clear formulation of the research in MDCC terms.

5.1.2  LIMM Phase Two: Interpret the life-situation
The researcher gathers data to interpret the life-situation, by breaking it down into 
three categories: (i) what is the real situation; (ii) how did it develop; (iii) why is it the 
way it is? The personal experience described by the researcher in Phase One is now 
scrutinized through research based on MDCC principles. The researcher wants to 
understand what missiological deficiencies led to the situation. Suitable methodolo-
gies to trace the historical development of the situation include descriptive research, 
based on literary and/or empirical methods, and a historical survey of published 
works, archived records and interviews.

Note that there is a twofold focus when interpreting the life-situation: (i) the 
researcher examines the elements of the research problem that was formulated in 
phase one; (ii) this is not done in a vacuum but against the backdrop of MDCC. For 
example, when the researcher asks “what is the real situation?” he or she wants to 
know what the real situation is in light of MDCC.



88
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef13329

MDCC is the plumbline of the LIMM model. It is both a tool to determine what is going 
on, and it facilitates the discovery of possible solutions. Helpful questions that could 
be asked in Phase Two include:
– How can the present situation be described in terms of MDCC?
– What role did the presence or absence of MDCC play in the development of the 

current state of affairs?
– Why is the situation the way it is, in terms of MDCC?

5.1.3  LIMM Phase Three: Model the preferred scenario
This phase envisages the situation as it should be, from a biblical and theological 
perspective. In Phases One and Two we introduced the research topic and defined 
it though research, in light of MDCC. Phase Three follows the same logic: (i) the 
researcher searches for biblical and theological guidance related to the life situation 
under investigation; and (ii) the researcher seeks for biblical and theological support 
that will promote MDCC principles.
– What can we learn from the Bible and theology about the research topic?
– What would an applicable contextual theology be for this research topic?
– How should MDCC best be applied to bring the research topic in line with God’s 

mission in God’s way?

5.1.4  LIMM Phase Four: Missional action
Missiological research must never be simply academic but it should lead to partic-
ipation in sharing the good news across borders to all of humanity. If the outcome 
of missiological research does not promote MDCC, we have missed the mark. A way 
forward should be proposed that honours MDCC principles, for example:
– To fulfil the missio Dei in this situation, one must …
– To ensure that Christ is proclaimed as good news in this context, one should …
– A new contextual theology that directs the praxis in this situation, focusses on …



89
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef13329

In the schematic representation of the adapted LIMM model below, MDCC stands 
central, and every phase of the model flows from it and through it:

Figure 2 Schematic representation of the LIMM model8

5.2  Potential application of the LIMM model
This paper introduced a new missiological research model, which is being develop-
ment. In order to stimulate reflection, a few examples are offered that illustrate how 
this model may be used, either as a diagnostic tool or as a development tool.

5.2.1  As a diagnostic tool
As a diagnostic tool, it examines an existing life-situation or ministry, by reflecting on 
the researcher’s understanding of MDCC and his or her own experience of the situa-
tion, as well as the details and important aspects of the experience, and the emotions 
elicited by the experience (Fleischer 2000: 35; Smith 2016: 153). The research is devel-
oped with a missiological focus; questions such as the following are raised:
– How does missio Dei inform the current ministry?

8 This is the author’s own schematic representation of the LIMM model.



90
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef13329

– Is there sufficient focus on the proclamation of Christ, and how can the proclama-
tion of Christ be advanced?

– What is the influence of the researcher’s context on the ministry context, and vice 
versa?

These findings are compared to the preferred scenario, and missional action is 
proposed to improve the life-situation or ministry.

5.2.1.1 Academic research
Academic research is one example of how LIMM can be used as a diagnostic tool, 
where the researcher identifies a life-situation or ministry that he or she wants to 
examine. LIMM serves as the academic research model and the elements of the 
LIMM model direct the researcher’s analysis and evaluation of the situation. This is 
measured against MDCC principles as well as biblical and theological contributions. 
Based on this research, a more effective approach can be envisioned.

5.2.1.2 Ministry
Another example is when a ministry uses LIMM to evaluate how well they incorpo-
rate MDCC principles. For instance, mission organizations could use the model to 
evaluate their ministry projects in light of biblical, theological and MDCC principles, 
to determine if their ministries are still fulfilling the organization’s mandate.

5.2.2  Development
As a development tool, the LIMM model is used to plan a new ministry, and to deter-
mine what is needed to succeed. The researcher explains his or her expectations of 
the future ministry, including the details and important aspects of the expectations, 
and emotions aroused by the expectations. The context is surveyed by engaging 
with, and observing key people and ministries. MDCC principles form the backbone 
of planning the new ministry and is guided by questions such as:
– How will the new ministry proclaim Christ?
– Are there elements of the researcher’s context that could clash with the ministry 

context, and how can this be addressed?

Based on these findings, the new ministry is launched.

5.2.2.1 Evangelism
A church engaged in evangelism and church planting can serve as an example. As 
they prepare to launch a new ministry, they could use LIMM as planning tool, to see 
if their regular approach will work in the new setting. The model brings the church’s 



91
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef13329

ministry-understanding and prejudice into dialogue with the new context. This 
enables them to adapt their ministry model to be most effective in the new setting.

5.2.2.2  Overseas mission
Another example is when a person senses a call to serve as a missionary abroad. 
By using LIMM as planning tool, the person can learn about the cultural, economic, 
religious and social aspects of the people he or she is called to minister to. LIMM will 
also challenge the person to become aware of, and evaluate, his or her own under-
standing of MDCC principles, and how missionary work should be conducted.

6  Conclusion
The LIM model, developed by the Loyola Institute for Ministry, is based on pastoral 
praxis, where theological reflection is in constant dialogue with action. Based on 
mutual trust between the conversation partners, hidden assumptions are exposed 
that lead to new insights, awareness and understanding. Practical theology is not 
only concerned with understanding the world as it is, but contributes to the world 
becoming what God intended it to be. It is correlational, hermeneutical, critical and 
transformative.

The focus on pastoral praxis, contextual engagement and contributing to the world 
becoming what God wants it to be, means that the LIM model is an ideal basis for 
missiology to build on. The aspects of the missio Dei, Christocentricity and contextu-
ality resonate with the essence of the LIM model, and contribute to the development 
of a new approach to missiological research – the LIMM model, as proposed in this 
paper.

About the author
Dr Pieter Labuschagne is the Curriculum Coordinator at the South African Theolog-
ical Seminary and leads the Course Development Team. He earned a PhD from the 
University of Pretoria, and served as a missionary for twenty years with Serving in 
Mission. His research interests include postcolonialism, Africanization, cross-cultural 
studies and missiological research methods. Contact: Pieter@sats.ac.za

mailto:Pieter@sats.ac.za


92
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef13329

References
Barnes-Davies, P. 2002. “Toward the Fullness of Life: Intercontextual Relationships in Mission: 

Report from a Missiology Consultation, London, England, 14–19 April, 2002.” International 
Review of Mission 91.

Bevans, S. 2018. “Contextual Methods in Theology.” Essays in Contextual Theology. Leiden, Neth-
erlands: Brill.

Bosch D. 2011. Transforming Mission : Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission. Twentieth anniver-
sary ed. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.

Cowan, M. 2000. “Guidelines for Doing Research in Practical Theology.” In Introduction to Prac-
tical Theology. This is a chapter from a Loyola Institute for Ministry course manual that is 
only available to their students.

Duraisingh, C. 2002. “Mission towards Reconciled and Intercontextual Communities.” Interna-
tional Review of Mission 91(363).

Fleischer, B. 2000. “A Theological Method for Adult Education Rooted in the World of Tracy and 
Lonergan.” Religious Education 95(1).

———, M.F.G. Cowan, G. Goulding, B. Lee and K. O’Gorman (eds). 2016. Introduction to Practical 
Theology. New Orleans: Loyola Institute for Ministry, Loyola University.

Heikkilä, I. 2018. “The World Council of Churches Mission Statement ‘Together Towards Life’: 
Mission, Evangelism and Missio Dei.” European Journal of Theology 27(1).

Hofstede, G., G. Hofstede and M. Minkov. 2010. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind: 
Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival. Revised and expanded third ed. 
New York: McGraw-Hill.

Johnson, A. 2016. Holiness and the Missio Dei. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books.
Kollman, P. 2011. “At the Origins of Mission and Missiology: A Study in the Dynamics of Religious 

Language.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 79(2).
Konz, D. 2018. “The Even Greater Commission: Relating the Great Commission to the Missio 

Dei, and Human Agency to Divine Activity, in Mission.” Missiology 46(4).
Kraft, C. 2011. Anthropology for Christian Witness. New York: Orbis Books.
Kritzinger, K. 2002. “A Question of Mission – a Mission of Questions.” Missionalia 30(1).
———. 2011. “‘Mission as …’ Must we choose? A Dialogue with Bosch, Bevans & Schroeder and 

Schreiter in the South African Context.” Missionalia 30(1–2).
Lamont, T. 2018. “Safe Spaces or Brave Spaces? Reflections in Practical Theology and Trans-

formative Learning Theories.” Paper presented at 2018 REA Annual Meeting, 2–4 November.
Langmead, R. 2014. “What Is Missiology?” Missiology 42(1).
Lonergan, B. 1968. “Theology in its New Context.” Theology of Renewal. New York: Herder & 

Herder.
Mashau, D. 2018. “Standing where God Stands: JNJ Kritzinger as an Encountering Missionary 

and Missiologist.” Missionalia 46(1).
Moltmann, J. 1977. The Church in the Power of the Spirit: A Contribution to Messianic Ecclesiology. 

London: SCM Press.
Moreau, A.S. (ed.). 2000. Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.
Newbigin, L. 1989. The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Ngubane, S. 2013. “Towards a Christological Missiology for Africa: On-going Relevance of Jesus 

Christ in Missions in South Africa.” PhD dissertation. Bloemfontein: University of the Free 
State.

Niles, P. 2002. “Toward the Fullness of Life: Intercontextual Relationships in Mission.” Interna-
tional Review of Mission 91.



93
Ecclesial Futures – DOI: 10.54195/ef13329

Ott, C., S. Straus and T. Tennent. 2010. Encountering Theology of Mission: Biblical Foundations, 
Historical Development, and Contemporary Issues. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Pocock, M., G. van Rheenen and D. McConnell. 2005. The Changing Face of World Missions: 
Engaging Contemporary Issues and Trends. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Ross, C., and C. Smith. 2018. Missional Conversations: A Dialogue between Theory and Praxis in 
World Mission. London: SCM Press.

Smith, K. 2016. Writing and Research: A Guide for Theological Students. Carlisle, Cumbria, UK: 
Langham Global Library.

Sunquist, S. 2013. Understanding Christian Mission: Participation in Suffering and Glory. Grand 
Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Teer, T. 2020. “‘As the Father Has Sent Me, Even so I Am Sending You’: The Divine Missions and 
the Mission of the Church.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 63(3).

Thiselton A. 1992. New Horizons in Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Torraco, R. 2016. “Writing Integrative Reviews of the Literature: Methods and Purposes.” Inter-

national Journal of Adult Vocational Education and Technology 7(3).
Ubeilvolc, V. 2016. Rethinking Missio Dei among Evangelical Churches in an Eastern European 

Orthodox Context. Carlisle, Cumbria, UK: Langham Monographs.
Verster, P. 2021. “The Future of Mission and Missiology in a Radically Changing World.” Journal 

for Christian Scholarship 57(3–4).
Voss, H. 2016. The Priesthood of All Believers and the Missio Dei: A Canonical, Catholic, and Contex-

tual Perspective. Princeton Theological Monograph Series. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock.
Whiteman, D. 1997. “The Role of the Behavioral Sciences in Miossiological Education.” In 

J. D. Woodberry, C. van Engen and E. J. Ellison (eds), Missiological Education for the Twen-
ty-First Century: The Book, the Circle, and the Sandals (pp. 133–38). Eugene, OR: Wipf and 
Stock.

Whitworth, D. 2019. Missio Dei and the Means of Grace. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books.
Woodbridge, N. 2014. “The EDNA Model for Doing Research in Practical Theology: A Biblical 

Approach.” Conspectus 17(3).
Wright, C.\ 2006. The Mission of God : Unlocking The Bible’s Grand Narrative. Downers Grove, IL: 

IVP Academic.


