Mine is not a Majority World voice. Indeed, the preface of this issue was meant to be written by a Majority World scholar. These things do not always unfold as planned, so I find myself pondering the most useful—and briefest—way to frame the articles marshalled under the heading “Majority World Voices.” My suspicion is that the title of the theme itself needs a comment or two.

From the perspective of an editor, the terminology is an interesting question. Third World was once in vogue, but it refers to a Cold War division of the world into First World (NATO countries), Second World (Communist Bloc countries), and everyone else.1 Aside from the fact that the Cold War ended some time ago, the numerical preeminence of the First World is a not-so-subtle hint as to the bias built into these categories.

Furthermore, the economic nature of the battle between capitalists and communists quickly led to a characterization of the Third World primarily in terms of “development” rather than geo-political alignment.2 The presumption of labeling the Third World as “underdeveloped” or “developing” (where “developed” refers largely to Western bourgeois lifestyle) has become clear.3 Yet, despite the problems of developmentalism, many persist in referring to the Developing World. I consider that categorization a nonstarter.

Others have hitched their jargon to roughly geographical designations. It turns out that many economically poor countries are south of the Equator, so Global South has gained currency. This has some merit, since East and West are widely used conventions. (Of course, on a spherical planet, those designations are not only arbitrary but say a great deal about who established the conventions: the East is only east of the West from the West’s perspective.) Frequently, however, non-Western also sneaks in, suggesting clearly the notion of Western normativity: there is Western culture and there are those that lack the quality of Westernness—non-Westerners. And, as it happens, some not-so-Western (and economically “developed”!) cultures are located north of the Equator. It seems to me that Global South is the sort of generalization that ends up being uselessly inaccurate.

Majority World, however, possesses the qualities of both accuracy and irony, the latter of which I find especially endearing. As a matter of mathematical fact, ostensibly Western cultures are a minority. Among Christians, especially those who attend to missiology, this fact accompanies another of great contemporary significance: the majority of the church now lives amidst the global majority. The irony, of course, is that the West is historically marked by a democratic ethos that grants the majority significant privilege. In view of these observations, Missio Dei prefers the terminology Majority World above other options (including similar contenders such as Two-Thirds World and Three-Fourths World, which seem pointlessly specific). For our purposes, the phrase Majority World appropriately touches upon the historic, joyous reality that the world church’s majority is now to be found among countries once called Third World, underdeveloped, and non-Western.4 Thanks be to God!

This issue seeks to amplify the voices of Majority World mission practitioners and scholars who identify with the Stone-Campbell Movement. These perspectives deserve special attention. Despite the numerical reality of the Majority World church, there are few in it who articulate their views according to the conventions that constrain Missio Dei, much less who can do so in English. We recognize, therefore, both the weakness and vulnerability of our position as publishers of English-language perspectives and the great privilege of hearing even a few voices of our sisters and brothers from Eswatini, South Korea, China, Nicaragua, Botswana, and Brazil.

No doubt, some things are lost in translation. And perhaps some are gained. In any case, our job as readers is to listen carefully, openly, and generously. To this task I commend our readers, with hope.

Soli Deo gloria.