Friday, June 29, 2018

Sharing Jesus with Hindu Friends


You have started life at your new university. Despite your nerves, you make an effort to meet the other students on your corridor and discover you are next door to a Hindu. Raj is from the Midlands; his parents moved to the UK from India before he was born. Raj is easy to get along with; in many ways he seems just like any other student. But there is no getting away from the fact that there are differences too. There are images of Hindu gods on the shelf in his room, he bows to his parents when they visit, and talks with them in Gujarati.
You have always wanted to share your faith with people from other religious traditions but now that you have the opportunity you wonder where to start. How can I avoid causing offence? Can I talk about ‘God’ if his beliefs about God are different from mine? How should I present the uniqueness of Christ?
This article has been written to help you begin to answer those questions, calm your nerves, help you understand your friend, and give you some tips on how you can share your faith.
Read more here.

Thursday, June 28, 2018

Thinking Mission Symposium

I had the privilege to be at this gathering in London on Tuesday. It had been arranged by Global Connections to discuss Mike Stroope's important book, Transcending Mission, which I reviewed last year. In God's providence the author was already planning to be in the UK so Mike was able to attend. (In what follows I beg forgiveness if I misrepresent any of the contributors and will revise it if an error is pointed out.)

Mike gave an introductory paper, telling us a little of his ministry story as well as informing us of the thesis of the book and of the reactions it has received. I was fascinated to hear that he had had a significant part to play in the SBC International Missions Board's leadership in the 1990s, a story told by Keith Eitel in Paradigm Wars. I had been in Nepal at that time and had seen some of the fruit of the machinations in the organization that Eitel documents. (I asked Mike about it at the end of the day but didn't have enough time to really interact. Suffice it to say that those events had a significant impact on the development of my missiology so I do hope I can interact further before long.)

Mike spoke graciously and humbly, admitting that he had had some pretty strong negative reactions to his argument. That is to be understood as the book really calls much of the modern missions movement into question.

David Smith's Mission after Christendom was a tremendous help to me when I arrived back in the UK after 20 years in Asia. David was asked to prepare a response to Mike, which he did ably and winsomely. Sometimes there can be a hard spirit in such gatherings, where egos seem to count more than truth and the good of the church and the glory of Christ. Not so here. David expressed his admiration for the book, situating it in a line of very significant works such as Cragg's The Secular Experience of Christ, Bosch's Transforming Mission, and the work of Andrew Walls (David's mentor), and suggesting that Stroope's book extends the long-running disputes of those authors.

He then highlighted three issues that the book throws up:

1. The relationship between mission and colonialism

The modern missions movement had an ambivalent relationship with the colonial project. There was significant overlap without a doubt, though this is often overplayed. David then argued that Mike's book misses out on the very important role that missions had in the emergence of World Christianity and even of the revitalisation of cultures in places such as Africa.

Furthermore, Protestant mission movements were not monolithic. Many early pioneers, such as William Carey (1761-1834), were dissenting Baptists. Far from being at the centre of power, they were at the margins. Carey's approach towards Hinduism was respectful: hardly a colonialist attitude and very different from the high period of colonialism of a later generation.

2. The relationship of terminology and concepts of mission and the Bible

Stroope argues that mission, missions, missional, etc have become sacred rhetoric with no biblical foundation. Smith challenges this main assertion of the book in two ways:

a) How, if we cannot employ such a concept as mission, can we explain what Paul had in mind when he instructed the Roman church to support him in his vision to go to Spain, a challenge that would have necessitated a two-step process of translation to Latin and Iberian languages (Rom 15:23-24)? Paul was a model for what might be done by other disciples of Christ. How do we talk about that? What language should we use? Furthermore, Paul, as has been pointed out before, was reaching out from one marginal position to another, not from a position of power.

b) Is the 'pilgrim witness' language that Stroope argues for, the most appropriate? And what do we mean precisely by the 'kingdom of God'? [My notes are a bit incoherent here!] David questioned whether the missions movement was really subverting the kingdom of God, as seems to be suggested. There are clearly examples of unrighteous acts done by some missionaries (and here Smith mentioned the missionaries of one particular country, who are the subject of a PhD dissertation which he recently examined). But there are very many examples of good work going on too. Moreover, we need to note the emphasis on human agency that Carey asserted in his Enquiry, in the face of a hyper-Calvinistic challenge. 

3. The use of 'transcendence' - what might it look like?

Are we now moving beyond Bosch's liminal stage? Smith here mentioned Walls' recent Crossing Cultural Frontiers and his discussion of migration. Surely both persuasion and demonstration are important in the work of witnesses. Here David also referred to an article on 'Theological Method' in the Global Dictionary of Theology and Terry Eagleton's Culture and the Death of God.

Further interaction

Two shorter presentations were also given - by Rosalee Veloso Ewell, giving a female and global South perspective, and by a Redcliffe College student, Aaron, giving a Millenial perspective. Short opportunities for interaction were given after each presentation.

Mike Stroope gave a final reaction to the day in which he informed us he was working on a follow-up book expanding on the epilogue of Transcending Mission

My reaction

The audience gave a sympathetic and respectful hearing to the argument and responses. I found the day very stimulating indeed. I was heartened at the spirit of interaction, especially by the two main speakers. I think the concerns with the book that I expressed in my review were shared by others. Although I think Mike's thesis is basically correct, I continue to believe he overstates his case. I find it difficult to see how vast chunks of humanity will be exposed to the glorious person of the Lord Jesus without a more intentional approach.

One concept that seemed to have achieved virtual consensus in the papers and discussion is that of World Christianity. I whole-heartedly agree that we need to be learning from each other across the cultural and continental divides. However, there seems to be little or no awareness of the fact that there is a growing body of followers of Christ who do not identify themselves as belonging to World Christianity. We may listen to Christians in their countries and still be way off really understanding our other brothers and sisters. And we will remain just as handicapped in our efforts to reach out to the vast numbers who, while open to considering the person of Christ would find World Christianity far too alien.

On a personal level this book challenges me to reflect on my words, my actions, and my character, as I continue to seek to work out how the Lord would have me continue to use my gifts, experience, and energies for his glory.

Tuesday, June 19, 2018

A Taxonomy of Church & Ethnic Engagement

As there is a fair pit of dialogue on twitter at the moment on multiculturalism in churches I thought I would post some material on the issue.

Some years ago in teaching on urban contextualization I came up with a taxonomy of how churches engage with the existential issue of living in a multi-cultural or multi-ethnic society (I use the terms synonymously). This is not to make a judgment on one approach or another but simply as an analytical tool. The taxonomy is based on two axes: the horizontal (x) axis on multiculturality and the vertical (y) axis on philosophy of engagement. This is what it looks like:





The table below shows how churches of the four types differ from each other.

 

Pragmatic
Monocultural 
Pragmatic
Multicultural 
Idealistic 
Multicultural 
Idealistic 
Monocultural 
Affirmation of communal identity 
û
ü
ü
ü
Communities meet separately in one local church 
û
ü
ü
û
Communities gather in one congregation 
û
û
ü
û
Translation in services 
û
û
ü
û

Advantages of each type:

Pragmatic
Monocultural 
Pragmatic
Multicultural 
Idealistic 
Multicultural 
Idealistic 
Monocultural 
clear expectations of what is expected of everyone

easy for majority community to accept outsiders from minority communities 
all groups are encouraged to express themselves according to their cultural norms
single local church expresses multicultural reality of universal church in relationships between congregations of one church
all groups are encouraged to express themselves according to their cultural norms

single local church expresses multicultural reality of universal church in vivid public form 
all groups are encouraged to express themselves according to their cultural norms
relations between local churches expresses multicultural reality of universal church
outsiders readily feel at home 


Disadvantages of each type:

Pragmatic
Monocultural 
Pragmatic
Multicultural 
Idealistic 
Multicultural 
Idealistic 
Monocultural 
not easy for minority communities to adjust to culture of majority church
for those from minority communities, bridges to unbelieving relatives and friends are broken, passively by neglect or actively by insistence on leaving former lifestyle
sense of unity of local church is threatened
communication between congregations is complicated
outsiders may still feel the congregation is not for them because the ownership of the wider group is multicultural, especially if the senior leaders are from the majority community
no community feels entirely at home in the congregation
communication is complicated
outsiders may still feel the meeting is not for them because the identity of the minority group is subsumed under that of the majority 
image of unity of universal church is threatened
postponement of ethical awareness
communication between churches is complicated