An Encounter with Alan Tippett (Part 2)

In my last post I addressed Tippett’s first of six problems that the evangelist of ‘animistic’ peoples needs to deal with. He has five more and taken together I think his case for treating primal peoples in a category of their own is seriously problematic.

Tippett’s second problem is the issue of motivation: “Animists may be interested in Christianity for many and varied reasons – some good, others bad”. However, this problem is universal wherever commitment to Christ is seen as a path to material gain, so it does not apply as a peculiar issue for the evangelization of primalists.

Tippett’s third problem is the issue of meaning: the message being proclaimed may be misunderstood by the hearers because of the worldview through which it is heard and received leading to all sorts of problems as Paul and Barnabas had (Acts 14:8-18). This, surely, is also universal – misunderstandings happen wherever the gospel is preached and no matter how sophisticated the community being evangelized.

Tippett’s fourth problem, social structure, likewise, is an issue in many types of society, not just those typically identified as animistic. In fact, even in complex urban societies social structure is an issue. At its most basic level family relations, marriage etc can be either an obstacle or a bridge to the spread of the message.

The issue of incorporation into the church (Tippett’s fifth problem) is linked with the issue of social structure and is certainly shared with other societies. Tippett is concerned that the proclamation of the gospel to animists is not carried on individualistically. Churches must be formed, not just isolated disciples, a given in the New Testament and one that Tippett rightly addresses, but not one that is unique to primal contexts.

Tippett’s sixth problem is the issue of cultural void. If churches are to thrive in animistic contexts they must be taught to value features of their culture that are positive rather than rejecting them all as necessarily evil. This, too, is clearly an issue in any situation where the gospel call is misunderstood as a call to abandon valid cultural activity.

So, of Tippett’s six problems I can’t recognize any that are peculiar to the evangelization of primal peoples. All this goes to demonstrate the difficulty of trying to isolate tribal peoples, or animists, or whatever we may call them as a distinct type of religion. When we look around at the peoples of the world and their religious experiences we have to recognize that we are all subject to one degree or another to primal tendencies – even missiologists! Nor are they all negative. Tippett’s six problems, then, apply to the evangelization of people of all kinds. Yet again the comparative religion project is found to be wanting.

An Encounter with Alan Tippett (Part 1)

Alan Tippett was an Australian who worked in Fiji for twenty years before joining Donald McGavran at the School of World Mission at Fuller Theological Seminary. 

In the third edition of Perspectives on the World Christian Movement, A Reader a chapter of Tippett’s is included on “The Evangelization of Animists”.[1] That chapter is not included in the latest edition but I want to interact with it because I think many of the sentiments that are expressed are still common currency in missions. Much of what Tippett writes is good and helpful. He tries to resist the comparative religionists’ insistence of categorizing animists alongside other traditions such as Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists. 

Nevertheless, and while acknowledging the great variety of expressions of animism, for the sake of simplicity he deals with animists together, as a category in contrast to other categories – “a discrete enough philosophical ‘system’ among the religious,” as he calls it – and for this reason the chapter comes significantly unstuck. Put crudely animists, according to Tippett, are considered those that would not consider themselves to belong to one of the so-called Great Traditions. 

But animism, or primalism as it is better called, deeply affects the religion of vast numbers of people globally, not just those belonging to tribal communities (with which the phenomenon is usually associated). There are many people that would identify themselves as Buddhist, Hindu, or Muslim (or Sikh, Jain or Parsee for that matter) that exhibit primal tendencies in belief and practice, and plenty of people who identify themselves as Christians! Tippett himself is not unaware of this but seems not able to draw the logical conclusion that his categories need a shake up. Andrew Walls writes that “the word [primal] helpfully underlines two features of the religions of the people indicated: their historical anteriority and their basic, elemental status in human experience.”[2] All other faiths, Walls adds, are secondary to that basic primal experience. A key aspect of the culture and religion of primal peoples is a shared belief in a multitude of spirits or other non-material phenomena that interact freely with the material world.

Now Tippett outlines six problems with which the evangelist to animistic peoples must come to terms. The first of these is that in the evangelization of animists we must expect a particular sort of encounter on the part of those who come to Christ. Citing the example of Joshua (24:15) and the Ephesian converts (Acts 19:18-19) Tippett asserts that “animists cannot drift into the Christian faith”. They need, he says, a visible demonstration that the old way is finished with, a rite of separation, to use Van Gennep’s phrase. It may involve the burning of fetishes or amulets or other such event.

Missionary stories often describe just such an encounter in the conversion of primal peoples. But I want to question the biblical basis for expecting or requiring such an event. To come back to Joshua’s story, the people of Israel had left Egypt several decades before. They had now come to occupy the vast majority of the Promised Land. But clearly all was not well with the people. The fact that they possessed ‘foreign gods’ to throw away suggests that there were some deep-seated issues of allegiance that had not been resolved. Perhaps they had carried these with them all the way from Egypt (as Josh 24:14 suggests). But this story is not that of the conversion of a tribe of primal people. This was the people of God, the people to whom the Lord had said, “You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself” (Exod 19:4). Judging by the cycles of infidelity over the following generations, neither did this incident prove so much of a turning point for the people. So I do not find it a helpful analogy to Tippett’s description of the kind of encounter he expects among primal peoples.

The incident in Ephesus is equally difficult. The description is not detailed enough to conclude much about the order of events but we are told that “Many of those who believed now came and openly confessed their evil deeds” (Acts 19:18). The Greek perfect participle suggests that these were already believers. This was no conversion event. So the biblical basis for expecting an “ocular demonstration” (Tippett’s phrase) at the animist’s conversion is simply non-existent.

This being so, perhaps those who work with tribal groups and others exhibiting primal tendencies need to re-examine this concept and seek a more robustly biblical and theological rationale for their expectations when they see people turn to Christ.

I will address the other five issues in the next post.

---

[1] Alan R. Tippett, “The Evangelization of Animists” in Perspectives on the World Christian Movement, A Reader (edited by R. D. Winter & S. C. Hawthorne; 3d ed. Pasadena: William Carey Library, 1999), 629-40.

[2] Andrew F. Walls, “Primal Religious Traditions in Today’s World,” in The Missionary Movement in Christian History: Studies in the Transmission of the Faith. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1996, 121.

Revolution in World Missions (Part 2)

Part 1 of this review is here.

Yohannan’s shaky evidence leads him to take an exaggeratedly contrasting approach to bolster his case. “Americans have never known the fear of persecution,” he writes (51), forgetting that the country was founded in large part by men and women fleeing an authoritarian state. Yohannan, in contrast, knows what it is like to suffer as a persecuted minority in his own country: he tells the story of being beaten and having stones thrown at him on one of his visits to an Indian village while in OM. But he neglects to mention that the vast majority of Indian believers haven’t experienced persecution any more than their brothers and sisters in America have.

The American church, says Yohannan, is in “spiritual decline” (51). American Christians are “worldly” (96), living in “extravagance, self-indulgence and spiritual weakness” (51), whereas “native missionaries...suffer for their commitment” as they “serve Christ daily” (98). He fails to mention that great numbers of American disciples of Jesus serve Christ daily in the lives that the Lord has given them or that the majority of Indians who wear the label Christian are, as he well knows, also deeply affected by extravagance, self-indulgence and spiritual weakness.

Instead he tells the story of one who he calls Brother P. in Nepal. Brother P., we are told, was a native missionary who served time in 14 different prisons between 1960 and 1975, suffering torture and ridicule for preaching the gospel (49). He neglects to tell the rest of Brother P’s story. Some years ago, I pieced together the following few details from various accounts by people who knew him. When Brother P. was released from jail it seems he hoped to be more highly regarded by his fellow Nepali believers and not receiving the recognition he felt was his due withdrew from their fellowship. A US-based organization, which predates the founding of GFA, began funding him in order to support native missionaries in the country. Allegations of financial mismanagement were flagged up to the HQ but never acted upon for over 20 years until they finally sent a representative to investigate the work. A few weeks later I was informed that the organization was no longer supporting Brother P’s ministry. Over the years as much as $1 million may have been sent in the support of this man. But Yohannan holds him up as a model to emulate in stark contrast to the ‘worldliness’ of American believers! His argument rings hollow. (For another related story see “Grace and Greed: The Making and Marring of the Tamang Movement to Christ” by Mark Johnson, Voice of Bhakti 3 (1) February, 2004, http://www.bhaktivani.com/volume3/number1/grace_greed.html.)

Yohannan tells us that “Western missionaries are no longer able to do church planting” in many nations where it was formerly allowed (157). And yet agencies are sending men and women to such countries every year to do just that. He argues, rather, that “the most effective way now to win Asia for Christ is through prayer and financial support for the native missionary force” for five reasons. I will interact with each of these, one by one.

1. It is wise stewardship (158). I would agree here that it certainly makes sound economic sense to support workers who need less to live on. But the figures that Yohannan uses are extreme. The dearest, no expense spared, American missionary (with his family with all their needs) is contrasted with the cheapest Indian. Yohannan hardly mentions the many missionaries who are living on a lot less than the extreme upper limit. Neither does he mention the hardships imposed on native workers who are having to live in poverty or their leaders who need a higher level of support as their needs increase with longevity of service.
2. In many places the presence of Western missionaries perpetuates the myth that Christianity is the religion of the West (159). This is hogwash. The fact is that many people in Asia will continue to believe that for a long time to come whether Western missionaries continue to visit or not. Furthermore, native workers often have precisely the same effect when they do things like insist that new believers change their name to a ‘Christian’ one. The opinion that Jesus is not for Asians has deep historical and cultural causes and will not go away by simply telling Westerners not to come.
3. Western missionaries, and the money they bring, compromise the natural growth and independence of the national church (161). Indeed, this has often been the case and great problems have arisen from the abuse of money. But if the money flows from foreign funds the involvement or otherwise of Western missionaries may not be such a significant factor after all. Indeed is the difference that significant if a native rather than a Westerner controls the dollars? The story of Brother P., repeated in so many other cases, indicates otherwise.
4. Western missionaries cannot easily go to the countries where most so-called “hidden people” live (164). Indeed, it is a great challenge to enter into a restricted-access country, learn the language and become culturally competent. But this is one way that the Lord has continued to take to fulfil the Great Commission even in the twenty-first century. Difficult, but not impossible. With God, all things are possible.
5. Western missionaries seldom are effective today in reaching Asians and establishing local churches in the villages of Asia (164). Yohannan gives us another sad story of missionary failure and incompetence. But his evidence is purely anecdotal. I am tempted to ask for the facts but the work of the Spirit is usually quiet and unassuming, as is the work of those who are filled with the Spirit, whether brown-skinned or white. And furthermore, the people of Asia are flocking to the cities which are fast becoming cosmopolitan melting pots of hidden and not-so-hidden peoples. The need for outsiders as well as insiders to reach these peoples in their new places is as great as ever.

This is not a new book but with 1.5 million copies in print it is influential. My prayer is that this blog might moderate its message. The day of Westerners in intercultural ministry is not over. For sure they must repudiate all colonial attitudes, seek to live a life of spiritual vitality, and be willing to suffer as their native colleagues need to do. New approaches and structures may be needed to ensure that this can happen effectively. My prayer is that readers of this book will (1) thank God for native workers who live for the gospel rather than their stipend, (2) be wise in the way they use their money, and (3) continue to seek the Lord of the harvest to thrust out labourers from overseas to join those native workers.

Revolution in World Missions (Part 1)

Revolution in World Missions (Carollton, Tex.: GFA, 2004; www.gfa.org/resource/books/revolution/)

K. P. Yohannan tells the story of his upbringing and call to ministry in India as a young man, his life on OM teams in the late 60s and early 70s, his move to the USA to study in seminary, his marriage to Gisela from Germany, the development of his vision to support ‘native missionary movements’ across Asia, and the founding of his organization, Gospel for Asia (GFA). As he tells his story he sets out his theology and philosophy of mission.

Yohannan calls the ‘native missionary movement’ the third wave of missions in history, the first being that of the NT, and the second that of the modern missionary movement that began with Carey.

Using broad brush strokes, Yohannan criticises Western churches for abandoning the gospel for a somewhat Christianized form of social welfare. He argues that the emphasis of the Bible is on evangelism and church planting rather than on feeding the hungry and providing for the poor. He also affirms the Bible’s teaching on hell and judgment in a day when this is not trendy to do so.

The book for the most part is a polemic in favour of supporting ‘native missionaries’ for gospel work in Asia. He recognizes that there are many unreached nations in the world, the majority in Asia, and states that the “native missionary movement [is] the only hope for these unreached nations...” (143). The book has gone through several printings and has been revised (as he states in his acknowledgments, though not in the publisher’s page) to soften some of Yohannan’s most strident rhetoric and in answer to friendly critique by colleagues.

I think that Yohannan makes some very good points. However, I think equally that Yohannan’s case is full of holes. In short Revolution in World Missions is naive, overstated, and unbalanced.

Yohannan tells us that there are only two religions in the world:

Mature Christians realize the Bible teaches there are only two religions in this world. There is the worship of the one true God, and there is a false system invented in ancient Persia. From there, Persian armies and priests spread their faith to India, where it took root. Its missionaries in turn spread it throughout the rest of Asia. Animism and all other Asian religions have a common heritage in this one religious system. (138)

No references are given. No indication is given as to how the false system spread to Europe, Australia, Africa or the Americas. The Bible does in fact teach that there are only two religions, if one must talk in such terms, but the divide happened way further back than ancient Persia. Rather it was in the Garden of Eden when our first parents decided to go their own way rather than God’s. That fundamental divide is in the heart of every person and does not need to diffuse through the human race. Such a naive handling of history does not inspire confidence in Yohannan’s case.

“In Asia,” we are told, “baptism and the taking of a Christian name symbolize a complete break with the past” (143). But does it really? When Krishna becomes Chris or Radha becomes Rachel do they stop eating Indian food, wearing Indian dress, speaking their Indian language? Of course not, Yohannan would reply. Then it is not a complete break, is it? No, it is a selective break. And that selectivity is a sensitive process. Is it really necessary for Krishna to become Chris? After all, Hermes and Phoebe didn't change their names (Rom 16:14, cf. Acts 14:12; Rom 16:1). So no one makes a complete break. The question is, do the changes I make in my life reflect the work of the Spirit in me and communicate to my family that I still love them. Baptism, if done sensitively, does not have to lead to a disruption of family ties. But many unnecessary actions advocated by well-meaning, but muddle-headed Western and Indian Christians, and presumably (going by the above opinion) affirmed by Yohannan, cause dire hardship to new believers and untold confusion to their families. 

Here is the second and final part of this review.

Don't Pooh-Pooh Anthropology

I watched a video some time back of a lecturer in a well-known seminary pooh-poohing the validity of anthropology in the curriculum for training people for missions. While I respect the lecturer and the institution and can understand the rationale for their position I think they are wrong. 

The suspicion lies in the Enlightenment roots of the discipline. Indeed many of the early anthropologists (though they relied heavily on data sent back by missionaries) were driven by an atheistic agenda. So it is understandable that many would want to keep well away from it. I would argue, however, that it is vital that those training for cross-cultural missions be given the opportunity to grow in wisdom by being exposed to the insights that the discipline can bring.

Anthropology, like history, is an interpretive discipline that must be handled critically. Lack of critical reflection on anthropological perspectives leads to one of two unhelpful results: uncritical acceptance of anthropological perspectives that are based on unbiblical ideas or unthinking rejection of valid anthropological insights, and often both at the same time. Thankfully, anthropology as a discipline is a lot humbler than it used to be and though there are still those who seek to undermine truth there are a lot who are seeking to reflect on the phenomena of people and their cultures self-critically. We can learn from them just as we can from historians.

As theologians around the world grapple with the cross-cultural transmission of the faith in their own setting they have something to contribute to the global church. The inter-cultural sharing of theological insights must inevitably involve translation, demanding much patience and inter-cultural wisdom. The church will grow as we listen to the insights of those in various settings across the world today as well as those in various settings across the centuries, i.e. as they engage in both synchronic and diachronic studies. Let's not pooh-pooh the discipline of anthropology but listen to people who, though fallen, have contributed valid insights into how other people live.