Equilibrium: Revisited

I had just settled in to my seat on a South African Airways flight from Jo'burg to Cape Town.  I had my copy of Complete Nepali (excellent, by the way) in my hand, ready to be read.  Then Greg sat down.  Followed a bit later by Azim. Both men were my age.  Both native South Africans. Both 3rd generation Indian immigrants.  What followed was a lively conversation about Cape Town, life, world affairs.  

At one point, I said to my traveling companions, "I'm curious about your perspectives on things going on in the U.S.  What does it look like to a South African?"  There were some attempts to answer me, but eventually Greg explained, "You know, we all pretty much feel that Americans are arrogant.  That they have no idea about what's going on in the rest of the world.  So in response, a lot of times, we just don't care about what's going on in the United States."  The conversation continued, building on the theme that Americans must learn how to listen.

Greg told me of a time he was in the U.S. on business, consulting for an American company. One of the American's asked him if he knew what an "MP3" was.  Well, Greg was taken aback.  He felt offended that the American assumed that since Greg came from the majority world, that he knew very little about technology. "This guy didn't even know that actually MP3s were already an outdated form of technology!"

Let me paint a different kind of scenario:

A kind of coalition of churches is formed in an American city. The several churches represent several different ethno-linguistic groups.  There is property involved.  Electric bills.  Space and time negotiations.  Etc.  The assumed head of this coalition is the one American church.  Not that this was ever mutually agreed upon.  It just was.  It is simply assumed that since the property that is being used by all is legally owned by the American group, that they are the ones who have the final authority.  And, by the way, it isn't just the Americans who make this assumption.  Everyone else does as well.  At the end of the day, it appears that finances and power are woven together very tightly.  We should pause and consider if this is true and if it is as it should be . . . ok, now let's move on.

Then there is a meeting. The Americans have been struggling for some time, but recently some of its leaders have experiences a fresh vision and hope for the future.  They call the meeting to discuss their vision with the other churches – the immigrant churches.  Their exciting new plans are laid on the table.  The other churches are invited and challenged to get on board in prescribed ways.  The immigrants are encouraged to consider how they might make adjustments to their plans and ministries in order to prepare for growth.  In as sense, it sounds very exciting.

Except . . .

Here’s the thing, the immigrant churches have already been growing.  Some of them have planted daughter churches after only existing for a couple years themselves.  The growth is heavily through making new disciples.  They are already vibrant, hopeful, excited.  Beyond that, some of the leaders in those immigrant churches have accumulated very significant experience in evangelism, church planting, missions, and more.  As a matter of fact, from the perspective of a fly on the wall, the meetings seems very strange.  The one church that has not been growing, is the one leading, the one casting the vision, the one (indirectly) demanding to be listened to.  But the question is never raised, nor does it appear to enter the mind that the Americans should go to the immigrants and ask, “Will you teach us how to reach our neighbors?”

Greg said it.  Americans like me just have no idea how to listen. How to learn from the rest of the world.  How to be humble before them and recognize that our brothers and sisters in Christ from the majority world have been gifted and blessed by God in ways that we need.  That I need. 

So, these thoughts are very much on my mind today in Cape Town, South Africa.  Because of the people I’ve been talking with.  Because of what Greg said.  Because of what Paco said. And Niove.  Because I’ve been asked to lead a table and I want to listen.  Because of David Ruiz’s tremendous paper, “Cooperation in the Body of Christ: Towards a New Equilibrium”.  There is so much good stuff in his paper that trying to quote something or sum up something seems an injustice.  Just read it.  Pay careful attention to what he says about COMIBAM. It made me write in the margin of my paper, “What if the Cooperative Program was actually cooperative?” Some of you will understand that.

Take note of what Ruiz says about the best “motor” to empower and drive missions. Take note of the “high price” of cooperation.  Take note of this, “a united group starts with me.”

Together with Patrick Fung (who’s paper I review here), Ruiz will be presenting here in Cape Town on Sunday the 24^th.  I have a feeling that’s a plenary you’ll want to download the podcast for.

Blessings.

Must the Church Pursue a Global Equilibrium?

I always appreciate it when thinkers carefully examine unstated premises.  I always think about an episode of the West Wing in which one main character is repeatedly advised to handle reporters by "rejecting the premise" of their questions. I believe that Singaporean Church leader Patrick Fung's ability to do this -- to put the premise of his paper's title ("Partnering in the Body of Christ toward a New Global Equilibrium") under the microscope-- is what makes his contribution to the Lausanne Congress so valuable.

Fung's self-conscious article presents a very important question. Should a global equilibrium of power, resources, and influence be pursued at all?  Phillip Jenkins and others have done a good job of pointing out to us that the majority of Christians now live in the global south while most of the power and influence remains in Western countries.  But as I read Fung, I must acknowledge that this fact alone mustn't be the sole reason that we pursue a global equilibrium in the Church.  Rather, our goal is world evangelism, not equilibrium.  Writes Fung, "I am glad that LCWE stands for Lausanne Congress for World Evangelization and not Lausanne Congress for World Equilibrium."  This is an important point. We must not be saying "to the extent to which pursuing global equilibrium in the Church is the nice thing to do, we must do it." Rather we must say "to the extent to which pursuing a global equilibrium in the Church contributes to the extension of God's reign and fame among all peoples and nations, we must do it."

To this point, I want to say three things -- things that I think Fung is also saying.

First, we may speak of a geographic, financial, numerical, or intellectual "center of gravity" in the Church, but the only "center of gravity" that has any real meaning is the theological one -- Christ is the one and only "center of gravity" for the Church.

This, of course, isn't a point original to me, but rather comes from something I read in the Lausanne Theology Working Group paper.  Let me provide an extended quote here:

"We rejoice in the phenomenal growth of the church in the majority world of the global south, and for that reason we understand the intention of the statement that the 'centre of gravity' of world Christianity has shifted south.  However, we strongly discourage the further use of this term, for two reasons.  First, Christianity has no centre but Jesus Christ.  We are defined by no geographical centre, but only by our allegiance to the Lordship of Christ, and he is Lord of all the earth.  The 'centre', therefore, is wherever he is worshipped and obeyed. Secondly, any talk of a centre (other than Christ) undermines the fact that Christianity, even since the book of Acts, has always been fundamentally polycentric. Anywhere on earth can be a centre, and any centre can rapidly become peripheral.  The global nature of the church as 'one throughout the whole wide world' subverts the language of a centre--whether geographic, numerical, or missionary. Mission is from everywhere to everywhere."


Second, for the gospel to be the gospel, there is a need for a kind of global equilibrium in the Church.  This is because a full-orbed understanding of the gospel includes the good news that God is creating out of fragmented and broken humanity, one new humanity, the Church.

So there can be no true gospel and no true evangelization unless it includes the presentation of this new reconciled humanity.  And I sense a growing chorus of voices on this point.  It is here in Fung's article, "Christ has destroyed the barrier . . . has brought into being nothing less than a new, united human race . . . the message of reconciliation is to be lived out by God's new community, which the fragmented world needs to see." It is also in the Lausanne Theology Working Group paper, "It is important to see how this 'peace-making' work of the cross -- reconciling Jews and Gentiles, and creating on new humanity -- is not just a by-product of the gospel, but is of the essence of the gospel itself." It there in the words of Antoine Rutayisire who, when speaking of factors contributing to the Rwandan genocide of the 1990s, mourned the fact that conflicts between missionaries from different denominations "created more divisions and animosities among the people who did not see Christianity as a unifying factor but rather another colonial importation." It is, of course, in the Lausanne Covenant itself which states, "our disunity undermines our gospel of reconciliation" and the Manila Manifesto which affirms "the urgent need for churches, mission agencies and other Christian organizations to cooperate in evangelism and social action, repudiating competition and avoiding duplication." And more voices besides these could be cited.  Praise the Holy Spirit as He works to move us more and more to this point of common ground.

Third, for a global equilibrium to be built upon an a priori commitment to God's global mission, it will necessarily look different than conceptions of equilibrium that are based on a rather arbitrary sense of niceness, fairness, or democracy.

And I'm not meaning to be cute here, but Fung has raised a critical specific point that alludes to this larger one.  His specific point is this, "although a better state of equilibrium will avoid the tendency of dependency, the biblical concept of partnering in the body of Christ should be interdependence". Now, I can't tell you how tempted I am to chase that rabbit trail, but I will try to exercise a bit of self-control and simply suggest, in agreement with Fung, that it is unbiblical to hold up independence and autonomy as signs of spiritual maturity either for individuals, local churches, or national/regional churches.  The three (to four) self formula is fundamentally flawed if it cannot allow for the kind of permanent interdependence that the Bible calls for.

Now it is this Biblical interdependence that must become what we mean by equilibrium.  It is not that the Holy Spirit distributes the same gifts, history, resources, experiences, and knowledge to every person, church, and region in precisely the same ways so as to facilitate our human conception of fairness.  Rather, it is that the Holy Spirit distributes gifts as He wills for the common good (1 Cor. 12).  We are all supposed to be strong in some ways and weak in others.  For in this, we cannot but come together.  The real problem may not be that Western churches "have all the power, influence, scholarship and resources", but rather that we in the West have failed to recognize the richness in majority world Churches that we desperately need.  Likewise we fail to recognize value that lies outside our normal categories of assessing value.  So that if we continue to only think of equilibrium in terms of balancing money, influence, information, and the like then we will never achieve Biblical interdependence (i.e. equilibrium) that also calls us to value a whole range of other categories such as prayer, worship, persecutions, powerlessness, poverty, joy, and more.