The Oslo Coalition's Anti-Contextualization Stance: My Rebuttal

While in Cape Town for the Lausanne Congress, there were numerous individuals and groups that distributed information of different types.  This was a basically unofficial activity that didn't necessarily reflect views being put forth by the Lausanne Movement.  One of those pieces was an 8-page document entitled "Missionary Activity and Human Rights: Recommended Ground Rules for Missionary Activity." The piece was produced by The Oslo Coalition on Freedom of Religion or Belief.  I excitedly snatched it up because I thought that the idea of a code of ethics for missions was a good one.

I have since gone through the document a few times and have found that while in some places it has value, it ultimately doesn't seek to reflect a Biblical world view and doesn't hold the extension of Christ's Kingdom and fame among the nations as its primary impetus. At best, the document provides something of a starting point upon which to build, but it is major reconstruction that is needed and not just fine tuning.  If anyone knows of a truly Christian document like this, do tell.  Short of that, I feel the Lausanne Covenant and Manila Manifesto, while not seeking to do exactly the same thing, are far superior to the Oslo statement (we are all anxiously awaiting the Cape Town Commitment).

Today, I did want to highlight one article that I found especially objectionable in the Oslo statement.  It comes at part 2.1.2 bullet #2:

"The missionary organization should be careful in adopting terminology, rituals and customs from other religions, so as not to create misunderstandings about its identity. It should not attempt to achieve acceptance through adopting the outward appearance of other religions."

I find this to be a clear anti-contextualization statement that reflects a fundamental ignorance of issues related to culture, contextualization, and missiology in general.  Let me explain a bit.

1. On the notion of "adopting" terms, rituals, and customs "from" other religions -- Here is where the ignorance about culture and religion becomes clear.  The writers seem to be under the impression that certain religions can claim a kind of ownership over terminology, rituals or customs.  But this is utterly false. Whether we're speaking of circumcision or Sanskrit, incense or images, such things must not be considered the domain of any single religious group.  Rather, these are inherently communication tools - signs, symbols, and ceremonies that are designed to carry and express meaning from person to person and person to God. One should not assume that a different understanding of the nature of God requires a different means of communication. That is, perhaps my view changes as to which Scripture is truly divine in origin - from say the Vedas to the Bible. I may nevertheless still find that the use of Sanskrit mantras is the best means of memorizing and meditating upon that scripture.

2. On the notion of creating "misunderstandings about its identity" -- First, this phrase is somewhat demeaning.  It seems to communicate the image of a conniving and cunning Western missionary who sinisterly dupes the uneducated and unsophisticated savages, tricking them into religious conversion.  I have not found my non-Western friends to be so easily confused.  What is more, the pursuit of contextualization, far from being a strategy to confuse, is motivated fundamentally by a desire to improve and clarify communication.  By avoiding the unnecessary and unbiblical introduction of foreign religious externals, missionaries are better able to locate Christian identity where it belongs - in the heart.

3. On adopting the "outward appearance" -- Contextualization is not rooted in an attempt to adopt the outward appearance of another religion.  Rather, it is rooted in the imitation of Christ's incarnation.  That is, the contextualizer seeks, as far as is possible, to dwell among a particular cultural context as a full member of that culture. This has implications for the way one dresses, eats, relates to others, etc.  But it also has tremendous implications for the way one expresses, practices, and communicates the Christian faith.  To the unsophisticated eye, this may look like a missionary is adopting the "outward appearance" of Islam, Hinduism, or whatever. But the true, Christ-imitating contextualizer is rather seeking to adopt a people as his or her own including their means of verbal and non-verbal, spatial, ritual, corporate, individual, and chronological communication. This is done so as to more faithfully and clearly communicate the hope and wholeness of Jesus Christ.

Many thanks for reading. I would sincerely enjoy reading your feedback in the comment section. Blessings!

My Top 3 Complaints About Cape Town 2010

Okay ladies and gentlemen, it's time to take the gloves off.

Really, I've been too nice and cuddly regarding Cape Town 2010, the historic 3rd Lausanne Congress. Even before the congress had begun, during the event itself, and certainly since it closed, I've been hearing a number of criticisms and complaints from delegates and observers.  Why, just yesterday, I sat for a while with a friend and heard him relay complaints that he had heard from others.  Well, so as not to be outdone, I've decided to join the fray.  No more warm and fuzzy.  Here it is, my top 3 biggest complaints about Cape Town 2010:

3. Advocating our causes by diminishing others

I have noticed (not only at Cape Town, but it stood out to me there) that there is a dangerous tendency that we missionary-types have.  That is, we have a tendency to speak about our particular callings and passions as if they were the only legitimate ones out there.  That is, someone who is passionate about the urban poor tends to diminish those working in rural Tibet.  The ministry focused on Muslims speaks as if those trying to reach Hindus are somehow less spiritual.  The person with a ministry dedicated to combating human trafficking can't understand those who are passionate about church planting.  And so on.  I will refrain from giving specific examples, but they were numerous.  May the Lord rescue us from thinking that every part of the body of Christ needs to be just like us - "if the whole body were a cross-cultural church planter working contextually among Hindus in diaspora, where would the body be?" (1 Cor. 12:19)

2. Lack of integrity regarding the Lausanne Covenant

Well, I hate to say this folks, but unfortunately, I saw evidence of a serious lack of integrity regarding the Lausanne Covenant at Cape Town 2010.  Now, I find this to be particularly serious because many of us who are in the trenches (some far more so than myself) came to this gathering hoping for two things (among others).  First, we were hoping for the great diversity of the global body of Christ to be represented.  But second, we were hoping that those who did come would share the core convictions of the faith as expressed by the Lausanne Covenant we were all required to affirm.  This unity around essentials and diversity in a wide range of other issues was to help create an atmosphere of unity in diversity, one fertile for collaboration.  Unfortunately, while I assume that every delegate indicated in the application process that they did indeed agree with the Lausanne Covenant, the reality was that some did not.

At the end of the day, I don't know the number.  However, I can see them falling into two major categories.  The first are those who signed the Lausanne Covenant and seem to essentially believe the statements therein, but nevertheless do not necessarily believe that an individual who likewise does so is actually a Christian.  That is, there is a failure to distinguish properly between essentials and non-essentials of the faith.  Members of one delegation in particular expressed this in their words and behaviors towards me.  One individual actually accused me of leading a cult.  When asked if they could acknowledge that since we have both signed the Lausanne Covenant, we actually share the same core and essential theological convictions and, upon that basis, may treat one another as brothers and sisters in Christ, some were unwilling.  I find this extremely sad.

The second category is much worse.  These are those individuals who signed the Lausanne Covenant but who simply didn't agree with it.  In particular, I met delegates who essentially rejected this statement from the covenant,

"Yet those who reject Christ repudiate the joy of salvation and condemn themselves to eternal separation from God." 


What makes this so sad is that such individuals have adopted a dishonest strategy for being selected as delegates for the congress.  Whatever commitment they may have towards Christ, it apparently doesn't require the kind of scrupulous honesty that Christ calls us to.  They may find this to be a very small price to pay in order to get their voice heard, but I find it simply sad.  Participation in the Lausanne Movement is voluntary, and I believe that those who choose to be involved ought to do so with the utmost integrity.

1. Complaints

Of course, my biggest complaint of all was simply the fact that people were complaining so much.  Now, don't misunderstand me. It wasn't the majority by any stretch.  There wasn't a spirit of bitterness hanging over the convention center.  But I happened to be in situations in which I heard a fair amount of what complaining was happening.  Some complained that they weren't fairly represented, some complained that the "whole church" wasn't really there, some complained over issues of gender, some over issues of content, some over race and ethnicity, some over theology, and on and on.  And I kept thinking . . . really?!?! Why? Let me give you one example.

One night, I was coming into the main auditorium for the evening plenary session.  I was looking for a place to sit and found a table at which a friend was sitting. I walked to that table and asked to sit there.  They all said sure but, "you may not want to, we're [John] Piper-bashing over here." My heart dropped into my stomach as I sat down.  I thought, maybe I don't want to sit here. It simply amazed me that a group of Christians (it wasn't the whole table) would be engaged in something that they could describe as the "bashing" of another Christian at such a time and place as the 3rd Lausanne Congress.  I felt a little angry actually.  Why can't we just set aside this one moment in our lives in which we'll refrain from "bashing" each other?  It doesn't matter what you think of what Piper preached, it really doesn't.  I didn't think every sermon and presentation was a home run either. But I chose to trust that everyone came and shared out of a love for Christ.  I chose to trust God to superintend the proceedings of the congress.

So, I felt saddened by this.  I heard after the congress that during the final Holy Communion service that one small group of delegates had considered starting a protest to voice their dissatisfaction with things.  When I heard that, I just thanked God that He didn't let it happen.  I was, at that service, having a very important moment with God -- a moment that I believe will resonate with me for the rest of my life.  I believe that thousands around the room were having a similar encounter with God.  Such a protest would have been so damaging to me at that time.  Perhaps these individuals considered that and refrained for that reason.

Is it weird, am I so strange to choose to take a position of trust?  Is it naive and unchristian for me to assume that the Lausanne leadership really and truly wanted to honor Christ in the congress?  That God cared so much about the event that He was really involved in everything?  Because that is the position I took from the beginning to the end.  That doesn't mean that I wasn't exercising discernment throughout.  I was.  I was thinking critically about everything.  Not everything was great.  Some things were flawed.  The fingerprints of sinful humanity were on everything.  But so was the Spirit.  And so I wonder, why weren't people able to just put a moratorium on bitterness for those few days in Cape Town?

I suppose that someone might say that I'm saying this from my cozy position as a white, male Westerner -- a privileged one.  Maybe so.  But I will say that the vast majority of the complaining I have heard has come from my fellow white, male Westerners.  Sometimes they even complain "on behalf" of their non-white, non-Western friends.  How nice of them! But then I wonder if that simply represents a new kind of Western paternalism.

-----

Okay, my complaints have been lodged.  I hope you realize that while I do feel strongly about the things I've mentioned, my overall feeling about Cape Town 2010 was one of tremendous satisfaction.  I believe God worked in remarkable ways through the leadership and delegates to accomplish something truly historic and life-changing.  Also, please note that my "top 3" are not really complaints about the program of Cape Town 2010.  On the contrary, these are really disturbing observations that I believe God allowed me to make while interacting with the body of Christ in general in Cape Town.

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.

Lest we Forget: The Manila Manifesto

I was only 12-years-old when it was first written, but having just now finished reading through the "Manila Manifesto," I can testify that this is a document that we must not forget about or neglect.  Structured similarly to the newly submitted Lausanne Theology Working Group paper "The Whole Church Taking the Whole Gospel to the Whole World", The "Manifesto" is powerful, direct, and timeless in its wisdom.

As I read, I was struck by how insightfully this document speaks to many of the great issues of our time and, for that matter, to many of the advance papers that have been submitted for Lausanne III. I’m still very new to the Lausanne Movement, but it has been my sense that while the Lausanne Covenant is often spoken of and promoted, the Manila Manifesto gets comparatively little attention. May we move away from this tendency. God clearly worked to gather His Church in Manila in 1989. His Spirit was operating in them to produce the Manifesto as a weighty and prophetic message to the whole Church. This much becomes abundantly clear in simply reading the text.

I hope and pray that as at the Congress, the Manifesto will be affirmed and allowed to speak into our conversations and context.  A few items to make specific note of:

1. Statements of Repentence -- the Manifesto contains several statements of repentance that the Church as a whole hasn’t been faithfully living out.  For example, there is this, "In the past we have sometimes been guilty of adopting towards adherents of other faiths attitudes of ignorance, arrogance, disrespect, and even hostility.  We repent of this." The fact that the new LTWG paper contains very similar statement is evidence that this repentance hasn’t actually taken place.  We must examine these statements of repentance in the Manifesto (and the Lausanne Covenant as well, as Chris Wright has pointed out) and consider how we must actually go about repenting.

2. The careful affirmations of and exhortations about distinctions between clergy and lay roles are important and speak to some of what has been written in an advance paper by Willy Kotiuga and elsewhere. The Manifesto statement does an excellent job of affirming the Biblical distinction while also challenging those problems that we all agree exist. Says the Manifesto, "[God] calls some to be evangelists, missionaries, and pastors, but He calls his whole Church and every member of it to be His witnesses."

3. The Manila Manifesto provides an excellent mediating statement on the issues of gender roles in the Church. I see this statement as doing a better job of addressing the issue than the newer statement produced by the LTWG paper.  In the Manifesto we read,

"God created men and women as equal bearers of his image, accepts them equally in Christ and poured out his Spirit on all flesh, sons and daughters alike. In addition, because the Holy Spirit distributes his gifts to women as well as to men, they must be given opportunities to exercise their gifts. We celebrate their distinguished record in the history of missions and are convinced that God calls women to similar roles today. Even though we are not fully agreed what forms their leadership should take, we do agree about the partnership in world evangelization which God intends men and women to enjoy. Suitable training must therefore be made available to both."

This, in my view, is as powerful statement that the Church can unite behind and it should be a model for us as we consider any statements made on this issue at the Congress.

4. The Local Church section of the Manifesto is simply profound and needs to be read. It goes a long way in answering some of my questions regarding the idea of local church v. local franchise that were raised after reading the LTWG paper.  Also, in includes a powerful "determination" to "turn our churches inside out" in the wake of Lausanne II. This itself calls attention to the for us to examine the "determination" statements that have been made in the past at Manila and Lausanne to see if we have indeed been faithful to carry them out.

5. A paragraph in section 11 speaks to the issue of modernization and technology.  It confesses that "we have not struggled as we should to understand" such things. Again there is a determination statement about intentionally engaging in critical and Christ-centered ways new technology. And yet, years later, we find ourselves in a very similar place with respect to new technologies.  The statements here were made in a day when our present technologies couldn’t have been anticipated.  Yet, they speak powerfully to our context. Note, "We have used [the world’s] methods and technologies uncritically and so exposed ourselves to worldliness." Again, I am reminded of the importance of allowing our Manila predecessors to speak to us in Cape Town through the Manifesto.

Much more could be said. I know you all have much to read, but let me encourage you to at least print off and take a copy of the Manila Manifesto with you on the plane.  Please allow the Lord to speak to you again through those who have gone before us.