IZB |
 |
|
|
Leren van 100 jaar zendingsgeschiedenisToespraak Jacques Matthey (Wereldraad van Kerken) voor leden van de Nederlandse ZendingsraadMission and Unity 1910-2010 and Beyond Part I Edinburgh 2010 What is the purpose of celebrating hundred years since Edinburgh 1910? What do we want to do when we meet in less than two months now? A In short, however, in 1910, Protestant Christians from Europe and North America came to the old town of Edinburgh to reflect on the best way to share the gospel and their culture with people from parts of the world lacking both the gospel and civilization. Now, hundred years later, there are some 2.3 billion Christians in today’s world. There are churches in almost every country of the world, but Europe and North America only counting 800 million Christians. This means that the center of gravity of Christianity is now to be found in the South, more precisely in the West African desert. This change is accompanied by a transformation of Christianity due to the important growth of the “charismatic movement”. I mean by this the classical Pentecostal churches heirs of the 1906 Azusa Street revival, the charismatic movement within mainline churches, which started in the 60s, and the various subsequent waves leading to so-called neo-charismatic independent churches all over the world. Christianity has grown, but has also changed its characteristics in many parts of the world. An Atlas of world Christianity has been published as part of the Edinburgh 2010 project . It intends to illustrate the spread of Christianity in the world and provide church and mission leaders with up to date statistics on church life and witness. The idea of an Atlas is a way to document how Christianity has changed since the publication of the original 1910 Atlas, which provided at that time to mission strategist an image of the “fields” open for witness and of the forces at hand for the task. The production of the 1910 atlas had given rise to a serious missiological debate as to the regions to be considered. How should one deal with the countries where old churches were installed since centuries? The debate concerned the places where the Catholic Church was in majority, like Latin America, or the regions of Eastern Europe and the Middle East, where Orthodox churches were in power positions. For some mission circles, these places had to be considered as “mission fields”, because in their opinion many people living there were only nominally Christian or considered dogmatically misled by their churches. This position was sharply opposed by mission leaders of the Church of England representing a high church or so-called Anglo-Catholic position. Existing churches, they said, had to be respected. Otherwise Anglicans would refuse to participate in the conference. Mission meant to witness to non-Christians, not to other Christians. There is no time here to give details on the long negotiations which took place until an agreement was reached satisfying the High Church people and acceptable to the more evangelical mission societies. It resulted in the exclusion of Latin America from the agenda of Edinburgh 1910. The question of “proselytism”, i.e. witness to Christians of other churches, has since then continued to preoccupy ecumenical Christianity up to this date. So we want to thank God for the successes in mission. But that’s not the whole story. Indeed, we can also see things differently: In 1910, Christians represented 34% of the total world population. Today, the percentage has come down to 33 %. So, Christianity still represents a third of world population. In the last 100 years, church growth has just matched population growth. As the new Atlas shows, the number of Christians has increased more quickly than the number of people in all of Africa except North Africa, in all of Asia except West Asia. Church growth was similar to population growth in most of Oceania, (with positive exception of Melanesia), in Latin America and Eastern Europe. Population growth exceeded church growth in the rest of Europe and in North America. We also know that even where churches have grown in numbers, they may not have grown in faithfulness. B Already in 1910, bishop Azariah from India had challenged the practice of missionaries in the following words: “ The official relationship generally prevalent at present between the missionary and the Indian worker is that between a master and servant …..the missionary is the paymaster, the worker his servant. As long as this relationship exists, we must admit that no sense of self-respect and individuality can grow in the Indian Church…There can never be real progress unless the aspirations of the native Christians to self-government and independence are accepted, encouraged, and acted upon……The favourite phrases ‘ our money’, ‘our control’ must go.” For decades, Azariah’s appeal remained unheard. Mission carries a heavy legacy. There is enough to confess. Two world wars resulted from the so-called “Christian” civilization thought in 1910 to have to be shared as a model of good life in all other regions. Children were sexually abused in schools of several church denominations, children of First Nations were forcefully taken away from their parents for “educational” purposes, non-European cultures were demonized, as were other churches. A confession of guilt by a senior Roman Catholic participant in dialogues with Pentecostal and the response he got can stand for many others: “I confess the sin of arrogance with which Catholics have treated Pentecostals, leading to intolerance, discrimination, and exclusion. We have employed methods of evangelization not in keeping with the Gospel, using the state to harass and oppress Pentecostals. When we were in the majority, we deprived Pentecostals of their civil rights; when we were in the minority, we demanded our full rights as citizens. (..) I confess that many Catholics have identified all Pentecostal churches as “sects”, thus demeaning them. (..) We have labeled them “enthusiasts” and have not received with gratitude the gifts and spirituality they offer.” This was the response from an internationally renowned Pentecostal scholar: “I wish to offer a corresponding request for forgiveness. I ask that Catholics forgive the Pentecostals who have cherished visions of the end of time that condemn the Catholic Church for spiritual harlotry and idolatry. I ask for forgiveness for those who have assumed that the Catholic Church currently advocates salvation by works, denying the grace and truth of the Gospel, and for insensitive evangelistic efforts based on this assumption.”
D The conflict between “evangelical” and “conciliar” Christians has been sharp at times, at international level, but even more so at national level in certain countries, such as Germany or Korea. The confessions of guilt I quoted from a Catholic and a Pentecostal indicate also how much conflict there has been between “mainline” and “charismatic” churches. The fact to be able now to sit together and plan a common conference comes near to a missiological miracle. In any case, I believe, it results from the Holy Spirit, encouraging us to more cooperation and unity. The possibility for Pentecostals, Orthodox, Catholics, Seventh-Day Adventists, World Evangelical Alliance to organize Edinburgh 2010 with Lutherans, Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists, African Instituted churches, the fact to have both the Lausanne Committee and the WCC planning together is in itself a reason for thanking God. It would not have been possible without important missiological “rapprochements” at international level, without increasing friendship and cooperation between evangelicals and ecumenicals in places like here in the NL, in Germany, in the Nordic countries, without the bilateral dialogues, without the creation of organizations such as “Churches together” in the USA and the Global Christian Forum. We do not only organize a conference together, but have engaged now for several years Foundations for mission Other important items were studied as “transversals” supposedly enriching the reflection on each of the mentioned themes: women and mission, youth and mission, reconciliation and healing, Bible and mission/Mission in the Bible, contextualization, inculturation (gospel and cultures) and dialogue of world-views, subaltern voices, ecological perspectives. The full list covers almost all main issues in contemporary mission. On each of these issues, a group of scholars and/or mission practitioners worked for several years, in coordination with academic institutions, universities, mission organizations, to select the most important questions and issues for present and future witness. The idea was to let as many people as possible contribute, individually or preferably as groups and institutions, to these themes. The Edinburgh Website provides a detailed oversight over the study process. A book is about to be published with major articles summarizing the results of the research on each of these themes, not by a single author, but always by a group of people of various denominations and spiritual traditions. Similarly, more popularized material is about to be made available for use in local congregations and mission sending institutions. We ask God and count on the Holy Spirit to empower us to grow in mutual respect and in willingness to move towards “common witness” in this century, as a small sign of the unity to which Christ calls all his disciples.
In the second part of my presentation, I want to highlight some of the issues which I believe will be on our common mission agenda in the coming years. I hope you will understand that it is not possible here to cover all items. I have to limit myself to a small selection. A. Gospel and cultures – There are several aspects to the relation between Gospel and cultures which need to be addressed, based on the work done by the WCC and by the Lausanne movement . For an ecumenical perspective, the following seem essential in my view: There is no way to go back behind the milestone of the 1973 Bangkok world mission conference, i.e. to acknowledge the theological need to root personal and community faith expressions, spirituality, ethics and church life and organization in the cultures and specific contexts where Christians live. Cultural identity shapes the understanding of the gospel. Mission leads to cultural diversity and richness in the church. This interpretative process however should take place in dialogue with brothers and sisters of partner churches, to prevent national, religious or other ideologies from taking priority over an honest effort at understanding the biblical message and of the Christian tradition. The world mission conference in Salvador in 1996 made the point as follows: “The gospel reconciles and unites people of all identities into a new community in which the primary and ultimate identity is identity in Jesus Christ” . Held after the terrible ethnic conflicts in former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the Salvador conference was very much aware of the dangers of identity politics. It had become clear how cultures and traditions could be misused for oppression of other peoples. The WCC was challenged by conference participants “to go beyond a theology of inculturation and place cultures themselves under scrutiny, in order to determine whether they promote justice, life, peace and liberation or whether they diminish and dehumanize people” . WCC then moved to reaffirm a classical Christian insight that cultures bear both good and evil and that discernment was needed, an insight which is now shared by WCC and Lausanne theologians alike. Authentically ecumenical spaces are essential for intra-Christian debates on various forms of inculturation or contextualization of the gospel . Such spaces must be as much as possible protected from influence by mission or ecclesial power centers , which always tend to hinder the rise of new forms of Christian communities, spiritualities and theologies which could challenge their “superiority”. Only that will allow a positive critical dialogue between Christians of various origins. Indeed, people defending doctrinal forms of Christianity tend to be more than cautious in their approach to developments of new forms of inculturation. More liberally- minded Christians tend to the opposite reaction, approving almost any new form of theology or church as long as it is presented as resulting from contextualization. None of them is a fully satisfactory position. The debate crystallizes on the question of syncretism. In almost all mission traditions, syncretism appears as the major “sin” in missiology, i.e. an unacceptable mixture between the message of the gospel and elements of other religions which oppose it. In my own understanding, I see the problem as follows: Inculturation automatically leads to syncretism. Contextualized theologies and churches inevitably use language, symbols, world-views, which pertain to other than the original cultures in which the biblical texts were written. The theological question then is not whether to accept or refuse syncretism in general, but to discern which forms of syncretism favour the development of the gospel and its values in a specific culture and context, and which forms hinder an authentic understanding and practice of the gospel. I am not ready to reserve the term “syncretism” for describing only illegitimate incorporations of elements of other religions. I think we should rehabilitate the term. Mission must lead to syncretism. This being said, we cannot bypass the need of criteria for discernment. In the WCC, we would say the following: “Authentic witness to the gospel is threatened when Christians, knowingly or not, align their faith with life-denying and exclusivist ideological, political and socio-economic schemes, or when their actions betray Jesus Christ crucified and risen – the ultimate source of and standard for human faith and hope. The criteria to discern syncretism must be centred on Christ and grounded in a Christian witness characterized by life-affirming, inclusive, liberating and community-building attitudes. These criteria are to be applied sensitively within particular local contexts .” The question of discernment and criteria leads to acknowledge differences in basic world-view questions between North and South. The understanding of life and death, poverty and prosperity, health, illness, healing and suffering is intimately related to the question of factors or forces intervening in human personal and social life. For post-Enlightenment cultures, these factors are mainly of psychological, social, economic or political nature. In many other contexts, specifically religious forces are also taken into account. The debate about the existence of spiritual forces, powers and authorities, working for or against the triune God’s mission involves cultural and theological issues. It can be argued that the belief in the existence and active intervention of invisible beings or powers is part and parcel of cultures and not fundamental to Christian faith. It can also be argued that it is an essential part of a biblical world-view relatively independent of cultures. We need deeper dialogue on these issues, because they bear on our understanding of pneumatology. Are we as Christians only called to discern how God’s Spirit is active in the world, or do we have to discern whether it’s God’s Spirit or other (good or bad) spirits which influence peoples and communities? As a theologian who comes from a culture influenced by Enlightenment, I have difficulties with this question, but recognise that a fully secular world-view may not be able to grasp all that is happening all over the world. I advocate for missiologists to be more open to Pentecostal and charismatic approaches on these issues.
In traditional Protestant missiology, healing is understood either as part of the medical mission or as work for peace and reconciliation in wounded societies. The recent dialogues with Pentecostals in particular have provided the opportunity to reflect anew on the specifically spiritual dynamics in healing. As staff of the World Council of Churches, I want to affirm personally what stands in a recent text on the healing mission of the church , namely that healing charisms, including divine healing and prayer for the sick, are part of capacities the Spirit is giving to churches as signs accompanying mission. A strong affirmation of the healing ministry must however be accompanied by a warning as to the misuse of power. Excesses in spiritual practices leading to counter-witness, human abuse and almost divine-like adoration of self-appointed healers call for a critical response. There is a huge difference between the emphasis on healing in some neo-charismatic circles and a strange reserve in the Bible. Letters of the New Testament specifically addressed to the new churches emerging from the ministry of the apostles acknowledge the charism of healing, but do not emphasise divine healing nor do they tell miracle stories. Although the vocabulary of sickness appears frequently in the epistles, the main verbs for healing are practically absent. In Acts, most of the (frequent) therapeutic terminology refers to Paul and his companions, not to actions of the new churches. The healing terminology is also lacking in most versions of the Great Commission, with exception of the longer ending of Mark, a text evidently added later to that Gospel. As far as Jesus himself is concerned, the synoptic Gospels present him as reluctant to be hailed as a healer or exorcist. He tried to prevent people from witnessing to him only on the basis of their experience of miraculous healing. We usually refer to this as the “messianic secret”, to be kept until the day of crucifixion. Indeed, as the gospel narratives progress, they increasingly switch to the significance of the coming cross and resurrection events, and once Jesus reached Jerusalem, no healing is reported any more. The drama concentrates on the essential, the way to the cross. The core of mission is not healing or exorcism, but Jesus’ suffering and death, vindicated by his resurrection. I conclude from this that biblical authors – and probably Jesus himself - intended to prevent the glorification of human agency and the misuse of power granted by God. Proposal for a dialogue on the use of power in divine healing 1 2 3 4 5 These reflections shall not be considered fixed dogmatic points. They are an attempt to discern how to respond to God’s available healing power. Divine healing may well be together with evangelism the most critical form of mission, because potentially the most transforming and challenging; but also the one where the risk of manipulation is greatest.
Evangelism, sharing the gospel and inviting people to align their life with Jesus Christ, is another form of mission where power and ecumenism are particularly at stake. Although WCC is critical towards the formulation of so-called world evangelization strategies, it has regularly affirmed the evangelistic mandate of the church . It is the church’s privilege to share the gospel. If we do not share it, who will? This is a core part of mission, but needs careful discernment as to the way it is practiced. The NT shows in all letters written to the new churches that a balance has to be found between a clear affirmation of faith and hope and the respect in love for those with whom we share the message . Mission must be done in Christ’s way, the One who said “I am gentle and humble in heart” (Matt. 11:29). This has become particularly important in the present context. The world is increasingly a place of competition in charity and religion, a market where you grow if you boost your identity and prove you’re better than others. The temptation is to adopt the world’s methods and develop evangelization strategies that follow the market rules, i.e. to affirm our superiority over others, be they other Christians. I remind you of the debate on the Atlas prior to the 1910 conference. Proselytism is a major hindrance for the credibility of the gospel and jeopardizes church unity. What for indeed? My concern is the following. Mission can be successful in terms of numbers when done aggressively, following the methods of “the world”, based on psychological and marketing strategies, targeting specific peoples, offering material advantages and so on. If such methods gain short-term converts, but ruin relationships with other churches, I pretend they work contrary to God’s mission. Because they do not witness to the “full gospel”, but provide a truncated message. Let me try to explain this in three points. This will conclude my presentation. In his last prayer, Jesus asks the Father that his disciples “may be one as we are one” and that the world may believe “that you have sent me” (John 17). Visible unity among Christians and Christian churches points to the reality of God as one in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Separate churches de facto point to a divided God, who is not one in three. Mission does not only call to faith, but to faith and life in communion with God and other Christians. Communion between churches is a sign and consequence of communion in and with God. Disunity prevents humans from grasping more of the mystery of God’s own unity in diversity. When I read the hymns of the letters to the Colossians and Ephesians, I realise that Jesus’ death and resurrection does not only bring forgiveness for my personal sins – it does, thanks to God! Through his death, Christ broke down the wall that divides humanity into conflicting groups which disregard and hate each other. On the cross, human divisions lose their apparently absolute character. Reconciliation is possible, with God and with other human people and even creation. What witness to the unifying death on the cross do we give as divided Christians, when our denominational identities are more important to us than love for and reconciliation with brothers and sisters in faith. The full gospel of Jesus’ death and resurrection implies more than personal conversion and spiritual well-being. Christ now makes it possible for people of all origins to live together in unity, as Matthew 28 affirms: make disciples of “all nations”. That implies the formation of churches composed of people of all nations and origins, who have overcome human divisions, and eat together at the same table, following their Lord’s example. Sharing meals was one of the main challenges for Christians of Jewish and Gentile origins in the 1st century. It’s an essential part of the content of the gospel. The resurrected Christ sends God’s Holy Spirit to manifest God’s healing presence and empower the churches for witness. As we know, a variety of gifts of grace, the “charisms”, are provided for believers at and after Pentecost. Many churches need to recapture that wide variety and richness of God’s gifts, which include divine healing, speaking in tongues, prophecy, discernment, etc. Divisions between churches have resulted from neglect of the variety of charisms. But again, let’s distinguish what really makes the difference, in terms of the gospel. The final mark of authenticity is forgiveness and love. This is the ultimate gift of the Spirit which will never end (I Cor. 13). The bond of unity is love as the New Testament affirms. We are even called to love our enemies. So why not start with the Christian family? Mission which does not preach love nor lead to unity has partly or totally resisted to the power of the Spirit. For me, mission in unity has priority over success. The faithfulness to which we are called may not always lead to numerical growth – look at Jesus’ own ministry. But it may. Anyhow, that’s not the main question. The point I want to make is that a real passion for mission linked with a real passion for unity will be more faithful to the mission of the triune God than ecumenism without mission or mission without unity.
|
|
