Secularism

A Lecture given on April 3, 2010

 The notes below are unedited.  I apologize for any mistakes.

Let me begin by stating that I am not an Apologist (“one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something).  I am a Missiologist. Missiology is similar to Anthropology, which is the study of man.  Missiology while it involves the study of man it does so from God’s perspective.  A better way of stating this is that missiology is the study of man in relation to Missio Dei.  Missio Dei literally means “the mission of God.” 

What is the mission of God?  The Apostle Paul put it rather succinctly in 1 Timothy 1:15, “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners,” and in 1 Timothy 2:3-4, “…God our Savior who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.”

The subject that we are to consider this morning is secularism. David W. Henderson in his book, Culture Shift: communicating God’s truth to our changing world, gives us a basic definition: “Secularism means dismissing God and disregarding a spiritual dimension of any sort.” (p 123)

Arnold E. Loen in his book, Secularization, Science without God? (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1967) states that “secularization is the historical process by which the world is de-divinized.”  In light of this definition, Loen suggests that it is not really possible to “de-divinize” the world.  “Formerly, man was conscious of living in a world whose order pointed to God and in which God acted directly.  Today that is no longer true; we are neither conscious of God in the cosmic order nor of his direct activity.” (Loen, Secularization, 7-8)

This is what I propose to do today.  I want to deal briefly with historical issues, how secularism came into existence.  There are several different scholars who have tracked the development of secularism somewhat differently.  We will examine two, George G. Hunter III, and David W. Henderson.  We will then consider secularism from a biblical perspective.  It is my assumption that secularism is not a new phenomenon. Lastly, we will discuss how to share biblical truth with a secularist.

HISTORICAL ISSUES

When did secularism begin?  Some believe secularism came into existence as a result of the Age of Enlightenment.  Without a doubt, the Enlightenment has influenced the development of secularism.  But the roots of secularism go deeper into history than the Enlightenment.  Both David W. Henderson and George G. Hunter III agree with this assumption.  While each of them agree, they develop their understanding of secularism differently.  We will look at each of their views independently. 

George Hunter suggests that there are Six Watershed Events that brought about the secularization of the western world.

1—Hunter points first of all to the Renaissance.  This was “an intellectual and cultural movement from the mid-fourteenth century to the early sixteenth century, led by Erasmus and Bacon.”[1]  It is Hunter’s belief that the Renaissance was a rediscovery by the west of Greek philosophy.  He lists three ways that the Renaissance impacted the west.  First, Greek philosophy focused upon man.  Protagoras wrote, “Man is the measure of all things.”  As a result, man’s thinking started shifting from a God centered point of reference to humanity centered.  Second, there had only been one worldview in Europe, that of the Church.  But all of a sudden with the rediscovery of Greek philosophy there was another option for understanding reality.  Pluralism (a theory that there are more than one…kind of ultimate reality[2]) emerged.  Third, humanism evolved and challenged Christianity regarding issues of truth and ethics.[3]

2—The second watershed for Hunter is the Reformation.  Luther was the main player in this as well as a door at Wittenberg.  You might ask, “How could a Christian reformation bring about secularism, which is decidedly anti-God?”  Hunter believes that this conflict caused the church to focus more inwardly, dealing with issues such as “renewal, reorganization, and theological matters,”[4] and resulted in their ignoring the growing pluralism of society.  Undoubtedly, this is a debatable point, which we will leave for historians to debate. 

3—Hunter identifies Nationalism as a third watershed.  He stated, “The nationalistic spirit that swept Europe killed Christendom as a political entity and undercut the understanding of a common humanity that had largely prevailed in Christendom. Moreover, nationalism led to unprecedented warfare between the peoples of Europe—including the two world wars of this century.  The experience of war induced disillusionment and doubts about the Church’s God.”[5]

4—Science is the 4^th major point according to Hunter.  “Science challenged Christendom’s prescientific assumptions about the universe and human life.”[6]  He lists six people who help champion the importance of science; Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Marx, and Freud.

5—The Enlightenment is the 5^th watermark.  It proclaimed the power of human reason.  At the foundation of this thinking is the concept that mankind is “intrinsically good and reasonable.”[7]

It was the belief of Enlightenment thinkers that there was a “natural religion” that could be found underneath the religions of the world and that “morality and society could be based on reason alone, without revelation or religion.”[8]  Progress in the world will come from science, technology and education.  “The universe is self-contained and…the idea of God is therefore superfluous—not needed to understand the universe.”  Doubting Christianity was encouraged by Enlightenment leaders and helped move the intellectuals toward modernity.

6—The final watershed that Hunter posits is Urbanization.  He suggests that the Industrial Revolution brought about a shift in where people live.  Workers moved from their rural dwellings into the cities.  It is thought that such a move removed the population from their simple, God fearing life, and exposed them to a new, more liberal and godless culture. “Urbanization…has amplified the effects of secularization and has profoundly, if subtly, affected the God consciousness of urban secular populations.”[9]

Hunter’s six watersheds for the most part make at least some sense. The two that seem questionable is his inclusion of the Reformation and Nationalism.  He did not explain himself as fully as he could have regarding these two issues.  I suggest that more research into their potential influence on the development of secularism needs to be done before full acceptance of these two watersheds is adopted.

David Henderson explains secularism from a slightly different angle.  He begins by making this statement:  “Biblical faith and secularism stand sharply at odds with each other, while nominal faith—bare-minimum faith that makes no real demands and causes no noticeable impact on the believer—is quite at home in a secular culture.”[10]

Henderson posits that there are four influences that were key factors in the development of secularism.

I—Descartes and the Autonomous Person

Rene Descartes was a Christian mathematician and philosopher who was interested in absolute truth.  He wanted to make a list of absolute truths that mankind could know and be assured that they would never change.  He began stating, “God exists. I exist.  I have a body.  I am not dreaming.  My senses are accurate.  There is an outside world.”[11]  As a result of this search, Descartes became a skeptic—Henderson says that Descartes “adopted a posture of radical skepticism.”[12]  He questioned everything, even those things that were considered sacred.  If he could not prove something beyond a shadow of a doubt, he cast it aside and labeled it as doubtful on his absolute truth scale.  His final list was rather short.  He came to the conclusion, “I think, therefore I am.” The one thing that he knew for sure was that he existed.  He thought pattern was, “I am thinking, therefore there is an I.”  All other things Descartes determined came to him through his senses, and thus, were questionable, even God.

It is interesting that the reason behind Descartes search was to show man that they could realize and understand the certainty of the existence of God.  But his line of reasoning brought into question the truthfulness of the Bible.  A second issue Descartes logic produced was the idea that one should not do their thinking “under the umbrella of Christian thought.”[13]  The idea of man as an autonomous being emerged from Descartes thinking, which others have taken several steps further to conclude that man does not need a god, only himself to exist.

II—The Scientific Revolution

The second influence that Henderson suggests is the Scientific Revolution.  He makes three distinct points regarding this phenomenon.

First:

“Francis Bacon and his colleagues insisted theology is not capable of answering all one’s questions about existence; there are certain questions only science can answer…Science’s business was not purpose but process, not questions of why but how…It wasn’t long before humanity’s convictions were divided between [1] facts, in which people could have complete confidence, and [2] opinions or beliefs, about which there was considerable uncertainty.  The Bible clearly fell into the second category.”[14]

Second:

“Scientists used a closed-system model; that is, for the sake of their experiments they ruled out God’s intervention as a factor in their work and looked at the world with a purely mechanical emphasis on cause and effect.”[15]

Third:

“Science fostered an optimistic confidence in humanity’s ability to tame nature and solve the problems of people.  God, as a result, didn’t seem particularly necessary to individuals whose needs were met quite adequately through the fruits of science…The Bible was viewed with increasing reservation as a source of authority…God seemed to be increasingly irrelevant.”[16]

III—The Birth of Secularism

The third influence is called the Birth of Secularism by Henderson.  He notes that the Enlightenment pushed “the ideas of the Renaissance to their extreme.”[17]  This resulted in the elevation of the importance of humanity, the scientific process, reason, and the concept that man, if left to his own devices, will do good things rather than bad.

According to Henderson, God’s place in the universe of secularism was limited in three distinct ways. “1—God is Distant [thus] Deism—God exists but…his place in the universe is merely that of the architect of the machine.”[18]  God is no longer involved in our world.  We are on our own.  “2—God is Absent” Naturalism—“is the WYSIWYG worldview of the modern scientist.”[19]  There simply is no room for God in this closed scientific system.  The Bible is not revelation from a god, but simply man’s way of dealing with the supernatural.  Thus, the Bible is not an authority.  We live in a material world, not a spiritual one.  “3—God is Compartmentalized”  Sometimes called two-worlds approach.  “There are two spheres of life that are tough to reconcile. One is public, the realm of hard facts, hard tabletops, and hard currency.  It is the world of math, science, politics, and economics, governed by facts upon which we can all agree.  God, for all intents and purposes, has no place in this arena.”

            “The other sphere—private—is governed by beliefs and values.  This is where God is active and involved.  But in this world nothing can be known for sure; there are only opinions.  Whether God exists, what happens when we die, how we experience salvation: it’s all conjecture, at best…God matters a great deal to two-worlds people—but he only holds sway on the inside.  He gives me peace and hope, he answers my prayers, he is always with me, but he has nothing to do with my life “out there.”  He is Lord of my heart, but not of High Street.  While I am sitting in my cubicle at work, casting my vote at the ballot, chatting with my friends over coffee, or pulling out my MasterCard at the mall, God is nowhere to be found.  This public world is not his world.  It is mine.”[20]

            “In this way of thinking, the Bible becomes a mere handbook for personal well-being, filled not with shouted affirmations of lordship but only with whispered messages of love and acceptance.”[21]

IV—Charles Darwin and Evolution

            In 1859, Charles Darwin’s book, Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, promoted the concept of evolution.  The idea, Man was not created by God but evolved.  He proposed the concepts of mutation and natural selection.  To many, Darwin’s theory seemed to prove the Bible wrong regarding creation.  Thus, the Bible was viewed as outdated and irrelevant to many.  In the 1920s, the Scopes ‘monkey trials’ began the phenomenon of replacing the creation story as the origin of man with Darwin’s theory. (William Jennings Bryan, Clarence Darrow, attorneys, John Scopes-TN high school teacher)[22]

SECULARISM FROM A BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE

I suggested earlier that secularism is not a new phenomenon.  I believe it has existed in one form or another since the beginning.

Genesis 3:1-5

            Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made.  He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

            The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

            “You will not surely die,” the serpent said to the woman.  “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

“You will be like God.”  This is different than the concept of being made in the image of God.  Being made in the image implies a reflective quality. 

You will be like God implies equality.  You are equal to God.  Thus you do not need God because everything that God represents and provides can be found within yourself.  This sounds very much like secularism. 

This is the essence of the biblical concept we call sin. 

As a missiologist, I tend to see things through the lens of cultures.  Let me take a moment to define culture from my perspective.  Culture has to do with how we think, our worldview, how we solve problems, how we get along with others, how we celebrate different aspects of life (births, deaths, holidays).  I often use a matrix to illustrate culture.  There are functions within a given culture that are easily observed by those from another culture.  At the same time, the reasons behind what is observable is not easily seen or understood.  It is below the surface.  In order to understand these below the surface reasons, you must live in their shoes.

Culture is not an exclusive term in that a person belongs to one culture and no other.  Rather, a person can belong to several different cultures or even sub-cultures within a culture. Example:  I am a product of the American culture, I am also a member of the West Coast culture, specifically-the Oregon culture.  At the same time, I am a missionary and as such belong to the culture of missionaries.

 Thus as I examine the issue of secularism I see a distinct difference between secular people who have had little or no exposure to the concept of Christianity and those who have been exposed to the concept of Christianity.

First we will look at those who have been exposed to Christianity. 

 

The Problem of Syncretism

The question we now ask is whether those who have been exposed to the concept of Christianity can be influenced by secularism?  My preliminary answer is yes.  There is a term that we use to describe such a phenomenon, syncretism.  Syncretism is defined as “the combination of different forms of belief or practice.”

Syncretism is not a new thing to Christianity.  From the beginning of the Christian Church there have been forces that have tried to compromise its message.  The Judaizers insisted that Christians must live according to Jewish law.  Acts 15 deals with this issue.  There were also the Gnostics who espoused the cognitive or intellectual aspect of learning as opposed to the praxis of knowledge.  This concept actually predated the birth of Christ.  It had its origin in Greek thought.  The basic idea was that a person attained spiritual relation with the gods through intellectual pursuits. 

The Romans adopted this Gnostic concept and there was a strong movement among Gentile Christians who tried to combine this thought pattern with Christianity.  This is syncretism in action.  Paul addressed this issue in Romans 12:1, Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is our spiritual act of worship.

Modern secularism is another challenge that Christianity faces.  The danger is always  compromising the Gospel to accommodate a cultural norm or thought pattern.  There is a fine line between religious belief and cultural belief.  In most cases, our cultural norms influence and modify our theological thought patterns.  Paul addresses this issue in Romans 12:2, Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind…

Christianity and Secularism

            Are those who have had no exposure to Christianity, are they expected to have some type of understanding about the Christian God: God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, The Holy Spirit. 

            The Bible makes an interesting comment about those who have no direct exposure to the Christian concept of God.

Romans 1:20  For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

This presupposes the concept of creation—being understood from what has been made. 

This brings up an interesting discussion.  Secularists do not believe in creation.  They opt for the Big Bang theory, evolution or something similar. [Remember, I am a missiologist, not a scientist.]  My understanding of evolution is that everything evolved from a single cell.  This process took millions of years, until man eventually evolved from a monkey into a man.  I am not going to try and debate this evolution theory.  But I do want to ask what I think is a fundamental question. 

Where did the first cell come from? 

            I have asked this question of friends who believe in evolution.  The foundation of their belief is the scientific method.  The scientific method is a method of inquiry based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence, which is subject to specific principles of reasoning.  Observation leads to experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

            Example: Boiling water—100 degree C, 212 degree F.  This is repeatable, again and again.  The results will always be the same.  It is my understanding that altitude does affect the boiling of water in that the higher the elevation, the lower the temperature needed to boil water.

            The question is this, “If you believe in evolution can you repeatedly observe a single cell coming into existence without any outside influence?”  The answer is NO.  In fact, there is no record of anyone ever observing such a phenomenon. 

So why do evolutionists believe such a thing?  There is only one answer—Faith.  Webster defines faith as a “firm belief in something for which there is no proof.”

This is interesting to me because the rap against Christianity is that you cannot prove the existence of God.

From a scientific method position I hypothesis that it is impossible to observe a single cell come into existence without any outside influence.  This is observable and repeatable.  And the result is always the same, nothing.

Therefore, I posit that it takes faith to be an evolutionist and thus it takes faith to be a secularist.  The difference between a secularist and one who is a follower of Christ is the substance or object of their faith.

Obviously, what I am proposing presents many further questions that at this moment are running through your minds.  I do not have all the answers.  But if we ask each other the pertinent questions, we can together pursue answers.

 

HOW TO SHARE BIBLICAL TRUTH  WITH A SECULARIST

            Anytime you are witnessing to a non-Christian, there are several things to keep in mind.

First—Don’t use church terminology. 

Second—Ask them why they reject Christianity.

Third—Ask them to be specific regarding what part of the primary Christian documents that they reject.

---

[1] Hunter, George G., How to Reach Secular People, Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1992, 26.

[2] Webster, pluralism.

[3] Hunter, How to Reach, 26.

[4] Ibid, 27.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid, 28.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid, 28-9.

[10] Henderson, David W., Culture Shift: communicating God’s truth to our changing world, Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998, 123.

[11] Ibid, 125.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid, 126.

[15] Ibid, 126-7.

[16] Ibid, 127.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid, 128.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Ibid, 129.

[21] Ibid, 130.

[22] Ibid, 130-1.

Do Missionaries Pray for No Services on Super Bowl Sunday?

The answer to this question varies with each missionary.  Those who do not like sports or football never even ask themselves such a question.  However, those of us who are football fans do ponder the issue.

Missionaries understand that most churches will not schedule them for Easter, Mother’s Day, Father’s Day and the Sunday before Christmas.  Personally, I am of the opinion that Mother’s Day and Father’s Day are great days to have missionaries.   After all, my wife is a mother and I am a father.  What better message than having stories of the relationships between a parent and their kids that take place in the midst of doing missio Dei.

I have had one Easter missions service over the years.  I found no problem making the Easter story into a missions message.  After all, Jesus was the first missionary, sent by God from a heavenly culture to a worldly culture.  He wrote the book on missiological contextualization.  And no missionary or pastor worth their salt ignores what this Missionary of missionaries, and Pastor of pastors has to say.

And the Christmas story is full of missiological gems.  The poor and lowly shepherds who were watching their sheep in the fields were directed by angels to go and meet the King of kings and Lord of lords who potentially could change every area of their life and give them purpose and meaning.  If that is not missional then what is.  The Magi from the east follow a star to a distant land, looking for a king.  They bring significant gifts to a child who will change the world.  The story of the Magi is a special message to the rich and influential segment of society who need a Savior as much as the shepherds.  The birth of Jesus created a missional renaissance that is still changing lives today.  Christmas, just like Easter, is a missionary story.

But what about Super Bowl Sunday.  Is the Super Bowl packed with missional messages that every missionary is itching to proclaim?  I think yes!  How about a sermon titled, “Jesus, the Missionary Quaterback,” or “God: The Ultimate Coach for the Super Bowl of Life.”  Personally I like the sermon, “Who Calls the Plays of Life in Your Huddle?”  My mind is spinning with other possibilities.  It is almost unlimited.  Unfortunately, when I have had a service on Super Bowl evening the only people who are there are non-football fans.  None of them understand, let alone appreciated, my message.  No matter how I tried to tie missions and the Super Bowl together it fell on the deaf ears of football haters.  But then a thought came to my mind.  To be truly missional means you should dump Super Bowl Sunday church and go where the sinners are.  They would appreciate my messages because they understand football.  I can bring them from the sideline of yelling coaches and teammates into the  tranquil presence of the greatest gridiron player of all generations.  The one who gave his live for the team.

But is this kind of thinking sacrilege?  I suppose for some (undoubtely, football haters) the answer would be yes.  But for those who are football lovers and missional, GO FOR IT!  Find a big screen TV and proclaim your missional messages during commercials and at halftime.  Stand up boldly, rise to your full height, right in front of that big screen dot-sequential imager and proclaim your grokking.  But don’t you dare get between me and the latest Super Bowl commercials.

Book Review: Reggie McNeal, Missional Renaissance-Changing the Scorecard for the Church

McNeal’s book has not been as enjoyable a read as I thought it would be.  I struggled most of the way through until the last two chapters.  Almost from the first several paragraphs there was something that seemed to rub me wrong.  I wondered at first if I was just struggling because I didn’t want to change, but I realized that the bottom line of what McNeal was proposing I have advocated for most of my ministry life.  I have come to the conclusion that McNeal just bugged me.  There seems to be an arrogant attitude that comes through in his writing.  Fortunately, that attitude disappears in the last two chapters.

In the first part of the book his main theme is to convince us that the term missional renaissance is the new catch phrase for the church.  I wondered if he had trademarked the term and receives a residual fee every time someone uses it.  But now I am being catty. McNeal states that there are three shifts that need to be made in order to be missional: “From internal to external in terms of ministry focus,” “from program development to people development in terms of core activity,” and “from church-based to kingdom-based in terms of leadership agenda.” (p xvi)  I do not disagree with any of these ideas.  It has been my assumption that we have been trying to get the American church to buy into these issues for years.

The idea of dumping programs for people is interesting.  How McNeal proposes to accomplish this is to adopt a new people centered…program.  I think that McNeal has missed the point here.  Programs are not the problem, it is the people who are administering the programs who have lost their focus.  A program is only as good as the people who run them.  If the people in a church are centristic in their thinking every program they do will be internal rather than external in focus.  Often the leadership of a church is external in their thinking and ministry, but the laypeople are internal.  McNeal did not really address how to move laypeople from internal to external.  He was more interested in creating a new scorecard.  After all, the title of his book suggests that a new scorecard is the goal.  This idea of a scorecard is very programmatic.  He is consumed with this idea and speaks more about numbers than he does how to move people into an external functioning church.

The best section of the book is found in chapter 8, beginning on page 169, where McNeal talks about self-awareness.  He states, as a leader, “you need to know these things about yourself—your motivations, fears tendencies, and so on.”  He then lists some specific topics: personality strengths and challenges, cognitive style, conflict style, emotional intelligence, talent, passions, and hidden addictions and compulsions.  His point is that leaders need to understand themselves and be honest with themselves before they can lead a church into the missional world.  He adds important areas that leaders often ignore; family development, emotional and spiritual health, physical health, and financial health.  This part of the book makes reading it worth the time.

A Not So Typical Weekend Missions Style

This weekend Lynette and I are going in different directions.  On Friday I put Lynette on a plane for Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.  She will be part of Camp Hill Christian Life Assembly missions weekend.  She will minister to several small groups, which is one of her favorite things to do.  I began my Saturday cleaning the house, getting it ready for potential buyers to tour.  I even emptied the dishwasher and then loaded it.  I then loaded my suitcase and missions display into the car.  It took around 2 ½ hours for me to arrive in La Pine where I have a missions service tomorrow morning.  I met Pastor Wayne Wilson for dinner.  We had a great time talking about ministry and missions.  Sunday afternoon after having lunch with Wayne and Bobbie Wilson I will load everything back into the car and drive 1 ½ hours south to Klamath Falls where I have an evening service at Klamath Falls Assembly of God with Pastor Kevin Drake.  After the service I will spend the night at a hotel and then drive back to Portland on Monday to pick up Lynette who flies in Monday evening.  Then Lynette and I will head back to Keizer.

Normally Lynette and I are together for weekend services, so this is an unusual weekend.  But one thing is not unusual, the joy that we get from meeting people who have a heart for missions.  We know each weekend we will gain new friends and prayer partners. We are also appreciative of the financial support we receive.  Our goal each weekend is to challenge people to pray for missions, give to missions and get involved in missions.  I truly believe that each person is to be a missionary wherever God places them.  Whether they are a school teacher, a construction worker, or whatever, they are a missionary to their world.  And we are especially blessed when we hear of people (young and old) who feel a call to be fulltime missionaries.  What a rewarding job Lynette and I have.

What Do Missionaries Do On Furlough?

A missionary on furlough is different than a missionary on the field.  A missionary on the field is ministering to the people group(s) to whom they have been called.  They could be a church planter, evangelist, teacher, etc.  Their focus is on reaching people with the love of Christ in the country where they live.

A missionary on furlough is a fundraiser.  They are here to visit churches and talk to individuals who will hopefully make faith-promises to support their missions ministry for the next four years.  A furlough missionary spends lots of time on the phone scheduling services and asking for support.

My personal opinion is that most missionaries struggle somewhat with the furlough/fund-raising part of missions, but look forward to the time they get to spend on the field.  The most discouraging thing about furlough is the number of phone calls you make before a pastor will talk to you.  On average, I must call a church 7 times before I get to talk to someone who can talk to me about scheduling a service or giving us support.  But it is part of being a missionary.

The positive side of being on furlough is that you get to meet a lot of people who take prayer cards and you know who will be praying for you.  These people are really great and very encouraging.

Well, it is time to get back to the phone calling.

Missio Dei: Reflections on the Missiology of the American and European Church

Americans tend to live in a “USA” vacuum, viewing the world from an American-centrist perspective.  I understand this because that is the attitude I carried with me when I began my missionary career in Europe.  I quickly found out that Europeans are not enamored by the American persona.  In spite of this, there are many similarities between Europe and America.  Clothing, body piercing and tattoos are as common in Europe as in America.  However, there is one trend that Europe is far ahead of America in—post-Christianity.  The American church has difficulty understanding the reality of post-Christian Europe.  But there are some danger signs within the American church that indicates we are heading toward a post-Christian future.

Anytime you compare the church in America with the church in Europe there are some major differences that need to be mentioned.  The concept “separation of church and state” is an American term that is not practiced or understood by most Europeans.  The reciprocal is true as Americans do not understand the concept of a “state church.”  A second major difference is individualism, which is a distinct American ideology that Europeans in their socialistic society do not grasp.  While there are other distinctives that could be mentioned, we will limit our discussion to these two and how they apply to the church.

The European church has always had to deal directly with political influences that are government directed.  At the same time, the church can have a powerful affect upon the state.  The amount of influence the church has varies from country to country, with the larger and dominant (mainline) denominations having more power than smaller (often evangelical) denominations.  As the European church has tried to assert its will upon the state, compromises have taken place.  This compromise has led to the dilution of the gospel message in most European contexts.

America is becoming more and more polarized politically and the evangelical right appears to be playing an increasing role in this polarization.  The potential problem is that the church will compromise in order to gain political influence.  This will weaken the church and cause the church to forget its reason for being.  A European example of this can be found in the history of the Eastern European country of Slovakia.

Following World War II, Slovakia (then part of Czechoslovakia) fell under communist rule.  Prior to this period the church (mainly Roman Catholic) yielded great power in governmental matters.  The communist party began immediately to try and limit the impact of the church on society.  They did this by placing priests and ministers on the communist payroll.  The church as a redemptive institution went underground for a period of more than 40 years.  The Marxist regime effectively convinced society that the church had little or no influence.  In the process, the church became paralyzed, hibernating from its biblical responsibilities.  By the time communism fell, the Christian Church had lost its relevance and identity—having forgotten why it existed.

The church had to rediscover its own identity in a very culturally confusing time. As the communist wall came down, Western culture came flooding in.  The ideology of the West, both good and bad, confronted the church with many decisions that it was not prepared to make.  Under a communist government, all decisions were made for it, but under a post-communist government, the church was forced to make its own decisions and to find its purpose for existing.  This was not accomplished without some confusion regarding the real mission of the church.  After the fall of communism in 1989, the Slovak church viewed everything from a centristic perspective concentrating on healing its own wounds.  Their worldview did not extend beyond their borders.  They lost sight of mission Dei.

There are some indications that the American church is headed in the same direction, though without the help of a communist regime.  The Postmodern mindset allows each pastor and church to define missions as they want to understand it, ignoring denominational guidelines.  In some cases churches are centristic in their missiology.  They take a “what can missions do to help me or my church” mentality.  This completely diverges from Christ’s message of servanthood.  Such an attitude is contrary to missio Dei.

What is mission Dei?  David Bosch defines missio Dei as “God’s self-revelation as the One who loves the world, God’s involvement in and with the world, the nature and activity of God which embraces both the church and the world, in which the church is privileged to participate.”^[1] Van Sanders is more specific in his definition:  “missio Dei correctly emphasizes that God is the initiator of His mission to redeem through the Church a special people for Himself from all of the peoples…of the world.  He sent His Son for this purpose, and He sends the Church into the world with the message of the gospel for the same purpose.”^[2]

God has begun to reawaken within the Slovak church a new and fresh understanding of missio Dei. This new reality is being expressed in ministry by individual churches among the Roma People of Slovakia (Gypsies).  It is only a spark that will hopefully explode into a fire of revival.  The churches of Slovakia are also beginning to understand their responsibility of sending missionaries to other parts of the world to help fulfill mission Dei.  My prayer is that the American church will gain a new and fresh understanding of missio Dei that will not be compromised within the vacuum of postmodernity.

---

[1] Bosch, Transforming Mission, (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1991), 10.

[2] Van Sanders, “The Mission of God and the Local Church,” in Pursuing the Mission of God in Church Planting, ed. John M. Bailey, (Alpharetta, GA: North American Mission Board, 2006), 24.

A New Partnership to Reach Europe

There is a perception among some pastors that each A/G missionary functions as a lone ranger.  This implies that missionaries are not accountable to anyone.  Fortunately, this is an urban myth.  Missionaries are accountable in every area.  Nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than in the AGWM Europe Region.

Under the leadership of Dr. Greg Mundis, a new strategy is being developed that creates a Europe team concept, where each individual missionary’s ministry is interrelated with others.  At the beginning of 2009 this new paradigm began with 100 Days of Prayer.  Following this time of intensive Spirit-led prayer for Europe, strategy teams were formed to investigate the following topics: church planting, international churches, European church revitalization, European ministerial training, student ministries, children’s ministries, compassion ministries, technology, immigration, missionary issues, and missions statement.  Information was gathered and action steps were suggested by each strategy group.  Mundis stated in a recent email to European missionaries:

Our effort to follow the leading of the Spirit (100 days of prayer) and to strategize (strategy groups) is in line with the book Strategy of the Spirit – the life of J. Philip Hogan. The author attempted in this book to describe the tension in missions between the leading of the Spirit and strategy. There will always be a tension when we make plans and yet try to rely on the Spirit. We experience this not only in our personal lives and ministry but also in our corporate ministry as missionaries in Europe. To quote Grant McClung (noted Church of God missiologist), “Spirit led mission is as much surprise as it is systematic.”

The ultimate goal is to integrate national churches, ministries and missionaries into a network that is working together to reach the lost of Europe.

Historically, AGWM missiology finds its foundation in the indigenous church principle.  It might appear that this new regional team concept undermines that foundation.  But, in fact, the Europe networking of national churches, missionaries, para-church ministries, and technology takes the indigenous concept to a new level.  Rather than individuals ministering alone, you have a continent of Christians who are encouraging ministry to the various indigenous people groups in Europe and coming alongside each other to share strategic knowledge and resources.

The prayer of Europe’s missionary family is that the new strategies will turn post-Christian Europe into a fertile harvest field for the Kingdom of God.  In light of this Spirit- directed desire, the following purpose statement has been adopted.

As missionaries in Europe we accelerate the spread of the gospel, model biblical integrity, minister in the Spirit and partner with those of like vision.

One additional ingredient that is needed for such a strategy to be successful is for churches in America and around the world to partner together with Europe’s Christian and missionary community.  There is a need for prayer support and financial support, as well as additional laborers to work in the harvest fields of Europe.  New career missionaries and short-term missionaries (AIM, MAPS, MA) are needed if we are to accomplish the task of evangelizing post-Christian Europe.  Another need is for churches that will regularly send ministry teams to help with the various aspects of the new strategy.  If all of us will do our part, we can make a spiritual difference in Europe.

Book Review: The 7 Sins of Highly Defective People, author Rick Ezell

Rick Ezell lists seven sins that all people face: the sin of pride, the sin of envy, the sin of anger, the sin of sloth, the sin of greed, the sin of lust, and the sin of gluttony.  Under each sin Ezell wrote a chapter describing the sin and a second chapter on how to overcome that sin in Christ.  He gives some very good illustrations, some of which are very humorous.  An example: “Vera Czermak of Prague discovered that her husband was cheating on her.  In her anger, she contemplated both murder and suicide, and chose the latter, leaping blindly out of her third-story window.  She incurred only minor injuries, however, because she landed on her husband in the street below, killing him.  The story concluded, ‘Sometimes, in this life, there is justice.’ ” (p 59)

The guidelines for overcoming sin are very clear and practical.  Ezell connects gluttony with the issue of self-control.  He states the following benefits of having self-control; self-control enables us to stay within God-ordained boundaries, self-control evidences the Holy Spirit’s work in us, self-control provides protection, and self-control grants freedom.

I read this book as a devotional, but it easily could be used as the outline for a Bible study or small group.

A Missiological Understanding of Contextualization

In the previous blog, What is A/G Missiology, I asked the question, “If we believe that national churches should contextualize the gospel message into their culture then why do we continue to send western missionary teachers instead of allowing indigenous churches to assign national teachers who are prepared to develop culturally sensitive curriculum for training the future ministers in that country?”  In order to adequately answer this question an understanding is needed of the concept of contextualization.

The contextualization of theology implies an understanding of Christian faith from a specific context.  It is different from classical theology, which understands faith from two perspectives—Scripture and tradition.  From the classical perspective, Scripture and tradition are perceived as being unchangeable, thus theology is unchangeable.[1] In contrast to this, a theology that is contextual begins with scripture and tradition, but then adds the element of “present human experience.”[2] This experience would include cultural and historical issues as well as contemporary thought patterns.  This implies that theology will change or evolve as the human experience changes.  Contextual theology by definition assumes that different contexts will affect how theology develops.

Different authors approach the issue of contextual theology from different perspectives.  David J. Bosch writes of the difference between historical theology and contextual theology.  He points out that historical theology followed the top-down approach:

Theology was conducted from above as an elitist enterprise…its main source (apart from Scripture and tradition) was philosophy, and its main interlocutor the educated non-believer, contextual theology is theology “from below”, “from the underside of history”, its main source (apart from Scripture and tradition) is social sciences, and its main interlocutor the poor or the culturally marginalized.[3]

Stephen B. Bevans defines contextual theology as “experiences of the past… [and] experiences of the present.”[4] The experiences of the past include the Scriptures and biblical-based traditions that have been preserved.  Experiences of the present take into account experience that is both personal and communal, as well as cultural, social location, and social change.[5] Bevans explains social location as the various roles which identify who a person is—e.g., “male or female, rich or poor, from North America or Latin America.”[6] This concept of contextual theology allows everyone to participate equally, bringing a balance of various experiences into theological formation.

In order for theology to be relevant to an indigenous people group contextual theology cannot be established by others who are outside their culture, such as missionaries.  However, when the indigenous church is new, with little knowledge of the Bible, there is a danger of contextual theology being syncretistic.  To prevent this, it is important for the indigenous church to receive clear biblical instruction upon which to establish their contextual theology.  This is where a missionary can aid the indigenous church in establishing a biblical foundation to their theology.  However, it is important that the missionary present foundational theological truths that are not based on his own cultural context.

The development of contextual theology does not require a theological degree and as Bosch suggested, it comes from a social science perspective that finds its voice in the people who are poor and marginalized culturally.  In light of this, though, I again point out the importance of contextual theology not mimicking traditional, pre-Christian religiosity and thus being syncretistic.

Paul G. Hiebert suggests that critical contextualization is a proactive way to balance effectively the development of contextual theology.  His four-step concept was developed for use by missionaries ministering in a foreign culture to help in making sure that the development of a contextual theology remains properly balanced.  Hiebert’s critical contextualization encourages the participation of all members within a church.  The first step is to “recognize the need to deal biblically with all areas of life.”[7] Step two is for the congregation to meet and analyze the cultural issues they confront from an uncritical perspective.  The third step is to conduct a Bible study that is relevant to the particular cultural issue being considered.  The final step “is for the congregation to evaluate critically their own past customs in the light of their new biblical understandings and to make a decision regarding their use.”[8]

The need for missionaries in countries where the church is developing a contextual theology is obvious.  Missionary educators help bring balance and perspective as the indigenous church grows and develops, making sure that theology is developed from a biblical foundation and not a cultural foundation.

Written by Dr. Glen Randy Robertson

---

[1] Bevans, Stephen B., Models of Contextual Theology (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2004) 2.

[2] Ibid., 3.

[3] Bosch, David J., Transforming Missions: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1991) 423.

[4] Bevans, Models of Contextual Theology, 7.

[5] Ibid., 5-7.

[6] Ibid., 6.

[7] Paul G. Hiebert, Anthropological Insights for Missionaries (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1994), 186-7.

[8] Ibid.

What is A/G Missiology?

Recently I attended two separate meetings where the phrase Assemblies of God missiology was mentioned.  In both cases the speakers assumed that everyone in the room understood what they meant.  In reality, many had no idea what this phrase entailed.  What each of these two speakers considered obvious was that Assemblies of God missiology is synonymous with the indigenous church principle.

A definition of these two phrases—Assemblies of God missiology and indigenous church principle—will be helpful to our discussion.  The term missiology comes from combining the Latin phrase missio dei, the mission of God, and the Greek phrase logos anthropou, the nature of mankind.  Whereas anthropology is the study of man, missiology is the study of the interaction between sinful mankind and a holy God.  Thus the phrase Assemblies of God missiology should technically refer to how the Assemblies of God formally views the interaction between the Divine Godhead and mankind.

This brings us to the second phrase, the indigenous church principle.  The term indigenous church was first used by Congregational missionary Rufus Anderson (1796-1880) and Anglican missionary Henry Venn (1796-1873).  They proposed that missions work should produce in foreign countries churches that were self-supporting, self-propagating, and self-governing.  Roland Allen (1868-1947), another Anglican missionary, agreed with the three‑self principles but added an additional concept that the gospel message must be adapted to the local culture and not be attached to western culture.  The Assemblies of God missionary, Melvin Hodges (1901-1988), wrote an important book, The Indigenous Church, in which he presents the A/G approach to missions.  His book is considered in A/G missions circles to be the definitive description of A/G Missiology.  He presents the three-self principles but indicates that they must be flexible and tailored to fit the culture of the local believers.  David Bosch (1929-1992), a Dutch Reformed missiologist, in his book, Transforming Mission, adds a fourth self, self-theologizing or contextualization.  Recently others have included self-missionizing as a fifth concept.

A/G missiology can be summarized as the self-supporting, self-propagating, self-governing, self-theologizing, and self-missionizing of the church within the context of the various nations where the A/G does missionary work.  It is important to point out that the biblical foundation for the indigenous church is the missionary work of the Apostle Paul as it is recorded in Acts.  Historically, A/G missionaries have gone to countries where there was no Pentecostal church and started from nothing national Pentecostal movements.

A scenario of how the indigenous church principle works would be as follows.  An A/G missionary goes to a country that has no Pentecostal Church.  This missionary endeavors to learn the language and the culture of this country.  In the process of learning language and culture they begin proclaiming the gospel message.  Soon there are converts.  These converts are trained and empowered by the missionary to establish churches and continue the missionary work through witnessing to their fellow country members.  In many cases, the A/G missionaries have started Bible Schools to train national pastors and workers.  These trained pastors and workers then become the ones who continue the work that the missionary began.  The end result is a growing and vibrant Pentecostal Fellowship that is planting new churches and seeing new people accepting Jesus Christ as their Savior.  In the process, the nationals learn to financially support their ministry (self-supporting), to establish new churches (self-propagating), establish leaders to oversee the fellowship (self-governing), through Bible Schools and Seminaries develop the training of national workers (self-theologizing), and eventually send out missionaries to areas of the world who need to hear the gospel (self-missionizing).

I am a proponent of the indigenous church principle, however, I think perhaps there are times when other mission models might be more appropriate or, at the least, a mixing of the indigenous church model with other mission concepts could or should be used.  Rather than give a definitive opinion I present several questions that I pray will begin a dialogue that will allow our fellowship of A/G national and district leaders, pastors and missionaries to arrive at a consensus definition of what A/G missiology really is.

Question One: If we believe that our missionaries are to establish an indigenous church, then why do we continue to send new missionaries to nations where previous missionaries have already established an indigenous church?  Shouldn’t new missionaries be going to countries where there is no indigenous Pentecostal church?

Question Two: If we believe that our missions efforts should result in the establishing of self-supporting national churches, then why are American churches asked to fund church building projects in these countries?

Question Three: If we believe that national churches should contextualize the gospel message into their culture then why do we continue to send western missionary teachers instead of allowing indigenous churches to assign national teachers who are prepared to develop culturally sensitive curriculum for training the future ministers in that country?

There are a number of other questions that could and should be asked.  But these three will get us started dialoguing.  By asking these questions I am not suggesting that we discard the indigenous church model, I am simply suggesting that we need to reevaluate and refine how we understand our A/G mission praxis.

Submitted by Dr. Glen Randy Robertson