One of my favourite reads was Brian Stanley's 'Christ and the flag'. This book looked at the rise of Empire as a function of Christian missionary zeal. The missionaries made the tracks into Africa and the traders, explorers, colonialists and others followed. Conquest and exploitation of natural resources (including of course people) came about as a result of the Church's actions but not its intentions. The problem was (is?) that people saw the results of Empire and blamed the Church for providing the means by which they were brought into being.
Taking this as an example, seems to me that the key to pioneering is that we need people to be where, in this case, Church is perceived not to be awaiting the arrival of those who come to conqueror (for Christ). Just as Empire used the paths trodden and the places inhabited by missionaries, so to do Pioneers. This means that when we send Pioneers into a place, there needs to be people who have established or settled that place beforehand so that there is a core membership of any groups that come into being. There aren't there to run things as leaders but are there to add normal Christians who by being salt and light bring the kingdom of God (basiliea) into that place.
One of the big problems with some aspects I have seen with pioneering is that there is a tendency towards being so much unlike 'Church' that the groups that come into being are also un like Christians. Rather than draw lines and preach 'hardline' Christianity, there is at times something that feels rather syncretic and unable to correct lest those newbies feel judged or corrected. The Empire-builders had no problems with this and their evangelistic zeal (including teaching the national anthem) did them much credit, even if it was misplaced and ill thought through!
So here's a bit more thinking on the pioneering front, hope it is proving useful, challenging, funny (perhaps in an "Oh my, look what he's written now!" sort of way!).
Pax
2 comments:
Although Brian's thesis mitigates the worst of them, there is still some truth to the allegation that the Christian faith shared by the Victorian missionaries came wrapped in European culture and assumptions - a kind of "one size fits all" approach. Late 20th and early 21st century Christian mission recognises the distinction and tries to affirm what is commendable in the culture to which it is sent and allow Christian faith to be expressed and to grow within that.
The implication of this for so-called pioneer ministry is that the "normal Christians" (sic) involved need to be prepared to recognise the difference between what is Christian and what is cultural, and to empathise with the culture of those to whom they go. This means that the pioneer expression may not always look like "hardline" Christianity, but may still be a perfectly valid expression of Christian faith and community.
The Gospel is the same but the way we present it and live it out might be different because of the society in which it is presented has changed but it cannot become syncretic because of the difference either.
The problem is that there is indeed 'no one size fits all' approach, but neither can we change the basic style of the garment we are bringing. I think this is the problem that many involved in pioneering find themselves presented with.
The other issue is that there is plenty that is Christian (in terms of heritage and thus bearing the label 'orthodox') that cannot be put off to win the acceptance and approval of the society in which it is being presented - this is the problem the Episcopalians have with their revisionist tendencies.
Thanks for comments,
V
Post a Comment