“In great areas of Asia, Africa, and Oceania, the church grows steadily and even spectacularly. But in the areas dominated by modern Western culture (whether in its capitalist or socialist political expression) the church is shrinking and the gospel appears to fall on deaf ears. It would seem, therefore, that there is no higher priority for the research work of missiologists than to ask the question of what would be involved in a genuinely missionary encounter between the gospel and this modern Western culture. Or, to put the matter in a slightly different way, can the experience of missionaries in the cross-cultural transmission of the gospel and the work of theologians who have worked on the question of gospel and culture within the limits of our modern Western culture be usefully brought together to throw light on the central issue I have posed?” (Lesslie Newbigin, Foolishness to the Greeks: The Gospel and Western Culture, 3)
In the late 1990s, I had significant interactions with individuals who served as missionaries in countries other than the United States. During that time, I came to believe that the Church in the West could learn a great deal from those who had labored to advance the gospel in the non-Western world. Believing there was much for North Americans to learn from those serving “over seas”, I wrote my doctoral dissertation (in 2001) on this subject.
It was during those days as a pastor and a doctoral student that I came to recognize that many other brothers and sisters (much wiser and more experienced than I) had been thinking along similar lines–for several decades. In fact, I soon realized they had written articles and books on the topic, and even created a networks to assist churches in the West to engage their contexts as missionaries.
Though Lesslie Newbigin wrote about such missionary encounters in the West several years ago (his book quoted above was published in 1984), there still remains a great deal of change necessary for the development of a robust missionary encounter with those living in the West. While we in North America have felt Newbigin’s influence and have experienced the Missional Church Movement, both leading us more in the direction of “a genuinely missionary encounter between the gospel and this modern Western culture,” we remain well behind where we should be in our missionary thinking and work.
Brothers and sisters across the globe have assisted us in thinking about the United States in relation to missionary matters such as understanding cultures, interpersonal communication, contextualization, and church planting. And in light of these recent adjustments to our approaches, we have experienced some healthy gospel advancement. However, certain systemic shifts (e.g., ecclesiological, strategic, and methodological), conducive to the multiplication of biblically-faithful disciples, leaders, and churches across the third largest country in the world, are still necessary. Much of our activities still reflect missiologies that result in the development of structures, strategies, and methods that approach our contexts as if they are already “reached,” rather than resulting in activities better geared for gospel engagement within highly diverse, globalized, post-Christianized, post-industrialized contexts.
Are we in the West learning from the rest? Yes. But, we are learning slowly, much, much too slowly.
What are your thoughts?
Good thoughts. One of the best missionary church planting books that I’ve read, and which is very helpful for American church planters is John Nevius’ “The Planting and Development of Missionary Churches” I enjoyed it because of it’s relevance for Thailand (it was written in 19th century China), but the guy who got it put back in print is an Orthodox Presbyterian pastor in one of the least diverse states in the union – and he found it very relevant for his context. Great testimony to the universality and on-going value of Nevius’ work.
Thanks, Karl. I agree with you–Nevius’ book is outstanding and remains highly influential. Thanks for the update on Thailand!
I agree, particularly with your thought that “Much of our activities still reflect missiologies that result in the development of structures, strategies, and methods that approach our contexts as if they are already “reached,” . . .” Even with the resent trend–particularly among the neo-Reformed crowd–to be averse to attractional methodologies, a lot of what churches and church plants do still ends with the expectation that lost people will come to us, rather than us going to them.
There is another side to the equation that is worth thinking about, too; that is, are we (the Western church) being transparent enough about our methodological failures, and then diligent enough to catalogue those failures, not necessarily for our own benefit, but for the benefit of churches/denomination in other countries who have “learned” from the good parts of some of our past “growth strategies,” but have not yet seen the pit-falls of some of those same strategies?
For example, I spent some time this past Summer working with some churches and church plants in Peru. I walked away from my time there both excited about the future of the church in Peru, and scared for the future of the church in Peru. There is no doubt that the Lord is doing some amazing things there. There is also little doubt in my mind that much of the growth that is happening in certain areas (I’m thinking particularly in and around Lima) is being encouraged by basic Church-Growth Strategies that were common in the States 10-15 years ago. More than once I had conversations with pastors about some of the red flags they might need to watch out for, and more times than not the pastor could not see beyond there own context, and the growth they were experiencing, to notice the dangers I could see on the horizon. In fact, unless some good training is going on in areas like where I was–training basically designed to say “Hey, learn from our mistakes before you repeat them, too”–it will not surprise me in the least if in another 20 years a consumeristic mindset has taken hold in churches in many other places, and along with that mindset comes a decline in the church. Just a thought . . .
JD, I agree that there is great and continued need for the Western church to learn from the church in the rest of the world. It is also vital for us to see the great lostness in the west and the need to engage as missionaries not just ministers. BUT, I caution (and I think you agree) that we must not come to believe that everything that works in the east will duplicate in the west. It would be a mistake missiologically to believe that there is a one-to-one application of all the principles, paradigms and programs of mission efforts abroad. The west is certainly not better, but it is different. One example of this is the many cases of hybrid cultures being developed by the vast number of immigrants and refugees coming to the west. This newly developing “spliced DNA” cultures require us to think in new and creative ways for missional engagement. We must wisely deliver the never changing message of the gospel in a way different than the old paradigms of the west, but also different than the paradigms of mission in the indigenous cultures from which they have morphed.
I think we are in desperate need of engaging the WORD and seeking God’s wisdom in how to live, love, serve, teach, preach, and engage our new cultures for the sake of the gospel. May God be gracious to make us wise and passionate for this.
Thanks, Tony, for sharing your thoughts and your experience.
Yes, I agree that there is not a 1 to 1 correlation between the West and the East…just as much as I would say there is not a 1 to 1 correlation between China and Indonesia either. Thanks for sharing, Todd. You make some excellent points that we need to keep in mind.
Pingback: Multiplication 2011:03