Joining in with the Spirit in the 21st Century: Response to Dana Robert

In the first part of her paper, Prof Robert gives a clear overview of theological developments over the past 100 years since Edinburgh 1910. In the second part, she goes on to state the key issue:

A century ago mission reflection focused on ‘the evangelization of the world in this generation.’ Our generation must focus on discerning and strengthening a common commitment to Jesus Christ, while at the same time honoring the many witnesses coming from very different cultures, social locations, and ecclesial backgrounds. (p. 6)

Among those who are seeking to live out the theme “One Christ—Many Witnesses,” she discerns four contemporary frameworks: common witness through global networking, affirming our common faith in Christ through testimony, sharing our experiences of the Holy Spirit, and lastly, bearing witness through suffering and martyrdom.

Earlier in the paper, she drew attention to the emergence of “World Christianity”, which she describes as “a multi-cultural religion” with “profound implications for mission practice” (p. 5). How then would representatives of this Christianity respond on the key issue which she posed above? Allow me to speak as one such representative, and whose view is probably shared by a substantial majority from the Global South.

Prof Robert, in speaking of trying to discern a common commitment to Christ while honouring the diverse backgrounds from which we all come, states: “This is no easy task.” I am afraid that I totally agree. In particular, in talking about “Common Witness” and “Testimony”, how do we distinguish between authentic witness to Christ and unauthentic? Remember that only a generation ago, Chairman Mao and other champions of Marxist revolution were hailed in some missiological circles as bearers of Christian salvation. Again, we all would agree on the “Centrality of the Holy Spirit”. But how do we discern between genuine manifestations of the Holy Spirit and those of unholy spirits? Many of us would remember the classic example of this confusion at the WCC Assembly in Canberra (1991) in the plenary address by Prof Chung Hyun-Kyung. The searing critique by Raymond Fung, then Secretary for Evangelism at WCC, needs noting: “Prof Chung’s unconditional and untroubled affirmation of the wandering spirits and her contradictory delineation of their relationship with the Holy Spirit suggest …a nonchalant attitude towards the spirit world which borders either on spiritual naiveté or on manipulation and cynicism” (Evangelistically Yours—Ecumenical Letters on Contemporary Evangelism, [Geneva: WCC Publications] 1992, p. 258).

I more than suspect that the discussions in the coming generation will be just as confused and conflicting as those of the last generation, even though I don’t like what I am saying! The problems are threefold. First, the biggest problem is that there is no agreed locus of authority in the global church today, at least amongst Protestants. Second, different hermeneutical approaches will make the problem even more complicated. Third, our lack of appreciation of each other’s sociopolitical contexts will compound our differences further. The tensions in particular will be between the churches of the North, which tend to be theologically more liberal and less charismatic and Pentecostal, and those of the South, which are more conservative and open to the Spirit’s signs and wonders. But sociopolitical differences will also play a part. I will illustrate these missiological tensions briefly with two specific sets of issues. Because these issues are sensitive, I ask you not to take my comments in any judgmental sense. But do allow me to speak frankly as a Christian from the South to show how difficult I believe this coming discussion will be.

First, the big issues over which many Christians disagree today include religious pluralism, the LBGT issue, abortion rights, etc. By and large, churches in the South are opposed to these. More liberal Christians from the North see these in terms of human rights and respect for other cultures. They tend to consider those who are opposed fundamentalist, unloving, and exclusive. We are all aware how ugly and painful these disagreements are. Nevertheless, I wonder whether we realise how befuddled the churches in the South must be about the churches in the North over the overall tenor of liberal Christianity in the North, and the consequential missiological implications. Let me try to explain it as follows.

Did not western missionaries come in the last few hundred years to tell us in the Global South that Jesus is the Way to God? Now representatives from the same churches are telling us that actually most if not all ways are essentially the same! Did not missionaries from the North tell us that Jesus is the Truth, and that the bible will teach us more of God’s truths? But now representatives of the same churches are telling us that modernity and post-modernity inform us that truth is rather fluid and, ultimately, nothing seems final! Did not missionaries of the past tell us that Jesus is the Life, and that those who follow him must live the lifestyle that he taught and modelled for us? Was that not the reason why some 45 page boys of the king of Buganda, in present day Uganda, were martyred—some dismembered, some beheaded, and many roasted over fire—because they would not participate in the homosexual practices of the king? But now representatives from the same churches are telling us that those martyrdoms were all a tragic mistake because we read the bible wrongly! Did the missionaries not also tell us that life is precious and did they not save many unwanted babies, especially girls, from untimely death or a life of sexual slavery and the like? Now some representatives from the same churches are telling us that Pro-choice defines the way of love, and therefore unborn babies are not quite the same as unwanted babies! Earlier the missionaries told us that we were heathens to whom the gospel of Christ brings light. Now it seems that we are told that we are still in darkness until we embrace the light of modernity and post-modernity!

I hope you can begin to understand what I mean by Christians in the South being thoroughly confused by many of our friends from the North. And some from the South may be thinking that we might as well just go back to our old religions. After all, there does not seem to be much difference between our old religions and your modern and post-modern versions of Christianity.

If the churches in the South are befuddled in the first instance, some are even more confused with the stand of churches from the North over the second set of issues, those related to Islam and its global resurgence today. There is no time to go into any details on this. But despite the facts on the ground of beheadings and genocide, sexual slavery and other brutalities, and innumerable refugees in many places like Sudan, Nigeria, Central Africa, and the Middle-East as a whole, the standard line taken by many western church leaders is the politically correct one of dialogue as being the way forward. Yet in Iraq alone, probably only some 300,000 Christians of the most ancient churches remain out of an original population of more than 1.5 million before 2003. In the case of Syria, some western church leaders took the Syrian bishops to task for not supporting the uprising against Assad, in spite of what was happening to the Christians in Iraq and elsewhere. They appear totally oblivious of the fact that if Assad goes, Syrian Christians will suffer the same fate of Iraqi Christians. Syrian bishops are saying to us: “Martyrdom we can accept, but not genocide!” For many living in the West, the priorities in mission in relationship to Islam are dialogue and the promotion of western style democracy in Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. But for Christians living in Muslim-majority nations, their mission priority is the survival of the church and preventing genocide, given the intense pressures they are living under.

The above two examples indicate how difficult the on-going missiological discussions will be in the coming generation, because of the problems of theological authority, hermeneutics, and differing socio-political contexts. How we are to rightly discern an authentic common witness to Christ, know which testimonies genuinely affirm our historic faith, and distinguish the authentic work of the Spirit from the unauthentic will certainly not be easy at all!

Please do not get me wrong. I long to walk “The Emmaus Road as 21st century signpost for many witnesses to One Christ” which Prof Robert speaks of. I fully affirm the spirit in which this aspiration is made. But there are huge obstacles ahead. And if we are to reach the goal of true unity in Christ in our mission—and certainly that is what we all would wish for—it will require much charity, deep humility, some serious heart-searching and not a little prayer!