theologies and cultures

theologies and cultures Vol. V. No. 2, December 2008

Revisiting Mission From the Colonized Land

Contents

Editorial In Churches Construction of ‘Saviour’, Mission Stops 5

1. Revisiting History Conformity and Contestation: An Asian Theological Appraisal of Edinburgh 12

D. Preman Niles Doing Mission from the Underside -- Mission Beyond Edinburgh 1910: Towards a Critical Asian Perspective Huang Po Ho 37

II. Towards New Paradigms THE Mission of Jesus is Love of all Living beings for The Fullness of Life

Kim Yong- Bock 62 Towards a New Paradigm in the Concepts of Mission Hope S. Antone 87

The Church is God’s Partner In Re-creation Choan-seng Song 105

III. Critical Enquiry of Praxis Relativism and Difference: Toward a Genuine Pluralism -The Multi-Religious Situation in Asia and Its Challenges to the Mission- Wang Shik Jang 128

Some Reflections on Tourist Evangelism in Tropical Africa J.N.K. Mugambi 151

Towards a Mission-Oriented Theological Education Chen Nan-Jou 181

theologies and cultures, Vol.V, No 2

December 2008, pp. 5~11

Editorial

In Church’s Construction of “Saviour”

Mission Stops

“Magi from the East came…asking,

“Where is the child who has been

born king of the Jews?”

… And having been warned in a dream

not to return to Herod,

they left for their own country by another road.”

(Matthew 2. 1-12)

While celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the founding

of Christian Conference of Asia, Urban Rural Mission initiated a

study of mission with the caption ‘rerouting mission.’ The

image of rerouting has been taken from the birth narrative found

in the Gospel of Mathew which depicts an “Eastern” response to

the encounter with baby Jesus. Although the Magi from the East

were mandated to return to the Monarch, the “face-to-face

relation” with the vision of the incarnated truth encouraged them

to locate a new route by entirely abandoning a route that, with

all probability, would offer them material and political rewards.

The mystery of truth that they encountered and the

commitment towards it empowered the Magi to not only reject

6 theologies and cultures

the monarchic patronage, but to subvert the political designs of

the empire that would destroy the unraveling of truth. This

commitment to the mystery of truth and its practice of taking a

different route is a foundation for the concept of mission.

The political road that the Magi traveled is justified in

the life and death of Jesus. The death of Jesus as a convict on the

Cross was an empirical outcome of announcing Basileia tou

Theou as a counter project to the Roman Empire. Preman Niles

reminds through these pages that the closest translation of

Basileia tou Theou, is “Empire of God” rather than ‘Kingdom of

God’ [page 15]. The least and the marginalized occupies a

respectable space in the Empire of God, where the poor come to

a new realization that they are not alienated from God, but on

the contrary, are blessed; prisoners under the weight of

economic and political power experience freedom and liberation

and peacemakers are honoured. In the Empire of God, the

prevalent understanding that wealth and power are concrete

manifestations of divine blessing while poverty and

marginalization are the results of sin is reversed. Because of the

incompatibility between the pursuit of mammon and the love of

God, in the new Empire of God the proximity to wealth is

counted as an epitome of one’s distance from God. Change of

the social location of the poor involves a radical remapping of

the social distribution of power relations of the given order, and

that threat lead Jesus to the cross. A radical renunciation of

power for the free gift of the Love of God shattered the

prevailing power structures who claimed legitimacy for their

position by using the name of God. Basileia tou Theou is a

celebration of the powerless - women, lepers, blind, and

persecuted - on the assurance of the fullness of life against the

empire of hegemonic power - fear, slavery, and cruelty -

objectified through the presence of Roman Empire.

These pronouncements were not empty ideological

rhetoric in the gospels, instead, they assumed empirical

explanations in the table fellowship that Jesus had with the tax

collectors, sinners, and the vulnerable in Roman and Jewish

Editorial 7

social structure. The Empire of God reifies a reconciled society

where hierarchies based on power, wealth, gender, social class,

or religious and spiritual authority has no place. Wealth and

brute power-centered soteriology of the Roman Empire and

social power-centered Jewish establishments are inimical to the

values of the Empire of God to which Jesus had become a living

witness.

In the Cross of Calvary, the Roman Empire and its

cohorts including Herod and the Jewish religious establishment

were defeated. Rome failed to contain the subversive character

of the Empire of God converting itself as a radical hope among

the poor and the wretched of the earth.

The last commission in Mathew [Mt. 28: 16-20], given at

the “mountain” of Galilee, was a determined call to take the

revolutionary values of the Empire of God against all empires of

power, wealth, and religious hypocrisy. The appeal to the

disciples to “therefore go” is certainly not a statement of

discontinuity from what Jesus stood for and became a martyr (as

the missionary movement would like to believe), but was an

extension of what Jesus inaugurated through the sermon on the

mount [Niles, p. 16].

The early Church was a witness to this commission, and

they rejected the soteriology of wealth and power (Acts. 3.6) by

creating “communities of equals” (Acts 2:44-47)

However, this vision of Jesus encountered by the Magi

and the early church was defeated when Constantine claimed

leadership of the church and converted Christianity as a state

religion. The defeat that Herod and the Roman Empire

swallowed in the cross of Calvary was reversed through the so-

called conversion of Constantine into Christianity. Christianity

thus was redefined as “Constantinianism”.1

Since then, the

1 The term Constantinianism is used to denote the faith principle/ ideology of

the church since the time of Constantine. In the emperor Constantine, the

Church found the promise of God and they articulated the optimism that

“everything that people can ask of God has already been obtained for the


Church hierarchy has found that cohabitation with the Empire is

an empirical necessity for the establishment of Church. The

concept of mission in the church was sorely defined within this

newfound wisdom of “Constantinianism”.

Eighteenth and nineteenth century mission activities

reiterate the ideology of “Constantinianism” as opposed to the

principles of truth located by the Magi and the early church in

their encounter with Jesus. It is no secret that missionary

movements during these expansionist periods were a colonial

project with the aim of providing theological legitimation to the

political and economic expansion of Western empire. One of

the best examples is the Commission report of the World

Missionary Conference that met in Edinburgh (1910), which

acknowledged without any remorse the benefit of the Church for

being part of the colonial establishment. The report of

Commission 1 cited:

One of the most significant and hopeful facts with

reference to world evangelization is that the vast

majority of the people of the non-Christian nations and

races are under the sway, either of Christian

governments or of those not antagonistic to Christian

missions. This should greatly facilitate the carrying out

of a comprehensive campaign to make Christ known.2

The dominant discourse in the Missionary Movement

was proud of the political domination the west had over the

Asian and African nations, and perceived it as a providence of

God for the extension of their “Missiondom”. The Ecumenical

Missionary Conference held in New York, 1900, observed that

“the political and commercial expansion and occupation of

world by the empire.” See Chris J. Bota, “Extinction of the Church in North

Africa.” Journal of Theology for South Africa, (57 (1986) pp. 24-31 2 World Missionary Conference, 1910, report of Commission I, Carrying the

Gospel to all the Non-Christian World (Edinburgh: Oliphant, Anderson &

Ferrier) p. 6

Editorial 9

distant land by Europe and America had directed the thoughts of

Christendom to distant parts of the earth.”3

The fact that they are in reality an extension of the

colonial project incapacitated the mission movements to become

a living witness to the Empire of love and liberation that Jesus

had inaugurated.

Being deprived of the ability to be a proponent of the

Empire of God, missionary movements were in dire need to

locate legitimate theories to justify their intervention in the

colonies along with the European Empires; the result was the

construction of the truncated missionary geography which has

become an ideological weapon for mission movements since

then. This missionary geography however, legitimized the

support of the missionaries towards the empires of power. For

less militant supporters of the British Empire, the new

geography provided the solace to justify their silence towards

the blatant exploitation of the natives by the powers of the

Empire. The construction of missionary geography, in reality,

amounted to a strategic rejection of the empires of love and

reconciliation.4

The basic tenant of missionary geography is the bi-polar

world-view which assumed the existence of two parallel and

mutually exclusive worlds5

: the Christian world [meaning

Constantinian/European empires of power] and the non-

Christian world. Human salvation is possible only through the

Christian world; therefore, the invitation to the space of the

Christian world assumed the kernel of mission. They propagated

the idea that everything connected to the Christian world, which

in reality is the Empire of power, is sublime (or as Alexander

Duff claimed, “Pure and beneficent”) while the world outside

3 Ecumenical Missionary Conference: New York, 1900. Report.. p.10

4 When Bishop V.S. Azariah pleads “Give us friends, he alluded to the

dichotomy between the Empire of power and the Empire of Love. 5 Kosuke Koyama Lecture given at “Towards 2010” University of Edinburgh,

April 2002. www.towards2010.org.uk


the empire is defined as a reality where “life dies and death

lives.” 6

There were two immediate ramifications to this

newfound mission theory based on the bi-polar geography. First

is the radical rejection of the values of the Empire of God and

the witness of the “communities of equals” that the early church

inherited from the vision of Jesus. Faith praxis oriented by the

values of the “communities of equals’ were not only

discouraged within the practice of mission but were defeated by

equating them to heresy.7

Secondly, the presumptions of missionary geography

lead the church to claim an “ownership” of the absolute

knowledge of God. Their construction of the concept of

“Savior” was presented as an ultimate revelation of God, and

they used a perverted memory of the cross to justify their claim.

The success of mission was viewed as its ability and conviction

to present the certainty of truth over and against all

uncertainties8 which are part of other religious traditions.

But in reality, the claim of absolute truth rejected the

mystery of God; In other words, in church’s appropriation of

Jesus, God’s mystery ceases to be a reality. God stopped.9

Biblical literature presents God’s mystery as an ongoing

revelation in response to the empirical realities of the pain and

suffering of the people. In the context of pathos, the mystery of

6 Alexander Duff’s speech at the General assembly in Scotland in 1835,

quoted by T. V. Philip Edinburgh to Salvador (Delhi: ISPCK, 1999), p170 7 Christian identity as an anti-socialist front emanate from this change of

orientation. 8 Hendrik Kraemer, the most vocal propagandist of neo-orthodoxy in mission

discourse, found that the fundamental problem for the people is the complete

lack of absolutes in their lives. In the absence of absolutes, they surrender to

relativism, and that leads them to a fundamental and radical uncertainty about

the meaning of life. Therefore, providing an absolute is a mandate of mission,

and Kraemer argued that this religious absolute is given only through the

Christian gospel, because it is the work of God. See. H. Kraemer. The

Christian Message in a Non-Christian World, (London: The Edinburgh

House Press, 1938) p.6 9 Rev. M.J. Joseph, Christmas message, 2008

Editorial 11

God offered subversive surprises to people. But for any seat of

power, the subversive character of God’s mystery is a threat. To

maintain power, it is wise for those who occupy power to avoid

any uncertainties involved in an unfolding mystery. Uncertainty

is often equated to a disorderly situation which is costly for the

seat of power. Therefore, it is no wonder that the claims of

absolute knowledge of God become more appealing to the

church hierarchy rather than preaching about God’s mystery

which is unfathomable for human consciousness. Moreover,

absolute knowledge provides possibility to control the world

because those who control absolute knowledge are capable of

exercising absolute power

The danger of offering absolute truth by rejecting the

mystery is that mission stops, since mission is the participation

of creation in God’s mystery. Thus in Constantinianism,

euphemized as Christianity, the mission of God has stopped.

Papers presented in this volume have an objective to

revisit the concept and practice of mission. Forthcoming

centenary celebration of the World Missionary Conference met

in Edinburgh in 1910 invites Churches and Christian groups

around the world to redefine the concept and practice of mission.

This volume is a humble contribution towards that goal.

The “Protection of life” regulated the decision of the

Magi. Life is not an absolute principle, but a mystery

challenging the attempts of the empire to domesticate and to

convert it into objects in service of power.

mp.

theologies and cultures, Vol.V, No.2

December 2008, pp. 12-36

Conformity and Contestation:

An Asian Theological Appraisal of

Edinburgh

D. Preman Niles1

In the year 2010 there is to be a meeting of Christian

leaders in Edinburgh to revisit the mission conference that took

place there in March 1910. Though the 1910 conference did not

expressly call itself an ecumenical gathering, (the idea that it

should be called so seems to have been mooted at one of the

preparatory meetings but was later dropped), it nevertheless

prompted the forming of the ecumenical movement as we know

it today. Three major movements came out of that conference.

These were the movement for World Mission, the Life and

Work Movement and the Faith and Order Movement. These

1 Prof. Dr. D Preman Niles, a well known ecumenical leader and an Old

Testament scholar is a former General Secretary of the Council for World

Mission in London. He has been part-time Secretary for Christian Education

and Lay Training, EACC, Dean at the Theological College of Sri Lanka,

Pilimatalawa, an Executive Secretary for the Christian Conference of Asia

and Director for Justice Peace and Integrity of Creation of the World Council

of Churches.

Conformity and Contestation 13

three movements with later elaborations came together to form

the World Council of Churches.

As we shall see later, Asian participants at the 1910

world mission conference were heavily indebted to discussions

and theological trends in the YMCAs, YWCAs and the Student

Christian Movements of Asia in their time. In turn Edinburgh

1910 led to the later formation of the ecumenical movement in

Asia, especially the East Asia Christian Conference, which was

renamed the Christian Conference of Asia (CCA). However, on

the global ecumenical scene, while considerable attention has

been paid to developments from European and American

perspectives in the ecumenical movement, not much has been

done with Asian theological and ecumenical perspectives voiced

at the 1910 Edinburgh conference.

The purpose of this essay is to revisit Asian contributions

at the Edinburgh conference and surface them, so that they are

not lost in the welter of Western ecumenical and theological

arguments and explorations at the 2010 ‘reunion’. Up to now, if

I am not totally mistaken, discussions on matters concerning

mission and unity have largely been the domain of Christian

World Communions (i.e. confessional or denominational

organizations). These place the primary stress on Confessional

Christian traditions and dogma and adversely respond to the

matter of religious plurality. In presenting an Asian ecumenical

perspective, my hope is that it would encourage other

ecumenical regional perspectives to enter the debate. It is about

time the arena changed and regional ecumenical bodies took the

initiative placing the emphasis not simply on inherited Christian

traditions but rather on contextual theological articulations of

the Christian faith.

I have chosen ‘conformity and contestation’ as an entry

into the discussion. This choice requires some explanation.

At a meeting of the Commission on Theological

Concerns of the CCA, the late Professor Feliciano Cariño said,

‘Mission is what happens when the church meets the world.’

Shorn of any theological assumption, this description places the


emphasis on history and the social and political context in which

the church is placed at any time. I have expanded his statement

to describe mission as what happens at the places where the

church meets the world, the world challenges the church, and

the church responds creatively without simply reacting

defensively.

Implied in this statement is a rhythm of conformity and

contestation. On the one hand, the church accepts the fact that it

belongs to a specific context and identifies with that context.

Despite its negative connotations, I have chosen the term

‘conformity’ to express this fact but given it a positive twist. On

the other, the church also contests those aspects in the context

that attempt to circumscribe it and which it views as inimical to

the message of the gospel. When conformity loses the critical

dimension implicit in contestation it can be no more than

conformism. When contestation is bereft of a contextual base, it

becomes an alien voice that carries little or no conviction.

Conformity and contestation need to relate to each other in

creative tension.

Conformity and contestation should not be pressed as a

model or paradigm for understanding mission. Most times it is a

response to a world situation. Sometimes it is even a response to

a dominant theological or ecclesiastical position that is

perceived as antithetical to the Christian faith. This was the case

during the Reformation. Conformity and contestation should

rather be used as a key for interpretation, a heuristic tool, to set

out the theology that both informs mission and arises from

mission. The understanding of mission as both conformity and

contestation draws attention to the various ways in which Jesus

and those who followed him through the centuries construed

their role in expressing God’s will, i.e. God’s relationship with

the world, in changing historical situations.

Since we are implying that the rhythm of conformity and

contestation is a way of understanding Christian mission as a

whole, first, it would be worth culling out from mission history

episodes where this rhythm is particularly evident before,


second, moving to an examination of Asian contributions at

Edinburgh 1910. It would also show that this rhythm is not

peculiar or exclusive to Asian understandings of mission.

I. Conformity and Contestation in Mission History The purpose of this enquiry into various episodes in

mission history is to show that, despite theological attempts to

define what is and is not mission, historical circumstances have

conditioned understandings and practices of mission, which

have invariably been responses to the reality of ‘empire’.

The mission of Jesus was circumscribed in large measure

to the people and land of Israel. ‘The lost sheep of the house of

Israel’ was the target group (cf. Mt. 10:6; 15:24). Conformity

lay in this self-limitation (cf. Mk 7:27). In expressing his

mission to this group, Jesus chose a political concept expressed

in Greek as Basileia tou Theou, which brings out the dimension

of contestation. It is best to translate this Greek phrase as ‘the

Empire of God’ rather than ‘the Kingdom of God’, which the

King James Version uses reflecting British Kingship tradition. It

has since been followed by other versions and translations.

Those who heard Jesus, both friend and foe alike, would have

heard it as a direct challenge to the Empire of Caesar. It was

posed as an alternative in which those who were discards in the

Empire of Rome, namely, those who carried no economic

weight and therefore considered expendable, would find value in

the empire that Jesus proclaimed.2 In it ‘the least’ would be first.

For ‘the least’ this would be good news.

In making the least the central subjects of the Empire of

God, Jesus inverted and challenged the power and the values of

the Roman Empire. His proclamation of the Empire of God

would also have been viewed as an attempt to destabilise the

Peace of Rome (Pax Romana) through which Rome controlled a

vast territory. In the eyes of Rome, this was sedition. He was

2 For a fuller discussion of this point see Stephen J. Patterson, The God of

Jesus: The Historical Jesus and the Search for Meaning, (Harrisburg,

Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1998), 60-68.


crucified. This was a brutal form of Roman execution that was

reserved for common criminals and the political enemies of

Rome who were also considered criminals.

Hence, once we get behind all the theological arguments

that have emerged over the last two millennia to explain why

and how Jesus died for our sins, we are left with the troubling

fact that we worship as God a convict. Jesus was not killed

because of a religious offence, though the religious authorities

of his time seem to have played a role. Rome executed him.

After his resurrection, the theatre for mission broadened

from Israel to the world of nations. The commissions to mission

in Matthew and in Luke carry different emphases but have

certain commonalities.

Mathew, following Mark, has the Risen One going

before his disciples to Galilee. The commission is given on a

mountain just as the deepened interpretation of the law (chapters

5 to 7) is given on a mountain. The two are connected.

The sermon on the mountain begins with a set of

blessings of which the first four (5:3-6) are addressed to those

who are seeking some form of redress. They receive the

assurance (blessing) that they will find fulfilment in the Empire

of God. The next four (5:7-10) are addressed to those who

practise the values of God’s Empire. The disciples who are

called upon to practise the values of the Empire of God are

warned that they will be persecuted and accused falsely because

they are followers of Jesus (5:11f.). The balance of the sermon

expands on the law as addressed to these two target groups. The

note of conformity is struck with the words, ‘Do not think that I

have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to

abolish but to fulfil’ (5:17); and the note of contestation is struck

with the words that follow: ‘Unless your righteousness exceeds

that of the scribes and Pharisees you will never enter the Empire

of Heaven’ (5:20).

The commission in Matthew (28:18-20) is the climax to

his gospel account. It is a comprehensive conclusion in which


the word ‘all’ is repeated. The authority of the Risen One is over

the entire (‘all’) universe, which is the basis of the commission,

‘Therefore, Go!’ The good news is intended for all nations and

thus also includes Israel. Make disciples of them, baptize them,

and teach them to obey everything that Jesus has taught the

disciples. In a word, it is to do God’s will as set out particularly

in the sermon on the mountain and the prayer that Jesus taught

his disciples. (‘Your will be done’ is present only in Matthew’s

version and is not in Luke’s version.) Doing God’s will carries

the note of contestation which is enjoined on all nations.

It is doubtful that Matthew envisages a world mission.

The command simply says, ‘Therefore go!’ It is more likely that

writing to a number of Jewish Christian house groups, Matthew

was urging them to spread the good news of the Empire of God

and its demands (doing God’s will) to their neighbours – both to

Jews and to the Gentiles whom they would normally shun.

Unlike Mark and Matthew, Luke has the Risen One

appearing in Jerusalem (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4); and he gives his

commission to mission (Acts 1:7f.) there. When the followers of

Jesus receive the Holy Spirit they will receive power and they

will be his witnesses ‘in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria and

to the end of the earth’.

For Luke space is important. Jesus begins his ministry in

Galilee and sets off for Jerusalem. Though chapter and verse

divisions are not from Luke but were introduced later, the

importance of space for Luke is noticeable when we see that he

has Jesus setting off for Jerusalem in chapter 9 verse 51 but does

not get him there till chapter 19 verse 41 - almost ten chapters

out of 24! On the way from Galilee to Jerusalem many things

happen; and much teaching takes place to demonstrate the

authority of Jesus as the one who proclaims the Empire of God.

Once in Jerusalem, there is no back-tracking to Galilee. From

Jerusalem the mission moves through much space to end in

Rome with Paul’s arrival there. Paul preaches in Rome

proclaiming the Empire of God and the Risen One, ‘the Lord

Jesus Christ’, who embodied and proclaimed the Empire of


God.3 Paul lived and preached there for two whole years and

welcomed all who came to him. For Luke, the gospel message

moves from Jerusalem to Rome – from a regional political

power centre where Jesus was assassinated to the very centre of

political power itself.

Though it has no commission to mission as such, Mark’s

gospel account, which preceded and influenced both Matthew

and Luke, provides the span within which the two commissions

are to be understood. Mark places the statement of Jesus that

‘the gospel must first be proclaimed to all nations’ (13:10)

within a narration of the apocalypse (13:3-37). This

proclamation must take place before the End comes. The forum

for the proclamation is a conflict situation where the followers

of Jesus will be put on trial (13:9-11; cf. Matthew 5:11). They

are told that they are not to worry about what they would have to

say in that situation ‘for it is not you who speak, but the Holy

Spirit’. Luke picks up on this emphasis when he speaks of the

disciples receiving power when they receive the Holy Spirit. In

brief, the conflict between the Empire of God and the power

centres of this world and age will continue with the disciples till

the end of the age. Over against the power of the political and

religious centres of the world would be the power of the Holy

Spirit.

3 For a more challenging understanding of the mission of Paul see John

Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed, In Search of Paul: How Jesus’

Apostle Opposed Rome’s Empire with God’s Kingdom, A New Vision of

Paul’s Words & World, (HarperSanFrancisco, 2004). For a convenient

understanding of the basic theme of the book, see the ‘Prologue’ (1-12) with

the striking summation of Paul’s mission vis-à-vis the Roman Empire: ‘With

dusty tired much travelled Paul came Rome’s most dangerous opponent, not

legions but ideas, not an alternative force but an alternative faith. Paul too

proclaimed one was Divine, Son of God, God and God from God. But Paul’s

new divinity was Christ, not Caesar. His was a radically divergent but equally

global theology.’ (9f.) See also the essays in Part III of Paul and Empire:

Religion and Power in Roman Imperial Society, edited by Richard A.

Horsley, (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1997).


Within an apocalyptic framework and the

martyriological traditions that were rife at that time, the

crucifixion of Jesus would be understood as the unjust death of a

righteous person.4 The resurrection of Jesus would be viewed as

the reversal of his condemnation as a criminal; and would be

understood as the first fruits, the sure evidence, of the

resurrection of the righteous to eternal life and the consignment

of the wicked to eternal damnation. The churches, as the body of

Christ, were the gathering of the righteous or the saints. It is this

apocalyptic world-view that gave a sense of urgency to the

mission of the early church. ‘Come, Lord Jesus!’ was both

prayer and hope at a difficult time when the world was under the

sway of the Evil One embodied in a cruel empire that was hard

on the ‘expendables’, i.e. those who were of no economic worth

to the empire of this world.

With Constantine the situation changed drastically. From

being the terrified objects of the empire, Christians became the

accepted subjects of the empire. At this stage, Christianity

changed its character from being the way of Jesus, whose

followers were called ‘the People of the Way’, to become the

religion of the state. In becoming the religion of the Roman

Empire there was a clear ideological shift. Metaphorically

speaking, the thorn-crowned Jesus was replaced with a gold-

crowned Christ. Luke’s expectation came to fruition. However,

while Rome was converted it was not transformed. The power of

the empire remained. Conformity eclipsed contestation.

After the Byzantine Empire built by Constantine fell and

the authority of the emperor disappeared, the Bishop of Rome as

the Pope took on monarchical responsibilities as well. It was a

situation that lasted for some 12 centuries. It was a period of

mission through conquest with the intention of establishing and

extending Christendom as a Christian empire.

The Reformation broke ranks in a massive way with this

empire, and contestation became the hall-mark of this period.

4 See Stephen J. Patterson, Beyond the Passion: Rethinking the Death and

Life of Jesus, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004), 39-68.


Actually, the Reformation was not really concerned with the

mission of the church. The Reformers were concerned with two

other important tasks that went hand in hand. The first task was

to reform the church, because the Reformers were convinced

that under papal authority the church had become corrupt. The

second task for the Reformers was to capture the political

allegiance of the nation states in Europe. Their political and

therefore religious targets were, by and large, ‘princes’ rather

than ‘people’. The Reformation was a revolt against both the

political authority and the teaching authority of Rome. Reform

rather than mission was the concern of the Reformers.

The Reformation seems not to have touched the ordinary

people in any significant way. A substantial change in

perspective came especially with the Pietistic Movement in

Germany and the Evangelical Awakening in Britain initiated by

John and Charles Wesley and George Whitefield. Intrinsic to the

Evangelical Awakening was the affirmation of the worth of each

person in the eyes of God. The gospel reached the masses.

The next important period in mission history appeared

with the emergence of British missionary societies which came

after Moravian missions. William Carey founded the Baptist

Missionary Society in 1792, and the ‘Dissenters who practise

Infant Baptism’ founded in 1795 the Missionary Society later to

be called the London Missionary Society (LMS). These

missionary societies prompted and inspired the formation of

other missionary societies. At that time, most church leaders

following Reformation thinking were not interested in mission.

It was in the face of the reluctance of the institutional churches

to engage in mission that Carey followed by others used

Matthew 28:18-20 and conflated it with Acts 1:8 and Mark

16:15 to argue for world mission as an inalienable aspect of

obedience to the Risen Lord.

The early period of the modern Protestant missionary

movement from 1792 to about 1830 is important for two main

reasons that express the dimension of contestation.


One was the extension of the message of the Evangelical

Awakening that stressed the worth of all people, not just

Europeans, in God’s eyes. They attempted to finish what they

perceived as the unfinished task of the early church.

The second reason was the extension of the political

influence of the French Revolution with its message of liberty,

equality and fraternity. While Church of England prelates were

damning the French Revolution, Carey spoke of the French

Revolution as ‘God's answer to the recent concerted praying of

his people’. He then went on to describe it as a preparation for

the reception of the Gospel: ‘a glorious door opened, and likely

to be opened much wider, for the gospel, by the spread of civil

and religious liberty, and by the diminution of Papal power’.5

These missionaries carried their class orientation into

their mission so that they were evangelists and social reformers

at the same time. In a new way, the gospel as good news to the

expendables reappeared in their mission work.

After about 1830 a new group of English speaking

missionaries came with a different class orientation. These

missionaries encouraged local Christians to stay clear of politics

and not identify with the nationalist aspirations of their people.

In a strange way the identification with empire that belonged to

the period of Constantine reappeared. The Empire of God in

some ways coalesced with the colonial empire and was

depoliticised, so that it ceased to be a challenge within history

and politics. It no longer functioned as an alternative reality of

hope and life in the here and now for those on the margins of

society. In other words, the challenge of the Empire of God was

removed from the arena of politics and the realm of history, and

placed in an otherworldly location, namely, heaven. Again,

conformity eclipsed contestation.

II. Asian Contributions at the 1910 Mission Conference

5 For a convenient description of the period of the early British missionaries,

see T.V. Philip, Reflections on Christian Mission in Asia: William Carey

Lectures and Other Essays, (Delhi: ISPCK/CSS, 2000), 1-42.


The conference at Edinburgh in 1910 took place, at least

from an Asian perspective, at the cusp of colonial empires

having to contend with and finally give way to the aspirations

for independence of colonised nations. The reality of empire

was being challenged on the political front, which had a bearing

on Asian contributions at the conference.6

For the missionaries, however, the purpose of the conference

was to bring together the work of the various Western

missionary movements that began in the 18th

and 19th

centuries

and to set out a basis and plan for mission to the so-called ‘non-

Christian lands’. Missionaries working in these lands

represented the so-called ‘mission field’. It is interesting that

while there were some one thousand two hundred Westerners

representing some 159 missionary societies there were just 17

non-Westerners, most if not all of them Asians, representing the

‘non-Christian lands’ which were the objects of mission!7

Though they were guests of their respective missionary

societies, several of them broke ranks to argue that one could

not conceive of Christian mission in Asia without taking into

account Asian realities such as the aspirations of the churches in

their lands and the feelings, thinking and culture of their people.

This conference provided a forum for the emergence of Asian

Christian thought, which on the one hand accepted many of the

theological assumptions of the missionaries but on the other

challenged their parochial perceptions which confused the

gospel of Jesus with Western culture. At that conference Asian

Christians also exposed the colonial mind-set of Western

missionaries. What we will notice is the rhythm of conformity

and contestation in what they had to say.

6 See Hans Ruedi-Weber, ‘The Church in revolutionary Asia,’ in Asia and the

Ecumenical Movement 1895-1961, (London: SCM Press, 1966), 30, for this

judgment. 7 For a compact description of Edinburgh 1910, see Hans-Ruedi Weber, Asia

and the Ecumenical Movement, 115-142.


Before moving to that contribution to Asian Christian

thought, it would be helpful to isolate the problem that was

being encountered. Lesslie Newbigin, who came to India much

later as a missionary, detected and surfaced the cultural

component of this problem:

The gospel comes to the Hindu embodied in the form

given to it by the culture of the missionary. As second

and third and later generation Christians make their own

explorations of the scriptures, they will begin to test the

Christianity of the missions in the light of their own

reading of the scripture. So the missionary, if he is at all

awake, finds himself as I did in a new situation. He

becomes, as a bearer of the gospel, a critic of his own

culture. He finds there the Archimedean point. He sees

his own culture with the Christian eyes of a foreigner

and the foreigner can see what the native cannot see.8

However, more than culture was involved. In his classic, Asia

and Western Dominance, K.M. Panikkar drew attention to the

religious and political component in Western missions. After a

historical sketch of Western missions in various Asian countries

in the post Vasco da Gama period showing the repeated failure

of missionary endeavours, he wrote:

The success of the missions need not have been so

meagre but for certain factors which may be discussed

now. In the first place, the missionary brought with him

an attitude of moral superiority and a belief in his own

exclusive righteousness. The doctrine of the monopoly

of truth and revelation…is alien to the Hindu and

Buddhist mind. To them the claim of any sect that it

alone possesses the truth and others shall be

‘condemned’ has always seemed unreasonable. Secondly,

8 Lesslie Newbigin, A Word in Season: Perspectives on Christian World

Missions, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1994), 68.


the association of Christian missionary work with

aggressive imperialism introduced political

complications. National sentiment could not fail to look

upon missionary activity as inimical to the country’s

interests. That diplomatic pressure, extra-territoriality

and sometimes support of gun-boats had been resorted to

in the interests of foreign missionaries could not be

easily forgotten.9

Though their comprehension of this problem may have been

inchoate, the responses of the Asians at the 1910 Edinburgh

mission conference showed that they experienced this problem

in their own lands.

While the antecedents of the Edinburgh mission

conference were in a series of regional conferences of

missionaries (some Asians attended the regional conferences

held in Asia as guests), the actual antecedents for the Asians

who participated at the Edinburgh conference lay elsewhere.

One was their membership in local student YMCAs

which later came together to form the World Student Christian

Federation (WSCF). In these associations, relationships between

them and persons from the West were more egalitarian. This

was absent in the relationship between them and Western

missionaries in their churches. They also held positions of

leadership in the local YMCAs and SCMs as well as in the

World Student Christian Federation. Missionaries denied them

positions of leadership in their own churches.

The second was the fact that many of them were

missionaries in their own right, and so could speak with first-

hand knowledge of what it means to be a missionary in their

own lands. A combination of these two experiences exposed

them to the nationalist aspirations of their people for freedom,

which also influenced their thinking.

9 K.M. Panikkar, Asia and Western Dominance: A Comparative Study of the

European Impact on Asia, from Vasco da Gama to the mid-twentieth century,

(London: George Allen & Unwin, 1969), 297.


At world conferences of the WSCF, Asians, both men

and women, enjoyed equal participation with those from the

West. Of particular importance in this regard was the WSCF

conference at Tokyo in 1907, which informed many of the

positions Asians took at the Edinburgh Conference that followed.

V.S. Azariah, from India, spoke at the Tokyo WSCF

conference on the need for indigenous missionaries. He was a

member of the Indian Missionary Society of Tinnevelly

(founded in 1903) and the National Missionary Society of India

(founded in 1905). To the shock of many of his colleagues,

Azariah had gone as a missionary to Dornakal, which the local

YMCA secretary, Sherwood Eddy from the USA, described

with some exaggeration as the place where ‘the most degraded,

drunken, carrion eating devil worshippers’ lived.10

In fact,

Sherwood Eddy felt that he would never see Azariah alive again.

It is the direct experience of being a missionary in his own land

that prompted Azariah to state at the April 1907 Tokyo WSCF

conference:

No country can be fully evangelized except by its own

sons. The fifty millions of Japan, the four hundred

millions of China and the three hundred millions of India

can only be fully evangelized by the sons of Japan,

China and India.11

While reflecting on his own vocation and experience, he could

not have failed but to recognize that at the conference there were

present Christian students from China and the samurai converts

from Japan, some of whom attended the later Edinburgh

conference, who were engaged in indigenous missionary

movements.

Indigenous Asian evangelistic undertakings were

concerned not simply with the conversion of people to the

Christian faith but also with their betterment as was evident in

10

Hans Ruedi-Weber, Asia and the Ecumenical Movement, 76. 11

WSCF Tokyo 1907, 124.


Azariah going to a place such as Dornakal. To use a later

expression: ‘evangelization also implied humanization’. This

was part of the Asian Christian consciousness of being sent as

missionaries to their own lands.

Christianization did not mean the wholesale rejection of

the Asian heritage. Of particular note in this connection was the

speech of T. Miyagawa, a delegate from Japan at the 1907

Tokyo WSCF Conference. After urging those present at the

conference to earnestly engage in the task of evangelization, he

went on to say:

I beg of you, bring out the deep, hidden thoughts of this

Orient of ours; some of you acquire Hebrew and Greek

and Aramaic, and through them learn the mysteries of

Christianity as the men of the West have not yet

fathomed them; and thus right here in Japan work out

such a complete form of Christianity as shall bring the

East and the West together into one.12

Membership in the Student Christian Movements in their

countries and their local YMCAs and the additional influence of

being missionaries in their own lands exposed Asian Christians

to the currents of nationalism. Yet, there was no slavish

acceptance of the ideals of nationalism. For instance, at the

Tokyo conference, Yoichi Honda, one of the samurai converts

from Japan and a vice-chairperson of the WSCF, who was also

present at the Edinburgh conference, spoke about the peace that

Japan had gained after the war with Russia. Then he went on to

say, ‘Is it the perfect peace that comes from God? Alas, no. The

peace that is the first object of us Christians is peace between

God and man. Let there first be such a peace, and then true

peace shall prevail through all the world.’13

What Honda said

contradicted the vision that Count Okuma, a Japanese politician

and educationist, proposed at the same conference. It was a

12

Ibid., 131ff. 13

Ibid., 4.


vision that exhibited the chauvinistic nationalism and military

intentions of Japan to be expressed later more fully in the

doctrine of the ‘Greater East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere’:

If you wish Christianity to dominate the thought and life

of the whole Orient, it is indispensable that it should be

done by the might of the Japanese people. As Rome

expanded Christianity in the early centuries, so I believe

that the Japanese people are destined to give it a vast

impetus in these days. And if I am not mistaken, their

contribution will not be limited to Christianity, nor to

Buddhism or Confucianism, but they shall create a

universal religion, and we shall see realized for the first

time in history the brotherhood of man, the unification of

material and spiritual civilizations. For this

consummation the time is ripe.14

Japanese colonialism replacing Western colonialism for the

assumed betterment of humanity would be a risky option for

Asia as the later history that led to the Second World War

proved to be.

At the 1910 Edinburgh conference, the major line along

which the rhythm of conformity and contestation fell was in the

almost unanimous position of Asian Christians that churches in

Asian lands should take major responsibility for their own future,

and re-chart their relationships with the so-called ‘home

churches’ in the West, especially its missionaries. In presenting

this demand, they often also challenged the missionaries to

embrace a deeper understanding of the message of the gospel.

Instead of following a chronological sequence of Asian

presentations, we will group their ideas under various subjects

and end with the evening lecture of V.S. Azariah, which in

many ways drew together the main points that the Asians made.

14

Ibid.,188.


K. Ibuka of Japan expressed the shift in Asian Christian

thinking in a schematic way. He spoke of church history in the

non-western world as divisible into three periods: the period of

the missionaries, a period of transition and finally the period of

the indigenous church.15

Implied in this schematization was the

assumption that church history is more than Western missionary

history and would probably need historians with a different

perspective to write the history of the Christian church.

From an Asian perspective, the major hindrance both to

the acceptance of the Christian faith in Asia and relating to

Asian Christians was missionary collusion with colonial

attitudes and interests. C.H. Yun of Korea drew the attention of

missionaries to the unfortunate expression of power with their

control of money that hindered work in his country.16

C.C.

Wang of China, then studying at Edinburgh, openly criticized

missionary collusion with colonial governments. He argued,

‘The more you fall back on these resources [extra-territorial

privileges granted to foreigners through the pressure of foreign

power on China], the weaker you show yourselves to be in your

belief and trust in God, who is after all King of Kings, the

Supreme Minister of Justice.’17

Following up from his schematization of church history,

K. Ibuka raised questions about the cumbersome Western creeds

with their underlying complicated theologies that were being

foisted on Japanese Christians. These creeds were shaped in

theological debates in the West and had a place in Western

church history. For Japan, there had to be simpler creeds that

spoke to the Japanese situation.

The little group of Christians which formed the

beginnings of the Church, and of which I myself was one,

formed a simple Confession of its own. Very simple, and

no doubt very crude, but really a confession of its faith;

15

Edinburgh 1910, vol. IX, 294 and 305. 16

Vol.II, 359. 17

Vol. VII, 154-6.


and it was very reluctant to exchange it for an elaborate

system of theology with which it is very imperfectly

acquainted, however excellent the system might be.18

In effect, Ibuka may be seen as a forerunner of Asian contextual

theological expressions and Asian ecumenical insistence on

confessing the faith rather than accepting confessions of the

faith shaped in alien contexts.

C.Y. Cheng of China spoke of another consequence of

shifting the main emphasis of Christian work from the West to

Asia when he questioned the appropriateness of carrying on

denominational differences and loyalties, which were shaped in

Western church history. Cheng said, ‘Speaking plainly, we hope

to see in the near future, a united Christian Church without any

denominational distinctions.’19

The call for a shift from Western to Asian hands is

prominent in the evening lecture of V.S. Azariah from India,

which also shows more clearly the tension between conformity

and contestation that he resolves at the end of his lecture. The

title signals the basic issue he wanted to address: ‘The Problem

of Co-operation between Foreign and Native Workers.’20

The

lecture, which upset and annoyed several missionaries at the

conference, begins with the telling sentence: ‘The problem of

race relationships is one of the most serious problems

confronting the Church to-day.’ While referring to many

exceptions and with statements that may seem obsequious in

trying not to offend missionaries, he nonetheless called for a

shift in relations that would on the one hand give greater

responsibility to Asian Christians and on the other not break

relationships with the church in the West.

He saw the need for change in three areas in which one

led to the other. The first was personal, the second was official,

and the third was spiritual. For Azariah the model was the

18

Vol. IX, 296. 19

Vol. VIII, 195f. 20

Vol. IX, 306-15.


relationship of Jesus with his disciples: ‘The relationship

between Him and His immediate disciples and fellow-workers

was not only one of Teacher and pupils, Master and disciples,

but above all that of Friend and friends.’ It was a relationship

that allowed the disciples to grow in maturity though often they

stumbled and fell.

Addressing the matter of personal relationships between

foreign and native workers he said that while there were

exceptions, the basic problem was what we would call ‘racism’

today. It is that sense of ‘moral superiority’, to which K.M.

Panikkar pointed, which led to an exhibition of assumed racial

superiority. Of the many examples he gives, the most telling is

the disgust a missionary exhibited when a native worker

attempted to shake his hand: ‘This man thinks that because he is

a graduate and has put on a European costume I must shake his

hand!’

Azariah referred to the personal conversations he had

with two senior Indian workers (superintendents) who had

worked alongside missionaries, one for twenty years and the

other for eighteen years. Yet at no time were these indigenous

workers invited to share a meal with the missionaries and their

families. In a caste-ridden society, where high caste persons will

not sit with low-caste persons for a meal, table-fellowship is an

extremely important way in which acceptance could be

expressed. He gave real examples of table-fellowship in YMCA

circles that were natural and not contrived. It is worth noting

that Jesus expressed acceptance in the table fellowship he had

with the undesirables of society, who were labelled ‘sinners’.

In this regard, Azariah quotes with approval the words of

the Bishop of Lahore:

…The missionaries, except a few of the very best, seem

to me to fail very largely in getting rid of an air of

patronage and condescension, and in establishing a

genuinely brotherly and happy relation as between

equals with their Indian flocks, though amongst these


[the Indian flock] there are gentlemen in every truest and

best sense of the word, with whom relations of perfect

equality ought easily to be established.21

Azariah considered what the bishop said as sound advice for all

missionaries to follow, so that bad personal relationships could

be tackled and put right.

In the matter of relationships in the official area, Azariah

was of the opinion that it was not just certain individuals but

rather the prevailing power structure with the missionary as the

pay-master and the native worker as the servant that was at the

heart of the problem. He argued that it was this structure,

expressed in missionary claims such as ‘our money’ and ‘our

control’ that was detrimental to the mission of the church in

India and by implication the church in Asia as a whole. He

pointed out that in the YMCA the problem of race relationships

had been resolved quite naturally, because at the heart of the

relationship was the axiom, which a Western YMCA board

secretary said to a worker going out, ‘Make yourself

unnecessary in the field.’ This advice recognized the fact that

ultimately it is the indigenous workers who must bear the

responsibility for work in their lands. Azariah was of the opinion

that ‘there can never be real progress unless the aspirations of

the native Christians to self-government and independence are

accepted, encouraged and acted upon.’ He then went on to say,

‘I plead therefore that an advance step be taken by transferring

from foreigners to Indians responsibilities and privileges that are

now too exclusively in the hands of the foreign missionary.’ He

saw this as a gradual but clear and steady shift in responsibilities:

‘For, without growing responsibility, character will not be made.

We shall learn to walk only by walking – perchance only by

falling and learning from our mistakes, but never by being kept

in leading strings until we arrive at maturity.’

21

Ibid. 309.


‘True co-operation is only possible with a proper

spiritual relationship.’ With these opening words, Azariah spoke

of the third area of relationship between the foreign and native

workers. The inability to understand and accept this dimension

was a reason not only for bad relationships with the native

workers but also with other Indians with whom the missionary

desired to share the gospel. He pointed out that for the Hindu

‘the one and only ultimate is God: his great and only reality [is]

the unseen: his true and eternal environment the spiritual.’ He

urged the missionaries to cultivate a life style of Christian

mysticism that exhibited ‘the Christian graces of patience and

meekness and humility, the life of denial of self, the cultivation

of fellowship and communion and the practice of the presence

of God.’ Only then could the missionary impart ‘elements of

Christian character, Christian activity, and Christian

organization’ which Western Christians have developed and

India needs.

In the first two areas of relationships, Azariah exposed

the problem of colonialism and its detrimental effect on relations

between foreign and native workers. In the third area, Azariah

brought up the problem of the clash of cultures. Clearly, there

are important Christian values developed in the West that Asia

needs. But these cannot be communicated or accepted without a

Christian life-style that would resonate with the receptor culture.

Though he addressed a specific situation, he raised in principle

the hybrid nature of Asian Christianity and theology in general.

Azariah resolved the tension between conformity and

contestation by projecting an ecumenical vision that would hold

Christianity, West and East, together:

It is in this co-operation of joint study at the feet of

Christ that we shall realise the oneness of the Body of

Christ. The exceeding riches of the glory of Christ can be

fully realised not by the Englishman, the American, and

the Continental alone, nor by the Japanese, the Chinese,

and the Indians by themselves – but by all working


together, worshipping together, and learning together the

Perfect Image of our Lord and Christ. It is only ‘with all

Saints’ that we can ‘comprehend the love of Christ

which passeth knowledge, that we might be filled with

all the fullness of God.’ This will be possible only from

spiritual friendships between the two races. We ought to

be willing to learn from one another and to help one

another.

The realization of such a vision would be possible only if

relationships reflected Christ’s relationship with his disciples

whom he called ‘friends’ (cf. John 15:15). Ringing the changes

on 1 Corinthians 13, he ended his speech with these famous

words:

Through all the ages to come the Indian Church will rise

up in gratitude to attest the heroism and self-denying

labours of the missionary body. You have given your

goods to feed the poor. You have given your bodies to be

burned. We also ask for love. Give us FRIENDS!22

Azariah was clear that the representatives of the churches in the

West should heed this challenge, because we ‘need each other’

to demonstrate the inclusiveness of the church and we ‘need to

learn from one another’ to accomplish the task of Christian

witness. Both needs are basic for the doing of theology.

Consequently, though he berated Western missionaries, he was

not willing to exclude them from the missionary enterprise in

Asia. The business of learning from one another and helping

each other was no easy matter because it had to take place on

Asian soil, which imposed its own conditions. This is why he

also emphasized the need for the right spiritual dimension in the

relationship that would be sensitive to the religious culture of

the people of the land.

22

Ibid., 315.


An important subject that the Asians did not directly address,

but was implied in several of their interventions, related to Asian

religions. Despite the over-arching concern ‘to carry the gospel

to the non-Christian world’, Commission 4, which addressed the

‘Missionary Message in relation to Non-Christian Religions’,

had some sane observations to make. The Commission based its

work not on hypothetical theological positions but on the written

reports of workers in the field who had first-hand knowledge of

other religions through their contact with persons from those

faiths. After surveying the report of the Commission, S. Wesley

Ariarajah makes the following points:

Faced with the reality of the religious and spiritual life in

other faiths, the Commission refused to become

defensive. It did not engage in apologetics, seeking to

marginalize other religious experiences or even the

doctrinal formulations of other faiths, as ‘primitive,’

‘preparatory,’ ‘natural,’ ‘human,’ etc…First, there was

the attitude of listening to and learning about other faiths,

not simply to have an adequate knowledge, but with a

view to grasping their ‘meaning’ for their believers.

Second, there was no attempt to judge the other faiths on

the basis of the unacceptable manifestations of their

religion in social life even though such manifestations

were taken seriously and criticized… Third, the doctrinal

formulations or the belief systems of other faiths were

not ruled out as incompatible with the gospel

message…[These] were all taken seriously, and a

genuine attempt was made to understand them in their

own terms in order to grasp the meaning behind the

formulations and the spiritual search that produced

them.23

23

S. Wesley Ariarajah, Hindus and Christians: A Century of Protestant

Ecumenical Thought, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1991),

29f.


The impulse for contestation came from a deep-seated revulsion

to the reality of a colonial empire that had percolated into the

behaviour and theology of the foreign missionaries. The impulse

for conformity was the desire to belong to the emerging

movements for independence and the culture of their countries

while maintaining strong links with the global church.

In different ways all the Asians had as their goal the

‘Asianization’ of the church in Asia, so that it may indeed

become the church of Asia in an ecumenical setting. It is no

accident, for instance, that the formation of the Church of South

India as an independent united church bringing together several

confessional traditions was formed in September 1947 a month

after India gained its independence.

III. The Asian Legacy from Edinburgh 1910 - Some

Concluding Remarks

There is no easy transition from Edinburgh 1910 to

Edinburgh 2010. Much has happened in between. All that is

possible is to pick out some principles as we face the challenges

of the present.

First, if Christian mission is to be anything and is to be faithful

to the mission of Jesus that challenged the Empire of Caesar

with the Empire of God, a clear response to the world situation

today is imperative. The rhythm of conformity and contestation

could provide a way of charting our obedience. To repeat what

was said earlier: When conformity loses the critical dimension

implicit in contestation it can be no more than conformism.

When contestation is bereft of a contextual base, it becomes an

alien voice that carries little or no conviction. Conformity and

contestation need to relate to each other in creative tension. This

is a principle that we derive not only from Edinburgh 1910 but

also from the wholesome aspects and or episodes in the history

of Christian mission.


Second, more than ever before, we live in a global situation.

Globalization as an economic, political and military reality is

with us and has an impact on almost all, if not all, situations.

The American Empire with its allies has created satellite states

under the alleged war on terror. Nation states are being pressed

more and more to tout the ‘good news’ of economic

globalization to their people and these have become less and less

concerned with the welfare of their people. Countervailing force

in militant expressions are also increasingly evident. We live in

fearful and troubling times. A question that we need to face

ecumenically is ‘What perspectives for action does the Empire

of God which Jesus proclaimed provide for our obedience

today?’ At this point we are reminded of what Azariah had to

say. We need each other across national boundaries to chart a

global missionary response.

Third, the ecumenical forum for discussion needs to broaden,

moving away from purely confessional concerns to faith

positions emerging from contextual Christian engagement. At

this point, we also need to recognize the fact that contextually

there are coalitions for action that span many faiths which call

for a broader ecumenism than just Christian ecumenism. Given

this situation, it would be an error to use labels such as ‘non-

Christians’ and ‘non-Christian lands’ evident in Edinburgh 1910

even though in its attitude to other religious experiences

Commission 4 was progressive. Today, such tagging could

easily lead to a conquest mentality that even finds political

expression in terms such as the ‘axis of evil’.

Fourth, ‘evangelism’ needs to be understood more broadly. Our

forebears at Edinburgh and early 19th

century missionaries were

conscious of a more holistic understanding of evangelism in

which ‘humanization’ (our word) was implicit. In word and

deed we are called to proclaim the good news of the Empire of

God as a dimension of hope especially for those that the powers

of globalization consider as expendable.

theologies and cultures,Vol.V, No.2


Doing Mission from the Underside --

Mission Beyond Edinburgh 1910:

Towards a Critical Asian Perspective

Huang Po Ho1

Introduction:

What is the nature of Edinburgh 1910 World Missionary

Conference? How do people from Asia view this loudly sounded

Christian mission history? Many of us may not be aware that

when this world missionary conference was held, the missionary

activities in Taiwan were put under the country reports of Japan2.

It was of course due to the reality that Taiwan was colonized by

Japan during this period (1895-1945). However, the crisis of

identity falsification that the people of Taiwan have experienced

1 Rev. Dr. Po Ho Huang, one of the leading theologians and a prolific writer

from Taiwan, is the Vice-President of Chang Jung Christian University. Dr.

Huang also serves as the Associate Dean of South East Asia Graduate School

of Theology and the Dean of School of Theology, Chang Jung Christian

University. 2 Missionary Research Library Achieves: Section 12, Finding Aid for World

Missionary Conference Records, Edinburgh, 1910 prepared by: John L.

Grillo and Ruth Tonkiss Cameron, January 2006. See series 1 WMC 1910

Commission 1: series 1, box 6 folder5, and 7.


over a century had explicit and implicit significances to our

understanding of Christian mission.

The celebration of Edinburgh 1910 launched by

ecumenical bodies a century later that event, is an occasion to

search for locating the missionary identity within the present day

Christian history. It is thus appropriate to take the issue of

“identity” as an entry, to delve into the nature and its

development of the Edinburgh 1910 World Missionary

Conference.

Controversial Identity of Edinburgh 1910

Christian Mission has gone through a long and circuitous

journey. Early churches in some measure with its illegal

religious identity, struggled to witness the Gospel of Jesus to the

marginalized and the underdogs in their society, and eventually,

Paul the apostle of gentiles, crossed the national and religious

boundary proclaiming the Good News to the so called “heathen

land”.

Following the early churches footsteps, Christian

mission was extended throughout the territory of Roman empire

with the assistances from the political and military establishment

of the empire after Christianity was made legal by the empire

through to the conversion of Constantine the Roman Emperor to

Christianity. The idea of a great international conference to

discern the next steps for worldwide Christian mission is by no

means the sole prerogative of the Edinburgh 1910 World

Missionary Conference. More than a century earlier, William

Carey, the pioneer Baptist missionary in India, had proposed a

decennial interdenominational world missionary conference and

had suggested that the first should be held in Cape Town in

1810. Since the mid nineteenth

century Carey’s idea had found

expression, not in centres close to the “mission fields” of the

southern hemisphere but in the great cities of the Western world:

New York and London in 1854, Liverpool in 1860, London in

Mission from the Underside 39

1878 and 1888, and New York in 1900. Edinburgh 1910 stood

in this line of succession.3

Edinburgh 1910 has been advocated by some of the

ecumenical leaders as “A defining moment for the modern

Western missionary movement.”4, or “The birthplace of the

modern ecumenical movement.”5 Yet to confirm the question

raised by Ken Ross, we may ask: was it really such a unique

event? Or it is but one among many?6 To answer these questions,

we may have to testify the nature of this conference from

different angles. Keith Clements has made the following

observation on the identity character of this conference:

A distinctive feature of Edinburgh was that it was not a

rallying of the faithful. It did not make inspirational impact its

primary objective. Rather, it was designed to be a working

conference, reflecting and planning. It was distinguished from

earlier great missionary conferences by its attempt to achieve

a more unified strategy and greater coordination within the

worldwide engagement of Christian mission. The participants

were delegates of the missionary agencies which were

assigned a quota of places in proportion to the amount of

income which they spend on overseas mission. The aim of the

organizing committee was that it should be “a united effort to

subject the plans and methods of the whole missionary

3 Stephen Neill, A History of Christian Missions (Harmondsworth,

Middlesex:Penguin Books, 1964) p. 252. 4 Ken Ross, Edinburgh 1910 – Its place in History, see

http://www.towards2010.org.uk/downloads_int /1910-PlaceHistory.pdf,

assessed in August 14, 2008 5 Kenneth Scott Latourette, “Ecumenical Bearings of the Missionary

Movement and the International Missionary Council”, chapter 8 in Ruth

Rouse and Stephen C. Neill, eds., A History of the Ecumenical Movement,

1517-1948, Vol. I, 4th

ed., Geneva: WCC, 1993 [1954], p. 362. 6 Ken Ross, ibid.

http://www.towards2010.org.uk/downloads_int%20/1910-PlaceHistory.pdf


enterprise to searching investigation and to coordinate

missionary experience from all parts of the world.”7

Furthermore, as documents pointed out that the delegates of

Edinburgh 1910 World Missionary Conference were

overwhelmingly male and Anglo Saxon:

The delegates were, overwhelmingly, British (500) and

American (500). Representatives from continental Europe

were a small minority (170). Even fewer were the delegates

from the “younger churches” of India, China and Japan. There

were no African participants nor were there any from Latin

America. No one was invited from the Roman Catholic or

Eastern Orthodox Churches. While the participants were

struck by the diversity of participants, from a longer historical

perspective it is striking how limited was their range. Of

course, the participants were also overwhelmingly male

despite the fact that women were already making a massive

contribution to the missionary movement.8

The observation continues to point out9:

Few though they were in number, the Asian delegates – from

Burma, Ceylon, China, India, Japan and Korea – clearly

exhibited the changing composition of the Christian church

and demonstrated where its future might lie. Their presence

was celebrated as a sign of the success of the Western

missionary movement but, as Andrew Walls points out, “there

is no sign that these delegates were expected to have a

distinctive or original contribution to the conference.”10

7 Cit. Keith Clements, Faith on the Frontiers: A Life of J.H. Oldham, Edinburgh

and Geneva: T. & T. Clark and WCC, 1999, p. 77. 8 Ken Ross, ibid.

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid., quoted from Andrew F. Walls, The Cross-Cultural Process in

Christian History: Studies in the Transmission and Appropriation of Faith, New

York and Edinburgh: Orbis and T. & T. Clark, 2002, p. 58


And this is why Martin Kahler had his reservation on the

conference and pointed out that the conference went ahead as

planned, however, structured largely on guidelines provided by

North American assumptions. He said: this remarkable

“ecumenical evangelical” conference had no difficulty in praising,

in one breath, both the salvation wrought in Christ and the

astonishing progress of “secular” science. The latter was naively

lauded as manifestation of God’s providence for the sake of the

church’s worldwide mission.11

Viewing from above observations, the over accentuation

of the importance of Edinburgh 1910 World Missionary

Conference for the missionary history, is none other than the

outcome of careful political manipulation. Without denying its

contributions, the centennial celebration maybe a good occasion

to redefine the place of Edinburgh 1910 against the background

of world mission from the perspectives of the people being

represented but [if not totally] absent from the conference.

A Mission of Heroism

Many critiques of the conference have mentioned the

challenging speech made by the South Indian priest V.S.

Azariah, one of the delegates from the very small group invited

from the so call younger churches12

, who were not supposed to

make any distinctive contribution to the conference. Azariah

concluded his speech by saying: “Through all the ages to come

the Indian church will rise up in gratitude to attest the heroism

and self-denying labours of the missionary body. You have

11

David J. Bosch Transforming Mission, Paradigm Shift in Theology of

Mission, (New York: Orbis: 1991), pp. 336-337 12

The term “younger church” was used to address those church from the

mission field. However, according to many Asian historical theologians,

Christian mission in Asia has it history as long as the western world. See T.V.

Philip, East of the Euphrates: Early Christianity in Asia. The expression of

the term demonstrated a mentality of western centered view of mission

concept.


given your goods to feed the poor. You have given your bodies

to be burned. We also ask for love. Give us FRIENDS!”13

“Missionary heroism” a terminology used by Azariah to

describe the overseas missionary activities of the Western

churches in 19 century was a vivid picture of its nature. Harping

on the so called “great commission”,14

the Western overseas

missionary activity was a zealous mission movement, which in

nature was a Christian project that entangled with issues of

economic, political and even military interests. Scholars of

Christian mission history generally agreed that the modern

missionary movement emerged with an expansionist

missiological motif.15

William Cary, the missionary “veteran” of

India, argued that the “New Testament command to preach

gospel to every creatures was as binding upon the Christians of

all times as it was upon the apostles.16

” His small tract “An

enquiry into Obligations of the Christians to Use Means for the

Conversion of the ‘heathen’” offered the legitimacy for

expansion and set into motion the rapid emergence of the

missionary movements around the world17

.

If the argument that Edinburgh 1910 World Missionary

Conference is the birthplace of modern world mission has any

significance, it does represent this dualistic colonial world view

of the modern world missionary nature. The substantial content

fed into the meeting by 8 Commissions of the conference was

obvious demonstrations of this tendency. The following topics

13

World Missionary Conference 1910: The History and Records of the

Conference, Edinburgh and London: Oliphant, Anderson & Ferrier; New

York, Chicago and Toronto: Fleming H. Revell, p. 315 14

Mt. 28.18-20 15

M. P. Joseph, Revisiting the Edinburgh Conference in the Context of

Globalization, Witnessing in Context – Essays in Honor of Eardley Mendis,

edited by Monica J. Melanchthon, George Zachariah, (Tiruvalla: Christava

Sahitya Samithi, 2007), p. 153 16

William Carey, an Enquiry into Obligations of the Christians to Use means

for the Conversion of the heathen in Francis m. duBose, classics of Christian

Missions (Nashville, Broadman Press, 1979) pp. 24-29. 17

M. P. Joseph, Ibid.,


were considered and researched over a period of two years before

compiling them into reports to be presented at the conference:18

1. Carrying the Gospel to the non-Christian World.

2. The Church in the Mission Field.

3. Education in Relation to the Christianization of National Life.

4. The Missionary Message in Relation to Non-Christian

Religions.

5. The Preparation of Missionaries.

6. The Home Base of Missions.

7. Missions and Governments.

8. Cooperation and the Promotion of Unity.

The orientation adopted in the reports demonstrates a dichotomy

in the concept and practice of mission that the missionary

societies promoted; a dichotomy between the Christian world

and non Christian world, and between the sending body and the

receiving field. This dichotomy which was rather created by a

mindset of superiority coupled with a sense of heroism became

the foundation of the self-perception of the missionaries and was

viewed as inevitable to deal with the people in the so called

“mission fields”. While the socio-political, economic and

military interests were involved behind the scene of the

missionary activities, a colonial model of Christian mission was

thus developed and exaggerated. Take the observation of M. P

Joseph on the first commission report “Carrying the gospel to all

the non-Christian world,” to that conference as example, he

rightly points out:

Though most of the factors listed by the commission were

manifestations of a biased reading facilitated through the

lenses of western rationality and the historical experience

and related consciousness of the missionaries in different

mission fields, their findings naturally goaded the mission

strategy and its theology. A majority of the missionary

18

See: Missionary Research Library Achieves, ibid.


enterprise had undertaken with zeal the promotion of a

western scientific rationality informed by the European

Enlightenment. Such a campaign of the new rationality

against the traditional wisdom of the native was conceived

as a civilizational imperative and thus it was carried out

with utmost earnestness.19

Explicit political interests related to the conference were also

expressed in different ways, for instance the commission report

(Commission 1) cited a political reason for the urgency in

Christian missions:

One of the most significant and hopeful facts with

reference to world evangelization is that the vast majority

of the people of the non-Christian nations and races are

under the sway, either of Christian governments or of those

not antagonistic to Christian missions. This should greatly

facilitate the carrying out of a comprehensive campaign to

make Christ known.20

And thus, pointed out by M.P. Joseph:

It is not adventitious; therefore, that King George V. of

England and the Secretary of State of the imperial German

Colonial Office sent greetings to the participants of the

Edinburgh Conference. Former US President Roosevelt

was a prospective delegate but later sent a letter of regret

for his absence. Generals of the colonial administrations

were present throughout the conference signifying the

mutual importance of mission agenda and the colonial

project. In his greetings, King George V observed that the

“dissemination of the knowledge and principles of

19

MP Joseph, ibid., pp. 156-157 20

World Missionary Conference, 1910, report of Commission I, Carrying the

Gospel to all the Non-Christian World (Edinburgh: Oliphant, Anderson

&Ferrier) p. 6, taken from MP. Joseph, ibid..


Christianity by Christian methods throughout the world”21

would usher in the cause of peace and the well being of all.

The conference responded positively and thanked the King

for his political leadership as the emperor of the world.22

If we look into the theological orientation of John Raleigh Mott,

the chairman of the Edinburgh 1910 World Missionary

Conference, we can even see the motif behind this significant

missionary conference. In response to the 19 century’s

missionary ambition of “to evangelize the world in this

generation”, Mott provided a faith statement as endorsement:

“rests securely upon Divine commandment.” He says: “the

Great Commission of Christ given by Him in the Upper Room

in Jerusalem on the night after the resurrection, again a little

later on a mountain in Galilee, and yet again, on the Mount of

Olives, just before the ascension clearly expresses our obligation

to make Christ known to all men.”23

It is thus, correct to echo to the comments made by

Azariah towards the western world mission in the Conference,

that heroism and self denying labors of missionary commitment

will be appreciated, yet “love” is still expected by the people

who are made objects of this mission endeavour.

A Challenge of Mission of Kenosis

The conclusion of Azariah’s speech: “we also ask for

love, Give us FRIENDS!” must not be considered as a single

personal appeal, but a common voice of the people from the so

called “non Christian world” who confronted Christian mission

from the west with the missionary model of heroism. Heroism

21

Harry Sawyerr, The First World Missionary Conference: Edinburgh 1910”

international Review of Mission Vol. LXVII No. 267, July 1978, taken from

cited from MP. Joseph, ibid. 22

MP. Joseph, ibid. p. 157. 23

John R. Mott, The Obligation to Evangelize the World, reprinted in Francis

M. DuBose, Classics of Christian Missions (Nashville: Broadman Press,

1979) pp. 320-321


mentality of missionary activities is a product of colonial model

of mission. It is a self-centered mission, and when mission

works originated from this self-centered motif, even a self

denying labor of missionaries with extreme example of giving

their bodies to be burned, is not informed by the love towards

the people but by their principle concern of seeking quick results

in establishing Christendom in a “pagan” world. Is not the

appeal of Azariah to the Edinburgh 1910 World Missionary

Conference echoing to what Paul has warned the congregations

of Corinthians about the excellent way to exercise one’s gift to

witness the Gospel? He says:

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not

love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If

I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries

and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move

mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I

possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames,

but have not love, I gain nothing.24

The contents of Love to Paul are: patience and kindness. He

argues that love does not envy, does not boast, it is not proud,

not rude, not self-seeking. It always protects, always trusts,

always hopes, and always perseveres.25

In another word, love is

not a self-centered enthusiastic behavior but is an altruistic

commitment of identification with the “other.” And this was

what Paul understood of the mission of Jesus, when he

elaborates the essential attitude of Christ and asked his audience

to imitate Christ. Thus he says:

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:

Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality

with God something to be grasped, but made himself

nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in

24

I Corinthians 13.1-3. 25

I Corinthians 13. 4-7


human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man,

he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even

death on a cross!26

This passage has been known as the source of the Christology of

Kenosis: the self-empting love of God. Was not this kenosis the

way of mission that Jesus Christ gave model through his death

and resurrection that Azariah had in mind when he appealed to

the missionary conference which was otherwise overwhelmingly

represented by enthusiastic and triumphal missionary heroes

who were excitingly celebrating the dream “to evangelize the

world in this generation” with his exclamation: “We also ask for

love, give us FRIENDS!”

Regretfully, this challenging voice from the so called

mission field has not been heard by the heroic delegates of that

conference. One should not expect that this appeal could be

appreciated in such a circumstance. Just imagine a poor Indian

priest among thousands of Anglo Saxon heroic missionaries, his

voice must be like a tiny stone thrown to the surge of the ocean.

His words were recorded but just like ripples making no impact

in the shore. Therefore it is right to say that the so called modern

world missionary movement was launched with its mission

strategy and its theology based upon the expansionist ideology

blessed by the Edinburgh 1910 World Missionary Conference.

And thus, the churches around the world have to continue

struggling to mending the damages left within and beyond the

churches created by this dichotomy of Christian and non

Christian world view.

Go Beyond Edinburgh 1910

Then how do we envision the coming centennial

celebration of Edinburgh 2010, and make it a new milestone

with genuine identity of missionary conference for world

churches? The answer probably is to “go beyond it.”

26

Philippians 2.5-8


The concept of “Go beyond Edinburgh 1910” has

implications in at least two important layers, one is geographical

and another is historical. Geographically speaking, Edinburgh

1910 as mentioned above was basically a northern hemisphere

missionary enterprise, or in more precisely an Anglo Saxon

project of world mission. A real world missionary conference

must have participation of missionaries from all parts of the

world, and reflect the views of people from the native churches,

but not their representative agents. We have the reason and right

to demand that, the ongoing planning for another world

missionary conference in 2010, a hundred years after Edinburgh

1910, will have a totally different dynamics in its attendances

and representations.

Historically speaking, 1910 was a hundred year old event.

It may not be fair to make judgments on a hundred year old

event from today’s perspectives. A hundred years can make

tremendous changes in the geo-politics of the world. Incredibly

diverse understandings regarding the concept of mission have

developed in the last hundred years. Particularly with the

Christian population remapping, the irruption of the two-third

world has subverted the traditional concept of western

Christendom. Many theological efforts derived from the

contextual concerns of the third world Christians and churches

have emphatically emphasized the need to locate the identity

and the meaning of being a Christian in the so called non

Christian world. The definitions of “mission” are thus opened

up to a significant broadening of the concept. David J. Bosch, a

prominent South African scholar of missiology, has highlighted

them as follows:

Until 1950s “mission” even if not used in a univocal sense,

had a fairly circumscribed set of meanings. It referred to a)

the sending of missionaries to a designated territory, b) the

activities undertaken by such missionaries, c) the

geographical area where the missionaries were active, d)

the agency which dispatched the missionaries, e) the non-


Christian world or “mission field”27

, or f) the center from

which the missionaries operated on the “mission field”. In a

slightly different context it could also refer to g) a local

congregation without a resident minister and still dependent

on the support of an older, established church, or h) a series

of special services intended to deepen or spread the

Christian faith, usually in a nominally Christian

environment. If we attempt to a more specifically

theological synopsis of “mission” as the concept has

traditionally been used, we note that it has been

paraphrased as a) propagation of the faith, b) expansion of

the reign of God, c) conversion of the heathen, and d) the

founding of new churches.28

David Bosch pointed out that until sixteenth century the term

mission was used exclusively with reference to the doctrine of

the Trinity, that is, of the sending of the Son by the Father and

of the Holy Spirit by the Father and the Son. The Jesuits were

the first to use it in terms of the spread of the Christian faith

among people (including Protestants) who were not members of

the Catholic Church. In this new sense, it was intimately

associated with the colonial expansion of the Western world into

what has more recently become known as the Third World (or,

sometimes, the Two-Third World).29

These traditional

interpretations and performances of mission inevitably invite

criticism, not only from outside the fence, but also from within

its own ranks. For instance several books of missionary self-

critiques were written by missiologists or mission executives in

27

Thomas OHM, Machet zu Jungern alle Volker: Theorie der Mission.

(Freiburg/B:Erich Wevel Verlag, 1962) pp52f., cited from David Bosch,

ibid., p. 1. 28

K. Muller & T. Sundermeier, (ed.) Lexikon Missionstheoloischer

Grundbegriffe (Berlin: Dietrich Reimer, 1987) pp. 31-34 cited from David J.

Bosch, ibid., p. 1 29

Ibid.,


one year alone of 196430

. Apart from these works, James

Heissig writing in 1981 in a missiological journal, has even

characterized Christian mission as “the selfish war.”31

These

strict self-criticisms nevertheless provide tremendous

momentum for the transformation of the understandings and

practices of historical Christian mission.

Besides these sincere reflections out of missionaries’

experiences and theological consciousness, there are other

factors that compelled the churches and Christians to transfigure

the faces of mission and to go beyond traditional understanding

of mission; they are, quoted David Bosch again32

:

The advance of science and technology and, with them,

the worldwide process of secularization seems to have

made faith in God redundant.

Linked to the former point is the reality that the West -

traditionally not only the home of Catholic and

Protestant Christianity, but also the base of the entire

modern missionary enterprise - is slowly but steadily

being de-Christianized.

Partly because of the above, the world can no longer be

divided into “Christian” and “non-Christian” territories

separated by oceans.

Because of its complicity in the subjugation and

exploitation of peoples of color, the West – and also

Western Christians – tends to suffer from an acute sense

of guilt. This circumstance often leads to an inability or

unwillingness among Western Christians to “give an

account of the hope they have” (I Pet 3.15) to people of

30

Ibid., p. 2 Some of these works are: R. K. Orchard, Missions in a

Time of Testing; James A. Scherer, Missionary, Go Home!; Ralph

Dodge, The Unpopular Missionary; and John Carden, The Ugly

Missionary.

31

Ibid., 32

Ibid., pp. 3-4


other persuasions.

More than ever before we are today aware of the fact that

the world is divided – apparently irreversibly – between

the rich and the poor and that, by and large, the rich are

those who consider themselves (or are considered by the

poor) to be Christians. In addition, and according to most

indicators, the rich are still getting richer and the poor

poorer. This circumstance creates, on the one hand,

anger and frustration among the poor and, on the other, a

reluctance among affluent Christians to share their faith.

For centuries, Western theology and Western ecclesial

ways and practices were normative and undisputed, also

in the “mission fields”. Today the situation is

fundamentally different. The younger churches refuse to

be dictated to and are putting a high premium on their

“autonomy”. In addition, Western theology is today

suspect in many parts of the world. It is often regarded as

irrelevant, speculative, and the product of ivory tower

institutions. In many parts of the world it is being

replaced by Third-world theologies. This circumstance

has also contributed to profound uncertainties in Western

churches, even about the validity of the Christian

mission as such.

Doing Mission from the Underside

The aforementioned observations made by David Bosch

some 17 years ago, gave fair reasons and background for us to

understand the crisis and drive us to seek the transformation of

the concept and practice of mission. These observations are

however, concentrated heavily on the disabilities of the western

churches and their theology in their practice of traditional

mission. Not to say that western churches and theologies have

been diverse and can not easily be categorized, but the

development and transformation of the churches and theologies

in the western world are also dynamic and progressive; and thus


the attempt to describe all of them in one category is a too naive

approach.

Instead of focusing on the failure of the western churches

and theologies, my plea is that the enquiry into the failure in

comprehending the genuine sense of Jesus’ mission; the

dramatic change of context of world Christianity;33

and the rapid

development and impacts made by the geo-political and

economic world that surrounds the church, such as the process

of globalization and challenges of post-colonial awareness,

should be the driving force that compels Christians to seek a

mission mandate that permits us to “go beyond” the traditional

concept and practice. Even though Bosch offers an entire

chapter for the discussion on “The emergence of a postmodern

paradigm” and a section on “postmodern response” under the

title of Mission as witness to people of Other Living Faiths, he

does not adequately consider the issue of post-modernity as an

epoch-making factor in Christian mission. Instead he treated it

as a new emergence within the mission paradigm and one of the

new challenges to be responded by the modern missionary

movements.34

To say it differently, David Bosch’s analysis of

the failure of traditional mission was done purely from the

perspective of the western churches and not at all from the

vantage point of the people from the underside.

Changes in the traditional concept and practice of

mission started with the emergence of new missionary demands

from the people in the mission fields who were considered as

mere recipients of mission by the established mission agencies.

When people come to the awareness that they are themselves

right in front of God once they are involved in mission activities

driven by their own perspectives, their identities began to be

preserved, and their autonomies are upheld. They cannot be

33

The irruption of the third world into the Christian map in terms of Christian

population, theological impacts and their socio-political, economical and

cultural/religious significances have dramatically remapping the scenario of

Christian world. 34

See David J. Bosch, ibid, pp. 349-367, 477-483.


represented without their participation or presentation through

due commissions.

People are subjects of mission, and as subjects, they

challenge not only the Christendom concept of Church centered

mission, and Christ centered mission or even theo-centered

mission, but also reject the dualist approaches of Gospel and

cultures, Christian world and non-Christian world, sacred and

profane, sending and receiving, and so on. Christian mission

thus, can not be a top down enterprise manipulated by the

missionary societies or church headquarter offices, but are in the

process of developing and shaping in the midst of the struggling

people in the presence of God. Missionary work is none other

than the job of a mid-wife to help for discernment and providing

reflective partnership to the parturient.

People as subject of mission indicate that Christian

mission should be done from the underside. In another words,

people’s experiences should be the determining factors in

missionary projects. And people’s well being and eventually the

restoration of their dignity which is sanctioned by the divine

promise of humanity with imago Dei nature, should be the sole

purpose of Christian mission. This involved of course, Justice,

Love and Integrity of the whole creation of God.

An Asian Contribution to the World Missionary Conference

2010

A hundred years can make things change tremendously.

As mentioned in the beginning of this paper, that in Edinburgh

1910, the mission report about Taiwan was listed under the

national report of Japan. And people of Taiwan were

represented without the consensus from them. However, during

this hundred year period, the world experienced two world wars

(the first world war from 1914-1918, the second world war from

1937-1945), the geopolitical remapping of the nations and the

redistribution of world powers have deeply impacted the

concept and nature of Christian mission. Taiwan was liberated

from Japanese colonialism after Second World War,


nevertheless was soon fell into another foreign colony through

the hands of Chinese Nationalists because of the Chinese civil

war. Along with this political development in Taiwan, the

western missionaries were wiped out totally together with other

westerners in Taiwan by Japanese in the period of 1942 after the

incident of Pearl harbor war, and the end of second world war

not only brought back the missionaries from western world, but

also drew in multiple Christian denominations from China with

the defeated troops and fellow comrades of Chiang Kai-Sek

group. This dramatic change of the Christian scenario in Taiwan

against the political change of the fate of the island has forced

the Christians and churches in Taiwan to confront an identity

crisis brought by the meaning of being a Christian in this land

and thus, launched a process of identity struggle as a mission

agenda. Today, churches in Taiwan although still under the

impact of these historical happenings, have developed mature

autonomous theological understanding and practice of mission,

albeit, not without dispute among themselves.

This experience of people in Taiwan is not an isolated

case, it can be considered as an epitome of the common

missionary experience of Asian people, an experience of

mission done in search of preserving one’s selfhood. The

emergence of the contextual theologies in many Asian countries

is a demonstration of this identity seeking struggles of

missionary projects.

Theological education implemented in this region is an

example of this new phase of mission engagement. Some

earliest theological schools were though established in this part

of the world for more than one hundred years, an association for

theological education (ATESEA) was formed only 50 years ago

(1957), and a higher theological education institute to confer M.

Theol and D. theol. Degree programs (SEAGST) were started

some 40 years ago (1966) both with strong commitment to

reclaim theological identities for Asian Christians and churches

through the efforts to do contextual theologies and contextual

theological education in Asia. A Critical Asian Principle (CAP)


was adopted for doing theology and theological education for

ATESEA member schools and SEAGST programs. These

critical principles are, quoted from its original text:

1. As a situational principle, by which we seek to locate

where we are and thereby indicate our area of

responsibility and concern, namely, the varieties and

dynamics of Asian realities.

2. As a hermeneutical principle, suggesting that we are to

understand the Gospel and the Christian tradition with

these realities. Accordingly we must approach and

interpret the Gospel and its traditions in relation to the

needs and issues peculiar to the Asian situation.

Alternatively, we must approach and understand Asian

realities not only through variety of academic disciplines

available in study and research, but also in the light of the

Gospel and its traditions.

3. As a missiological principle, which aims at the

responsibility of equipping people with a missionary

commitment that is informed by a missionary theology

capable not only of illuminating Asian realities with the

flood-light of the Gospel, but also of helping manage and

direct the changes now taking place in the region along

lines more consonant with the Gospel and its vision for

human life in God.

4. And finally as an educational principle which should give

shape, content, direction, and criteria to our educational

task in our member-schools and in the South East Asia

Graduate School of Theology. 35

This Critical Asian Principle has been replaced by a new

updated and reflective document of the “Guidelines for Doing

35

Handbook, The Association for Theological Education in South East Asia

& The South East Asia Graduate School of Theology, version year 2005-

2007, p.86


Theologies in Asia” (GDTA) since the jubilee of ATESEA in

2007. These new guidelines include36

:

1. Responsive engagement with the diverse Asian

contexts

2. Critical engagement with indigenous cultures and

wisdom for the preservation and sustenance of life

3. Reflective engagement with the sufferings of the Asian

people in order to provide hope for the marginalized,

women, indigenous people, children, differently-abled

people and migrant workers

4. Restoring the inter-connectedness of the whole

creation

5. Interfaith dialogue as well as intra faith communion

and communication for the fullness of life and the well-

being of the society

6. Enhancing capacity building in order to serve people

experiencing disaster, conflict, and disease as well as

those people who suffer physical, emotional, and

mental disabilities

7. Prophetic resistance against the powers of economic

imperialism

8. Equipping Christians for witnessing and spreading the

gospel of Jesus with loving care and service to fulfil the

Christian mission of evangelism.

If we take a closer look into both these documents, we will see

the emphasis and commitment that ATESEA and SEAGST have

been consistently maintained on Asian realities and their

contextualities. And as well both emphasize on the Christian

missions critically engaged with Asian contexts, indigenous

cultures and wisdom, and also the sufferings of the Asian people.

The new guidelines was formulated against the contextualities

discerned from recent Asian realities, the following eleven

36

Handbook, The South East Asia Graduate School of Theology (SEAGST)

2007-2008, compiled by Huang Po Ho, pp.66-67


propositions are identified as particular and challenging

characteristics of Asian contextualities37

:

1. Religious Fundamentalism – The escalation of tensions

between the Muslim world and the West, as well as

terrorist activities sponsored by religious sectarian groups

in Asia continue to challenge us in the way we think and

act as Christians in Asia. The revival of many sects, with a

fundamentalist tendency within the living religions of

Asia, stand witness to rising religious fundamentalism.

Living in a pluralistic community leaves limited

alternatives for Asians: either we build bridges or walls.

2. Gender Justice Issues – The rising cases of violence

against women and children, as well as issues aimed

directly at marginalizing women from mainstream

activities, the evident gender deficit in organizations and

institutions, and the circumvention of women’s quest for

equal rights and opportunities have become a growing

concern in Asia. Often times the oppression of women in

Asia is reinforced by Asian cultures and religions. Gender

justice issues compel us to accept the truth that women are

human beings created in God’s image.

3. Ecological Problems, Disease and Disasters – These

ecological and health problems have become common in

Asia today. The recent Tsunami, flash floods and

earthquakes have taken away thousands of lives and left

the living devastated. The outbreak of Avian Flu and the

resurgence of diseases (like Tuberculosis. Dengue and

Malaria), once thought to have been eradicated in

Southeast Asia, have once again resurfaced in epidemic

proportions. HIV and AIDS are affecting families,

communities and nations and challenge us to re-examine

37

See Ibid., pp. 63-66


our ministerial formation program. Furthermore,

uncontrolled and one-sided exploitative economic

development projects have brought with them various

ecological crises. “Ecological concerns have often been

neglected or conveniently sidelined.”38

The rape of

Mother Earth manifest in uncontrolled logging,

indiscriminate use of chemicals in agriculture,

inconsiderate disposal of non-biodegradable waste, and

human beings’ many other ecocidal acts due to negligence,

ignorance or greed destroy the ecosystem.

4. Globalization and Global Empire Building – Much of

Asia has moved from colonial contexts to a variety of

post-colonial and neo-colonial situations where the global

empire and the neo-liberal economic scheme of

globalization play symbiotic relationships. The greed of

the Empire and the neo-liberal globalization threatens and

destroys all life, especially the poor and marginalized

people and Mother Earth. Thus, economic globalization

and the rise of a global empire is a serious concern for

Asia today. Such “new realities within the Asian contexts

are posing new challenges to our theologizing today. . .”39

5. Colonization – Most Asian countries have a colonial

experience. Asia’s post colonial realities and emerging

neo-colonial attitudes are matters that should be given a

renewed emphasis in combating abuse, imperialism and

exploitation. “Neo-colonialism is now disguised in the

form of economic domination.”40

Neo-colonialism also

employs cultural hegemony in both subtle and glaring

38

Wilfred J Samuel, Review of the Critical Asian Principle –Malaysia,

Thailand and Singapore Region, 2006. 39

Taiwan Area’s Critical Response to the Critical Asian Principle (CAP) of

ATESEA/SEAGST, Taiwan, 2006. 40

Emanuel G Singgih, Critical Asian Principal: A Contextual Theological

Evaluation, Indonesia, 2005.


ways. The principle of ‘decolonization’ must be

implemented in making people “aware of the colonizing

command and dominance that is around us and in us. We

need to engage consciously and continuously in

decolonizing all alienating and imposing influences.”41

6. Spirituality – With the increasing influence and impact of

materialism, secularism, and liberalism in the post-

modern era, Asian countries continue to experience

challenges and stagnation in spirituality. These include

loss of focus in discipleship and spiritual formation, loss

of indigenous wisdom, character and values, and

infiltration of western culture and ideology through the

neo-Pentecostal and new religious movements influences.

7. Identity and Power Struggle - Most communities in

Asian countries have experienced identity crisis through

history. In the process of post-colonial impact, some

experienced a ‘hybrid’ identity.42

Similar to this is the

question of “what kind of world order is theology going to

project that is consistent with its hope for the kingdom of

God, as the people of Asia rise to claim their basic rights

and rightful place in the world?”43

8. Peoples' Movements and Ecumenism – In a Christian

minority and multi- denominational context enhancing

ecumenical unity and cooperation is vital. In seeking to

fulfil the Great Commission and the Great Commandment,

the Asian Churches need to transcend denominational

boundaries and constantly seek to promote wider

41

Taiwan Area’s Critical Response to the Critical Asian Principle (CAP) of

ATESEA/SEAGST, Taiwan, 2006. 42

Simon SM Kwan, A Hong Kong Reflection on the Critical Asian Principle,

CAP Continual Discussion Group Report – 2006. A “meeting place identity”

is used to describe this floating nature of identity. 43

Philippine Area Committee Report, Revisiting the Critical Asian Principle.


cooperation. Some Asians see denominationalism as a

legacy of Western mission agencies that promotes a

particular brand of Christianity. Learning from the past

history ecumenism must not be just seen in functional

terms but as a dynamic unity (‘that they may be one’)44

Ecumenism is about a vision of God’s household where

the members seek to listen to the variety of Asian

theological voices, and to practice intra faith and interfaith

dialog in order to promote peace, healing and

reconciliation.

9. Information and Technological Change and

Challenges – “Globalize capitalized economic activities

act not only to widen the gap between the rich and the

poor, but also weaken the sovereignty of individual nation

states by interruption of capital power. Its operation is

backed by the information technology and military power,

and has led to the decline of the weaker cultures,

discrimination against minorities such as aborigines, and

exploitation of women and children.”45

10. Social Challenges – The expression of sin in terms of

greed for power and wealth experienced by the peoples of

Asia has had a tremendous effect on the community,

especially the poor and marginalized. Ethical problems

such as corruption, abuse of power, and prostitution;

poverty realities such as indentured child labour and

population explosion; communal problems such as ethnic

conflicts, racial tensions and breakdown of family

structures and continued marginalization of women,

44

Wilfred J Samuel, Review of the Critical Asian Principle –Malaysia,

Thailand and Singapore Region, 2006. 45

Huang Po Ho, “Covenant with the Churches in Asia – Retargeting

Theological Education in Responding to the Life and Death Struggles of the

People of Asia,” ATESEA General Assembly Meeting, Chiang Mai,

Thailand, 2005.


children, and persons with disabilities continue to rise.

11. Reclaiming Indigenous Identity and Minority Rights –

Loss of identity, dignity, and loss of good cultural values

have resulted from lack of dialogue with the indigenous

peoples. Dialogue with them has been hindered by our

prejudices and stereotyped views about them that were

influenced by western theology and culture. The

indigenous has often been equated with being ‘backward’,

‘primitive’ and ‘irrational.’ For these reasons, local

cultures and their wisdom has been systematically

suppressed and marginalized. However, indigenous

wisdom has a valuable character that needs to be

rediscovered.

All these characteristics were identified from the experiences of

people in Asia. They are considered propositions served as

challenging factors for rethinking theological education in our

region, and thus also the settings of Christian mission in Asia.

As the missiological principle of CAP points out, Asian

theological education has aimed at the responsibility of

equipping people with a missionary commitment that is

informed by a missionary theology capable not only of

illuminating Asian realities with the flood-light of the Gospel,

but also of helping manage and direct the changes now taking

place in the region along the lines that are more consonant with

the Gospel and its vision for human life in God.

Conclusion

Doing Christian mission based upon these specific Asian

characteristics and guidelines is not only a valid way of doing

theologies and missions in Asian contexts; they are invaluable

perspectives of mission understandings and mission

performances contributed from Asian continent to the world

mission.



THE Mission of Jesus is

Love of all Living beings for

The Fullness of Life

Kim Yong-Bock1

Reading a History of Christian Mission in Asia

Missiology since Jesus has been shaped by three phases

of mission by the Christian community. The first was the

mission of the primitive Asian, or West Asian, Christian

community. This moved to the West and to the East. The

Westward movement got involved with the power of the

empires, whereas the Eastward movement got never established

with the powers-that-be.

The mission of Jesus the Galilean emerged out of the

convergence of prophetic and messianic traditions of faith

communities under the Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek and Roman

empires. It evolved into the new faith and mission of the early

Christian community. It has been anti-imperial and deeply

1 Prof. Yong-Bock KIM is the Chancellor of Advanced Institute for Integral

Study of Life, Korea. He has been the President of Hanil University and

Theological Seminary and one of the most prominent Minjung Theologians.

Yong Bock is currently engaged in the integral study of life as an alternative

way of doing academic studies.

Mission is Fullness of Life 63

rooted in the social-cosmic experiences of oppressed peoples

(Minjung). What is clear is that this experience was that of the

(West) Asian faith community.

The Westward missionary movement developed into

complex power relations with the Western empires. It was a

major political development that the mission of Christian

community evolved into symbiotic power relations with the

Roman Empire, later with the Byzantine Empire, the British

Empire, and so on. This meant that throughout history

Christianity had a kind of political sponsorship from the empires

and later from Western colonial powers in the form of modern

Western nation states. Edinburgh 1910 was a peak of this

development in Christian mission. Now missiology has become

the ideology of Western economic, political, cultural and

religious domination over the peoples of the world in modern

history.

Today it is closely associated with the global empire as

well. Some of the missionary movements are deeply involved in

the political complex of “global Christendom,” as we see in

Christian fundamentalism and Christian Zionism. In fact this is

pervasive in the dominant global Christian movement; and it

creates global resistance against Christianity as a Western

imperial religion.

Furthermore, Christianity has developed symbiotic

relations with Western capitalism, and now with global

capitalism in the global market. The modern history of

capitalism implicates Christianity in an economic religion that

legitimized the right of private property and promoted

profiteering as divine blessing. The ecumenical movement has

failed in its prophetic witness to transform this history of the

global economy into the“oikonomia” of God for the abundant

life of all living beings.

Modern global history has reached an apex of

technocratic development2 with the theological sponsorship of

2 Theodore van Leeuwen, Christianity in World History,


Christianity as well as with political and economic justification.

The technocracy is the driving engine and power regime of

globalization in its market system (dominated by the

transnational regime of corporate capitalism), in its hegemonic

geopolitical domination (by means of military domination by the

global empire), and in its cultural hegemony (in the form of

modern media and communications systems in the virtual world

as well as in the real world).

Asian Christianity in modern times has become, by and

large, an extension of this complex development, in spite of its

participation in the national struggles against the Western

colonial powers and in spite of ecumenical and theological

struggles for indigenization in all different forms and

dimensions towards becoming a true religion of Asian people. It

lost its original Asian roots, and its Asian identity is till floating

in the Western cultural clouds over the Asian continent. In Asia,

Christian churches are experiencing major reactions by Asian

people in their Western political association with colonial and

imperial domination, in their economic symbiosis with

capitalism, and in their cultural grounding in Western

philosophy, science and technology.

In the interactions of Northeast Asian history with the

Western powers and cultures, our people have accepted Western

culture, namely, science and technology, the political ideologies

of liberalism and socialism for political modernization, and

globalized economic capitalism, even in the midst of the

struggle for national independence and social development. Yet

this history has been a tragic saga of loss of the wisdom of life,

deeply rooted and richly inherited in the people’s history. Asian

Christianity has not yet discovered its spiritual grounding or its

locus as a well-spring of wisdom of life for all living beings.

The identity of the Christian movement is questioned radically

in Northeast Asia and in Asia as whole. The political, economic

and cultural identity of Christian religion has not been settled.

The spiritual identity of Christian faith is very much


overshadowed by the history of Asian Christianity. Today this

has become a critical question.

Our question is, where do we begin our reflection?

Jesus’ Movement of Love for Life

Our affirmation begins with the following statement: The

movement of Jesus as mission is the Alpha and Omega of the

love movement of all living beings. It is the T’aeguk (太極) of

the life of all living beings, in East Asian expression. This has to

be a pivotal affirmation for our reflection. It means not only

dismantling past and current missiology as a decisive

ideological component of global power today, but also

dismantling the dominant power regime of the global empire

and the global market, along with their technocratic culture.

Recovery and revitalization of the love of Jesus among all living

beings will lay the firm foundation of the mission of love. Life

of all living beings is proposed as a new framework for fresh

missiological thinking.

Jesus the Galilean

Galilee was a pivotal locus into which all streams of past

West Asian wisdom of life flowed to open a new horizon of life

against empires. This is the story of the biblical narratives. The

story is political, in that resistance of people together with all

living beings against the oppressive powers of ancient empires,

is at the core. This story has profound social implications as

well as political meanings. It is cultural, in that all religious-

cultural wisdoms converged in the small local community of

Jesus to open a new, fresh axis of love movement among all

living beings. It is the Cosmic Framework of Love for the life of

all living beings. All this means the formation of a new pivot of

“topos” and “kairos” at the crossroads of fresh life of all living

beings.


Galilee3

is Asian Land.

The story of Jesus had its new beginning in this region,

which remains a cosmic abode of community life among all

living beings. It is a local, regional, global and cosmic location

(場), its unique local history linked together with the story of

Jesus. This history is “coterminous” with every locus of life in

the cosmos in political, economic and ecological dimensions,

and yet it is truly Asian, not Western. It is differentiated

geographically, anthropologically, linguistically, culturally,

religiously and especially politically from the Western history of

the Roman Empire. It is the place of resistance against the

Roman Empire and all other empires. The wisdom of life to

resist the dominant powers arose in this Asian soil. It is

crystallized in the love of Jesus among all living beings. This

story of Jesus is Galilean. The love movement of Jesus is the

3 (Hebrew: ha-Galil, lit: the province). Most of the Galilee consists of

rocky terrain, at heights of between 500 and 700 meters. There are several

high mountains including Mount Tabor and Mount Meron in the region

which relatively low temperatures and high rainfall in comparison to

elsewhere in Israel. As a result of this climate, floraand wildlife thrive in the

region, whilst many birds annually migrate from colder climates to Africa

and back through the Hulah-Jordan corridor. The streams and waterfalls, the

latter mainly in the Upper Galilee, along with vast fields of greenery and

colorful wildflowers make the region full of life. In Isaiah (8:23), the region

is referred to as "the District of the Nations" - ; lit:Glil HaGoyim),

with much of this name being retained in its present name of Galil or HaGalil.

The Galilee region was the home of Jesus during at least thirty years of his

life. The first three Gospels of the New Testament are mainly an account of

Jesus' public ministry in this province, particularly in the towns

of Nazareth and Capernaum. Galilee is also cited as the place where Jesus

cured a blind man. During the Hasmonaean period, with the revolt of

the Maccabees and the decline of the Seleucid Empire, the Galilee was

conquered by the newly independent state ofJudaea, and the region was

resettled by Jews.[citation needed].

In Roman times, the country was

divided into Judea, Samaria, and the Galilee, which comprised the whole

northern section of the country, and was the largest of the three

regions. Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great, ruled Galilee

as tetrarch.( Wikipedia).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Tabor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Meron

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flora_(plants)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fauna_(animals)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capernaum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasmonean

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maccabees

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seleucid_Empire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iudaea_Province#The_client_kingdom_of_Judea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iudaea_Province#The_client_kingdom_of_Judea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samaria

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_Antipas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrarch


Galilean movement; it began there. We are concerned with the

Asian story of this movement, not only at its roots but also its

movement into Asian lands. It is significant that the movement

dissociated itself form the powers-that-be. Moreover, its positive

association with the Asian wisdom of life and Asian traditions4

of love of life among all living beings, should be regarded as

decisive for our deliberation.5 “Serve all living beings so that

their life is in full.” This is the wisdom of life. The Christian

churches have been blinded, unable to see the light of the Asian

wisdom of life due to their ideological missiology.

Asian Convergence of Love of Life

Asian traditions of love met at the pivot of Jesus’

Movement of Love. The “wisdom” of Asian empires and their

powers confronted the Asian wisdom of Jesus’ love. Egyptian,

Babylonian, Greek and Persian empires could not integrate the

wisdom of love of all living beings due to their “mythologies” of

power. Yet they provided the background from which the

wisdom of life rose and converged into the pivotal point of love

of Jesus the Galilean, for resistance to power means

accumulation of wisdom of life. As the Jesus movement of love

went through its historical course in Asia, the Asian wisdom of

love converged with his love movement. The compassion (慈悲)

of Buddha over the regime of greed, the Wisdom (仙道) of Lao

Tsu, the Benevolence (仁=惻隱之心) of Confucius (孔子), the

Hindu Karma and Muslim Salam have converged with Jesus’

love movement in the contours of Asian history of people on

earth, under heaven.

This story reached the Korean land. Chong Yak Yong’s

Praxis of Life is an illustration of how the primeval Yao Sun

utopia was used as a ground for social transformation and vision

for the people in 19th century Korea. Similar examples can be

found in China and Japan. In Buddhist tradition, Maitreiya

Buddha is the Messiah of the Suffering People. Korean Buddhist

4 John England, et al, Sources of Asian Christianity

5 See Kim Yong-Bock articles on the subject.


intellectual leaders used this Buddhist tradition for the national

liberation struggle. Maitreya (Miruk 彌勒) Buddha in Korea is a

messianic Buddha of hope among the suffering and oppressed

people, especially in the southwestern part of Korea. Another

tradition is a new religion, Tonghak Tradition. It is a Korean

Tradition (Confucian-Buddhist-Sunist-Christian Interreligious

Ecumenical Synthesis of Vision for New Life (-儒, 佛, 仙, 巫,

基督之統合). It played a great messianic role in transforming

the Korean society and backing Korean national independence

and liberation from Japanese colonialism, and in fostering the

subsequent movement for human rights, democracy, national

reunification and ecological sustainability.

The Dynamics of Jesus’ Love Movement Respond to the

Powers of Destruction and Death.

The original Matrix of Love versus Power under the

Roman Empire is an axial foundation for our reflection. In

dealing with the present situation of the Empire, the Love of

Jesus against the Power of the Roman Empire is the key to

understanding the Power of the Empire today.

The geopolitical orbit of the Jesus movement is twofold:

one is the geopolitics of Galilee Against Rome. Jesus’

geopolitical perspective is from Galilee to Rome. The other is

the geopolitics of Kairos, of the Reign of God. The Reign of

God transforms imperial geopolitics. It is the politics of Love of

All Living Beings.

Today it becomes the dynamics of “Power and Love” in

the global market and the global empire. The drive of modern

development in the West and consequently in the non-Western

world has been forcing a process of globalisation. This process

began with Western industrialization, and its concomitant

colonialization for the expansion of the Western market. The

central driving force was the power of globalizing capital. The

military order in the post WW II and post Cold War periods

reflects fundamentally the same trend in a qualitatively

accelerated manner. Modern technology is an essential element

in this globalising process. Recent developments of cyber


technetronics have accelerated through the rapid expansion of

this process, which is bringing about colossal change in earth

and cosmos. Some believe that life is threatened with

destruction by the manifold forces of death present in the

globalisation process. Until recent times, World War III had

been regarded as the ultimate threat to life. Although there are

some who believe that the post-Cold War situation has opened

an era of peace, others believe that the world is in greater danger

from the mono-polar military hegemony. Though wars are

limited in scale, their intensity is “omnicidal,” and there is no

countervailing military power to the war-making, mono-polar,

hegemonic military power. Genetic modification of life forms

has penetrated deeply into the life process, with uncertain

consequences. This is connected to the technetronics and

cybernetics developments. The environmental destruction

brought by modern industrial civilization now poses a colossal

threat to life.

Symbiosis of Global Market, Global Empire and Global

Technocracy

Love of mammon--unmitigated greed as the spiritual

dimension of the market—together with the hegemonic demon

in the political community of nation states and global empire,

and the pseudo-religious / fetish 氣運 in the communication and

media world—in all these spheres a sort of Demonic Spirit

Energy is running rampant. The powers of destruction, violence,

war and death have taken on the forms of moral, cultural,

philosophical, religious and spiritual languages and symbols, as

human greed turns into a collective will, generating the logic,

ideology and mechanism of the philosophy of survival of the

fittest (strongest).

Messianic Politics of Love for New and Full Life

It is proposed that Jesus’ Movement of Love for Life, which

may conjugated in the following theological convergence.

God and Life: God So Loves the World….


The Biblical view of life is clear enough without detailed

discussion. We only need to refer to a few Biblical texts. God is

the giver of life to all living beings in the cosmos. This affirms

that God is the Creator of life and its sustainers. God as the

founder and giver of life cannot be limited to humanity, to

Christian community. It extends to the whole universe. The

expanse of life is cosmic.

God’s act of creation is the overcoming of darkness

(death and evil) and chaos (wasteland). God is at the centre of

the dynamic movement of life against death. Life is the

movement from death to the new life of eternal bliss. God is at

the centre of the Exodus movement, the prophetic movement

and the eschatological movement for new life in the whole

cosmos.

God created life with the Spirit (breath) and the word.

This is the biblical affirmation that the origin of life is the Spirit

of God. The Spirit is the dynamic force for the justice, peace and

shalom of God. The Spirit gives to life in the cosmos a

subjectivity that embraces all the dimensions of human and

other natural life.

Christ and Life: the Messianic Feast of Life is the Core of

the Movement of Love for Life

Revelations 21 and 22 show clearly the climactic and

eschatological dynamics of the messianic feast of life. New

Heaven and New Earth, and the New Community therein—the

OIKOS of God—is the geo-political locus of the Messianic feast

of life, in which all nations and the whole universe participate

for eternal (full) life. The water, fruits and trees and the Spirit of

life are constituent elements of the Messianic Garden of Life.

This reminds us of the image of God’s creative act in the books

of Genesis and Isaiah.

In the movement of Jesus for the Reign of God (Luke 4)

and in the movement of Jesus against the Roman Empire, eternal

life is the core, realized in his crucifixion and resurrection,

overcoming the powers and principalities of death. The life and


works of Jesus should be understood as integral parts of the life

movement. The Jesus movement, through his actions, works and

teachings, is to establish the movement for eternal life in the

new cosmos.

Once again, the Spirit of the Messiah is the central

dynamic of the movement for new life in the universe, in the

context of the Messianic Reign, to which all the peoples and

nations—indeed, all living beings—are invited to the feast of

eternal life in the new cosmos (new geo-politics.)

The Spirit in the Life Movement

The Spirit of God is already working in God’s Creation.

It is the central dynamics establishing justice and shalom for life,

as demonstrated in the Exodus, in the Jubilee, in the Prophetic

movements and in the Apocalyptic movement for the new age

(eschaton) for life.

The Spirit is the agency of love establishing the

subjectivity and the dynamics of life-new and eternal life. The

Spirit is present in the depths of life: natural, community and

universe. The Spirit has no limits in geo-politics, and it is not

determined by nature or the human community.

The Spirit gives hope and imagination to the life

movement throughout the universe. “And in his (Christ’s) name

the Gentiles will hope (Matthew 12:21)." “To them, God chose

to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of

the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of

glory (Colossians 1:27).” The messianic hope is cosmic in its

scope and its inner dynamics, determined by Christ’s

resurrection overcoming the power of death. This hope invokes

the messianic spirit among the people for messianic movement

to overcome the power of evil and death in the world. All the

nations (the oppressed) are invited to the messianic feast of life

in the new OIKOS under the new heaven, in the new earth. The

Holy Spirit is the Pervasive “Power” of life and hope among all

the suffering people and in the groaning cosmos.


Thus the Triune God can make sense in the convergence

of Three Persons in the Life of all living beings in the cosmic

sphere. At the pivotal and kairotic point of太極 (omega point)

God in triune convergence is the Creator, Giver and Lover of

Life of the people of God and of the whole cosmos. Messianic

celebration of the New Life in New Heaven and Earth is the

fulfillment of eternal life. The kairotic presence of the Spirit is

the dynamic and pervasive “vitality” of life among all the

suffering people/nations in the groaning cosmos. God and Life

(God’s Created Life) are partners in the drama of the cosmos, in

which the Garden of Life is the centerpiece. This is the cosmic

politics of God’s love of the life of all living beings.6

Now is the Kairotic Time of Love in 8 Dimensions:

All living beings are sovereign subjects of their life,

participating (參與) in and sharing (相生) life.

Koinonia: spirit and community of love, where spiritual

and cultural life are abundant, expressed in fiesta and

celebration.

Covenant of righteousness and justice for love: The

weak, the poor and the disabled are protected, in the

context of justice, peace and conviviality.

Oikomomia of life and livelihood management

Health and wholeness of life

Politics of life: Rights of life of all living beings

Geo-political peace for life

Ecological management of life among all living beings

In search for such wisdom of love, and as an ecumenical

praxis of hope, we seek a convergence of East and West, a

6 A Rereading of History of Asian Missiology From Below(Rev. Kim Yong-

Bock, Ph.D., 2003)

Diaconial Mission for Life – A New Paradigm of Security for Life

LIFE as the Paradigm of the Ecumenical Study and Action for New

Millennium


convergence of religious and philosophical wisdom, based upon

the paradigmatic movement of convergence for life. This is a

process of multiple convergence, a sort of convergence of

convergences.

Affirming love as the convergence of wisdom of whole

life, we propose that the Integral Study of Life (Zoesophia=학

生命學) may be an academic and professional instrument to

advance the mission of Jesus’ love for the life of all living

beings. This convergence of love is the missiological alpha and

omega point for a cosmos of life.

II

Zoesophia: Life is the Living Subject of Conviviality.

As we search for an integral and holistic understanding

of life, we reject any understanding of life that is reductionist,

fragmentary and compartmentalized. Our main affirmation is

that life as Subject is known through its story. The story of life

is the best way to describe the way life lives. The underlying

assumption is that life is not object, but subject.

This is an important understanding of life. Life is not to

be fragmented or reduced to its minute parts; and its subjecthood

is the whole of the living being, not in a part or particle of the

living body.

This is analogous to the subjecthood of the Minjung. The

Minjung is the subject who creates the whole life. The

subjecthood of the Minjung is revealed through the whole story

of the Minjung, in action, thought, feelings and senses, belief

and spirit. The subjecthood of life is revealed through the story

of life in action, in thought, in feelings and senses, in belief and

in spirit. Feminist studies use the story as the best way to

understand the reality of the suffering and struggle of women for

liberation, to be subjects of their own life in body and spirit.

Feminist studies are an excellent mode of integral studies.


We call this “Zoegraphy = Story of Life = Saemyong

Jeongi (生命傳記).” We avoid the term “biography,” for it is

used almost exclusively to refer to the story of an individual

person. We have used “social biography” in reference to the

story of the Minjung, to express the social and community

dimension of subjecthood of the Minjung. “Zoegraphy” is used

here to refer to the integral study of whole life (living beings),

which involves biological and ecological as well as social and

cultural dimensions of the whole of life.

Here, life is the inclusive category that embraces all

living beings. Any discrimination among human life, animal life,

and life of plants and trees is arbitrary, since these all form one

interrelated web-work of life. Fragmentation and reduction are

abstract and arbitrary. Even discrimination between organic and

inorganic is abstract and arbitrary, for life cannot exist without

inorganic substances. Life lives as an inclusive web-work of

living beings. We call it a "web-work of conviviality," or

common life. In reality there is only one common life in the

universe. Thus, Zoegraphy is the universal story of life of all

living beings as a whole.

Prof. Zhang7 argues that whole (global)life is the only

conceivable notion of life. Other concepts of life are

fragmentary, only derivatives of whole life. He believes that the

notion of the individual human person cannot be a viable

concept of life in an ultimate sense; and the same goes for any

individual animal or plant life. The viable concept of life must

include the interconnected web of life as a whole. His argument

is that the concept of whole or global life is based upon

scientific argument. However, he suggests that this concept

should be interfaced with the Asian cosmic understanding of life.

This suggestion is significant in that any concept of life must

include not only biological, social and ecological dimensions,

but also cultural and spiritual dimensions.

7 Zhang Hwe-Ik, Living and Global Life, 1999


Life as subject (Juche=主體 ) is inclusive of all the

dimensions of whole life. “Subject” means that it is spiritual and

cultural as well as social, biological and ecological. Thus the

only way we can understand whole life is to describe life in

terms of its story.

Life is the subject of the whole universe, and the whole

universe is the body of life. It is easy to understand that the

community is the body of life. The community is a web-work of

all the dimensions of life: ecological, biological, sociological,

cultural and spiritual. The integral study of life will clarify this

proposition, and Asian philosophy can easily explain it. For

example, the individual self, the family, the nation and the

universe are one and the same entity of life.

The selfhood or subjecthood of life is not the

epistemological self or subject of modern science, such as the

Cartesian ego. It has aesthetic perceptions and spiritual sense as

well as thinking and reason. It is based upon the unknown

mystery of life. It is creative and open. It cannot be objectified,

although it is bodily, physical, biological and social. It cannot be

reduced to an object, or to an abstract entity, and it is not even

transcendent.

Life as the subject gives birth to itself in the context of

the whole web-work of life. The birth and death of life should be

understood in this context. The reproduction of life cannot be

explained in biological terms, that is, merely in terms of cells

and genes. It is not a simple biochemical process, for it involves

the inherent subjecthood of life beyond the biological dimension.

The birth of a living being is not merely an internal process but

is closely related to the natural, social and cultural environments.

This is true of both humans and other living beings.

Perhaps on the level of whole life the reproductive

subject should be intelligible and perceptible. Whole life is a

dynamic web-work of the permanent reproductive and

productive activities of living beings. As Lovelock has asserted,

the earth as GAIA is a living being as a whole. Therefore, the

earth as a whole living being must have subjecthood. It cannot


be understood as a purely biochemical or physical agency. The

subjecthood of life cannot be explained in a biological, bio-

chemical or physical way on the micro or macro level. It has

unknown dimensions.

The productive and reproductive dynamics of birth and

rebirth are an elaborate and wholistic network of mutual

cooperation and common life. Here the subject of life is not

individualistic or fragmentary, but a convivial entity. The

subjectivity of any living being should be understood in the

close and organic cooperation of cells and genes on the micro-

level. It should be understood in terms of the symbiosis of living

beings. It should be understood in terms of interaction of the

organic and inorganic elements. Any living being is a subject in

this complex matrix of "common life, cooperation and co-

existence." Yet it is a mystery. It is a mystery that life is the

subject, not the object, of its being.

Life grows by itself. The growth of life cannot be

understood merely as natural, biological, ecological dynamics.

Rather, it indicates that this is the subject, which experiences

inner life and interacts in relation to its external environment.

Life nourishes and nurtures itself in mutuality with the web-

work of living beings. This is a key expression of its

subjecthood.

Life learns to live. This is a self-education process. It

learns from the environment. It learns from experiences in

interaction with other living beings. Living beings learn from

each other. They learn from the past and from the present. They

are open to learning from the future. They adjust to the living

situations and overcome obstacles to life through the self-

educational process. One cannot reduce this self-educational

process of living beings to mere instinct or automatic function.

One cannot understand life in a deterministic way.

Life heals itself. When it is injured or ill, it cures its own

illness and restores its wholeness and balance for wholesome

life. Asian health is based on the notion that life has self-healing


energy, and that medical treatment is mainly to strengthen the

self-healing power of life. Life is a self-healing subject.

Life communicates among living beings and with its

environment. Plants and insects communicate with each other.

This communication is mutual. The life of living beings

involves symbols and semantics of communication. Plants,

animals and human beings are equally capable of mutual

communication. Though we do not fully understand this

communication process, there are sufficient indications that life

is a communicating subject.

Life matures and fulfills itself. It realizes itself toward its

fullness. The maturity and fulfillment of life is neither natural

destiny nor mechanical process. It involves a telos, or a destiny

toward which life as subject moves. All living beings seem to

have their own destiny of self-fulfillment—another mark of

selfhood.

Life creates and recreates itself. It interacts creatively

with living beings. Creative subjecthood can be understood on

the biological, evolutionary level as well as the cultural level.

Living beings are creative beings. The creative activities of

living beings involve the process of creating novelty in life. The

evolutionary and culturally creative process is an integral part of

life.

Life lives in the world of meaning. Living beings create

meaning of life and of the world in the context of the web-work

of common life. Life should be understood in the context of the

community of meanings. The living being creates meanings and

fulfills the meaning of life and of the world in which it lives.

Life is spirit. Living beings are spiritual as well as

material. They are bodies as well as spirits, individual as well as

communal. The spirit of life is not confined only to human

beings. The spirit is cosmic, ecological, biological, cultural and

religious. This spiritual subjecthood of life cannot be reduced to

a biological question. It is a cultural and religious question. But

the spirit should not be understood without its body, like a ghost.


The spirit is a bodily and ecological reality in a living organism

and in a community of living beings.

The subjecthood of life can be more fully understood in

an integral way. This is the reason why we are suggesting the

story of life, Zoegraphy, as an alternative paradigm with which

to talk and learn about life. In this learning we are concerned

about the wisdom of life for its fulfillment. We are not

excluding scientific knowledge of life. We are putting it in the

integral context of the wisdom of life and transforming it.

To learn the wisdom of life, we propose integral, inter-

disciplinary studies as well as fusion between the Western and

Eastern wisdom of life. This is the meaning of Integral Study of

Life. And it begins with Zoegraphy = the story of life.

III

The Zoegraphy of Life against Death is the Story of Cosmic

Love

The Story of Life (Zoegraphy) beings with the story of

death and destruction of living beings as well as fulfillment of

life, not with the origins and birth of life.

Modern scientific biology begins the study of life with

the question of the origin of life in cosmic history. The answer

we get is highly hypothetical, highly reductionist, and highly

remote in time and space. We could even say that it is an

extension and construction of modern scientific ideas. The

question of the origin of life in the modern sciences reveals its

own limitation. Here the history of life is also very reductionist

and abstract in that the process is to trace the first simple point

and evolutionary process. This is a very limited way to learn

wisdom of life. Zoegraphy is a story of ever-evolving

complexities into new levels. Neither the tracing of the origin

and its components nor the reductionist search for the simplest

elements of life can adequately tell its whole story.

The story is an integrative way to reveal the reality,

experiences and dynamics of the life of living beings in the


whole universe. It is a way of connecting dimensions of life, a

way of weaving and integrating experiences of life in terms of

time and space. In fact, it can frame its own unique time and

space to tell the unique story of life. The story is a way of telling

about the reality of life without closing it. It is an open story. It

cannot be reduced to a narrow sequence of scientific and

objective causality. It is a way of revealing the meaning and

wisdom of life. It is holistic. It can integrate scientific and

objective knowledge of life so that they also become integral

elements of the wisdom of life.

Zoegraphy (the story of life) begins with the present

situation of life on earth in seeking the wisdom of life. It deals

with experiences of life here and now (in a Kairotic way). Then

we ask questions of past stories to open questions about the

present and future. The story of life is not determined by the

modernist time framework of absolute or relative time. Life has

its own destiny (time).

Zoegraphy is a very local story of living beings in a

concrete geographic and ecological situation. It does not

transcend time and space and become "abstractly universal," for

it refuses to be reduced to a minute particle or to a highly

abstract entity. Life has a home in its own locality. We are

reminded of the integral methodology of "cultural

anthropology," which can be evolved and applied to Zoegraphy.

Zoegraphy is a story of the conviviality of life. Living

beings live together, forming the web-work of life. Humans

form community, living together with animals, insects and

plants, and many micro-organisms. There can be no separation

between humans and other living beings in this convivial life,

which has a network of mutual support. Zoegraphy is an

expression of the convivial subjecthood of life. Conviviality is

an expression of the body of life in micro and macro cosmic

frameworks.

The most important element in the integral study of life

may be the story of conviviality of all living beings: How do we

discover the story of the life together of all living beings,


especially humans and other natural beings? The primary mode

of living together is not competition but cooperation and mutual

adjustment. Biological sciences, ecological sciences, social

sciences and human sciences need to be studied together in the

context of Zoegraphy, an integral story of life of living beings.

The story cannot begin with the human subject of life. It

must begin with the convivial community of living beings,

which would include humans, animals, plants, soil, and all other

living beings as well as the so-called inorganic elements. The

convivial community of living beings is not a human-centered

entity, but a life-centered identity. Relatively speaking, the

agrarian community before industrialization had such a

Zoegraphy of convivial community,8where all lived together,

adjusting and adapting to each other for mutual life (Sang Saeng

= 相生).

The Story of Life is the Story of Overcoming Arbitrary

Death and Destruction.

The story of life is in a dialectical relationship with the

power of death and destruction. In human his/herstory, life is to

overcome arbitrary death by natural and human disasters as well

as by disease, hunger, violence, war and other social and

ecological causes. The subject of life is the protagonist of life,

and the agency of death and destruction is the antagonist to life,

in the drama of Zoegraphy. In an analogous and connected way,

all living beings are struggling to overcome the powers of death

and destruction to fulfill their destinies.

"Natural death" is only a part of life. When we

understand life as a web-work of all living beings, death can be

a moment of fulfillment in the story of life. What is the death of

a butterfly in the life of insects? What is the death of a

caterpillar? It is a moment in the story of the insect. When we

8 The Global Life, advanced by Prof. Zhang, is related to this integral story of

life. The GAIA is also a notion that may be related to the common life of all

living beings on earth and their organic relations.


look at whole life in conviviality (common life), the natural

death of one living being may be a moment in the whole story of

life (Zoegraphy). Humans have sought ways to overcome

natural death and to have permanent life, through biological and

medial means. This is arbitrary human “hubris,” attempting to

extend natural life beyond its limits.

There is also death in the convivial web-work of life

itself. For example, there is a chain of mutual nourishment

through mutual sacrifice. Humans eat plants, fruits of trees, and

some animals. This is supposed to be a convivial, mutual and

interconnected web-work of life in the garden of life. "Natural

death" may be regarded as an end, for the beginning of new life.

In biology, however, this is conceived as a chain of power

struggles in which the fittest and strongest survive (Darwinism).

In Asian wisdom, however, it is regarded as common life,

mutual life, convivial life, which is a web-work of mutual

service. This is nowadays called “sustainability.”

There are moments of arbitrary death and destruction,

caused by unjust power, in Zoegraphy - the story of life. The

first instance is humans’ destruction of life. This arbitrary killing

has greatly intensified in the process of globalization in the 21st

century.

The most powerful human agencies destroying life are

modern science and technology, and industrial and military

technocracy. At the foundation of modern science and

technology, life itself, all living beings and their components are

objectified on the level of epistemology. They are fragmented

and reduced to the minutest particles, cells and genes. Life is

turned into an arbitrary construct of scientific theories.

Technocracy, organized technology, is the most

powerful agency controlling, dominating and destroying life.

Even if we view science-technology as value-neutral,

epistemologically it has totalistic control over its object: life and

all living beings. It manipulates, modifies and distorts according

to the designs of the “human” sciences. Technocracy is driven


by the principalities and powers of the global market for their

own profit.

The technocratic regime, under the control of the global

market and the Empire, drives the globalization process, which

involves ecological destruction, pollution and manipulation of

the biosphere, destruction of human life through increasing

hunger and poverty and the accompanying spread of diseases,

omnicidal wars, ensuing social violence, political oppression,

and economic exploitation. Life as a whole is threatened. In this

context Zoegraphy is closely connected with the process of

globalisation.

Life of Peace: Against War and Destruction of Life

Although human history has been that of wars among

human groups and against nature, in the 21st century world

geopolitics has become the process of creating weapons of war.

The 20th century experienced two World Wars; now science and

technology, with its cybernetic and technetronic developments,

has enabled humans to engage in total, omnipotent wars to

destroy life in its totality. This is the work of the global empire.

New life demands a matrix of security for the peace of all of life,

one that is capable of overcoming wars at al levels. A

comprehensive peace movement with studies and praxis at all

levels, is needed for life on earth. Cosmic peace is cosmic

compassion, permeating the whole heaven and earth {天地}.

Just and Healthy Life: Against Starvation, Hunger and Poverty

The historical development of the economy has had mixed and

paradoxical blessings for life. OIKOS + NOMOS =

OIKONOMIA is the meaning of economy, which is

management of the household to care for life in the home and in

the garden. (經世濟民) is the East Asian notion of economy,

which means “caring for the people according to the canons of

the scriptures.”

Human greed, manifested in many different forms, has

caused starvation, hunger and poverty as the economy has

grown and developed into new stages. Riches have been


amassed by the powerful in each stage of human history. Now

the power of global capital and its transnational corporate

institutions dominate the emerging global market. Their

monopoly of science and technology enables them to have

almost unlimited power and influence. In recent years money—

financial power—has victimized people radically. All exchanges

and dealings among peoples are controlled by the global market

agencies to meet the insatiable greed of capital. Profit

maximization and absolute control are the name of the game that

they play. Greed is the root of destruction of life.

Life of Direct and Common Participation in Solidarity

Network: Against Oppression

Political institutions have oppressed the people in many

different ways. Nations and peoples have suffered despotism,

autocratic rule, imperial domination, national totalitarianism,

state dictatorship, military dictatorship, religious-political

symbiosis, colonialism and ideologically rigid rules in many

different forms. The Western liberal democracy has not brought

about the full participation of the people. It enhanced liberal

political rights such as human rights and other individual

political freedoms, but it also opened the door for the powerful

and the rich to dominate over the weak and the poor. Recent

neo-liberal developments are a sequel to the liberal political

democracy. Liberal tradition has failed to control either the

global market or national markets.

People themselves demand direct participation and

intervention in the global market, as well as radical

democratization of the existing political institutions. Truly the

people must realize their political selfhood on the local, national,

regional and global levels.

This requires a local-national-regional-global network of

participation and solidarity, commensurate with the global

powers and principalities, old and new. We will need new

political institutions on all levels for glocal participation and

cosmic solidarity across the boundaries set by the powers and


principalities. This is a new vision of ecumenical politics for

love of life on earth. This is the affirmation that all living beings

are subjects of life.

Life of Shalom (Secure Well-being with All Living Beings)

Human history is a jungle where the strong eats the weak

and where the fittest alone can survive. The classical

contradictions—ethnic-racial, class-caste, and gender-social

status—form a vortex of social violence. In this jungle there is

no justice, no community and no cooperation and peace.

Globalization has brought a new social process that is dictated

by the so-called new social Darwinism. New conflicts and new

contradictions—for example, between information haves and

have-nots—are emerging. Injustice is deepening; and intensity

of conflict is mounting to cause greater violence and its cyclical

acceleration.

Social justice, social security, social peace and social

reconciliation need to be redesigned, countering a global process

in which neo-liberal ideology makes people worship the

ideology of competition, glorifying the victor regardless of the

means and ways used. The people need a new approach for

common living at all levels of local, national and global

community.

Social security systems in both welfare states and

socialist states must be transformed to establish a dynamic

human community based on justice, peace and harmony.

Prerequisite for this may be people’s participation in their local

communities; such participation links them with the network of

common human security throughout the world, and makes them

part of cosmic conviviality.

E. Life of Rich Meaningfulness and Fine Beauty: Against

Desertification of Cultural Life

Culture is the soul of a civilization. It is the art of

common life, through which people attain their identity, value

orientation and aesthetic sense, and enjoy the feast of life.


Culture gives people their perceptual apparatus and orientation

for understanding. Culture is the reservoir of wisdom for life, for

people throughout the cosmos. It is the resource of love for all

living beings.

Ethnic, national and cultural identity—the inner core of

community life—is rapidly eroding under the impact of

globalization. Powerless and marginalised ethnic and national

communities are especially affected.

Culture contains the wisdom of life and is the spiritual

home of life. Spirituality is the vital energy of life, but this is

being eroded in the globalization process. Modern philosophy,

science and technology have reduced or uprooted the spiritual

core of life, reducing it to rationality.

Here the religious dimension of culture and therefore life

itself has been eradicated at the roots. Religions are the

substance of civilizations, and cultures are forms in which

religious truths and spirituality find expression. Modernity has

reduced religion to the minimum of what is rational; and the

spiritual mystery of life is suppressed in the name of what is

rational. Suppression of religious vitality has been detrimental to

the vitality of life.

F. Life of Vitality in the Macro- and Micro-Cosmos: Against

Destruction of Life

Modernity created a fatal split between life in human

community from life in nature. It also reduced the reality of life

to the biochemical process. These two statements epitomize the

role of modern reductionism in (mis)understanding life.

Life is whole. Life is to be cared for in the Garden of Life.

Gardening of life demands respect for life in the cosmos in its

entirety and its integrity. Enhancement of life in the cosmos

demands an entirely new paradigm of life, one that overcomes

the current misunderstanding and manipulation of life. Life must

prosper against death and destruction.

G. Life of Bliss in Celebration


The peak bliss of life is to glorify God and enjoy life

with God. The foundation of such bliss and celebration of life is

based upon faith in God. God has made with us the covenant of

life in Shalom. Life is life when it overcomes the power of death.

Life is true life when it has an eternal dimension. Life is truly

life when it is fulfilled wholly and fully. This is the foundation

of new life according to the Biblical teachings. This blissful life

should be realized on the earth in a kairotic way. This is the

beginning and the culmination of the wisdom of life.

IV

Concluding Word

World Christianity is in a crisis. The Christian West and

indeed the Christian churches in the whole world are caught up

in the illusion that “World Christendom” will save the world.

And yet there is a bankruptcy of theological perspective with

which to deal with the issue of destruction and potential death of

all of life. It is with a strong sense of urgency that we present

these suggestions for reflection.

At the same time, the world Christian population lives,

culturally and religiously, in the context of world religions

outside the context of the Christian world. This is a major shift.

The mere or conjugated expansion of the Christian world is not

tenable. The situation demands a convergence toward a new

horizon of love for all living beings in the cosmos. Dialogue,

cooperation and solidarity may be steps toward such

convergence, which may be seen as a cosmic omega point of

oikoumene. For this task we need to recover and revitalize the

Love of Jesus the Asian for all living beings. The Asian wisdom

of life (Zoesophia) may provide the convergent dynamics of life

to deal with the destructiveness of the global market and empire.

Wherever there is a struggle of living beings for life, there may

emerge the wisdom of life and the convergent dynamics of

Zoesophia.



Towards a New Paradigm in the

Concepts of Mission

Hope S. Antone1

Why a New Paradigm?

The topic assigned to me by the organizers and planners of

this conference implies the need for something new in our

understanding and practice of mission. I believe that this need

for something new is not simply to be in tune with the times –

there is indeed a lot of discourse on paradigm shifts these days.

Neither do I believe that this is just something we have to do as

we observe the 100th

year anniversary of the Edinburgh 1910

mission conference. Rather, I believe that the topic implies an

honest realization as well as a sincere confession that the old

paradigm of mission is no longer the best or the most relevant

for our context in Asia today.

1 Dr. Hope S. Antone is joint executive secretary of the Christian

Conference of Asia – Faith, Mission and Unity (CCA-FMU) program area.

Her portfolio includes education and ecumenical formation for CCA and a

joint consultancy with the World Council of Churches (WCC) on ecumenical

theological education in Asia.


As I began writing this paper, I remembered a comment

that Hans Ucko (a former staff in the dialogue unit of the World

Council of Churches) shared with me a few years ago when I

co-organized with him an interreligious program in Tao Fong

Shan, Hong Kong. He said to me that as far as he was

concerned, the word mission needs to be dropped from the

Christian vocabulary. His reason of course is that mission does

not only carry a lot of negative connotations (ranging from its

complicity in colonialism to its aggressive stance towards

people of other faiths); it simply poses as an obstacle to dialogue.

So as I thought of new paradigm concepts of mission, I also

wondered whether we should continue to use mission simply

because it is part of our inherited missionary legacy. Or,

whether we should come up with something totally new since

“new wine” requires “new wineskin” (Mark 2:21-23)?

Another problem that I have with mission is how it is

understood and carried out these days. According to the

Cambridge Dictionary, mission is “the action of sending

someone to a place to do a particular job, esp. one for a

government or religious organization, or the job they are sent to

do.” Mission also refers to “a group of people who are sent to

another place to do a particular job or to represent their country,

organization, or religion, or the place where they go to do this

work.” It is clear from these two definitions that mission is used

not only in a religious sense but also in economic and political

senses. Thus, mission can be for good or bad – such as the

mission to attack another country. It is also not a monopoly of

Christians; people from other religions also speak of their own

mission these days.2

So writing this paper and just thinking about new

paradigm concepts of mission has been a challenging exercise

for me. Nevertheless, I thank the organizers and planners of this

conference for the opportunity to think of this seriously and to

share my struggle with you.

2 Like Christianity, Islam is a missionary religion. Buddhism also

carries out mission like we do – in villages, in universities, in other places.

New Paradigm in the Concepts of Mission 89

According to www.dictionary.com the word paradigm is

from Latin paradīgma; from Greek paradeigma, from

paradeiknunai, to compare: para-, alongside; + deiknunai, to

show.3

The same online dictionary notes that the word

Paradigm appeared in English in the 15th

century, meaning "an

example, model or pattern." Since the 1960s, paradigm has

been used in science to refer to a theoretical framework. In

1962, in a book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas

Kuhn attempted to map changes in patterns of scientific thinking,

noting that a given framework of thinking – which he called

paradigm – tends to dominate and direct research in a given

field.4

A paradigm shift happens when the old (previous)

paradigm is abandoned in favor of a new one.

The language of paradigms and paradigm shifts entered

theological discourse in the 1980s. David Bosch used this

language to great effect through his classic work, Transforming

Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission.5 This study

of the major paradigms of mission throughout Christian history

is capped with Bosch’s proposal of an “emerging ecumenical

paradigm.” However, this does not represent a new paradigm as

such but more of a bringing together of the good and desirable

elements in recent missiological thinking.

So perhaps, in theological discourse what we have to do is

to critically revisit and evaluate our old understandings and

practices – in order to see where we have fallen short or gone

against the radical (from radix, which is Latin word for the

‘root’) meanings of certain classical biblical concepts.

Moreover, in our search for new paradigm concepts of

mission, we should not immediately look at new models or

patterns or practices of mission. We should first look at the

prevailing understanding, view or framework of mission, which

3 www.dictionary.com accessed on 30 August 2008.

4 Cited by Robert Schreiter, Liberation and Reconciliation as

Paradigms of Mission (Sundbyberg: Swedish Mission Council, 2003), 10. . 5 David J. Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology

of Mission (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1991).

http://www.dictionary.com/

http://www.dictionary.com/


then gives birth to the patterns and practices. In other words, we

should not only look at how today’s zealous missionaries from

Asia strive to go on a mission trip, e.g. to Afghanistan, despite

warnings from their own government and the Afghan

government not to go there. Rather, we should also ask why

they actually insist on going there or what it is (i.e. the

motivation, inspiration, or mandate) that urges them to go there.

Towards New Paradigm Concepts: Proposal from Robert

Schreiter

One of the more recent articulations I have come across on

new paradigms of mission is from Catholic priest and educator

Robert Schreiter.6

In his lectures to the Swedish Mission

Council in 2002, he spoke of how theologies of liberation have

provided a paradigm for the conduct of Christian mission since

the 1970s. However, since the shifts in contexts – e.g. the

emergence of post-national security states in most of Latin

America, post-Communist states in Europe, and post-apartheid

societies in Africa – Schreiter feels that theologies of liberation

are not enough to meet the challenges of the post-conflict

situation. Therefore, he proposed that another paradigm of

mission that must go hand in hand with liberation is

reconciliation. He said that liberation and reconciliation share

more similarities than discontinuities:

Both are concerned about overcoming oppression. Both

place the pursuit of justice central to their activity. Both

presume God acting in our history here and now. Both

attend especially to the victims. Both seek the opportunity

to engender hope for a better humanity by reference to the

great biblical narratives. Both attend to the structural

dimensions of oppression and conflict which need to be

overcome.

6 Robert Schreiter, Liberation and Reconciliation as Paradigms of

Mission (Sundbyberg: Swedish Mission Council, 2003).


…Both attend to the symbolic and spiritual consequences

of social and political actions. Both are engaged in the

material realities of their world, but both have an eye on

the transcendent elements as well.7

According to Schreiter, the differences between the two

are that the rhetoric of liberation, in its interest in regaining

human agency for the poor, tends to emphasize the human role

in liberation while the rhetoric of reconciliation places emphasis

on God’s role in bringing about reconciliation. The liberation

paradigm promotes the dream of a future which creates new

agency among the poor and oppressed; while the reconciliation

paradigm sees coming to terms with a conflicted and traumatic

past as the key to that future.

Schreiter’s points are very important reminders for us in

Asia – where theologies of liberation have been indigenized and

contextualized to the point that we now have various theologies

of the minjung, Dalit, Indigenous people, struggle, women,

homeland and self-determination, etc. However, for many of

our nations in Asia, reaching a post-conflict situation is still a

far-off dream. Many of our nations are still controlled by

military and dictatorial governments, some in connivance with

the Empire. We still have Communist, Socialist and Maoist

states and/or governments in Asia. We still have our own share

of apartheid through the caste and patriarchal systems and

through ethnic conflicts that are so deeply-rooted. So we

definitely need to bear all these in mind in our search for new

paradigm concepts of mission.

Towards New Paradigm Concepts: Proposal from S. Wesley

Ariarajah + Mine I would like to borrow the words of Sri Lankan ecumenist,

S. Wesley Ariarajah, that the original vision of the missionary

movement that came out of the Edinburgh 1910 event “saw the

7 Schreiter, 24.


proclamation of the Gospel, with the invitation to become part

of the church, as the core of the missionary enterprise.”8

Usually called evangelization, this paradigm of mission is not

only rooted in the old colonial model (i.e. “to conquer the world

for Christ”) but it also constitutes a very limited and misleading

view of mission. In the words of Ariarajah, “It must be said that

from the perspective of challenges of our own day, its God is too

small, its perception of the Gospel – too narrow, its

understanding of mission – too limited, its theology – too tribal,

and its concept of community – sectarian.”9

Ariarajah suggests four shifts in mission thinking in order

for Christians to arrive at what he calls “an understanding of

mission that would be credible and meaningful as we stand at

the threshold of a new century and a new millennium.”10

He

proposes moving from the view of mission simply as a message

that we bring to or activities that we do in the world to mission

as participation with God and all others in bringing healing and

wholeness, justice and peace, and reconciliation and renewal in

the world.11

I came across these four shifts that Ariarajah

suggests when I was doing my doctoral research in 2001.

Although each shift was explained only very briefly, I would

like to expand them and build on them with my own critical

reflections and personal illustrations. I would also incorporate,

where possible, ideas from other theologians who have tried to

8 S. Wesley Ariarajah, “Wider Ecumenism: Some Theological

Perspectives” in Encounters with the Word: Essays to Honour Aloysius Pieris,

eds. Robert Crusz, Marshal Fernando, Asanga Tilakaratne (Colombo:

Ecumenical Institute for Study and Dialogue, 2004), 19. 9 Ariarajah, “Wider Ecumenism,” 15.

10 S. Wesley Ariarajah, “Christian Mission: The End or a New

Beginning,” unpublished paper presented at the Meeting of the United

Methodist General Board of Global Ministries (GBGM), October 1998. This

paper was used as a reference in Hope S. Antone’s Religious Education in

Context of Plurality and Pluralism (Manila: New Day Publishers, 2003),

from which this summary was taken. . 11

Ariarajah, “Wider Ecumenism,” 21, (bold and italics supplied).


address the question of what could be some new paradigms of

mission for us today.

(1) Ariarajah named the first shift in mission thinking as:

“from an exclusive to an inclusive understanding of God’s

mission.” This has to do with our basic framework of mission.

In the traditional paradigm, mission is understood as the task of

the church to bring God, in Christ, to the “unreached” peoples.

This traditional understanding of mission is similar to what

Indian theologian Dhyanchand Carr called the Noah’s ark model

of mission (Genesis 6-8).12

Like the ark of Noah, the church

comprises of people plucked out (the chosen ones) of the evil

world, which is set for damnation, and who need to be kept

undefiled and pure to enter their heavenly abode. As the saved,

it is now their task to prevent people from jumping out of the ark

and for rescuing a few others who may be drowning. This

understanding of mission however is very limited and has

effectively prevented the Christian community from making

meaningful collaboration and partnership with others, especially

those of other religious traditions or with an ideological

inspiration, in their active engagement of humanizing the world.

This understanding of mission also has an inherent negative

attitude to the world.

Ariarajah suggests an inclusive understanding of mission

which is premised on the affirmation that Christians are in

mission because God is “already present and active” in the

world, bringing it unto Godself. Christians therefore do not

have the monopoly of mission as if it is only for them to do and

protect. God’s mission (missio Dei), which God carries out in

many different ways, includes the creative and healing activities

happening in the world but which may not be under the umbrella

of the church. Through God’s participation in the sufferings of

the people, God is loving, reconciling, healing, and bringing

about justice and peace, even through those people and forces

12

Dhyanchand Carr, “Innovative Methods in Theological Education,”

in CTC Bulletin, Vol. XIX, No. 3 (December 2003), 79-86. Narrative on the

Noah’s ark is found in Genesis 6-8.


that do not necessarily belong to the church. This inclusive

understanding of mission therefore “places the loving, caring,

judging and compassionate presence and mission of God in the

heart of all human affairs, despite all its ambiguities.”

In addition to this, I want to add another dimension to this

inclusive understanding of mission. In the traditional paradigm,

mission is seen to be about saving people. Yet even the Noah’s

ark model includes animals that were also saved, pair by pair.

One day, when I was a pastor of a very small rural church in the

Philippines13

, we had a Bible study on the story of Noah

building an ark and a very clever youth leader of that

congregation suddenly said, “Pastor, I know why the flood

happened. It was because Noah had cut down so many trees to

build that ark.”

With our understanding now of environmental issues,

global warming and the ecological crisis, we know that there is

truth in what that youth leader was saying. So an inclusive

understanding of God’s mission must include a genuine concern

for the rest of creation. For a long time, humanity has regarded

creation as being there to serve and sustain us, and that

humanity is the ‘crown’ of creation. We need to make a shift

from such thinking as we are accountable to God for what has

become of nature, the environment, the whole of creation which

was entrusted to our care.

(2) The second shift: “from conversion to healing.” This

has to do with the goal of mission. The traditional paradigm of

mission has made conversion the ultimate goal of mission. This

narrow understanding of conversion is really proselytism – i.e.

winning of souls to Christ, or increasing in number of new

adherents or church attendees. It can even include the dragging

of persons from one religious community to another – or,

embarrassingly so, from one denominational community to

another (e.g. from Catholic to Protestant). It is this narrow sense

13

The small rural UCCP (United Church of Christ in the Philippines)

congregation that I used to serve is in the town of Zamboanguita in the

province of Negros Oriental.


of conversion that has rendered Christianity suspect in the eyes

of people of other religions, thereby increasing the mistrust,

animosity and hatred between religious communities.

Some examples of this traditional paradigm of mission,

with conversion strings attached, were exposed during the

rehabilitation and relief work being done to the December 2004

tsunami victims in Indonesia. For example, the effort of some

Christian groups to intentionally send the orphaned children of

Muslim families to Christian orphanages was severely criticized

and exposed as having conversion strings attached.

The new paradigm of mission challenges the narrow

notion of conversion. The new paradigm of mission regards

conversion as the transforming activity of the Spirit in the lives

of individuals and communities, to a life oriented towards God

and one’s neighbor (the very essence of the gospel as described

in Matthew 22:37-40) – regardless of religious or

denominational labels.14

In this sense, conversion really is the

work of God, not of people or of the church. It is therefore too

presumptuous for us to make conversion the goal of our mission.

Furthermore, what the church urgently needs today is to

engage in mission with God toward healing, reconciliation and

wholeness. There is so much brokenness, pain and suffering in

Asia – because of power domination exerted over the vulnerable,

those who are rendered weak and helpless – including women,

children (especially girl children), other marginalized groups

(e.g. ethnic minorities, sexual minorities, lower castes and

outcastes), and the rest of God’s creation. There can only be

healing if the power domination is shattered and transformed

into a sharing of power that empowers everyone to claim their

right to fullness of life (John 10:10b). But how can traditional

missionaries, raised in very patriarchal societies and bearing the

traditional mission orientation, help in breaking down this power

domination mindset and practice? One can only give what one

14

It is interesting to note that the Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12; Luke

6:31) can be found in more than 20 religions of the world.


has… and that is why there continues to be a big need for real

healing from all forms of brokenness, pain and suffering.

(3) The third shift: “from majority to minority.” This has

to do with our understanding of the nature of the faith

community in mission. Closely related to the traditional notion

of conversion (i.e. proselytism) is the imperialist and colonialist

aspiration to church growth and development. The resurgence

of denominationalism and the emphasis on church planting and

church growth in most of our seminary curricula point to this

desire to become the majority – as if strength can only be

measured by our size or number. Today’s mission practices

reflect this desire to be the majority, as we in Asia allow

ourselves to be spent in a minority complex that ranges between

a self-debilitating attitude of careless passivity and an aggressive

adversarial posture towards others.

Ariarajah however insists that we need to rediscover,

reown and relearn to be at home as a minority faith community

whose life is rooted in God and whose life is lived in, for and on

behalf of the world. The biblical image of the salt (Matthew

5:13) is a good reminder of this. The power of salt is not so

much in its quantity but in its quality – i.e. the ability to nourish

(fertilize) the earth, bring out the taste of food (not give taste to

food), and to preserve food.

Another helpful image for the Christian community that

reminds us against the tendency to be the majority, to have big

churches, and for our faith to be universal is the biblical image

of the remnant community. The word remnant is used in the

Bible in various senses, including as survivors of wars, plunder

and the exile (in the Old Testament). It is also used to refer to

the remaining faithful people (Romans 9:26-28) who are

steadfast in their faith. For me, the important thing that the

word remnant conveys is the reminder that strength is not in

number but in what God chooses to do with us, no matter how

small or few we may be. That is where the significance of a

motley minority group really is.


Therefore, in carrying out mission, we should not use the

increase in number of conversions, baptisms, or churches built

as the measures to determine success in mission – but how well

we have been able to witness to the embracing love of God so

that the community and the world we live in can be much more

loving and just, as God had intended it to be.

(4) The fourth shift: “from mere doctrinal issues to deep

spiritual concerns.” This has to do with the content of mission.

Traditional mission paradigm has been focused on Christian

apologetics – i.e. in trying to convince others, as much as

ourselves, that our religion is superior to others, that our religion

is the revelation; that it is through our religion that one can truly

come to the Truth. But as Ariarajah points out, mission that is

based on the usual Christian claims to uniqueness or superiority

and to absolute possession of the truth (which are latent in

traditional Christology) has no future. In fact, such only creates

more rivalry and animosity among different religious adherents.

Before I joined the Christian Conference of Asia, I was

working as Christian educator for the Dumaguete City UCCP

and also teaching at Silliman University in Dumaguete City,

Philippines. And because I did my MTh in Korea, a number of

Korean missionaries who came to Dumaguete would visit me at

the university for conversations. One time, one of these Korean

missionaries came looking so tired and tanned as he was just out

in the sun handing out leaflets to people and saying, “Jesus loves

you.” I asked him, “So how did your mission go today?” He

said, “Well, one old man tapped me on my shoulder and said,

‘Young man, I already know that Jesus loves me since a long

time ago.’” I explained to him that majority of the Filipinos are

Catholics and they already know that Jesus loves them just as

much as the Protestants do. “Jesus loves…”, “Jesus saves…”

are not new to Filipinos. The question is: what does that mean

for Filipinos today who continue to struggle for a decent life in a

land that is governed by corruption, injustice and paranoia about

people’s movement for social transformation?


In the wake of endemic poverty, massive injustice, the

widespread negative impact of economic globalization and the

senseless war on terror, the intense search for meaning and for

authentic spiritual life needs to be addressed. Basic to the cry

for economic justice, genuine peace and reconciliation, freedom

from violence and oppression, and for just dealings in

international relations is a deep spiritual longing. These deep

spiritual concerns that transcend religious or denominational

labels should comprise the content of our mission today.

As Christians coming from different denominations, how

do we witness to Christ Jesus who did not teach us to wave our

denominational flags in order to be faithful to him? As

Christians living among a majority of people embracing other

religions, how do we witness to the love of God in Christ Jesus

who came that all may have fullness of life – with no

precondition for any religious flag or badge?

(5) To Ariarajah’s four shifts I would like to add a fifth

shift: “from token partnership to genuine solidarity.” This has to

do with the spirit behind the methodology or practice of mission.

It is unfortunate to note that the mission being carried out today

by many zealous Asian missionaries simply promote the

traditional paradigm of mission.

In the Philippine experience, many of these missionaries

come with lots of money, buy land and build churches and

schools, using a Filipino “dummy” to fulfill the legal procedures

of owning property in the country. But many of these

missionaries set up their own enclaves, their own stores and

schools, their own NGOs, and their own communities which

then grow into country-towns. After learning English in the

Philippines, they set up their own schools which attract people

from their own country to study English intensively in the

Philippines. In all these, they generate income and profit for

themselves but not really contributing to the economy of the

host country.15

It is no wonder then that in one part of the

15

This was shared with me in confidence by a church leader in the

Philippines last March 2008.


Philippines, there is a growing dislike for some of these

missionaries and their people to the point that in one Indigenous

community, a sad sign has been put up: No Koreans allowed.16

In some places like China, these Asian missionaries go as

business people setting up noodle and other food factories,

taking advantage of the cheap labor and resources in China.

Therefore, mission today is ironically in connivance with

capitalistic business enterprise. How can there be genuine

partnership between people who are unequal right from the start?

How can there be genuine partnership in mission if it is in fact

driven by or couched in business or political interests?

The new paradigm of mission should challenge this

token partnership with its economic and political agendas and

strive to foster genuine solidarity with the people in their

concrete human needs. To be in solidarity means to be one with

another, to identify with the other, to feel strongly for the pain

and hurt of the other, and to share the burden of the other as if it

were one’s own. Solidarity implies the self-emptying mindset

and attitude of Christ (kenosis) in an effort to lift up those who

are downtrodden, oppressed, and dehumanized.

Cognizant that Christians in Asia constitute a religious

minority, solidarity should not only be limited among Christians

or among churches. Genuine solidarity should encompass

interreligious solidarity. Bishop Duleep de Chickera of Sri

Lanka called for interreligious solidarity and integration in his

presentation at the recent joint consultation of CCA and WCC

on revitalizing the ecumenical movement. He gave several

reasons why interreligious solidarity and integration ought to be

a serious vision:17

16

According to Rev. Fr. Rex Reyes, general secretary of the National

Council of Churches in the Philippines, who personally shared this incident

with me last March 2008 in Manila, this sign is found in a province in

northern Philippines. 17

Bishop Duleep de Chickera of Sri Lanka spoke of “interreligious

solidarity and integration” in his presentation at the CCA-WCC joint

consultation on “revitalizing the ecumenical movement,” 1-3 September 2008

in Dhaka, Bangladesh.


1. Interreligious solidarity is biblical and theological – for

God is eternal, omnipresent and ever dynamic.

2. Interreligious solidarity and integration is in a sense

Asian. It will capture the imagination of Asian

Christians as this is where they are already – whether in

relationships of harmony or of conflict.

3. Interreligious solidarity will impact the dehumanizing

experiences of Asia as there is a collective religious

conscience on issues such as poverty and environment.

4. Interreligious solidarity will impact the world church –

especially with the waning enthusiasm for it in some of

global organizations.

5. Engagement in interreligious solidarity will help us deal

with conflict and hope.

6. In interreligious dialogue, good and bad things emerge as

one raises questions and leaves it to others to discern for

themselves.

There is a lot that religious adherents share together.

There is also a lot that we need to face or bear together. Hence,

interreligious solidarity is the only way for us in Asia in order to

survive together.

(6) To Ariarajah’s four shifts I would further add a sixth

shift: “from overemphasis of one biblical passage to an

emphasis of the total biblical message.” This has to do with the

biblical basis for mission, which churches use as the mandate for

their mission activities. The traditional paradigm of mission

tends to overemphasize the so-called Great Commission

recorded in Matthew 28:19-20: “Go therefore and make

disciples of all nations, baptizing them… and teaching them

everything I have commanded you.”

There are many other commissioning statements by Jesus

which are found in the gospels and the book of Acts. But this

one in Matthew has been given the title of “The Great

Commission” by those who divided the texts into chapters and

verses, thereby making the other commissioning statements


seem lesser or lower than this. This commissioning statement

seems indeed to be the motivation behind the zealous mission

activities being done today by Asian missionaries.

Many seminaries in Asia do not only teach mission as part

of their theological curriculum. They have also set up special

mission training centers – where they train would-be

missionaries with some language skills, cultural studies, and

strategies in proselytism and church planting. Taking the so-

called Great Commission as the main mandate for mission, apart

from the overall biblical message, has made traditional mission

paradigm zealously aggressive and overly concerned about

numbers – of converts, baptisms, or of churches planted. Taking

the Great Commission as the main motivation for mission, apart

from the overall message of the Bible, has led to the neglect of

many important passages in the Bible.

One very helpful passage is Luke 4:16-21, which describes

the very essence of Christ’s life and mission – where mission

means bringing the good news to the poor, freedom to those

held captive, sight to the blind, and release to the oppressed.

While many churches would rather spiritualize the good news,

freedom, sight and release, we must remember that Jesus did

attend to the physicality of such conditions in his lifetime.

Matthew 25:31-46 describes how life in mission can be lived in

service to the least of God’s people, with whom and among

whom Christ is. The story of the Syro-Phoenician woman in

Matthew 15:21-28 (also Mark 7:24-30) shows Christ himself

becoming changed in his concept of mission through an

encounter with a woman of a different ethnicity and religion.

Mark 9:38-41 illustrates to us that the close circle of Christian

disciples do not have the monopoly of Christ’s mission. So why

should we stop them?

In March and April 2008, my desk (Faith, Mission and

Unity of the Christian Conference of Asia) organized two sub-

regional consultations on “Holistic Mission in the Context of

Asian Plurality.” The rationale for holding those consultations

reads in part:


Christian Conference of Asia affirms that our mission is

really God’s mission of proclaiming, sharing and living

out the good news of fullness of life for all children in the

household of God. We also affirm that the household of

God is the whole inhabited world (oikoumene) and thus, all

peoples, regardless of race, color, creed and faith, are

already members of that household, endowed with the

image of God within them, no matter whether they

acknowledge it or not. Hence, mission has to be holistic –

i.e. attending to the needs of the total person; affirming the

divine image within them; opposing the forces that distort

that divine image; and assisting the flowering or blooming

of that divine image into fullness.18

So in that consultation, we critically revisited the so-called Great

Commission and also looked at other biblical passages that have

not been emphasized but which can also inform our search for

new paradigm concepts of mission today. But it is not only a

matter of what passages of scriptures are emphasized or

neglected. It is also how the scriptures are read – and they must

be read from the perspective of liberation. Liberation

perspective includes analysis of context and relations of power,

concern for structural change versus caritative relief, seeing

things from the side of the poor, empowerment of the poor, and

capacity to engender hope.19

Conclusion

I have given in broad strokes some paradigm shifts

needed in order to have an understanding of mission that is

biblically grounded but also contextually relevant. I have

18

From the concept paper on the Sub-regional consultations-dialogues on

“Holistic Mission in the Context of Asian Plurality” organized by the CCA-

FMU desk in Manila (for Southeast Asia) and Bangalore (for South Asia),

March-April 2008. 19

Schreiter, 14-15.


borrowed and expanded the four shifts articulated by S Wesley

Ariarajah, and added two more. To sum up, following are the 6

necessary shifts in mission thinking and practice: (a) from an

exclusive to an inclusive understanding of God’s mission; (b)

from conversion to healing as goal of mission; (c) from majority

to minority as a faith community; (d) from mere doctrinal issues

to deep spiritual concerns; (e) from token partnership to genuine

solidarity; and (f) from overemphasis of one biblical passage to

an emphasis of the total biblical message.

It is my hope that this paper has served its purpose of

outlining some possible paradigm shifts in mission thinking and

practice for us in Asia.

If we are serious about making these paradigm shifts, we

need to seriously evaluate and transform the mission orientation

of our churches and seminaries, and the curricula in our

seminaries and mission training centers. For as Christ Jesus

himself reminds us, the new wine will indeed require new

wineskin.

References

Antone, Hope S. Religious Education in Context of Plurality

and Pluralism. Manila: New Day Publishers, 2003.

Ariarajah, S. Wesley. “Wider Ecumenism: Some Theological

Perspectives,” in Encounters with the Word: Essays to

Honour Aloysius Pieris. Robert Crusz, Marshal Fernando,

Asanga Tilakaratne, eds. Colombo: Ecumenical Institute for

Study and Dialogue, 2004.

_______. “Christian Mission: The End or a New Beginning,”

unpublished paper presented at the Meeting of the United

Methodist General Board of Global Ministries (GBGM),

October 1998.


Bosch, David J. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in

Theology of Mission. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1991.

Carr, Dhyanchand. “Innovative Methods in Theological

Education,” in CTC Bulletin, Vol. XIX, No. 3 (December

2003).

Chickera, Duleep de. “Revitalizing the Ecumenical Movement

in Asia,” an unpublished paper presented on 1-3 September

2008 in Dhaka, Bangladesh for the joint consultation of the

Christian Conference of Asia and the World Council of

Churches.

Schreiter, Robert. Liberation and Reconciliation as Paradigms

of Mission. Sundbyberg: Swedish Mission Council, 2003.


December 2008, pp. 105-127

The Church is God’s Partner

In Re-creation

Choan-seng Song1

Introduction

We begin with a story from the Analects of Confucius.

Confucius disciple Tsze-lu remarked, “The

ruler of Wei has been waiting for you, in order

with you to administer the government. What

will you consider the first thing to be done?”

The Master replied, “What is necessary is to

rectify names.” “So! indeed!” said Tsze-lu.

“You are wide of the mark! Why must there be

such rectification?” The Master said,… “If

names be not correct, language is not in

1 Prof. C. S. Song, a distinguished Professor of Systematic theology at

Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley California, is visiting Professor,

School of Theology, Chang Jung Christian University, Tainan, Taiwan.

Translation from Chinese by David Alexander. The paper was presented at an

Asian Mission Conference held at Tainan Theological College and Seminary

in October, 2008.


accordance with the truth of things. If language

be not in accordance with the truth of things,

affairs cannot be carried on to success….

Therefore a superior man considers it necessary

that the names he uses may be spoken

appropriately, and also that what he speaks

may be carried out appropriately. What the

superior man requires is just that in his words

there may be nothing incorrect.” (Analects 13:3)

Our concern here is “The Asian Mission Aftermath of the

1910 Edinburgh Missionary Conference.” This question has

been around for a long time. It’s hard to imagine why we have

procrastinated for almost a hundred years, until 2008, to hold

this discussion, but I have several theories. Could it be that we

have not yet emerged from the era of Western missions? Or

maybe it’s that we are still entrapped by the attitudes of

Christian colonization. Perhaps we have not yet been

transformed by our own era. Of course, we are people of the

“post modern 21st century, but do we still hold to pre-modern,

pre 20th

century religious attitudes? Could it be that, having not

yet established our own faith and theology, we continue to use

the old Western inheritance? Have we taken the position that

faith and theology are like wine that is never renewed, that can

not change?

The Intersection of Old and New

We are familiar with Jesus’ saying, “No one puts new wine

into old wineskins; if he does, the wine will burst the skins, and

the wine is lost, and so are the skins; but new wine is for fresh

skins.” (Mark 2:21-22). In this metaphor Jesus puts a question

directly to his hearers. Sadly, the gospel writer did not record the

words of the question, which must have been, “Is your wine new?

And if it is, your wineskins, are they not also new?”

In discussing the intersection between new and old, we can

find four possible modalities:

Partner in Recreation 107

1) Old wine put into old wine skins

2) Old wine put into new wineskins

3) New wine put into old wineskins

4) New wine put into new wineskins

What is the shape of your organization? You need only

take a brief look at your Sunday sermons, scripture lessons,

Bible class teachings, the theological essays you choose to read

or write, and you will readily find the answer.

Jesus, of course, fits into the fourth modality, new wine put

into new wineskins. This is clear in the statement, “New wine

must put into new wineskins.” Do our own theologies

demonstrate new vision? If I am dedicated to Jesus from my

heart, do I reflect the heart of Jesus himself in my own faith and

theology? Regarding the intersection of old and new, I must

strive for the fourth modality, “New wine put into new

wineskins.”

I do not pretend to have already accomplished this. I may

whisper, though, that I strive without ceasing in this direction.

Let us turn, now to discuss the topic wherein we “talk the talk

but do not walk the walk,” mission.

“Modern” as an Historical Moment

The study of history often shows the past and reveals the

era or stage of those doing the study. So “history” has its own

history. But if we are not talking about the past, then what is our

topic? If history is not a record of the past, then what can we say

is actually historical? In terms of ethnic or national history, we

habitually use particular methods of discussion or research. In

discussion and research of religion we can apply some of the

same methods. The truth and suitability of historical research

methods applied to religion is hardly questioned.

But, have we no other methods? Events of the past are the

basic data for historical research. First-hand resources are good.

Second-hand resources are also good. But history must be

interpreted if it is to be understood. This moves us to questions

of epistemology. How then can we get our hands onto real


history in order to talk about it? Historians are like

archaeologists who dig up things that were long buried.

Archaeologists have budgets and tools for their work, and their

methods are useful for historians.

But archaeological artifacts are wordless. Voice must be

given to their silence. That is the technique and art of

archaeology. History is similar. The purpose in researching

history is to enable the happenings of “then” to speak

meaningfully to “now.” As we discuss history we seek to enable

each era to inform us regarding the affairs of every era; to see

how the things of any time influence things of other times. And

after the things have spoken, our discussion of them begins.

This begs the question, “Is this an eternally set form to which

there is no alternative?”

My own preference for historical research and discussion

of past events is to begin with “now” as the starting point, using

“now” as the central hinge of historical research. This, of course,

is not what we have been habitually taught.

Confucius disciple Tsze-lu remarked, “The ruler

of Wei has been waiting for you, in order with you to

administer the government. What will you consider

the first thing to be done?” The Master replied, “What

is necessary is to rectify names.” “So! indeed!” said

Tsze-lu. “You are wide of the mark! Why must there

be such rectification?” The Master said,… “If names

be not correct, language is not in accordance with the

truth of things. If language be not in accordance with

the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to

success…. Therefore a superior man considers it

necessary that the names he uses may be spoken

appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be

carried out appropriately. What the superior man

requires is just that in his words there may be nothing

incorrect.”

Six Chinese Idioms


Historical research which starts from the “now” to look at

things has many strengths. Each is summed up in a Chinese

Idiom: First, “In knowing the new, we learn the old”. This turns

around the Confucian method of “learning the new by reviewing

the old.” It is a reaction. If one knows the nature of the current

problem, one can know the nature of past problems. If there was

wrong, where was it? A second strength comes from the

principle of “Switching the positions of the host and guest.” By

this method passive historical research is transformed to active

historical research. One respects the past, but becomes more

careful in the selection of current historical topics.

A third consideration is that “Circumstances change with

the passage of time”. Time passes and boundaries shift.

“Modern” is an era. Modern situations and past time situations

are not the same, so one cannot generalize about “the Modern”

based on the past.

A fourth consideration is that found in the phrase, “ Strike

out on a new path.” Why learn history? Is it not to correct our

direction, reveal the future? A conservative, die-hard approach

to affairs can only hamper our movement into the future.

The fifth phrase is “Revert to one’s natural self.” Recovery

of one’s historical true face is an important purpose of historical

study. History from the past comes to us heavily polluted. The

meaning of this pollution is taken from current environmental

protection thought. Our understandings of history are different,

and reveal to us how seriously polluted some past “histories”

have become in transmission to us. When we clean things up for

the sake of the future, we come to the sixth phrase, “break the

old and establish the new”. This is the meaning of Jesus’

statement about putting new wine into new wineskins. Meaning

is what we seek as we join to discuss history in this “fourth

modality” from Jesus’ parable.


Looking at World Mission Conferences From the Standpoint

of NOW

Starting from our “modern” worldview we must critique

the 1910 Edinburgh World Mission Conference and subsequent

world mission conferences to derive a better recognition of

today’s missional conundrum. We need to ask what kind of

world we live in, then we can see in what ways our predecessors

were blind and to what they were blind. Let the phrase “Know

what came before to know what comes afterwards” guide us.

The world in which we dwell in the 21st century is called

“postmodern.” It’s obvious that the 1910 Edinburgh World

Mission Conference, the 1928 Jerusalem World Mission

Conference, the 1938 Madras World Mission Conference, the

1947 Whitby World Mission Conference and the1952 Willingen

World Mission Conference took place in worlds that were“pre-

modern” or “modern.” These were the worlds of Western

colonization of Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Pacific.

They were worlds wherein the Christian self-understanding was

that of being the “only” world religion. Reflection on that time

of colonization and “unity” from the standpoint of a holistic

world reveals the locus of problems in these “world” mission

conferences.

First, though these conferences begin with the term

“world,” that “world” was led by Western nations and Western

Christians. It is not the “world” we face today. 1,200 people

participated in the Edinburgh “world” mission conference. The

majority came from Europe and North America. Only 17 came

from non-Western areas. Of the 231 participants in the 1928

Jerusalem “world” mission conference one out of four (52) were

non-Western. In 1938 at the Madras “world” mission conference

there was a significant change. Nearly half of the 471

participants were not from the West. At subsequent “world”

mission conferences the non-Western area representatives

outnumbered representatives of Western churches. Nonetheless,

the Taiwanese proverb, “A change of form but not of content”

applies. The main topics of discussion were “mission”: “The


Church in Mission”; “The World of Other Religions”;

“Christianization”, etc. The movement was from “Mission” to

“Church Mission” to “Other Religions” to “Christianization of

the World”.

Can we not sense deep foundational problem of historical

accumulation among these Christians? These “world” mission

conferences, from 1910 to 1952 focus on a single main point,

“non-Christian areas mission”, but the main speakers were

European evangelists, Euro-American mission board leaders and

Euro-American missiologists. What came from the Third-world

people who participated and contributed many ideas? Is this not

a mystery? Let a family situation illustrate the problem. Say that

you have problems. Some relatives and friends come to sit with

you, analyze your situation and help you find solutions. But you,

on the contrary, change your manner. They want you to hear

what they say, do what they tell you to do. If you disagree with

the opinions they offer, and act in ways that are not what they

direct, they become unhappy. Now return to the 1910

conference. Bishop Azariah from India spoke out the

frustrations of non-Western churches. He said that the churches

of India were eternally grateful for the sacrifices and

contributions made by Western missionaries. “You sacrificed

your lives, we still hope that you will offer us your love and

become our friends.”2 This statement at Edinburgh did not “steal

the show.” Western representatives failed to perceive the hope

of “friendship” in the bishop’s statement. This word contained

much of the third world churches’ grief and burden. Merely

looking at the main points of these “world” mission conferences

we can know the concerns of those who arranged them. It was

all about the policies of Western mission to the third world.

The main topic of the 1910 conference was “Concerns and

Problems of Mission to the Non-Christian World”. But where is

the problem? Was it in the so-called “non-Christian world” or in

2 T.V. Philip, Edinburgh to Salvador, 20th Century Ecumenical Missiology,

[Madras: SPCK, 1999], p.29）


the self-validating, non-cooperative and mutually deprecating

Euro-American churches and mission organizations? The

conference found it’s main focus located in Euro-American

church divisions and the ways to unite divided churches,

overcome sharp divisions of denominations and learn to

cooperate. “Unity” became the unceasing cry of ecumenical

church associations. But those churches and organizations

turned from original principles of Christian unity to strive for

structural unity. Though they made progress in superficial and

ceremonial aspects, the need for true church “unity” continues

as of old and is seen as impossible to attain. We hope that in the

future opportunities for everybody discuss “church unity” will

make it more than just a slogan. Standing for unity is truly

important, but the feeling behind it grows ever colder. From the

phenomenon of globalization in today’s world we must reflect

on the world as it was at the time of the 1910 conference.

Second, it is manifestly clear that globalization spread

like wildfire through the world in the later decades of the 20th

century and into the 21st. Globalization brings the world both

good things and disasters. It is not all one or all another. It must

also be said that the topic of the Christian Church as “a church

in mission” is not easily categorized either. In second half of the

20th

century, without preparation, the church and the world since

the Second World War rapidly became globalized. Because

nobody could have been sufficiently prepared for globalization,

we need to say something about “mission”. We need to move

beyond the idea that Jesus’ great commission recorded in

Matthew 28:10-20 can never change. Taiwanese Presbyterians

can see what has happened. Those who have repeatedly attended

General Assembly meetings have all experienced when a topic

was discussed for half a day, an entire afternoon or late into an

evening, and no consensus has developed. Then someone stands

and says, “This has gone on too long.” I suggest that the

Church’s original situation has changed. This affair has gone on

too long. The world is not in the same situation it was in at the

time Jesus spoke that commission. The world does not wait for


the church, but leaves the church “in the dust” and moves ahead.

This is the situation of all churches. It is the “mission

bottleneck” that cannot be escaped. Churches are not only

unable to cooperate, but more and more serve as the sources of

the constriction.

At the 1928 Jerusalem World Mission Conference one side

opined that the non-Western church must be self-established,

self-governed and self-propagating. The other side stood for

Western churches continuing to act take a leading role.

Naturally the equality of non-Western churches was important,

but Western churches acted as “more equal”. This echoes the

situation of the book Animal Farm by George Orwell. In that

story, on a farm which had been abandoned by the human

farmer, the animals arranged to run things themselves. Soon the

comparatively intelligent pig rose up and began to drink up

everything, loudly proclaiming, “All the animals are equal, but

Mister Pig is more equal than the others.” Of course this is a

satire, and is even humorous, but it also represents the divided

relationships between Western and non-Western churches. After

many years some situations have changed. Non-western

churches are self-governing, and self-propagating, but in terms

of their faith, theology, renewal and psychology, most continue

to follow the lead of Western churches and to imitate Western

models. We need to examine this.

Third, globalization will bring many troubling questions

that will test our faith. Theology is related to church mission

and binds us to questions of different cultures’ relationships to

Christianity. This is not a new question for the church to face.

We can say that 2000 years ago when the church reached from

Jerusalem into the “gentile” world it began to face the problem.

At the 1938 Madras World Mission Conference the question

provoked fervent discussion, and concluded with a Western

answer. The Dutch missiologist Hendrik Kraemer led a zealous

assault and seized the advantage, asserting that only in the

Christian message and faith is there hope for reconciliation and

remediation in this divided world. In today’s Palestine and the


Islamist terrorists who brought down the World Trade Center in

2001 there is testimony that the 1938 debating point was

erroneous. The viewpoints of non-Western church

representatives at the 1938 conference were not merely ignored,

they were cast aside by the Western thought of those leading the

discussions. From a globalized worldview of the 21st century it

can be said that the 1938 conference was a waste of words

insofar as it had anything to contribute to discussion of the

relationship of culture and Christianity. It is sad that more than

half of non-Western churches in today’s globalized world

remain unable to break out of the theoretical and theological

confinement of past Western churches’ forms. This is true of

both “mainstream” churches and of the Pentecostals. All are the

same. The error continues. Reactionary trends prevail. On

display are the banners of “I, alone, am noble.” We who come

afterwards bear a theological responsibility knowing that “Our

load is heavy and the way is long”

What can be said of today’s globalized world? In

religion and culture it is pluralistic. But this is a pregnant phrase.

Isn’t globalization an obvious sign of world progress? Take the

economy as an example. Under the protection of globalization,

hasn’t the economy become unified? Right. But culture and

religion are not the same as economy. The more and more

obvious that unification of economy becomes, the more and

more division appears in culture and religion in this “post-

modern” world. Christians have not been transformed in terms

of the relationship of Christianity and culture by Bible scholars

and theologians. Traditional Western churches continue to

maintain dominance and to hold non-Western theologies in a

spiritual headlock.

Fourth, the world of globalization is one of conflict

between religion and culture. This conflict will become ever

more serious. We have already noted the many years of

bloodshed and suicide bombings in Palestine and in territories

where Islamic fundamentalism or Christian fundamentalism

prevail. It is very unfortunate that agencies like the World


Council of Churches cannot protect anyone through position

papers and declarations. Actually, the World Council of

Churches through the process of “dialogue” has made not little

progress in moving differing cultures and religions towards

mutual understanding and respect, but the effect has been small.

“Mission” has not solved the problem or moved those in dispute

to think or act differently. To the contrary, “Mission” has

increased the number of theological problems, the greatest of

which is that old problems persist and new thought is not

brought to bear because of stubbornness. Bad reasoning goes

around in circles, and nothing comes to resolution.

In 1995 the World Council of Churches (WCC) issued a

proclamation in which Christian actions intended to convert

believers of other religions to Christianity was labeled as

“proselytism”. The proclamation pointed out that calling people

to conversion to Christian theology and principles causes many

problems and has many drawbacks. It carried an appeal for the

reconciliation of different religions and the taking up of “holistic

mission.”3 But the undefined “holistic mission” did not present

itself as a banner under which people might be moved to serve.

This type of declaration also failed to change the calls of WCC

member churches to people of other religious faiths to convert to

Christianity, believe in Jesus and get saved. The calls continue

in the mainstream churches that are members of the World

Council as they do in the Evangelical, Pentecostal and

Charismatic churches which have no WCC affiliation. In the

matter of conversion, mainstream, Evangelical, Pentecostal and

Charismatic Protestants all use the same measuring rods, which

are clearly described in the Church Growth Movement. It

becomes manifestly clear that declarations of international

ecumenical church agencies such as the WCC and the World

Alliance of Reformed Churches (WARC) have little impact in

this post-Christian world. As we discuss our churches’

3 Statements on Mission by the World Council of Churches, 1980-2005

(Geneva, 2005), pp.44-58


relationships with each other and with the world, we must admit

this truth.

Insofar as the world of globalization is one of conflict

between religion and culture, some historians and political

scientists have made statements that draw nodding approval.

Samuel Huntington (1927-2008) Emeritus Professor of Political

Science from Harvard University, often pointed out that under

economic globalization the conflict between culture and religion

would become ever more serious. But is this a conflict of

religions? If this is true (and we believe it to be so), we dare not

challenge the spirit and effort that has gone into many years of

inter-religious dialogue conducted through the WCC, the

WARC and others. We believe that “reconciliation” is at the

heart of the Kingdom of God as proclaimed by Jesus. This must

be the central emphasis of the church’s proclamation. But the

question remains, “How can reconciliation become rooted in the

message of today’s church?” Let us turn to one understanding of

Jesus and consider a few points for a later discussion of

partnership.

THE CHURCH AS GOD’S PARTNER IN RE-CREATION

Church Mission: Let us return to the central point of our

entire endeavor here. Where shall we start, from “mission” or

from “the church”? Does the church belong to the mission or the

mission to the church? Neither. The mission is God’s creation

(Genesis 1 & 2) and God’s re-creation (Rev. 21). In the church,

it is especially God’s re-creation, found both in incarnation and

in God’s dwelling among us (John 1:14). This is the nucleus of

this gospel’s message. The remainder of the teaching expands

on this nucleus. We must intentionally take our stand on the

second half of the statement: “the word dwelt among us.” This

is more important that the first half: “the word became flesh.”

This statement contains the theological high point of the writer

of the fourth gospel. None of us, not even that gospel writer,

knew the “HOW” of the word becoming flesh. This is a mystery

and secret that belongs to God’s act of creation. The purpose of


the writer of the fourth gospel was that we must attempt to

deeply understand the word “dwelling among us” (humanity).

Too often we focus on the first half, the incarnation. My

personal view is that our focus on incarnation forms the main

reason that the church and theologians are unable to break

through the mission bottleneck. When someone is sick, and

receives a diagnosis, he or she may undergo treatment to assist

in a cure. We in the church need some “treatment” to help us

break through the bottleneck in pursuit of healing.

You may wonder why I don’t start with creation. Isn’t

creation the beginning of the church’s mission? Among the

books I’ve written there’s even one entitled Creation as the Key

to Mission Reconstruction. At many meetings of international

church agencies the vogue theological term is Missio Dei. More

and more we hear sloganeering that asserts “God’s Creation”

and “Incarnation” as basic mission models. This presents a big

problem to traditional theology. It is a problem of conceptual

deduction. Theology is subsumed into deductive

conceptualization for amusement. Many theological essays are

exercises in conceptual repetition. But repetition does not

necessarily lead to clarity. On the contrary, things become

increasingly turgid. Theology becomes an arrangement of

concepts that cannot be known. The term “Missio Dei” on

everyone’s lips at these meetings is merely a slogan.

I will set a different view. I say, let’s not speak of the

RULES of God’s mission. Let’s not begin from “God’s

Creation” but from God’s Re-creation” or from “Continuous

Creation” Let us also use “the word dwelt among us” from the

fourth gospel as the nucleus of God’s direction in re-creation.

This contains a theological trap that few people may perceive.

Let me show it to you.

First: That God is the creator is one of our basic faith

affirmations. The problem is that many Christians have turned

this affirmation into a factual relic. The resulting positions of

creationism and evolution oppose each other as oil and water

that cannot mix. To break through we need only ask, “Who saw


God’s act of creation?” Doesn’t the conflict solve itself then?

Nobody saw God create the cosmos, the heavens and the earth

and all things (including humanity). Strictly speaking, we

humans are not co-creators with God. We, like everything else,

are created. God needed no partners in the act of creation. To be

the creator is the sole prerogative of God alone. There is no

other explanation. All of creation, including human beings,

exists only after God has created. Of course, people are curious

of both the “how” of God’s creation and of the “when” it all

began. But these are questions of cosmology. Up to now the best

that scientists have been able to tell us is that many billions of

years ago the universe emerged from a black hole in a “big

bang.” We ask, “Where was the black hole?” and “Who made

the black hole itself?” (Genesis 1:1) Scientists are still working

on those questions.

From a theological point of view we must assert that people

and all created beings are not God’s partners in creation.

Religion itself must be understood to have come about following

creation. Our scriptures, both the Hebrew Bible and the New

Testament, emphatically testify that following creation of the

cosmos many things happened among people, most of them

were tragic! The flood (Genesis 5-9), and the saga of Joseph

(Genesis 25 and following), the Exodus, the stories of Israel and

Judah, the stories of the prophets, all contain human tragedies.

From a theological standpoint it can be said, and from a

religious faith standpoint it can be seen, that this is the story of

God’s continuous creative work through people, things and

events. In this the cosmos, nature, and all that is created

(including humanity) become partners in God’s continuous

creation. The story of Jesus’ crucifixion from a Christian point

of view can be said to be the story of all stories, the tragedy of

all tragedies, the incomparable story par excellence. Through

the suffering and death of Jesus comes new life. It is the story of

God’s re-creation of life.

Second: (also from John 1:14) “The word became flesh and

dwelt among us (humanity).” We must be careful not to stop at


the first half of sentence “the word became flesh (incarnation)”

and persevere to the second part “the word dwelt among us

(humans”). Don’t you think so? Inquiring minds want to know,

so let’s look closely. “The Word became flesh (incarnation)” is,

like creation, God’s mystery. It’s something God did without

either inviting or needing us to participate in the act of

accomplishing it.

Our concern must be on “the word dwelt among us.”

This is God’s re-creation, the act of continuous redeeming of

people and concern for creation. In this work we are intimately

involved in conversation with God about salvation. Jesus is

God’s companion in the acts of redemption, salvation, re-

creation and continuous creation. In Jesus, ”creation” and

“incarnation” are connected. “Re-creation or continuous

creation” is bound to “the word dwelt among us.” In this way,

from “creation” to ‘’incarnation” to “re-creation (or continuous

creation)” to “the word dwelling among us” forms a broad circle.

We come at last to understand, from a Christian standpoint, how

it can be said that Jesus, this “word” is God’s re-creation. Again

and again in the cycle of three points, creation, redemption,

salvation the church and Christians are in supporting roles. We

are God’s partners in re-creation. This is the source of my

personal theology.

Let us regard Jesus as taking the lead role in God’s re-

creation. The church has a supporting role. In such an

arrangement the church, as the supporting actor, wants to listen

clearly to the leading actor, Jesus, and to support his every

action. So, what is at the very center of all that Jesus does? The

Kingdom of God. Not the Kingdom of God as you or I proclaim

it. Not the Kingdom of God as the church proclaims it, but the

Kingdom of God as proclaimed by Jesus Himself! Therefore, we

must rebuild the church’s mission from the Kingdom of God as

proclaimed by Jesus. Rigorously speaking, we must re-establish

the church’s ministry. In our traditional mainline churches,

“mission” is often seen as one aspect of the church’s work, not

as the whole thing. Because we do not locate the church’s


mission in the work of the Kingdom of God as proclaimed by

Jesus, we miss its wholeness, and confine the church’s mission

to what can be defined as “leading people to believe in Jesus and

be converted to Christianity. ” In so doing, we create a “church

mission” bottleneck. For nearly 2000 years now we have acted

on what we have received, and have created a binding cocoon of

church mission, encircling ourselves so tightly that we cannot

get out of this cycle. But the Kingdom of God as proclaimed by

Jesus can and will provide a way out of this confinement. In

breaking out of the cocoon, we will break through the bottleneck

of church mission.

The Church as the Partner in The Kingdom of God as

Proclaimed by Jesus

What is the Kingdom of God as proclaimed by Jesus? This

question is key for contemporary contextual church work

discussions. If we can come to a clear answer, then we can take

a long view of church ministry and proceed to re-create the

church’s “mission.”

Jesus’ “way” is the Kingdom of God. Jesus is the very

embodiment of the Kingdom of God. Jesus’ whole life, his death

on the cross, from beginning to end, demonstrates the Kingdom

of God. A few examples define the Kingdom of God as

proclaimed by Jesus for us. None will be new to you.

Jesus’ Mission Declaration From Luke 4:18-19

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has

anointed me to bring good news to the poor.

He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives

and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed

go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." (NRSV)

Do our churches’ own mission statements conform to this

one of Jesus about himself? Certainly our churches do a lot of

the things that Jesus claimed for himself. The problem is that

many of us do not recognize these things as “mission”.


The Prelude of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:3-12 and

Luke 6:20-23)

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom

of heaven.

"Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be

comforted.

"Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,

for they will be filled.

"Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy.

"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called

children of God.

"Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness'

sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

"Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute

you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my

account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in

heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets

who were before you. (NRSV)

The statements are fairly clear, but we have a problem in

that we link it to what follows in the chapter (in order to be more

righteous) and swallow it whole, then failing to understand it we

“spiritualize” the whole. This is our own interpretative problem,

and the result is that we spoil the text and fail to see the depths

of the meaning it contains. We often only assert the first verse,

(5:3) “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of

heaven” and ignore verses 4-9. We see “high spirituality” as a

personal thing, then ignore the starvation of the poor and neglect

questions of social injustice.

Not few believers also particularly excise the “before and

after” of Matthew 5:11 (Luke 6:22), assert that those who call

people to believe in the Lord and convert to Christianity will be

reviled, persecuted and falsely accused, but are not to lose heart

or retreat and must not be dismayed, because “your reward in


heaven is great.” Our churches have also committed the same

error and have covered it up. Don’t you know that Matthew 5:3

and Matthew 5:11, when removed from Matthew 5:4-9, cause

believers to fail to see the forest among the trees? Isn’t this a

distortion of Jesus’ meaning? This is a self-imposed limitation

that our churches must overcome in our speaking to the world in

“mission” world speaking. Otherwise we will be unable to break

through the bottleneck in “church mission.”

The Lord’s Prayer Matthew 6:9-13 (Luke 11:2-4)

Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name.

Your kingdom come.

Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.

And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven

our debtors.

And do not bring us to the time of trial,

but rescue us from the evil one.(NRSV)

Jesus teaches that we must be concerned with things on

earth; that heavenly things are God’s affair. There is no use our

worrying about heavenly things. But we often want to wall

ourselves off from things on earth so as to be able to focus on

heavenly things. This is called “spiritualization”. When this

overtakes “mission” we fall into “mistaking the means for the

end” or “concentrating on the details but forgetting the main

purpose.” It is no wonder that we can’t break through the

“church mission” bottleneck. We must put first things first, face

each day’s physical and spiritual life needs, learn the way of

hungry people, and call on God to give us strength as we engage

with the tides of evil and violence without becoming polluted by

them. We must be careful not to become “false good believers”

who are unconnected to the world. This is the ministry of the

church, because this is the work of the Kingdom of God as Jesus

proclaimed it.


God’s Re-creation Partner

Our traditions define “church mission” as calling people to

believe in the Lord and convert to Christianity. Seen from the

standpoint of the Kingdom of God as Jesus proclaimed it, this is

very one sided. It’s not very biblical and is theologically

illegitimate. If the church is to become God’s partner in re-

creation we must be converted from “The Great Commission”

(Matthew 28:19-20) to “Jesus’ Great Commandment” (John

13:34-35). Jesus “New Commandment of Love” must begin

from us and extend beyond the church. If we want to break

through the bottleneck of church mission this transformation

must not be neglected. “Church mission” traditionally speaking

equips the church to be God’s partner in creation. But the

church must become God’s partner in re-creation. This is the

rectification of the name “mission.”

Theology must lead a Christian “rectification of names”

movement. The 16th

century Protestant Reformation in Europe

can be seen in many ways as a rectification of the words used in

expressions of faith and theology. But any term, concept or

piece of specialized jargon, when used for too long, can suffer

two injuries. It can lose its original meaning and become empty,

or it can take on another meaning which is clearly different from

what it originally carried. This can be called “linguistic fate”.

When we encounter such a situation, we can attempt to hold

onto the original meaning as we use it, or create a new term to

express the meaning. Those who use words, either as producers

or receivers, must do so carefully so as to understand what

meanings are being expressed. Some cannot abide change. They

claim “this has forever been so, it can neither be changed or

amended.” The 16th

Century Protestant Reformation in Europe

can be seen as a linguistic and conceptual reformation. It had to

change Medieval Roman Church misuse of language from the

bottom up. This was really very good. But not long afterwards

the majority of the “reformation churches” relapsed to

“traditional” practices and concepts. For example, in reaction to

Roman “sacerdotalism” the Reformation churches posited the


principle of “the priesthood of every believer.” But today the

majority of Protestant churches, including the Presbyterian

Church in Taiwan, do not operate by this principle. This is but

one of our deficiencies.

The term or concept of Mission has been in use for a long

time, almost 2,000 years. It will take effort for any of us to insert

a new meaning into it without robbing it of all meaning.

Believers, hearing the term quite naturally understand it to mean

the responsibility of calling people to believe in the Lord and be

converted to Christianity. Preachers proclaim it to assert the

great responsibility of the church to influence people to convert

to Christianity. Of course, this understanding of “mission”,

strongly traditional in the church, will not die a natural death.

We must rectify the name, change its meaning, give it a new

nature. But what will this new nature be? Should we coin a new

term? I suggest that we keep the term, but change its content to

reflect “the responsibilities of the church” or “the tasks of the

church”. Conceptualize it as “the ministries of the church”. No

matter what change we make in its nature, whether we continue

to speak of “church mission,” or of “mission” or of “church

work”, that doesn’t matter. What is important is that believers

and church leaders come to experience the church as God’s

partner in re-creation and from this experience continue to live

out the action of the church as God’s partner in continuous

creation.

“Partner” The rectification of this term takes in five very

important things.

1) Partnership is not peripheral, but central. With

partnership at the center, other relationships are

established and ordered. The church’s main

partner is God as known in Jesus. We become the

partners of God through Jesus. We are not just to

renew the church for our own sake and do things

that please us.

2) The privilege of following God in the steps of

Jesus as partners is a glorious and difficult thing.


God’s work in this human-ruined world, the

cosmos, is not easy. The word (Jesus) dwelling

among us, actualizing the Kingdom of God is a

difficult thing. To be God’s partner, Jesus’ co-

laborer in re-creation is necessarily a difficult task

3) God’s continuous creation, Jesus’ non-stop work

of saving humanity, is a mission of holistic

reconciliation. It includes the spiritual and

material lives of people. We who are material in

orientation can work towards spiritual

reconciliation. Another way of looking at it is to

say that spiritual transformation can bring about

material transformation. For example, our

participation in environmental protection work is

both material and spiritual.

4) Church ministries of partnership with God in re-

creation are universally applicable phenomena.

God through Jesus Christ has not given the church

special rights and privileges. It was this

universality, this lack of privileged status, that

brought Jesus into direct debate and conflict with

the religious cultus of his time. God, as I

understand God, has not given first place to the

Christian church. Jesus himself articulated the

principle of “the last shall be first.” Starting from

here we must re-examine much of what we have

been taught in the church; things like “election”

and “predestination”. We must look at the stories

of Esau and Jacob, of the Hebrew people and the

Abrahamic races, of Christians and non-Christians

and all other relationships that put people into

categories and produce relationship problems.

These need revision if not total rectification.

5) Being God’s partners in ministry calls us to

question the “success mission” measurements that

press much of church work. Are these not errors?


These measures have caused some to ask, when

the church works for environmental protection, if

it is good for growth of membership. When the

church stands alongside the weak, it has been

asked if this will help towards accomplishment of

the congregation’s strategic goals. If a church

speaks up for such things as freedom and

democracy, some wonder if this will help the

church to expand. The questions are not wrong,

but they are questions for the church to ask itself

about itself. They are not considerations of the

church as God’s partner in re-creation, as Jesus’

partner in God’s continuous act of creation. We

must ask, so let us do so: If the church lives as

God’s partner in re-creation, will it’s ministry on

the earth expand? Is the church of any help at all

in this pluralistic post-modern era? Is the church a

tool of God for the relief and support of this world

in which the strong continue to prey upon the

weak?

I recognize that the need for the 21st century pluralistic

post-modern world to be “Christianized” will take all we can

offer, and still may not succeed. Does that make me a defeatist?

No. My recognition is historically rooted. We need not look to

other nations. In Taiwan, Protestant Christianity has been

proclaimed in this land for more than 140 years. But Taiwan is

not “christianized”. Many from Taiwan look to South Korea,

which is said to have experienced rapid and phenomenal

Christian growth. Now one South Korean out of four is a

Christian. But the growth of Christianity there has stopped short

of even that country becoming “Christianized.” In the wider

context of Asia, Christianity was proclaimed in China as early as

the 7th

century, and Mateo Ricci arrived there in the 17th

Century.

In the 19th

century Western Protestant churches rose up and

entered Asian work, but Asia is not yet “Christianized.” In our


current globalized world culture, religious conflict is pervasive.

Emphasis on world “Christianization” slights that which is

historical violates that which pertains to the church, and

produces danger. It throws oil onto the fire.

Conclusion

From now on the church in every corner of the world

must be transformed from the inside out. It must become the

partner of God in re-creation. It must be manifest as the word

(Jesus) dwelling among people. It must live out God’s

continuous creative recovery of the human heart, mending the

human-spoiled cosmos in partnership with God.


December 2008, pp. 128-150

Relativism and Difference:

Toward a Genuine Pluralism -The Multi-Religious Situation in Asia and

Its Challenges to the Mission-

Wang Shik Jang1

I. The Relationship between Relativism and the Pluralistic

Situation Today

Today religious pluralism is a scientific and

philosophical reality of life. The sciences and philosophy have

created a situation in which pluralism is unavoidable. A number

of contemporary philosophies these days, represented by process

philosophy or post-structuralism for instance, contend that

pluralism is a significant fact. Under the influence of modern

sciences based on quantum physics and relativity theory, it is

emphasized that reality is not one but many. Reality exists not

so much in itself but rather in relationship to other realities.

1 Prof. Dr. Wang Shik Jang is Dean of Graduate Studies and Professor of

Philosophy of Religion at Methodist Theological University, Seoul, Korea.

Relativism and Difference 129

Pluralism based on this vision of reality has become the

predominant force in our society. It is even praised as summum

bonum in this post-modern era and therefore, any positions

against it are to be regarded not only as the target of severe

criticism but also as an anachronistic behavior.

However, the reverse has been the case in the region of

religions. Especially, Abrahanmic religions, such as Judaism,

Christianity, and Islam, have always construed pluralism as a

kind of evil. The fight against pluralism has been viewed as one

of the most urgent duties for those Abrahamic religions. In this

way, while pluralism is considered a good virtue outside

religions, it is still considered to be an evil one inside many

religions.

This has been a theological burden for many Christian

theologians. If something that is regarded as a good virtue in the

world outside the church is continuously criticized as a vice

within the church, then it is tantamount to saying that the church

braves a danger of isolation from the world. Furthermore, it

implies that as the church is gradually alienated from the world,

it may finally become a ghetto in societies.

What is important here is that this is becoming a visible

phenomenon. Recently, a great number of intellectual minds in

the West have insisted that theistic religions, including

Christianity, are the ones that threaten world peace. Therefore, it

is said that theistic religions are not only meaningless

philosophically but also useless ethically. Some popular

scientists like Richard Dawkins and Edward Wilson have

produced books that attempt to undermine the value of

religions.2 They argue that theistic religions have done more

harm than good to the history of human beings. Some scientists

2 When it comes to atheistic and anti-religious movement, one of the

forerunners in scientific area is Richard Dawkins. See his books, such as The

Blind Watchmaker, (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1986) and The

God Delusion (London: Bantam Books, 2006). See also Edward Wilson’s,

Consilience: the Unity of Knowledge (Wilson: Vintage, 1999).


have even tried to start an anti-religious movement against these

religions.

In this essay, I will show that pluralism has been an

unavoidable element for the church and therefore, to adopt it is

not a matter of choice but rather a necessity. The church will

have little influence in societies, if it disregards the importance

of pluralism and keeps on dogmatically proclaiming their

absoluteness. Therefore, pluralism is an indispensable virtue for

Christianity, insofar as Christianity tries to remain one of the

living world religions.

Although pluralism has become an unavoidable fact even for

the Christianity, this does not mean that the church must accept

it without any conditions. First, since pluralism has been very

heterogeneous to the tradition of the church, a great number of

Christians may feel insecure when theologians try to embrace

pluralism. Therefore, in order for the church to embrace

pluralism, the first condition is that Christians should be

awakened to the new trend resulting from the philosophical and

scientific revolution. Unless Christians are accustomed to the

new trend, it is hardly possible to accept pluralism. Only as far

as Christian intellectuals are ready to assimilate the merits of

contemporary philosophies, such as Oriental philosophy,

Whitehead’s process philosophy, and the philosophy of post-

structuralism etc., will the church be able to feel comfortable

with pluralism. In what follows, I will first show how it will be

possible for the new methodologies of contemporary philosophy

to be integrated into today’s theology.

However, this does not mean that any kind of philosophy is

acceptable. In fact, the church could be damaged, if it is

misguided by a pluralism which has been affected by radical

relativism. Therefore, the second condition is to reject the

radical relativism caused by some secular philosophies today. It

is this radical relativism that has plagued pluralism and made

integration with the church difficult. Pluralism would not have

been detrimental to religion, including Christianity, if it had not

been based on radical relativism. Here, by the term “radical


relativism,” I refer to the position that believes absolutely that

truth only depends on situations and contexts so that there is no

universal truth. Or, I am referring to the position that since there

is no absolute truth and every truth is relative and equal, we will

finally get the same kind of salvation no matter what religion we

take. From my own point of view, this type of relativism has

been of great harm to the notion of pluralism, because it has

misled many people into interpreting pluralism in the wrong

way. Moreover, it is needless to say that this type of relativism

has been, and is still, dangerous to the future of Christianity.

Unless we overcome the challenge of such relativism, Christian

theology will continue to suffer from the ills of pluralism.

After clarifying the problems of pluralism imbued by such an

extreme relativism, I will suggest an alternative which could

enable us to interpret pluralism in a more appropriate manner,

replacing the radical relativism. Based on such an alternative

type of relativism, which is influenced by the philosophy of

differentiation, I will suggest a new understanding of pluralism,

which I call “deep pluralism.” By deep pluralism, I am referring

to a genuine pluralism that appreciates the importance of

difference among religions and really emphasizes pluralistic

situations without falling into the pitfalls of relativism. With

this type of pluralism, I will show how we can talk about the

uniqueness of one religion even in the age of pluralism. In other

words, I will not only attempt to elucidate how a Christian

theology is able to contribute to the cooperation of religions; I

will also claim that such pluralism can still talk about theism and

carry out a Christ-oriented mission even in this post-Christian

era.

II. Radical Relativism as the Problem of Religious Pluralism

We are living in the age of relativism. Relativism is pushing

our cultural consciousness. Although people do not have any

specific knowledge about the content of Einstein’s relativity

theory, they all know that relativism has been strengthened by

post-modernism and has been applied to cultures, ethics, and


philosophies. However, people are well aware that the history

has often been critical of relativism. Especially, when it comes

to religions, believers have held that relativism has caused

several negative effects. Why do people think that relativism is

dangerous to religion and what are the issues?

First, the potential negative effect of relativism becomes clear

when the issue of truth is discussed. Some people think that the

concept of truth has begun to be threatened with the rise of post-

modern thoughts. According to post-modernism, truth is

nothing more than the product of contexts and situations that

surround the person who is talking about it. And those contexts

and situations are not free from a structure that has been the

framework of them. Since the structure merely serves as a

skillful means to maintain a context temporarily, it is true to say

that there is nothing to remain in truth after its structure is

deconstructed. A truth, whether it is about history, or about

reason, or about subjectivity, is the byproduct of a makeshift

reality and therefore a relativized reality. For this reason, there

is no truth that is always universal and objective. What is right

or wrong depends on the then-known multitude of variables that

make up a given situation or reality. In short, there is nothing

absolute. This is what relativism is all about.

However, relativism doesn’t stop here; it goes one step further.

It doesn’t just hold that there is no such thing as universal and

objective truth. It goes on to argue that truth itself doesn’t exist.

Therefore, the affirmation on the relativity of truth easily leads

to the rejection of the truth itself. Of course, it is not true that

relativism always ends up with the rejection of the truth itself.

However, it is quite reasonable to say that in most cases, the

relativization of truth results in the demise of truth, leading to

radical relativism.

Then, what is left in the long run when truth is relativized

through radical relativism? It is obvious that moral defaults

based on nihilism are merely left behind. When truth becomes

relative and finally rejected, people usually fall into a dilemma

in making a moral decision to do what is right. This may either


hasten moral hazards at worst, or bring about ethical negativism

at best. In this way, a radical version of relativism often

becomes a threatening force to religions. This becomes ever

more evident if we consider the fact that nothing has been more

useful than religion, when it comes to solving the problems of

moral hazard and ethical negativism.

The second negative impact of relativism is related to religious

pluralism. Of course, no one would deny that relativism has

played a positive part in making religious pluralism effective.

When it is said that there is nothing absolute and therefore

everything is relative, relativism contributes to the spirit of

religious pluralism in which it is emphasized that all religions

are equally valid so that there is no one and only absolute

religion. This is why relativism functions positively for the sake

of religious pluralism in the sense that pluralism has facilitated

the cooperation of religions in peace-making. However,

relativism does not always play a positive part for religious

pluralism. On the contrary, it usually has brought about

negative consequences. Let us look at how this has occurred in

East Asian religions.

Relativism has played an important role in the philosophy of

East Asian religions, because a relational vision has been a key

factor of East Asian thoughts. For instance, it is well known

that the yin-yang thought in Taoism and Confucianism and the

doctrine of pratitya-samutpada (dependent co-origination, 緣起)

in Mahayana Buddhism have been derived from a relational

vision of reality. In these relational thoughts, it is claimed that a

thing does not exist independently of relationships with others.

This is why a relational vision easily results in a relativism that

construes everything to be relative. Up until this point, there is

nothing wrong with relativism in East Asian religions.

Problems arise only when such relativism based on a relational

vision leads to what I call “absolutizing relativism,” which is

another type of radical relativism. Why and how is such a

radical relativism problematic when it comes to religious

pluralism?


The point is that when relativism is related to religious

pluralism, it tends to go beyond the boundaries of its limitations.

Given that there is no absolute truth and everything is to be

relativized, some relativists begin to propagandize their idea as a

universal doctrine. They attempt to argue that there is nothing

that is exceptional to the principle of relativism. With that

argument, however, relativists are bound to universalize the

principle so as to absolutize it in the long run. Now, what I call

“absolutizing relativism” makes its appearance. By the term

“absolutizing relativism” here, I refer to the position which

absolutely holds that, since everything is so relative that its

existence is made possible only through its dependence on

others. Why is such relativism problematic? In addition, is it

really true to say that there is such relativism in East Asian

religions?

When the relativism based on such an absolutist type is

proclaimed, its principle does not merely apply to the dimension

of the mundane. For it is natural that the radical relativism as an

absolute principle is to be applied to the dimension of the trans-

mundane without an exception. As a result, the principle of

absolutizing relativism is so applied to the dimension of the

trans-mundane so as to assert that the dimension of trans-

mundane is to be relativized too. From the perspective of the

radical relativism, to say that the dimension of trans-mundane is

to be relativiezed is to say that it has never existed

independently. Furthermore, this leads to a radical type of

assertion that everything including the ultimate does not have its

own agency. In this way, the principle of universal relativity

applies to the dimension of the ultimate reality, finally insisting

that there is no difference between the ultimate as the

transcendent and what it transcends. This is apparent not only in

Kyoto School, which is one of the most radical philosophies in

East Asian Buddhism; it is also apparent in almost of all

Mahayana Buddhist Schools.

Francis Cook, one of the most famous philosophers in the area

of Hua-yen Buddhism in the West, says that he sees the ultimate


even in his cat, Leo. Employing the Buddhist doctrine of

Emptiness, which is also the principle of universal relativity in

Mahayana Buddhism, Cook identifies the cat as the finite with

the ultimate as the infinite.3

From Cook’s perspective, the

dimension of the ultimate is merely the extension of the non-

ultimate. Transcendence is simply the by-product of immanence.

It is interesting to see that there are some philosophers who

interpret even Confucianism in this way. Edward Hall and

Roger Ames are the ones who subscribe to such an

interpretation. According to them, the notion of transcendence

is not relevant to the interpretation of religions in East Asia.

They insist that Tian (Heaven, 天), which has been traditionally

regarded as an ultimate in Confucinism and Taoism, is to be

seen in terms of what our world is. Tian is not independent of

creatures, because what is ordered, i.e., the creatures, are

constitutive of what orders, i.e., the transcendent. Tian is simply

the field of creatures.4 In short, according to Hall and Ames, a

“strict” transcendence cannot be discovered in the East Asian

religions. The only thing that is discoverable in them is

“immanent” transcendence.5

Of course, it is hardly deniable that an “immanent”

transcendence was the one that has been so prevalent that such a

concept of transcendence can be regarded as one of the salient

characteristics of East Asian religious thoughts. But it is also

fair to claim that what they call “strict” transcendence has been a

strong notion in the mainstream of East Asian religious

traditions. This is a significant fact that can be verified in the

Book of Shijing (詩經) and the Book of Shujing (書經), both of

which have been very influential in East Asian Confucianism.

Chu Hsi’s (朱熹) neo-confucianism is also a typical example

3 Francis Cook, “This is It”: A Buddhist View of Ultimate.” Buddhist-

Chirstian Studies 9 (1989): 127-142. 4 Edward Hall and Roger Ames, Thinking from the Han: Self, Truth, and

Transcendence in Chinese and Western Culture (New York: State University

of New York Press, 1998), 18-193, and 219-224. 5 Ibid. See especially chapters 9 and 10.


that emphasizes the importance of strict transcendence. For all

of them, it is not an exaggeration to say that transcendence

exists a priori apart from human beings in a sense.

Furthermore, nobody would deny that “what the Heaven

orders is called human nature,” which means that according to

Confucianism, human nature has originated from the Heaven (or

the Transcendent).6 In other words, transcendence is said to

logically proceed human nature. In addition, it is needless to say

that transcendence in Mahayana Buddhist philosophies is also

described as strictly transcendent of the dimension of the

mundane. For instance, Dharma-kaya (法身), which is regarded

as the transcendent in Mahayana Buddhism, can be said to be a

priori to Nirmana-kaya (色身 ), which is described as an

incarnated body of Buddha in this mundane world.

Therefore, it is an overstatement to assert that the

transcendence in the East Asian religions does not have its own

agency; it is also far from the fact that the transcendence is

merely the extension of the world and human beings. Hall and

Ames’ interpretation as such is rather one of relative positions

that should not be absolutized. Not only is their argument

problematic when it comes to the religious history of East Asian

religions, but it is also fatal to the future of religions, because

the greatest problem created by an overemphasis on immanent

transcendence is that it may lead to the denial of any kind of

transcendence. This is because there is no significant difference

between the statement that the existence of transcendence can be

denied and the statement that there is no “strict” transcendence.

This would mean that there is no basis for assuring that there

exists a transcendent reality that is able to care about what is

happening in this world. It is clear that this may lead to the

death of religions in the future.

However, as I said before, one of the most important

problems created by absolutizing relativism is related to the

6 This is written in Chinese as follows: 天命之謂性 , 率性之謂道 , 修道之

謂敎.


issue of religious pluralism. What must be pointed out here is

that absolutizing relativism may become an obstacle to inter-

religious dialogue. A good many people are inclined to guess

that the religious pluralism based on relativism is undoubtedly

fruitful for the sake of inter-religious dialogue. However, this

has turned out to be wrong frequently, because every religion is

not only dominated by its own philosophy, but also ruled by its

system of faith. The system of faith is an important feature of

religion. Since the system of faith is usually dogmatic, it is not

easy for a religion to be tolerant of other religions. This can be

seen even in Buddhism, which has historically been noted as one

of the most tolerant religions. In the Lutus Sutra, one of the

most influential Buddhist Scriptures, this is expressed as follows:

In the Buddha-lands of the universe

There is only the One-vehicle Law,

Neither a second nor a third,

Except the tactful teachings of the Buddha.

But by provisional expressions

He has led all loving creatures,

Revealing the Buddha-wisdom.

In the appearing of buddhas in the world

Only this One is the real fact,

For the other two are not the true.7

What we have to be cautious about here is that “only this One

is the real fact.” For this is against what we usually consider the

spirit of Buddhism. It is well known that Buddhism has been

more tolerant of other faiths than any other religion. However,

here, we can see an exclusive attitude, when the Scripture

emphasizes that there is only “One” which is “the real fact.”

Furthermore, the Scripture also emphasizes that all others are

“not the true.” Nobody would deny that it is very easy for

Buddhists to accept religious pluralism, because the heart of the

7 The Threefold Lotus Sutra, tr. by Bunno Kato (New York: Weatherhill,

1975), 64.


Buddhist philosophy has always been associated with the

doctrine of dependent co-origination which leads to relativism.

However, the above Scriptural passage shows how a pluralistic

religion based on relativism can take an exclusive attitude

toward other faiths. Therefore, the real problem is not about

pluralism. It is about the relativism which is associated with

religious assertions whose tendency is dogmatic and therefore

absolutistic. In short, when relativism is applied to religion, it

easily turns into a vice, because it becomes vulnerable to the

lure of religious dogmatism. It goes without saying that this has

resulted in the conflict between Abrahamic religions and non-

Abrahmic religions in East Asia.

So far, we have seen how absolutizing relativism has brought

about some problems in East Asian religions. The rejection of

truth, the denial of the transcendence, and the failure of having

inter-religious dialogues with Abrahamic religions are the

problems that have been exemplified here. However, in short,

the most serious problem created by absolutizing relativism is its

tendency to absolutize its limited position. In other words, the

real problem caused by religious pluralism based on

absolutizing relativism is that while it appears to cry out the

importance of relativism, it virtually attempts to absolutize its

own position, which is limited and relative indeed.

In the next section, we will see in more detail how a new type

of pluralism can become an alternative to the general type of

religious pluralism. In what follows, I will propose such an

alternative and call it “deep pluralism,” which is considered

more genuine than the general one.8

III. Genuine Pluralism Based on Differentiation: an Alternative

So far, we have seen that the problems created by

pluralism are not caused by pluralism itself. They arise when

8 The term deep pluralism was borrowed from a Book, Deep Religious

Pluralism, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005), edited by David

Griffin. My essay entitled with “an Asian Christian Approach to Religious

Pluralism” is included there as one of the chapters (Chapter 11).


pluralism is associated with absolutizing relativism. Therefore,

the issue to be discussed here is how to assimilate relativism not

in a radical manner but in an appropriate manner.

Deep pluralism can incorporate relativism in an appropriate

way and therefore, become a genuine type of pluralism. This is

possible because pluralism today is founded on an emphasis on

difference. By utilizing a philosophy of differentiation, it will

not fall into the pitfalls of radical relativism which is vulnerable

and highly susceptible to the tendency of absolutizing. In other

words, based on this philosophy, deep pluralism can fully

integrate relativism in an appropriate way without being trapped

by absolutizing. In understanding how this is made possible, we

need to look at some characteristics of the philosophy of

differentiation with regard to the issue of religious pluralism.

As we saw in the first section, the major movement in

philosophy today is being dominated by a new vision of reality.

It is quite a new one, because it differs from the traditional

concept of reality. It is widely accepted that traditional

philosophies have had a tendency to describe the world and

everything in terms of a fixed being. This tendency is strong not

only in the philosophers like Plato and Aristotle; it is also strong

in some scientists like Sir Isaac Newton.9

However, the

situation has changed today. The world and everything are

described mainly in terms of becoming, change and process.

Nothing is fixed.

As time goes by in the West, the concept of change and

becoming was gradually elaborated and intensified by many

philosophers. Under the impact of natural sciences, it has been

stressed that everything changeable is moving toward newness

in evolutionary processes. Such a vision of reality was

especially developed in the West several decades ago under the

influence of the process philosophy of A.N. Whitehead. Post-

9 Isaac Newton’s physics is noted for the assumption that our universe is

made up of absolute time and space that are fixed and unchangeable. Of

course, this assumption has been criticized since the appearance of quantum

physics and relativity theory.


structuralism in Europe has also embraced this vision of reality

and elaborated it in a post-modern way. Now, it is emphasized

that everything is not only becoming and in process, but also in

differentiation. Here, the term differentiation is employed to

emphasize both the importance of being changed and being

changed differently. In addition, the spirit of this vision can be

expressed like this in short: everything becomes different. Or,

simply put, everything is differentiation.

Then, how is differentiation made? And, in what way is it

related to religious pluralism? In understanding this, it is

important to keep in mind two principles. First, where there is

“differentiation,” i.e., “becoming different,” there is something

distinctive. Second, differentiation arises only when one is in

relationship with others. These two principles are key to

understanding how differentiation is related to religious

pluralism. And they will help explain how deep pluralism is to

become an alternative.

If we employ the first principle, then we can talk about the

uniqueness of every religion. To say that one becomes different

is to say that there is something distinctive. Differentiation

cannot be discovered unless there is something distinctive that

did not exist before. This leads to the fact that as soon as we

hold, for instance, that Christianity is differentiated from

Buddhism, the uniqueness of Christianity is to be affirmed. This

is because when Christianity has become differentiated from

Buddhism, it is presupposed that something distinctive owned

by Christianity has played an important role in making such a

differentiation. In other words, if the two religions had been

exactly the same, then they would not have been differentiated

from each other.

The second principle teaches us how to talk about the

importance of others in one’s existence. To affirm that

differentiation arises only when one is in relationship with

others is also to affirm that the role of other beings is necessarily

required for one’s existence in a sense. When it comes to the

issue of religious pluralism, this will help us to understand how


other religions have made a great contribution to the existence

of a religion. Without the existence of other religions, any

religion would not be able to talk about its uniqueness. In other

words, uniqueness always presupposes the existence of others; it

does not exist in a vacuum. It is not solitary but relational, not

independent but interdependent. Uniqueness is not uniqueness

any more when others are pushed out of the picture.

If we have come to grips with these principles, we are now in a

position to understand in more detail how what I call “deep

pluralism” will be able to become an ideal type of pluralism

which can internalize relativism. When deep pluralism accepts

relativism, it really accepts relativity to the extent that other

religions are internalized in a genuine way. From the

perspective of deep pluralism, the existence of other religions is

necessary for the formation of one religion’s identity, because

even that identity would not have been a possibility without

making comparisons with other religions. In this way,

according to deep pluralism, one religion can assimilate

relativity in a serious way. This is why it is correct to say that

deep pluralism makes it possible for a religion to be engaged in

inter-religious dialogue more effectively.

Furthermore, deep pluralism can still get away from the trap

of an egalitarian approach, which says that every religion is the

same. As we know, this is one of the most serious mistakes a

general type of pluralism is usually faced with. A general type

of pluralism, which is usually based on radical relativism, is so

attracted by such egalitarianism as to proclaim that no matter

what religion we believe in, we will be saved any way. Or, it is

even affirmed that we will attain the same goal, no matter what

road we take. However, from the perspective of deep pluralism,

it is easy for us to avoid this problem. As we have seen, the first

principle of deep pluralism offers a logical method, through

which the differentiation among religions can be made. This

enables us to emphasize the diverse uniqueness of religions. Of

course, this does not mean that, for instance, Christianity has

something distinctive that is never apparent in Buddhism. In


more detail, some may insist that the love (agape) given by

Jesus may not be distinctive from the love (karuna) given by the

bodhisattva named Darmakara in the sense that both resulted

with the same consequence. And, of course, it is hardly

deniable that while Christians have been saved by their

performance of agape, Buddhists have been saved by their

performance of karuna.

Nevertheless, in terms of deep pluralism, it is equally

plausible to assert that something distinctive has played a

significant role in how people practice and internalize their

religion. In the case of Christianity, for instance, it is to be

emphasized that Jesus’ agape has always been performed under

the impact of God’s grace. By contrast, in the case of Buddhism,

the bodhisattva’s love did not have to be performed under the

impact of God’s grace, because it is obvious that there is no such

God in Buddhism.10

The point here is that religious pluralism

does not have to lead to the affirmation that all religions are the

same and therefore it does not matter which religion we take.

Let me put this in another way. A religion is limited by the

structure of a culture, and the limitation tends to make a

religion’s absolute position damaged and therefore relativized.

From this point of view, the uniqueness of a religion may

disappear. At the same time, however, the limitation also partly

plays a significant role in making the religion differentiated

from other religions. At this stage, the uniqueness of the

religion is retrieved. In this way, one religion’s identity is

defined by its uniqueness as well as its relativity. And this is

10

Some may argue that a Mahayana sect has posited an existence of a

personal deity even in Buddhism. Yes, this is true, for instance, in the case of

Pure Land Buddhism. But, even in this case, Amitabha Buddha, i.e., the

personal deity in Pure Land Sect, has to be distinguished from the personal

God of Christianity. This is because the personal deity of Pure Land Sect

cannot be described as the Ultimate Reality, which is identified with God in

the Christian case. In the case of Pure Land Buddhism, the Ultimate Reality

is Dharma-kaya (法身), which has to be distinguished from other deities that

are usually considered finite in Buddhism.


why deep pluralism is distinguished from the general type of

pluralism in which the egalitarian approach is dominant.

Now, we are ready to see how deep pluralism is able to solve

the other two problems created by the general type of pluralism:

the denial of truth and the denial of transcendence. The

problems are to be solved again by utilizing the philosophy of

differentiation. The theory of differentiation holds that since all

things are limited and relativized, they have to be complemented

by others. This is why deep pluralism based on relativism

insists that all things are really relative so as to relativize their

own position. And, thanks to the relativity of everything, all

religions are doomed to be complementary. This makes us

understand why and how an atheistic religion needs to be

complemented by theistic religions. For instance, the Buddhist

doctrine of emptiness and nothingness should be complemented

by the doctrine of transcendence. Of course, in the case of

Christianity, the doctrine of God that is focused on God’s

absolute attributes may be complemented by a doctrine that

emphasizes God’s relativity. In this way, inter-religious

dialogue can be intensified if we employ deep pluralism. A

serious problem of religious pluralism based on absolutizing

relativism is, as we have seen in the case of East Asian religions

above, to deny the dimension of the transcendent. Owing to this

relativism, religious pluralism has failed to make some

Buddhists harmonize with other religions, i.e., with Abrahamic

religions whose theological characteristics are theistic. Deep

pluralism’s emphasis on the dimension of transcendence will

solve this problem too.

This is to say that the most essential contribution Christianity

can make in the age of pluralism is its emphasis on the

transcendence. As we have seen, almost all of the problems

created by relativism are related to the rejection of

transcendence. Therefore, many atheistic religions including

Buddhism, which are vulnerable to the problems created by

radical relativism, need to consider a theistic approach seriously.


Only with this approach, are they able to overcome the problems

associated with relativism.

In this way, deep pluralism, which can be integrated into a

Christian theology in our case, tries to be theistic. This is not

only to say that a pluralism based on theism will be worthwhile

for the inter-religious dialogue between Abrahanmic religions

and East Asian religions; this is also to imply that only a theist

type of pluralism can become an alternative to the religious

pluralism based on absolutizing relativism which has been faced

with the problem of contradiction.

An absolutizing relativism is hardly free from the problem of

contradiction, because it cannot help but relativize everything

including its assertions about relativism itself. The fact that

absolutizing relativism is bound to be contradictory has also

been the reason why relativism is in trouble with the issue of

truth. Therefore, I have emphasized that we need pluralism

based on a theistic position. With a deep pluralism, it will be

easier for us to adopt a theistic position, because deep pluralism,

whether it is Christian or Buddhist, cannot be called “deep”

unless it is so relative as to integrate other religions’ positions

into itself. In other words, Buddhist pluralism, for instance, may

want to adopt a theistic position, as far as it wants to become the

religion of a genuine pluralism. Buddhism is well prepared to

adopt such pluralism in the sense that Buddhist sect called Pure

Land has already offered the notion of a theistic ultimate. In the

Christian case, a genuine type of pluralism may be willing to

integrate the concept of impersonal Deity which is quite similar

to that of ultimate reality in Buddhist religions.11

IV. The Meaning of Mission in the Age of Religious Pluralism

One of the most intriguing tasks Christians are faced

with in the age of religious pluralism is to witness “the good

news” to the people of other religions. How is it possible for

deep pluralism to carry out that mission? In what way is it able

11

See Deep Religious Pluralism, in which some theologians, including me,

have asserted that God can be described as having both characteristics.


to conduct the task of evangelization even in this post-Christian

era? In other words, with this kind of pluralism, is it still

possible for Christians to be committed to Jesus Christ?

These questions seem to be complicated. However, the

answer is quite simple. The main reason why it is possible for

Christians to be deeply committed to Jesus Christ in the age of

religious pluralism is that, thanks to the basic principle of deep

pluralism, Christians can emphasize the uniqueness of Christian

gospel. In order for us to see why this is so, suffice it to see

what we have discussed so far one more time.

We can recall that the most obvious fact all religions have

come to realize in the age of pluralism is that they are all limited

and relative. Of course, this has resulted in the rejection of one

religions’ absolute value. However, interestingly enough, this

has enabled us, thanks to the philosophy of differentiation, to

accept one religion’s unique validity. One religion is

differentiated enough from others to have its own validity.

As you remember, this is possible because one religion’s

relativity can finally bring about differentiation. Of course,

relativism pushes us to admit that all religions are not complete

and therefore, relative to each other. And, this is the reason why

they need to be complementary. Otherwise, the limitation of one

religion would no longer be corrected or improved. However, at

the same time, the relativism also makes us admit that a religion

can be sure of its own conviction too. For, as we saw above,

relativity not only talks about one’s limitation; it also talks about

one’s uniqueness. If we apply this principle, then Christian

believers can be sure of the validity of their gospel. This could

make it possible for Christian believers to proclaim the good

news of their religion to the people of other religions, because

the conviction derived from Christian uniqueness calls for the

mission to correct other’s weaknesses. In addition, this shows

why evangelization is still worthwhile in the post-Christian era.

In short, Christianity is able to intensify the mission even in the

age of religious pluralism.


Here, it should be remembered that the central idea of deep

pluralism is Christ-oriented. Since all religions are limited and

relative, they have to be complemented by others including

Christians. Thanks to this fact, Christians can emphasize the

uniqueness of Christian gospel. Now, it makes us understand

why pluralism can and should be Christ-oriented in terms of

Christians. This becomes assured when we are engaged in inter-

religious dialogue. When the validity of Christian gospel is

given, the dialogue is bound to be oriented, on the part of

Christians, toward Christ’s uniqueness. This is because when

people have inter-religious dialogue, they cannot help but start

with what they know best here and now. The best thing they

know about here and now is of course what they have convinced

themselves of, i.e., their own religions. This is why it is quite

natural for Christians to be Christ-oriented in inter-religious

dialogue. This also shows the reason why religious pluralism is

to be Christ-oriented on the part of Christians. In other words,

in terms of Christians, religious pluralism is always and

necessarily Christ-oriented.

The concept of Christ-oriented pluralism based on the

philosophy of differentiation can be extended to other

theological categories too. Traditionally, the central

characteristic of Christian religion has always been linked to the

concept of God. Therefore, the deep pluralism that has been

discussed as an ideal type here is to call for the fact that

Christianity will be responsible for changing the world by means

of its theological tools which are unique. It can be pointed out

that such concepts like God as personal, transcendent, and real,

etc… can be listed into the category of these theological tools

that make Christianity unique in this pluralistic age. And, of

course, these characteristics will continue to be able to

contribute even to non-Abrahmic religions in the sense that the

non-Abrahamic religions are lacking in those concepts in some

respects.

Of course, it should not be forgotten that the emphasis on

these concepts should, on the part of Christianity, be open-


minded and therefore, complemented. In other words, these

Christian concepts have to be kept in balance with some

concepts of other religions. For instance, the Christian notions

of God as personal, transcendent, and real need to be balanced

with the non-Abrahamic notions of the Ultimate: for instance,

such notions like an Uitimate as trans-personal, an Ultimate as

immanent, and an Ultimate as non-real, all of which are not

usually salient to Abrahamic religions.

However, again, there is one thing we have to be cautious of

here. Proclamation and evangelization should not be carried out

without the recognition of other religions’ validity. In the age of

religious pluralism, which views every religion as having its

own validity, Christian’s proclamation and evangelization must

be conducted in a two-way process. Since it is true to say that

Christianity is also limited and relative, it must be enriched by

other’s contributions. Based on the assumption that other

religions have the positive values to share, Christians must

concede that they need to learn something from others, or even

to be corrected by them. This is why proclamation and

evangelization should be conducted on a two-way basis.

Mission is not about a unilateral proclamation. It is about

mutual transformation through dialogue.12

The dialogue based

on the bilateral basis should be extended to other religions too.

Believers, whether Christian or other, need to make an effort not

only to change the outdated religious concepts in their religious

tradition, but also to transform those of others.

Let us talk about the final question that might be raised with

regard to religious pluralism. What about conversion to

Christianity? Is conversion to Christianity from other religions

still available in the Christian community?

12

That the Christian concept of mission needs to be elaborated in this way

has been emphasized by many theologians. For instance, see John Cobb’s

Beyond Dialogue (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982). And see Paul

Knitter’s book, Jesus and the Other Names (New York: Orbis Books, 1996),

especially chapters 6&7.


Here, we have to approach this issue from two different

aspects. As far as the regions of the earth that are not dominated

by what we call “living world religions” are concerned, a

conversion-oriented mission has been successful so far. It is

phenomenal that a large number of people under local

indigenous faiths have been converted to Christianity and, for

this reason, a mission strategy focused on conversion might still

be effective. This is more likely to be true in the case of the

missionaries who are investing their sweat and blood on the

people who have suffered from the shackles of superstitious and

exploitive religions.

However, this is not the case for those who are serving in the

areas that are ruled by living world religions. The statistics

which show how successful the conversion model of mission

has been in those areas are really frustrating. Only a small

number of people living in the regions of Buddhism, Judaism,

Islam and Hinduism have been converted to Christianity so far.

It is not likely that the situation will change in the future. I am

not saying that conversion as such is no longer possible in these

regions. The point is that only when the conversion-oriented

mission meets some conditions, will it become a possibility in

the future.

First, the most significant thing with respect to the issue of

conversion is, from the Christian perspective, to understand that

it is the time to make the distinction between the conversion to

the church and the conversion to God. Of course, it is possible

to assert that the conversion to the church is still of great

importance for the sake of Christianity. There might still be

some cases in which the conversion to the church is worthwhile,

as I said above. However, even in this case, we should

recognize that priority should be put on the conversion to God,

because the purpose of mission is not the church itself but God.

It is more appropriate to say that the main function of the church

is to serve as a tool for the Kingdom of God. Therefore, a


deeper conversion of all humankind toward God should be the

goal of proclaiming the good news to others.13

Second, strategically as well as morally, it is quite significant

to remember that the efforts to convert others to Christianity

must not be interpreted as aggressive or militant from the

perspective of the other believers. The process of converting

others should be performed only within the framework of

mutual enrichment and mutual transformation. In this pluralistic

world, the other believers will not listen to us at all, if they feel

that there is nothing of mutual benefit to be gained. If it is

perceived that there is nothing to learn or nothing to teach, then

the dialogue won’t even start. Unless this is presupposed, the

desire to convert others will be frustrated all the time.

Concluding Remarks

In this pluralistic age, we as Christian theologians need

to admit that it is Christianity that first has to reflect on its

exclusive attitude towards other believers. It is not

recommendable for us Christians to pinpoint other’s absolutist

attitude. We are the ones who are in need of change.

For us to change, the first thing Christians have to do is

to consider the value of relativism seriously. It is undeniable

that the solution to the problems caused by an exclusive attitude

is best met when Christians embrace a relativistic understanding

of truth.

However, there are some conditions to be made when we

incorporate relativism. Otherwise, relativism may be so

misused that it could bring about an inappropriate pluralism in

which both the relativity and uniqueness of one religion are to

be ignored.

This is why I have made an effort to propose a genuine type

of pluralism that is able to solve this problem. Deep pluralism

based on the emphasis on differentiation provides us with an

ideal methodology for establishing a better type of religious

13

A good discussion on this can be discoverable in Paul Knitter’s Jesus and

the Other Names. See especially 121-124.


pluralism. With this pluralism, it will be easy for us to

strengthen the affirmation that since all religions are limited and

relative, they have to cooperate with each other. This will

facilitate and promote inter-religious dialogue.

In addition, with this pluralism, we will be able to claim that

since all religions are equally valid, the uniqueness of one

religion should be affirmed. This will lead us to be committed

to Jesus Christ in this post-Christian era and to perform mission

even in the age of religious pluralism.


December 2008, pp. 151-180

Some Reflections on Tourist Evangelism

in Tropical Africa

J.N.K. Mugambi1

1. Introduction

Since the last quarter of the nineteenth century tropical

Africa has been a competitive destination for uninvited visitors

from Europe and North America. Their interests in Africa have

been varied. Some have come to conquest and build empires.

Cecil Rhodes was the most famous in this category. He wanted

1Prof. Dr. Jesse N.K. Mugambi, Ph.D, a distinguished scholar of Philosophy

and Religious Studies is Professor at University of Nairobi, Kenya. He is

Professor Extraordinarius, University of South Africa. Dr. Mugambi serves

as the Director, Programme for Ethics in Eastern Africa; Member, WCC

Working Group on Climate Change; Trustee, Kenya Rainwater Association;

Director, Kenya Literature Bureau, and Director, Acton Publishers, Nairobi.

<www.acton.co.ke>.

* This Paper was originally prepared for the AACC Consultation on"

Strengthening Theological Thinking for the African Renaissance" Silver

Springs Hotel, Nairobi, 7-12 August, 2006. It was revised for publication in

the Journal Theology and Cultures.

.


to build a British empire in Africa stretching from Cape Town in

the south to Cairo City in the north. Others have come to

plunder Africa’s valuable minerals, from gold to Uranium; from

oil to titanium. Others have come to hunt for Africa’s insects

and animals, from butterflies to lions, elephants and rhinos. Still

others have been attracted by Africa’s flora, from orchids to

tropical hard wood. Some came to settle and make tropical

Africa their adopted home, with their cultural roots in the North

Atlantic and their physical residence in Africa. Apartheid was

The ugliest result of this category of visitors was Apartheid.

There are those who have come to enjoy the beauty of Africa’s

mountains, valleys, plains and beaches. There are still others

who have come to study African peoples and re-confirm the

racial prejudices learned in high schools and universities back

home. Perhaps the most interesting of uninvited North Atlantic

visitors to Africa have been the Christian missionaries, whose

interest has been to “harvest” Africa’s souls for salvation in

heaven.

The competition for salvation Africa’s souls has been so

intense that almost every North Atlantic Protestant missionary

agency, and almost every Catholic congregation has sent

missionaries to tropical Africa. The reports of these agencies are

almost always reports of success, even when no converts are

‘harvested’. Since the 1960s tropical Africa has been a

competitive arena for tourist evangelists, whose ostensive

objective has been to “win souls for Christ”. It is ironical that

the Christian missionary invasion of tropical Africa from Europe

and North America has been in inverse proportion to the

secularization of the North Atlantic. It would have been

reasonable to expect that the tourist evangelists would be keen

to re-evangelize their countries before venturing elsewhere. In

practice, however, tropical Africa remains a cheap and attractive

destination for evangelists who might have nowhere else to go

so easily.

The growth of materialism and secularism in Europe and

North America may have something to do with this

Tourist Evangelism 153

“evangelistic outreach”. But why do they flock to tropical Africa,

rather than Mediterranean Africa, West Asia, South Asia,

Central Asia or East Asia? During the cold war, there was a

deliberate effort from the North Atlantic to spiritualize African

Christianity and protect Africans from the materialism and

secularism that was at that time associated with Communism.

The Christian missionary enterprise came to be openly

associated with Capitalism. Tourist Evangelists became at the

same time harvesters of African souls and promoters of Euro-

American values and virtues. There are plenty of studies

documenting this point, including my own works2 and those of

writers such as Paul Gifford,3 Gerrie ter Haar,

4 Stephen Ellis,

5

Jeff Haynes6 and others.

7 This paper is a critical exploration of

this category of Africa’s uninvited guests – the ‘tourist-

evangelists’.

What makes tropical Africa such a popular destination

for tourist evangelists? A wide variety of answers to this

question can be discerned. Some Tourist Evangelists come to

Africa posing as 'faith healers'. In a region where the majority of

people have no access to affordable medical care, it can be

expected that anyone who claims to offer 'free' treatment is

2 J.N.K. Mugambi, The Biblical Basis for Evangelization, Nairobi: Oxford

University Press, 1989; J.N.K. Mugambi, From Liberation to Reconstruction:

African Christianity after the Cold War, Nairobi: EAEP, 1992; J.N.K.

Mugambi, Christianity and African Culture, Nairobi: Acton, 2002; J.N.K.

Mugambi, Christian Theology and Social Reconstruction, Nairobi: Acton

Publishers, 2003; J.N.K. Mugambi, J.N.K. Mugambi, “A Fresh Look at

Evangelism in Africa”, in Paul W. Chilcote and Laceye C. Warner, eds, The

Study of Evangelism: Exploring a Missional Practice of the Church, Grand

Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2008, pp. 352-73. 3 Paul Gifford, The Religious Right in Southern Africa, 1988; New

Dimensions in African Christianity, Nairobi: AACC, 1992; African

Christianity: Its Public Role, London: C. Hurst, 1998. 4 Gerrie ter Haar, African Christians in Europe, Nairobi: Acton, 2001.

5 Stephen Ellis and Gerrie ter Haar, Words of Power, London: 2004.

6 Jeff Hynes, Religion and Politics in Africa, London: Zed Books, 1996.

7 Mika Vähäkangas and Andrew Kyomo, Charismatic Renewal in African

Christianity, eds., Nairobi: Acton, 2003.


likely to have an audience. Most tourist evangelists are

entertainers, with retinues of musicians, dancers and clowns to

hold the attention of their audiences. Most of them are also

populists, who deliberately focus on superficial topics which are

of concern ordinary people, especially the youth. The timing of

the 'crusades' organized by the tourist evangelists tends to

coincide with either the holiday season in their home countries,

or with the winter season. Thus the 'crusades' are combined with

'holiday' in Africa, or they are timed as an escape from the

wintry cold. There is also a business aspect of tourist evangelism.

Most tourist evangelists have business enterprises for selling

books, souvenirs, audio and video-casettes most of which are

recordings of the evangelists' preaching and healing sessions.

Some have training programmes and institutes into which

Africans are invited to enroll, either on payment of fees or on

'scholarships' donated by unnamed benefactors.

I first became aware of tourist evangelism when Billy

Graham made his tour of Kenya in the early 1960s. It was

around the same time that the British pop singer Cliff Richard

also toured Kenya, and I wondered what qualitative difference

there was between Billy Graham and Cliff Richard. Did they

compete or complement each other? My first direct encounter

with Tourist Evangelism was in 1968 when Oral Roberts staged

his healing crusade at Kamukunji Grounds in Nairobi. The

slogan advertising his tour was "Expect a Miracle". That

afternoon I left the high school where I was teaching Religion

and rushed to Nairobi city centre to witness the promised

miracles. I was disappointed, but I began to appreciate what the

manipulation of crowds can do. The Kamukunji grounds were

packed with people, obediently seated on the grass in rows with

aisles and passages as in an open theatre. The vehicle traffic on

the nearby road did not move. Everyone expected miracles to

happen. Oral Roberts began by declaring that he was going to

perform no miracle. Rather, he said, only God could perform

miracles. Like others who had come in anticipation, I felt

cheated through the advertisements which had promoted the


tourist evangelist rather than God. If it was God performing

miracles, and if we had come to witness the works and

utterances of the tourist evangelist, what was the relationship

between God and the evangelist? What was the relationship

between the Evangelist and Jesus Christ? The session that

afternoon did not provide answers to these and many other

questions, which continued to nag my mind for many years

afterwards.

During the 1970s another wave of tourist evangelists

invaded Kenya. The most maverick was Carl McIntyre in

August 1975. He had organized a conference ahead of the Fifth

Assembly of World Council of Churches (WCC) which was

scheduled for November that year. To confuse us all, McIntyre

called his meeting the International Council of Christian

Churches (ICCC). He addressed a Press Conference in which he

praised Ian Smith for his policies in Zimbabwe, and criticized

Africans who opposed Smith. According to him, the racist

regimes in Africa (South Africa, Namibia, Angola, Mozambique,

Guinea Bissau, Cape Verde and Western Sahara) were

upholding the "Christian Civilization" in this continent. When

he was asked to apologize for insulting African leaders, he

instead demanded an apology. He had to leave Kenya before his

conference was concluded.8 Since then many tourist evangelists

have visited Africa, including Harry Das, Benny Hinn, TD Jakes,

Joyce Meyer and Reinhard Bonke. The following reflections are

based on both my acquaintance with Tourist Evangelism and my

theological analysis of the phenomenon.

2. Literature Review

In 1971 Professor John S. Mbiti published his famous

book, New Testament Eschatology in an African Background.9

8 The story of Carl McIntyre in Kenya in August 1975 was covered in the

daily newspapers in Kenya including the Daily Nation and Target. 9 John S. Mbiti, New Testament Eschatology in an African Background,

Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971.


In that book he observed that millenarian tendencies had taken

roots in some areas in Africa, such as Ukambani (eastern Kenya)

where he had conducted his doctoral research. He opined that

perhaps this attraction to millenarianism might be attributed to

the excitement of African converts by the eschatological

promises of the Gospel. This hypothesis did not account for the

fact that millenarian Christianity was introduced into tropical

Africa from the North Atlantic, particularly from North America.

It was not invented in Africa. In the same year David B. Barrett

published an anthology of essays under the title African

Initiatives in Religion.10

The book classified African Christian

initiatives into to categories, "orthodox" and "unorthodox". The

"unorthodox" initiatives, according to this categorization, were

those which did not conform to the expectations of the modern

missionary enterprise. Thus the African instituted churches were

"unorthodox" while the East African Revival Movement was

classified as "orthodox". This categorization could not account

for tourist evangelism, because it had not yet become a

characteristic feature of African Christianity.11

The Congress for World Evangelization was convened at

Lausanne, Switzerland, in 1974. It was intended to become an

initiative in competition against the World Council of Churches

(WCC), which was viewed in some North Atlantic circles to be

too 'secular'.12

Ironically, both the WCC and the Congress were

based in Switzerland, on opposite sides of Lake Geneva. As

follow up to the Lausanne Congress the Pan-African Christian

Leadership Assembly (PACLA) was convened at the City of

Nairobi in 1976. The African Evangelistic Enterprise (AEE) was

formed as part of the same initiative. The sequence of these

10

David B. Barrett, ed., African Initiatives in Religion, Nairobi: East African

Publishing House, 1971. 11

Hannah W. Kinoti, 'Christology in the East African Revival Movement, in

J.N.K. Mugambi and Laurenti Magesa, eds, Jesus in African Christianity,

Nairobi: Acton, 1998, pp. 60-78. 12

John Stott, The Lausanne Covenant: An Exposition and Commentary,

Minneapolis: World Wide Publications, 1975.


events is instructive. Tropical Africa became a 'battleground' of

competing Christian lobbies and ideologies. Ecumenism was

supposedly inconsistent with evangelicalism. A true evangelical

was not expected to be associated with the ecumenical

movement. John G. Gatu rejected that dichotomy, and was

associated with both the ecumenical movement and the

evangelical initiatives. Being a member of the WCC Central

Committee, he attended the Lausanne Congress and strongly

advised that both the ecumenical and the evangelical thrusts

were essential for authentic expression of the Christian faith in

Africa and elsewhere.13

Many evangelical, charismatic and Pentecostal

organizations from North America infiltrated the campuses of

high schools, colleges and universities throughout tropical

Africa. The main objective was to spiritualize and individualize

the Christian students in order to distract them from socio-

political activism. It is important to remember that North

America during the 1960s was aflame with the civil rights

movement and the campaign against the invasion of Vietnam.

Likewise, Britain and continental Europe were aflame with the

student riots. The strategy to spiritualize African school and

college campuses was intended to prevent social activism from

spreading to the continent, especially in the context of struggles

against colonial rule and institutionalized racism. The Cold War

had made Africa a battleground for the competing ideologies.

Tourist evangelism openly campaigned for capitalism and

individualism, against Communism portrayed as "godless" and

therefore evil. Tourist Evangelism in tropical Africa since the

1980s has been a direct follow-up of that investment in

evangelistic individualism. The individual is encouraged to

deepen one's personal relationship with God. Whatever one does

at the social and institutional level is of no interest to this kind of

Christianity.

13

John G. Gatu, Joyfully Christian and Truly African, Nairobi: Acton, 2006.


During the 1980s Paul Gifford conducted research on

tourist evangelism in southern Africa, which was published

under the title The Religious Right in Southern Africa. He

observed that various organizations funded from North America

had been introduced into southern Africa to undermine the

struggles against Apartheid through the strategy of deflecting

the youth and students away from socio-political activism,

towards individualistic piety.14

3. Five Types of Ecclesiastical Structure

In my book From Liberation to Reconstruction (Nairobi:

EAEP, 1995) I have categorized Christian churches into five

types according to the way authority is exercised.15

The first is

the Episcopalian type, in which authority is exercised in a

hierarchy, with the bishop at the apex of the pyramid. This type

includes the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church and

the Orthodox churches.

These three groups of churches, though hierarchical,

differ from each other significantly. The Roman Catholic

Church is highly centralized, having the Pope as the supreme

head of a global organization and with Rome as the centre of

administrative authority. When a Pope dies a conclave of 117

Cardinals at the Basilica of St. Peter in the Vatican meets to

elect a successor. Cardinal Ratzinger from Germany was elected

Pope Benedict XVI in April 2005 after the death of Pope John

Paul II from Poland. In 1979 the conclave had met to elect the

Polish Cardinal Carol Woytyla, who became Pope John Paul II.

It is the first time in nearly five centuries that two consecutive

non-Italian popes have been elected into the papacy.

14

Paul Gifford, The Religious Right in Southern Africa, Harare: University of

Zimbabwe Press, 1988. 15

J.N.K. Mugambi, From Liberation to Reconstruction: African Christian

Theology after the Cold War, Nairobi: East African Educational Publishers,

1995.


The Anglican Church (of which the Church of England

is the parent) is organized in Dioceses with the bishop as the

head of each diocese. The Dioceses are grouped in provinces,

headed by Archbishops who are elected through a process

involving both clergy and lay leaders. An Archbishop does not

have jurisdiction over dioceses other than the one in which his

Cathedral is located. However, in ritual and organizational

matters the Archbishop presides over the Synod which

deliberates on policy and procedure of the Church. Since 1888

Anglican bishops have met every ten years at the Lambeth

Palace in London to deliberate on matters of mutual concern.

The Lambeth Conference does not have juridical authority over

bishops and dioceses, but the consensus affirmed by its

resolutions is authoritative. The Anglican Consultative Council

(ACC) meets between the sessions of the Lambeth Conference,

but its role is advisory rather than administrative within the

Anglican Communion.

The Orthodox churches, which are organized in dioceses

under bishops, function autonomously but in communion with

each other. Some are numerically very big, such as the Russian

Orthodox Church, while others are very small, such as the

Orthodox Church in Kenya. The Coptic Church of Egypt and the

Ethiopian Orthodox Church both belong to this confessional

family. Some of the Orthodox churches are predominant in

some countries (as in Russia and Greece), while others are tiny

minorities (as in Egypt and India).

The Second category is the Presbyterian type, in which

the Council of Elders (Presbyters) exercises the church authority.

From the local to the national levels there are layers of

representation, culminating in the General Assembly where

policy decisions are made. The Moderator of the General

Assembly is elected for a period ranging from three to five years

depending on the constitution of each national or regional

Assembly. At the world level Presbyterian churches are held

together in the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (WARC).

This type includes such churches as the Presbyterian Church of


East Africa; Presbyterian Church of South Africa, Presbyterian

Church of Central Africa, Presbyterian Church of Ghana,

Presbyterian Church USA, and so on. The Church of Scotland is

the oldest in this category, and to a large extent it can be

regarded as the 'parent' of the family. Within the World Alliance

of Reformed Churches there are several denominations which

use the label "Reformed" as part of their name. The Lutheran

churches are Presbyterian in their chain of authority, but they

have established their own identity within the World Lutheran

Federation (LWF). The Methodist churches are also of the

Presbyterian type, and are brought together for consultative

purposes under the World Methodist Council.

The third category is the Congregational type. Authority

in churches of this type is vested in each specific congregation.

Once a year the congregation constitutes itself into a business

meeting and passes resolutions on the governance of all aspects

of the church. The pastor is hired, fired, remunerated and

disciplined by the congregation. Baptist churches are in the

congregational category, which also includes the churches that

use the label 'Congregational' in their name.

The fourth category is the Charismatic type, whose

decisions within the congregation are under the tutelage of the

charismatic leader. When the leader loses charismatic power, the

leadership role is immediately withdrawn and handed over to

another leader in whom the congregation recognizes significant

charismatic gifts. There are numerous charismatic churches in

Africa, each of which is associated with a specific charismatic

leader. In Kenya this category includes the Deliverance Church

and the Redeemed Gospel Church. There are many Charismatic

mega-churches today, particularly in the USA, tropical Africa

and South Korea. The Kimbanguist Church in the Democratic

Republic of Congo (DRC) also fits in this category. Also in this

category is the Church of Prophet Harris in West Africa. Many

African Instituted Churches (AICs) are of the Charismatic type,


cherishing the role of their founders and successors almost to the

point of veneration.16

The fifth category is the Pentecostal type, in which

authority is believed to emanate from the Holy Spirit. The

leaders of Pentecostal churches are recognized and obeyed as

long as the followers continue to witness manifestation of the

Holy Spirit in the leadership. When such manifestations dwindle,

the leadership role is withdrawn. Most churches having the label

'Pentecostal' in their name are included in this category. Most

African instituted churches are of the Charismatic and

Pentecostal Conflicts types, although there are a few which are

Episcopal, Presbyterian and Congregational.

Conflicts over leadership are common and frequent in

Charismatic and Pentecostal churches. Rarely are such conflicts

resolved, with the consequence that these two categories tend to

splinter and fragment especially as a result of wrangles over

power, authority and leadership succession. There is a tendency

to pass over the leadership to relatives of the founders of these

churches, creating 'dynasties'. Those who protest these

tendencies are often isolated and compelled to establish their

own churches, and the cycle is then repeated over and over

again.

There are African instituted churches in each of the five

categories. This fact is explained by the causative factors of

these churches. Most of the African Instituted Churches have

retained the ecclesiastical structure inherited from the

missionary denominations out of which they splintered. An

interesting case is the Legio Maria in Kenya, which splintered

from the Roman Catholic Church. It still retains many of the

rituals and beliefs in the "Mother Church" from which its

original leaders separated.

These five categories of ecclesiastical organization are

derived from New Testament references. However, none of

them can claim to replicate the apostolic church, because they

16

Allan Anderson, African Reformation, New Jersey: Africa World Press,

2001.


have been organized to suit the cultural and personal needs of

their respective initiators. The Roman Catholic Church places

great importance to central authority not only because it is

discerned in the New Testament, but more evidently because it

took over imperial authority when the Roman Empire declined.

Anglicanism began when King Henry VIII established the

Church of England in defiance of papal authority. The Church of

England remained 'Catholic' in liturgy and hierarchical

organization, but refused to be under the jurisdiction of the Pope.

The Church of Scotland in turn adopted the Presbyterian polity,

in conformity with a non-hierarchical Scottish culture within

imperial Britain. In the same way, African Instituted churches

have incorporated African cultural elements while claiming

faithfulness to the Gospel.

The Charismatic and Pentecostal churches tend to

fragment and splinter because their leaders often find it difficult

to accept mistakes of judgement and leadership. When rival

claimants to leadership emerge, the conflicts often deteriorate

into confrontation and some followers leave to join the leader of

their choice. This process is repeated many times over and over

again, with the authority is vested in individuals believed by the

members to have Charismatic leadership. Charismatic churches

have congregational autonomy. In the colonial period many

African Instituted Churches were formed in reaction against

missionary discrimination and patronage. In view of the

proliferation of missionary agencies and African responses to

them, tropical Africa, is now the area with the most diversified

ecclesiastical expression in the world. Almost every missionary

agency claiming to be involved in world mission has taken an

interest in winning the souls of Africans not for Christ, but into

its own fold. Hence the competition between missionary

agencies and the lack of commitment to ecumenical witness to

the world, especially among the Charismatic and Pentecostal

leaders and congregations.

During the 1960s most Protestant European and North

American missionary agencies withdrew their personnel from


Africa in response to the process of de-colonization. This

withdrawal was consistent with the resolution at the Third

Assembly of the World Council of Churches (New Delhi, 1961)

to absorb the International Missionary Council and establish the

Division of World Mission and Evangelism. Thereafter,

missionary work of the parent denominations in Europe and

North America was to be continued under departments of

mission within their respective administrative structures.

Missionaries would then come to Africa only under invitation by

the African leaders of the 'daughter churches', which had

previously been under missionary leadership and tutelage. The

change in mission policy did not end patronage and tutelage, and

this fact became a matter of great concern to some of the

African church leaders.

In the early 1970s the Presbyterian Pastor John G. Gatu

of Kenya was to become famous for suggesting that

missionaries and their funds should be withdrawn from Africa

for at least five years, so that African churches might evolve

their own identity and integrity. This Proposal, which became

known as the "Moratorium Debate" evoked much controversy,

especially in Europe and North America. The withdrawal of

missionary personnel and funds from Africa required

administrative and financial adjustments for which most

Protestant denominations in the North Atlantic were not

prepared. One of the reactions against the Moratorium Proposal

was a flood of North American and European evangelical

preachers, from 1975 onwards, into the capital cities of

independent African counties.

The number of North Atlantic Tourist Preachers flocking

to Africa increased in the 1980s and 1990s. Understandably, all

the new churches resulting from the rallies of these itinerant

preachers have been of the Charismatic and Pentecostal types.

Although the proclaimed objective of the itinerant preachers is

to spread Christianity in Africa, their efforts have not increased

the number African converts. Rather, they have attracted

African Christians, especially the youth from other churches into


their own camps. Thus Tourist Evangelists are involved in

proselytism rather than mission. Their attractions have to do

with the mode of delivery of their messages through show-

business, electronic music and theatrical performance. The

exodus of young men and women from the mainstream

denominations to these Charismatic and Pentecostal

congregations is a challenge with which the leadership of the

losing churches must deal; otherwise there will be a serious

church leadership crisis in the next generation.

4. Some Features of Tourist Evangelism

This section explores various aspects of the theology

presupposed by most North Atlantic Tourist Evangelists who,

since the 1980s, have exported to tropical Africa their pre-

packaged brands of charismatic and Pentecostal Christianity.

i). Evangelism as Tourism: From an African perspective, the

most striking characteristic of the North American and European

Charismatic and Pentecostal preachers coming to Africa is that

they are an integral part of the tourist industry. They normally

come during the tourist season, and they come together in the

same flights with the other tourists from their respective

countries. Before or after their evangelistic rallies they go to

enjoy the tourist attractions of the host country. They are happy

and proud to declare that their evangelistic itinerary includes

some days to see the wild animals, the beautiful countryside and

the hot beaches. What takes priority: preaching the Gospel or

enjoying the tourist excursion? One is left with the impression

that tourism is more important, because of the importance that is

attached to the tourist component of the visit. Jesus was not a

tourist. He travelled a great deal (mainly on foot) between his

village of Nazareth, the shoreline of Lake Galilee and the capital

city of Jerusalem. The trips he made were purposeful, and did

not include much of leisure. Likewise, St. Paul was not a tourist,


even though he travelled widely between Jerusalem and Rome

mainly by boat. He had no bank account, but was a skilled tent

maker. When he ran out of money he would stop and make or

repair some tents to earn some income for funding the next trip.

He was a guest of his friendly hosts who accommodated and

took care of his needs. On whose model is the tourist

evangelism in Africa based? It appears far from the norms set by

Jesus and St. Paul. Yet the Tourist evangelists claim to be

preaching 'the gospel'. Which gospel is it that they preach, if it

does not follow the examples of Jesus and Paul?

ii) Evangelism as Entrepreneurship: Evangelism in post-

colonial Africa has become increasingly associated with

entrepreneurship. Most of the Tourist Evangelists from Europe

and North America have their own " personal ministries" usually

bearing their own names with branded "products" and registered

trademarks. They advertise themselves and raise funds using

those trademarks. Thus evangelism has become one of the

"businesses" in which jobless people can establish self-

employment. Measured against the norms of Jesus and St. Paul,

this way of spreading the Gospel is a great deviation. Jesus was

a carpenter and Paul was a tentmaker. Each of the twelve

disciples had a trade. They did not turn preaching of the Gospel

into an enterprise for self-employment, self-enrichment and self-

aggrandizement.

iii) Evangelism as Show Business: The preparation for an

evangelistic rally is typically as elaborate as that for a pop music

concert or for a boxing match. The advertising campaigns

sometimes overshadow those for secular events. The stage

setting is often so clourful as to outshine a fashion show. The

dressing and make-up of the evangelistic team is often elaborate

and expensive. Questions arise whether the effective

communication of the gospel is dependent on such extravagant

stage settings. Jesus attracted huge crowds, but he did not

advertise his rallies. People followed him because he taught with


authority. His fame spread fast and wide, even though there

were no elaborate mass media as sophisticated as those in the

world today. The advertising campaigns for tourist evangelists

are often misleading and dishonest. They promise more than the

evangelists can deliver.

iv) Evangelism as Theatrical Performance: Tourist

Evangelism is crafted on the pattern of mass entertainment such

as the concerts of popular musicians, jazz bands, boxing and

wrestling matches, magic shows, and so on. Certainly this

approach attracts many people, perhaps more as spectators and

fans than worshippers. We do not know how Jesus performed

when he addressed the crowds that came to listen to him. What

is clear is that his rallies were not choreographed the way tourist

evangelistic rallies are.

v) Evangelism as Faith Healing: Among the promises included

in most advertisements for rallies to be addressed by tourist

evangelists is faith healing. People suffering from various

ailments are invited to come to the rally so that the evangelist

can pray for them. There have been cases of terminally ill

people going to these rallies with the hope of being cured.

Disappointment has resulted when the patients did not recover.

Some stopped medication and brought forward their deaths. It is

irresponsible for an evangelist to promise a cure to someone

suffering from terminal illness. It is also an abuse of the Gospel.

Visiting the sick and praying with them is a necessary and

integral part of pastoral care. But faith healing, which bypasses

or ignores professional treatment, is doctrinally erroneous.

vi) Evangelism as Altar Call: In all rallies by tourist

evangelists there is an "altar call" for those who have accepted

"conversion" to come to the stage for the evangelist to pray for

them. The numbers that come forward are important as a

measure of success. Jesus cared more for quality than quantity.

The tourist evangelists have their priorities in reverse order.


vii) Evangelism as a Game of Numbers: For tourist

evangelists the numbers they attract are more important than the

impact of the message they deliver. The follow up is not a

matter of concern to them, because this responsibility is left to

the "evangelistic team" which is assigned to counsel the

individuals who respond positively to the "altar call". It is

common to read triumphal newsletters from the ministry offices

of the tourist evangelists, celebrating the success of rallies in

terms of the thousands of people who have attended. Attendance

does not necessarily suggest acceptance or agreement. Curiosity

and the quest for entertainment ought not to be lumped together

with worship. The advertising campaigns for these rallies is such

that many of those who attend do so more for curiosity than for

genuine interest. Yet from the perspective of the tourist

evangelists anyone who attends their rallies is a "convert."

viii) Evangelism as Winning Souls: Tourist Evangelists

emphasize winning souls for eternal salvation as the main

objective of their work. There is so much emphasis on this

aspect that the physical, societal and institutional aspects are

neglected. The parables of Jesus are illustrative of the integral

quality of the Gospel. Jesus was interested not only in the soul

but also in the body. That is why most of the miracles on record

are on the restoration of health to people who had been ill. If

Jesus were interested only in the soul, he would not have

bothered to heal anyone. He would have encouraged them to

accept death as a quick ticket to heaven.

ix) Evangelism as Entertainment: Recreation and

Entertainment are two of the features, which attract young

people to the rallies, and congregations of Tourist Evangelists.

Typically, a rally and a worship service will begin with at least

thirty minutes of singing and dancing accompanied with loud

electronic music. Liturgical items are punctuated with similar

interludes. Each congregation has a musical band, and there is


competition between the bands with regard to the quality of

equipment and the calibre of musicians and singers. In

Charismatic and Pentecostal churches, harmonic choirs have

been abandoned in preference of electronic bands and pop music.

Thus secular tastes have influenced liturgy considerably.

Mainstream denominations have adopted hymns composed and

popular in the African instituted churches, which are normally

sung in unison with soloists leading the congregation. No

complicated instruments are required— hand clapping suffices.

Sometimes simple percussion instrumentation is in

accompaniment. Recreation and entertainment are certainly

important aspects of worship, and mainstream denominations

will continue to lose young people as long as these needs are

met more in the Charismatic and Pentecostal congregations.

x) Evangelism as Hypnotism: Tourist Evangelists leaders tend

to hypnotize their audiences into saying and doing what they

want to emphasize. Faith healing sessions, for example, are

characteristically hypnotic. From the perspective of an on-looker,

faith healing sessions appear comparable to sessions of hypnosis

and magic. It is not clear why faith healing sessions are

dramatized and exaggerated to the point of giving credit more to

the preacher than to Jesus Christ.

xi) Evangelism as Focus on Individuals: The appeal of Tourist

Evangelists is to individuals. An impression is created that the

individual is better-off following the instructions of the Tourist

Evangelist, whose credentials are self-authenticated. One must

take responsibility for accepting or rejecting the promises of the

Tourist Evangelist. Since the Tourist the country immediately or

shortly after the rally, there is no way for the respondents to

challenge Evangelist on any of the claims made either in the

advertisements or during the evangelistic campaign.

xii) Evangelism as Imitation of Role Models: Typically,

Tourist Evangelists portray themselves as role models to be


emulated. Yet their lifestyles— which are ostentatious,

extravagent and profligate—, cannot be replicated by the

majority of the people who attend the rallies as advertised. Some

Tourist Evangelists have been reported to be involved in

scandals pertaining to their private lives and also to the

management of their personal ministries. Some have been

compromised politically and ideologically. Some have been

compromised financially. These scandals are in conflict with the

role model-profiles of the norm-setters they claim to be.

xiii) Evangelism as Alienation: Tourist Evangelists tend to

promote alienation of their followers from their friends and

relatives in favour of devotion to the cult of the evangelist. In

the long-term, this alienation erodes the self-esteem of the

followers as they attach themselves more tightly to the

evangelist.

xiv) Evangelism as Fund-raising: Every rally of a Tourist

Evangelist is a fund-raising event. The whole programme is

geared towards the moment when the devotees are instructed to

dip their hands into their purses and "donate generously"

towards the support of the Evangelist's ministry. The "Jesus

Business" has become a competitive fund-raising enterprise. It is

a subtle begging enterprise, in which the benefactors are

destitute and desperate individuals who are invited to

'voluntarily' pay for their services. The Tourist evangelist never

personally interacts with most of the fans. However, through

the crafty fund-raising enterprises the evangelists manage to

accumulate huge sums of money.

xv) Evangelism as Speaking in Tongues: Speaking in Tongues

is associated with Tourist evangelism which has created the

impression that one is not Christian enough unless and until one

manifests the gift of 'speaking in tongues.' Apparently, speaking

in tongues was a problem within the churches within the first

generation of Christianity. St. Paul has very clear instructions


about it: "Now brethren, if I come to you speaking in tongues,

how shall I benefit you unless I bring you some revelation or

knowledge or prophecy or teaching? If even lifeless instruments,

such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes , how will

any one know what is played? And if the bugle gives an

indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle? So with

yourselves; if you in a tongue utter speech that is not intelligible,

how will any one know what is said? For you will be speaking

into the air. There are doubtless many different languages in the

world, and none is without meaning; but if I do not know the

meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to the speaker

and the speaker a foreigner to me. So with yourselves; since you

are eager for manifestations of the spirit, strive to excel in

building up the church" (I Cor. 14: 6-12).

xvi) Evangelism as Extroversion: Tourist Evangelism

presupposes that every Chistian should be able to express

oneself in public. Some individuals are naturally outspoken, but

the majority of believers are generally quiet in public. It is unfair

to expect everyone to be outspoken, and to claim that the quiet

ones are not sufficiently Christian. Those who prefer to be quiet

in public are not worse off than the outspoken ones.

xvii) Evangelism as Rallies and Conventions: Since Tourist

Evangelists design their ministries in the context an itinerary of

rallies and conventions, it is tempting to define evangelism

exclusively in terms of holding rallies and conventions. Yet

there are may other ways of making the Gospel known other

than public oratory and theatrical performance.

xiii) Evangelism as Unquestioning and Unquestionable

Obedience: Tourist Evangelists insist on an approach to the

Gospel which is unquestioning and unquestionable. They expect

not to be challenged on any view they proclaim. Anyone who

challenges them to explain an aspect of their perspective is

condemned as satanic. They too maintain a literal reading of the


Bible, and are unwilling to reconcile biblical texts which are

contradictory or conflicting with each other. Take for example

Micah 4: 3-5 versus Joel 3: 9-10 on waging war; Matt. 5: 31-32

(Matt.19: 8-9) versus Mark 10: 11-12 on divorce; Matt: 6: 16-18

versus Matt. 11: 16-19 on fasting; and so on. How can literal

reading of the Bible reconcile such texts? The choice of one text

rather than the other in these pairs of texts is arbitrary. Thus it is

necessary to read the Bible critically, with comparison of

parallel texts in various books to discern the essence of the

intended message as a whole.

xix) Evangelism as Praying Aloud: Tourist Evangelism is

associated with amplified preaching at rallies and conventions,

where the participants are encouraged to invoke the Holy Spirit

in spontanous loud prayer with raised arms in supplication. In

contrast, missionaries in the mainstream denominations are

more restrained, and use formal prayer contained in the

liturgical books of their sending churches.

xx) Evangelism as Emotional outburst: Tourist evangelists

create the impression that emotional outburst is essential for

manifestation or demonstration of acceptance of, and

commitment to the Gospel. On the basis of this assumption

every 'crusade' includes an 'altar call' for the audience to

volunteer an emotional outburst. The biblical basis for this 'altar

call' is unclear. As reported in the second chapter of Acts, the

preachers did not demand of the audience to speak in tongues.

Nor did they demand emotional response. Pentecost was an

unrepeatable response, a miracle of the same kind as those

recorded in the gospels.

xxi Evangelism as Shouting: Typically, tourist evangelism is

associated with shouting and loud music which is great public

nuisance to onlookers and neighbours. The organizers of

evangelistic 'crusades' seem to be completely inconsiderate with

regard to the neighbourhood. They do not care about the


disturbance they cause and the likely offence of their utterances

to those who may be directly or indirectly mentioned adversely

in the songs and speeches. Although in a democracy everyone

should have the freedoms of association, expression and worship,

these freedoms are not absolute. They should be exercised

without interfering with the corresponding freedoms of other

individuals and groups. Theoretically, those who suffer

disturbance can sue for damages or injunctions. However, it is

selfish and irresponsible for tourist evangelists to breach peace

and harmony in a neighbourhood under the pretext of

proclaiming the Gospel and 'winning souls' for Jesus Christ.

xxii) Evangelism as Repetition of Mantras: Most tourist

evangelists have mantras to be repeated by their audiences. The

evangelist commands the audience to repeat a sentence or a

phrase several times over, with the promise that the repetition of

the mantra will have some magical impact on those who repeat

it. During the repetition of the mantra, the tourist evangelist is

elevated to the level of a liturgical leader, even though there is

no ritual link between the evangelist and the audience.

xxiii) Evangelism as Singing and Dancing: A 'crusade'

featuring a tourist evangelist will last a whole morning, a whole

afternoon or a whole evening. Most of the time is filled with

singing and dancing. The sermon takes very little time. Prayers

take even less time. The band takes features prominently,

performing songs and dances to which the audiences respond as

mere spectators, not as a worshipping community.

xxiv) Evangelism as Performing Miracles: Tourist evangelists

are advertised as performers of miracles. The 'crusades' are

popularized as 'miracle sessions'. From a biblical perspective,

this portrayal is erroneous, because Jesus rejected the temptation

of using miracles as means to win converts (Matt. 4: 1-11). Jesus

performed miracles in response to the needs of particular


individuals, families and groups. He did not advertise for people

to attend his rallies and witness theatrical tricks.

xxv) Evangelism as Invoking the Holy Spirit: Tourist

Evangelists invoke the Holy Spirit to come into the midst of the

crowd, via the mediation of the Evangelist. This self-appointed

role of 'spirit-medium' is unbiblical. St. Paul could have taken

that role, in view of the great respect honour he enjoyed in the

various Christian communities he nurtured. However, he

refrained from making himself a 'spirit-medium', and became a

teacher and instructor on how to express the Christian faith

rationally , effectively and constructively.

xxvi) Evangelism as Exorcism: Some tourist evangelists

consider all afflictions as manifestations of possession by

demons. They thus consider it their duty and responsibility to

'cast out demons', taking their cue from Jesus. It is important to

appreciate, however, that only a few of the healing miracles of

Jesus were associated with exorcism.

xxvii) Evangelism as Boasting: Most tourist evangelists are

boastful, arrogant and insolent. Their personality traits are the

opposite of those of Jesus whom they claim to emulate. They

portray themselves as the role models to be emulated, even

when their own lives are scandalous.

xxviii) Evangelism as Self-Advertising: Tourist Evangelism is

propelled by self-advertising comparable to political campaigns.

On radio and television they post paid advertisements for their

crusades and wares for sale. They even advertise the services

they offer, in the same way that entrepreneurs advertise

themselves and their goods and services. Jesus was not an

attention seeker, even though people followed him wherever he

went. People followed Jesus because he taught with authority,

not because he advertised his 'ministry'.


xxix) Evangelism as Criticism Against Mission: Tourist

evangelists parade themselves as competitors against

missionaries. They travel from their home countries to their host

countries to set up evangelistic campaigns often in conflict with

the values, norms, principles and practices cherished by resident

missionaries who have developed cross-cultural relations with

the communities in which they are guests. The quick-fix

technique of tourist evangelism is diametrically opposed to the

long-term missionary approach as articulated by St. Paul and

emulated by the great missionaries in the history of Christianity.

xxx) Evangelism as Open Confession of Personal Sins:

Tourist evangelists demand of their 'converts' to openly confess

their sins. In the Roman Catholic Church an opportunity is

offered for the priest to hear confessions, but this is done in

private and in confidence. For tourist evangelists the confession

of sins becomes a public affair. Even Lutheran doctrine— which

proclaims the priesthood of all believers—, does not go to the

extent of demanding open confession of personal sins. The

crowds to whom the personal sins are confessed are not all

members of the congregation, and the personal confessed are

often narrated more as a joke than as an act of contrition. They

are repeated over and over again, crusade after crusade, until

they become routine. It is almost as if the confessors enjoy

repeating the joys of pre-conversion existence.

xxxi) Evangelism as delivery of pre-packaged dogmatic

messages: Tourist evangelists sets of pre-packaged dogmatic

messages to proclaim. They do not expect to be challenged, and

anyone who challenges them is condemned as an agent of the

devil. There is no possibility to subject their messages to

theological reasoning, because in their view faith is supposed to

be above or beyond reason. It seems that the avoidance of

reason is a strategy for preempting criticism.


xxxxii) Evangelism as Crusade: By conducting evangelistic

campaigns as 'crusades', tourist evangelists have fomented

resistance especially among Muslim communities. Logically,

the Muslim reaction to Christian Crusade is Islamic Jihad. Jesus

was not confrontational in his public ministry. Nor were the

disciples and the first generation of the Apostles of whom St.

Paul was the greatest. The confrontational crusading mentality

of tourist evangelists is ideologically driven, rather than

biblically grounded.

xxxiii). Evangelism Altar Calling: The climax of an

evangelistic 'crusade' is when the tourist evangelist calls on the

crowd to volunteer to come to the front to receive prayers or

blessings. This 'altar call' is often pushed to the point of

desperation, especially when too few individuals volunteer to

present themselves. Why should the tourist evangelist demand to

see and count the number of souls which have been 'won' for

Christ? Is evangelism a matter of statistics? What about the

quality of faith? What of the role of the Holy Spirit in the

development of one's faith?

xxxiv) Evangelism as Defeating Satan: Tourist Evangelists

portray themselves as 'soldiers of God' fighting against the

'soldiers of Satan'. This dualistic approach makes it appear as if

Christianity is on the defensive end of the spectrum, since evil

often seems to triumph over evil.

xxxv) Evangelism as Defeating other Faiths: Tourist

Evangelists as a norm, consider themselves as crusaders for

Christianity against other faiths. The brand of Christianity they

peddle is also in competition and conflict with mainstream

denominations. For that reason, none of the tourist evangelists is

supportive of the modern ecumenical movement. They are

sectarian and isolationist.


xxxvi) Evangelism as Defeating Other Cultures: Tourist

Evangelism is associated with North Atlantic culture. Although

Tourist Evangelists are critical of modernity, they themselves

have already internalized modernist mentality. When they come

to Africa they present themselves as agents of civilization,

denigrating the African cultural and religious heritage as

demonic. By implication, they portray their own culture as

angelic and saintly, despite the shortcomings and scandals of

North Atlantic Christendom.

xxxvii) Evangelism as Defeating Other Ideologies: Tourist

Evangelists also associate themselves with Capitalism against all

other ideologies. By so doing, they become effective peddlers of

Capitalist ideology. As a result, tourist evangelism has caused

considerable concern among the Orthodox churches the former

Soviet Union. It is viewed as a strategy to destabilize Orthodox

Christianity by poaching the youth into the new transient

Charismatic and Pentecostal congregations.

xxxviii) Evangelism as Prophesying: Many Tourist

Evangelists consider themselves 'prophets' and regard their

utterances as 'prophecy'. Within the biblical tradition prophets

are social critics who, on behalf of the vulnerable sectors of the

population, caution the ruling elite against discrimination,

oppression and exploitation. Tourist Evangelists are highly

individualistic and deliberately shy away from making critical

comments about social policies and institutions. This stance

supports the status quo under the pretext of neutrality.

xxxix) Evangelism as Promotion of Material Prosperity: Most Tourist Evangelists attract followers by promising material

prosperity for their adherents. They demand tithes as a fee for

their services. Through thrift and austerity some of their

followers accumulate savings, and experience some elevation of

material well-being. Most, however, give up and move on in

search for other tourist evangelists who perhaps might be more


dependable in fulfilling unrealized aspirations. Jesus did not

promise that his followers would enjoy material prosperity.

Rather he challenged his followers to live authentically,

depending more on God than on political and economic

patronage.

xl) Evangelism as Proselytizing: Tourist Evangelists are

content to poach followers from existing Christian

denominations under the pretext of winning converts. For them,

conversion means joining their brand of Christianity,

irrespective of previous religious adherence. Normally, in

Christian missionary vocabulary conversion means the rejection

of one religion in favour of another, while proselytism means

the shift of allegiance from one denomination to another within

the same religion. Tourist Evangelists normally conduct their

crusades in areas in which Christianity is already established.

The word "conversion" is thus inappropriate for the individuals

they win to their respective brands of Christian sectarianism.

EVANGELISM AS: EVANGELI

STS MISSIONA

RIES

REMARKS

1 Tourism √ x Missionaries are

resident

2.

Entrepreneurship

√ x Missionaries are

funded

3. Show-

Business

√ x Missionaries don't

show

4. Theatrical

Performance

√ x Missionaries don’t

act

5. Faith Healing √ x Missionaries have

clinics

6. Altar Calling √ x Missionaries teach

7. A Game of

Numbers

√ √ Both want big

numbers


8. Winning Souls √ √ Both want to win

souls

9. Entertainment √ x Missionaries use

ritual

10. Hypnotism √ x Missionaries

convince

11.

Individualism

√ √ Both are

individualistic

12. Imitation √ √ Both demand

imitation

13. Alienation √ √ Both alienate

converts

14. Fund-raising √ x Missionaries are

funded

15. Speaking in

Tongues

√ x Missionaries loathe

it

16. Extroversion √ x Missionaries don't

mind

17. Rally Oratory √ x No Missionary

oratory

18. Blind

Obedience

√ √ Both demand

obedience

19. Praying

Aloud

√ x Missionaries don’t

care

20. Expressing

Emotions

√ x Missionaries keep

cool

21. Shouting √ x Missionaries prefer

quiet

22. Repetition of

Mantras

√ √ Both demand

repetition

23. Singing and

Dancing

√ x Missionaries use

hymns

24. Performing

Miracles


25. Evoking √ x Missionaries don't


Holy Spirit

26. Exorcising

Demons


27. Boasting √ √ Both are boastful

28. Self-

Advertising


29. Condemning

Others

√ √ Both condemn

others

30. Oral

Confession


mind

31. One-Way

Delivery

√ √ Both work one-way

32. Crusade √ x Missionaries avoid

it

33. Altar Calling √ x Missionaries avoid

it

34. Defeating

Satan

√ x Missionaries shy

away

35. Defeating

other Cults

√ √ Both concur

36.Defeating

other Faiths

√ √ Both concur

37. Defeating

Ideologies

√ √ Both concur

38. Defeating

Cultures

√ √ Both concur

39. Defeating

Poverty

√ √ Both concur

40. Promoting

Prosperity

√ x Missionaries train

5. Concluding Remarks

Tourist Evangelism poses serious challenges for

mainstream churches. Those involved in tourist evangelism do

not care at all about ecclesial identity. They are only interested


in the crowds they attract with their show-biz extravaganza.

Their interest in a particular audience ends as soon as the flood-

lights are switched off. When the improvised stage is dismantled

for the evangelistic show in the next town or city, that space

ceases to have any sacral significance. The next show on the

same space could have as its objective the advertising of goods

or services completely at variance with the values, virtues and

norms promoted by the evangelists. The same lack of concern is

evident in television evangelism, which is more akin to

advertising than to teaching. How can mainstream churches

retain the youth in their membership at a time when attention is

drawn to evangelistic populism and secular advertising? How

can mainstream denominations effectively respond to the

superficial teachings peddled by tourist evangelists? How can

the propaganda peddled by tourist evangelists in Africa be

countered? These and other related challenges require concerted

strategic response on the part of mainstream denominations,

particularly those associated with the modern ecumenical

movement. Tourist evangelism is related more to Tourism than

to Mission.


December 2008, pp. 181-191

Towards a Mission-Oriented

Theological Education

Chen Nan-Jou1

While rethinking the development in the theology of

mission, Gerald H. Anderson wrote that in the Edinburgh

Conference 1910, “the first truly world missionary conference,

the major question being put to the missionary enterprise was

simply ‘How missions?’”2

According to Gerald Anderson’s

analysis, the main concerns of the theological discussion on

mission in the ecumenical circle before the 1960’s could be

described with these six phrases, namely “How missions”,

“wherefore missions”, “whence missions”, “whither missions”,

1 Professor, Vice President and the Dean of Academic Affairs Yu-Shan

Theological College and Seminary The Presbyterian Church in Taiwan 2 Gerald H. Anderson, “The Theology of Mission among Protestants in the

Twentieth Century” in The Theology of the Christian Mission (ed. Gerald H.

Anderson; Nashville: Abingdon, 1961), 5. Anderson thought that Edinburgh

Conference 1910 was the “first truly world missionary conference”. However,

“there were only seventeen Asians, and these represented the whole of the

non-western world” among about twelve hundred participants at the

conference. See D. Preman Niles, From East and West: Rethinking Christian

Mission, (St. Louis: Chalice, 2004), 49


“Why missions”, and “What is the Christian mission?”3

This

change of the theological thinking in mission could arise mainly

from the fact that Christian mission was, on the one hand, aware

of the reality of religious pluralism in this world; on the other

hand, challenged by people of other faiths. It seems to me it is

for this reason that the discussion on “What is the Christian

mission” is still an ongoing issue today. For me, being

concerned only with mission strategy and methods without

clarifying the most fundamental question of Christian mission,

the nature of the Christian mission and Gospel, is “ben mo dao

zhi”, to attend to the lesser importance and neglect the essentials,

or “she ben zhu mo”, to concentrate on the secondary ones, but

overlook the primary. In fact, the understanding of mission has

been changing in the different eras and the different social and

cultural contexts. The new discourse of mission understanding

leads to the emergence of a new paradigm in mission. Therefore,

the shifting of mission paradigm is not a new thing in the history

of Christian mission.

Paradigm Shifts in Christian Mission

Numerous attempts have been made by theologians to

articulate new paradigms for mission. In this paper, I would like

to focus on the paradigms proposed by the following three

theologians, namely David J. Bosch, C. S. Song, and D. Preman

Niles.

David J. Bosch argued that a postmodern paradigm of

mission is emerging as is described in his book titled

Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of

Mission.4

Though Bosch did not give a name to this emerging

paradigm, he pointed out and discussed the elements of this

emerging ecumenical missionary paradigm. In my opinion,

Bosch did not try to categorize those elements under different

3 Gerald H. Anderson, “The Theology of Mission among Protestants in the

Twentieth Century”, 5-7. 4 See David J. Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of

Mission, (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis, 1993), chapters 10-12.

Theological Education 183

sub-headings. In this emerging paradigm, Bosch pointed out that

mission is God’s mission, missio Dei.5

He said that “mission is

not primarily an activity of the church, but an attribute of God.

God is missionary God…….Mission is thereby seen as a

movement from God to the world; the church is viewed as an

instrument for that mission. There is church because there is

mission, not vice versa. To participate in mission is to

participate in the movement of God’s love toward people”.6

Regarding mission as theology in this emerging

paradigm, Bosch stressed that “It is for the sake of its mission

that the church has been elected, for the sake of its calling that it

has been made ‘God’s own people’. So mission cannot be

defined only in terms of the church--even of the church which is

mission by its very nature. Mission goes beyond the church…….

To say that the church is essentially missionary does not mean

that mission is church-centered. It is missio Dei”.7 Bosch went

on to say that “Just as the church ceases to be church if it is not

missionary, theology ceases to be theology if it loses its

missionary character…….We are in need of a missiological

agenda for theology rather than just a theological agenda for

mission; for theology, rightly understood, has no reason to exist

other than critically to accompany the missio Dei. So mission

should be ‘the theme of all theology’”.8 In addition to this,

Bosch stated, though somewhat ambiguously, mission has to be

contextual in theology, to take inculturation into account.9

In terms of ministry in mission, Bosch emphasized that

emerging paradigm concerns evangelism, to witness to people of

other faiths, and to struggle for justice and liberation.10 Besides,

5 David Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of

Mission, 389. 6 Ibid p. 390.

7 Ibid. p., 493.

8 Ibid p. , 494.

9 Ibid p., 420-32, 447-57.

10 Ibid p. 409-20, 474-89, 400-09, 432-47.


ministry of mission is carried out by the whole people of God,

the clergy and the laity.11

We may, therefore, reasonably conclude that Bosch

highlighted rightly the elements of an emerging paradigm.

Bosch said clearly that the new paradigm is “still emerging and

it is, as yet, not clear which shape it will eventually adopt”.12

It

was obvious that Bosch did not argue an effective paradigm for

the churches around the world. He is right to say that “We shall,

at best, succeed in outlining the direction in which we ought to

be moving and in identifying the overall thrust of the emerging

paradigm”.13

Without using the term ‘paradigm shifts’, C. S. Song, a

Taiwanese theologian proposed a new framework for the

reconstruction of Christian mission.14

He argued that Christian

churches have to place creation rather than redemption as the

central framework of God’s mission.15

C. S. Song urged

Christian churches to think of mission from the perspective of

God’s creation. He stated that the reconstruction of mission, the

Christian faith in the non-western lands, “may take place at least

in the four areas of culture, history, society and politics

corresponding to the four aspects related to God’s creation”.16

C.

S. Song stressed that there are “redemptive elements in cultures

and histories outside the direct influence of Christian faith”.17

He

continued to say that “God’s love and power have been at work

in the world since the beginning of creation. Human sin does not

destroy God’ work of creation”.18

He emphasized that there are

11

Ibid p. 467-74. 12

Ibid p. 349. 13

Ibid p. 367. 14

C. S. Song did use the term ‘paradigm shifts’ in a public speech recently.

Please see ‘Rethinking the Great Commandment from Jesus’ Great

Commission’, The New Messenger, No. 107, August 2008, 4-8. 15

C. S. Song, Christian Mission in Reconstruction, (Maryknoll, New York:

Orbis, 1977), chapter 2. 16

Ibid p. 23-24. 17

C. S. Song, Third-Eye theology, (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis, 1979), 113. 18

Ibid p. 114.


‘redemptive moments’ and ‘redemptive events’ which “disclose

God’s continuing presence in a society that has never been

shaped by Christianity”, and “reflect in some way God’s

redeeming love and power that have become incarnate in Jesus

Christ”.19

Song put his argument more plainly to say that “these

redemptive moments and events, in my view, result from what

St. Paul regards as God’s self-disclosure in creation since the

world began”.20

C. S. Song criticized the mindset of many

Christians who neglected the perspective of God’s creation in

mission and said that “God is worshipped as the redeemer of

only those who believe in Jesus as their personal savior. God the

redeemer negates God the creator. God the creator is abrogated

by God the redeemer. God becomes a truncated God.”21

C. S. Song suggested a ‘five stages’ towards a

theological reconstruction.22

Stage one is to ask fundamental

questions, such as ‘Did God work also outside the church’?

‘Does the profound spirituality demonstrated by people of other

faiths have anything to do with God’? Stage two is to affirm the

story of Jesus is the story of the Reign of God, and to ask

whether one can find stories of God’s Reign outside the

Christian church. Stage three is to listen to the stories of God’s

Reign in Asia. Stage four is to identify a theological problem,

namely what is the main theme of Jesus’ proclamation?

Salvation or the Reign of God? Stage five is ‘Jesus and stories

of people’. This means that we should equip ourselves with a

theological imagination that can help us image God and God’s

activity in the stories of Asian people, and to apply the same

theological imagination to the stories in the Christian Bible. A

theological space will be opened in the inter-penetration

between Jesus and the people of Asia in stories-the story of

19

Ibid p. 115. 20

Ibid p. 115. 21

C. S. Song, Jesus, the Crucified People, (New York: Crossroad, 1990), 160. 22

C. S. Song, “Five Stages towards Christian Theology in the Multicultural

world” in Constructing the Theology in the context of Taiwan, ed., by Chen

Nan-Jou, (enl. ed., Chiayi: Hsin Fu, 1995), 101-30.


Jesus and stories from Asia. It is clear that for C. S. Song, the

stories of Reign of God, the stories of people striving for peace,

justice, love, and truth is the criteria for us to discern God’s

activities in the world.

Placing especial emphasis on the Reign of God, C. S.

Song argued that in reconstructing theology and mission,

Christian churches should come to a Biblical and theological

shift, namely, shifting “from the great commission of discipling

all nations to the great commandment of love for God and for

the neighbor”.23

He challenged churches and said “Try, then, to

make a biblical and theological shift from ‘the great

commission’ to ‘the great commandment’. Reconstruct a

theology of Christian mission on this shift and reshape programs

and practices of Christian mission with God’s healing love at the

heart”.24

C. S. Song stated that Jesus in the power of the Spirit

“would not go along with the ways in which we Christians

dismiss other religions as having nothing to do with the saving

activity of God in creation. What he did was to bring the love of

God back into the human community and test what we say and

do in every sphere of life, especially in the faith we profess and

in the religion to which we belong, whether the love of God we

confess is translated into love of our neighbor”.25

In short, C. S. Song proposed a new mission paradigm

that is to articulate mission from the perspective of God’s

creation instead of redemption, and to do mission from

observing great commandment of love rather than the great

commission.

Preman Niles, former general secretary of the Council

for World Mission, proposed an alternative mission paradigm

which he himself called ‘the people of God in the midst of all

23

C. S. Song, “From the Great Commission to the Great Commandment: A

Biblical and Theological Shift”, The Way No. 23 (December 2004), 11. 24

C. S. Song, “From the Great Commission to the Great Commandment: A

Biblical and Theological Shift”, 13. 25

C. S. Song, Jesus in the Power of the Spirit, (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994),

256-257.


God’s peoples’.26

Preman Niles also argued that in Asia, the

motif of creation rather than redemption history is the needed

theological framework for mission.27

He considered that within

the framework of creation, rather than any construct of

redemption history, the redemption of all people could be rightly

understood.28

Preman Niles stated that the paradigm ‘the people

of God in the midst of all God’s peoples’ is “a paradigm that

urges us to explore missiologically the interrelationships that

ought to exist between understandings of people as laos, ochlos,

and ethne”.29

From my point of view, the theological

presupposition of Preman Niles’ paradigm is “the task for

Christian mission more in terms of ‘being a blessing to the

nations’ than as ‘attempting to convert the nations’”.30

Based on this theological understanding, Preman Niles

proposed that “in addressing the situation of religio-ethnic strife

embodied in the political paradigm of the clash of civilization,

the challenge [of mission] is to incarnate the love ethic of Jesus,

‘Love your enemies; do good to them that hate you’. Our

contention has been that only a church that has managed the

plurality of nations within itself and that views itself as set in the

midst of and not over against all God’s peoples can take up this

costly missionary vocation, because it is a mission that will

attempt to go against the tide”.31

It is clear that there are some similarities between

Preman Niles and C. S Song’s paradigms. Both of them argued

that God’s creation, rather than the redemption, should be the

framework of our mission. They all stressed that to do mission is

to love your neighbors in today’s world situation, especially in

the context of Asian people.

26

D. Preman Niles, From East and West: Rethinking Christian Mission,

(Missouri: Chalice Press, 2004) p. 132. 27

Ibid. p.137 28

Ibid p. 137 29

Ibid p. 155 30

Ibid p. 133 31

Ibid p. 177


Towards a Mission-Oriented Theological Education

If the element ‘mission should be the theme of all

theology’ is accepted as a critical element in the new emerging

mission paradigm, all theological discussions should be thought

about from the point of view of the theology of mission.

Therefore, the teaching and learning of all theological subjects

should be mission-oriented. To put it more precisely, we have to

establish and to promote a mission-oriented theological

education.

If we are challenged to reconstruct our Christian mission

from the perspective of God’s creation, we are challenged to

read the Bible with new eyes that will enable us to discern

God’s activities in our world, and to know the people in our

neighborhood and their faiths. Theological education therefore

has to enable and to empower theological students to identify

with the history and cultures of the people to whom they belong.

Theological education should enable students to discern the

theological meanings of the culture and history of the people

whom they serve.

If we are invited to do mission from observing the great

commandment of love, we are challenged to articulate and to

practice Christian social ethics, the principles of love, justice,

and peace in this complicated world which is driven by the

values of globalization, filled with confrontations of different

cultures, religions, and ideologies. Theological education

therefore has to enable and to empower theological students to

identify with the sufferings and the hopes of the people to whom

they belong and whom they serve. It means that the theological

education has to share together the sufferings of the people, and

to struggle together with people for a society towards justice and

peace.

In order to respond to the challenges mentioned above, I

propose some preliminary guidelines for theological education.

Regarding the purpose and the structure of theological

education:


Emphasizing both the training of the ministers and

pastoral workers and of the lay. Christian mission is

done by the whole church, not the ministers alone. The

genuine understanding of new mission paradigm should

be understood by not only the ministers but also the

people on the pew.

Challenging and reforming the existing theological

educational structures that they may serve the new

mission paradigm better. A structure taking both

centripetal and centrifugal approaches should be

considered.

Enhancing the relationship between the theological

seminaries and the local congregations that theological

studies may on the one hand, reflect the real situation of

the local context, on the other hand, take root on the

grassroots level.

Regarding the methods of theological education:

Intensifying the relationship and the integration between

theological studies and the studies of other disciplines

The studies of other disciplines always bring impacts on

our theological understanding of the world and the Bible.

The theology will be contextual and relevant to the life

of the people only if the theology stands in relation to

other disciplines.

Encouraging the interdisciplinary study and teaching

among all theological courses, and enabling students to

grasp the basic missiological issues that each theological

discipline is concerned with.32

Doing theology and theological education in the living

social and cultural context to which churches belong.

32

See D. Preman Niles, ed., Critical Engagement in the Asia Context, (Hong

Kong: ACHEI, UBCHEA, 2005), 69


Regarding the contents of theological education:

Shifting our theology and praxis of mission program

from the concern of personal salvation to the concern of

the life of the whole person, whole society, and whole

creation. It means that we have to explore and to teach

all dimensions of Gospel which is relevant to the

individuals, the society, and the whole creation.

Replacing “Christian and church-centered” mission

practices with the “people-centered” practices, or at least,

emphasizing both practices, and enabling theological

students to identify with the sufferings and hope of the

people and to be aware that participating in people’s

struggle for liberation politically, socially, economically,

and culturally is participating in God’s mission.

Seeking dialogue and cooperation with people of other

faiths. In order to be peacemakers and for the sake of

participating in the building of a peaceful society,

Christians have to seek to dialogue with people of other

faiths that the misunderstandings among different

religions can be eliminated, and mutual appreciation,

acceptance, and cooperation can thus be built up.

Discerning the theological meaning of the culture to

which we belong and exploring the dynamic relationship

between the Gospel and cultures, both traditional and

contemporary cultures for “Culture shapes the human

voice that answers the voice of Christ”.

Emphasizing the co-relation of the study and practice

between mission and social ethics. The integration of

mission study and social ethics will enable the Christian

communities to equip themselves better to participate in

social transformation and to be a blessing of others.

Reading the Bible with new eyes, the eyes of the poor,

the oppressed, and the marginalized, that the five


dimensions of the missions, namely proclamation of the

Gospel, the nurturing and teaching of the people of God,

loving service, transformation of society, and the caring

of creation may be rooted in the Biblical teaching.

Conclusion

A mission-oriented theological education is to let the

seminary be a facilitator, the ministers be mission enablers of

the Christian communities that the people of God will be

empowered to be coworkers of the Reign of God.

Documents

theologies and cultures