tagged: Globalism, Pluralism, Rastis, Roland Allen

Globalization and the Gospel of Cultural Dominance

Posted by Rastis in Church & Missions

There are few places in the world one can go where globalization has not disturbed the social ambiance.  These rapid and diverse changes cause much consternation for those native to those cultures and geographies.  It was not too many generations ago that all but a select few heard about the world through the limited venues of world news (only if there was something major), National Geographic, and from the writings of the few who traveled to “darkest Africa.”  It was not too many generations before that when people would only hear of the rest of the world via the writings of Heroditus, Marco Polo, Captain James Cook, and Mark Twain.  In spite of the average American’s geographic naivete, globalism has brought the world to our towns.

No longer does one need to be a world traveler in order to meet people from India, China, Malaysia, Russia, and Africa.  Even if we don’t know what part of Mexico the Vietnamese are from, many of us have Vietnamese neighbors and coworkers.  One need not travel to the Middle East to see women in Burkas nor travel to India to visit a temple constructed out of hand carved rocks.  A few generations ago, when someone left the church they simply had other denominations from which to choose.  Now, when someone wanders from the faith they have a plethora of options.  Most major metroplexes–and even smaller cities and towns–have representatives of every major religion and even some of the minor ones such as Jains, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians.  If formal religion isn’t your thing, then just head to your local Barnes & Noble or Borders to pick up some tarrot cards or books to coach you through a seance.

In response to these changes (can we call it culture shock?), many have resorted to nationalism and cultural revivals.  This is a very historic response when addressing drastic cultural changes in one’s home culture.  This response began with Rome and was the precursor to much of the early Christian persecution.  While we might not be ready to throw anyone to the lions just yet, many frustrated Americans are heading down the road to a stronger national and cultural identity.

There is nothing wrong with a strong national, cultural, or ethnic identity in and of itself.  These identities, coupled with frustration and resistance to encroaching changes do, however, complicate sound missiological thinking and practice.  These frustrations nuance missiological practice to follow one of two routs, sometimes both: cultural imperialism and caustic confrontation.

Roland Allen served as an Anglican missionary and wrote several books which challenged the prevailing colonial approach to missions.  He addresses the issues of cultural imperialism and caustic confrontation. The following quotes are from Allen’s “Missionary Methods: Ours or St. Paul’s?”

Regarding cultural imperialism he says:
We modern teachers from the West are by nature and by training persons of restless activity and boundless self-confidence.  We are accustomed to assume an attitude of superiority towards all Eastern peoples, and to point to our material progress as the justification of our attitude.  We are accustomed to do these things ourselves for ourselves, to find our own way, to rely upon our own exertions, and we naturally tend to be impatient with others who are less restless and less self assertive than we are.  We are accustomed by long usage to an elaborate system of church organization, and a peculiar code of morality.  We cannot imagine any Christianity worthy of the name existing without the elaborate machinery which we have invented.  We naturally expect our converts to adopt from us not only essentials but accidentals.  We desire to impart not only the Gospel, but the Law and the Customs. [6]

They naturally suspect some evil ulterior motive. They suppose that the foreigner is eager to extend his influence and to establish himself amongst them at their expense,  In China, particularly, the common idea prevalent amongst the people is that to become a Christian involves submission to foreign domination.  This conception has a most powerful effect in deterring the people from approaching the missionary or from receiving his teaching with open minds.  I think it is now almost universally admitted that the permanence of foreign rule in the Church ought not to be our object in propagating the gospel.  But by taking large supplies with us to provide and support our establishments and organizations we do in fact build up that which we should be most eager to destroy.  [55]

The problem of cultural imperialism is not a new problem.  This was an issue the very first missionaries and their sending churches had to hammer out.  Does a gentile have to become a Jew–before or after conversion–to be a believer?  The standard missiological paradigm today–insofar as I am aware–is to plant indigenous churches.  On the field, I do not know of anyone who is enforcing our culture or language on local people.  Everyone I know, have read of, or have heard about ministers in the local language and plants indigenous congregations.  But what about when we reach all of those globally displaced peoples back home?  I head about a church that was “multi-cultural,” (50% white and 50% Hispanic).  They prided themselves on translating their services into Spanish for those who needed it.  This was the measure of being multicultural.  I received a very cold response when I asked why they didn’t preach in Spanish and translate into English.  “This is America.  They should learn English!”  Multi-cultural church here meant that they were happy to have all of the foreigners so long as the looked, talked, and acted like the locals.

There are many good reasons to teach people in their heart language (when a former catholic from south of the border and a western Christan from north say the word Grace or christianese like “receive Jesus” they mean drastically different things.  Putting both crowds in the same room and translating our ideas into their language is not sufficient discipleship), and in the overseas context this simply a presupposition.  But bring that mentality back to the states and you better be ready for a fight.

Regarding confrontation he says:
It may be justly argued from these speeches that St Paul did not, and that the Christian missionary today should not, make bitter and virulent attacks upon the objects of his hearers’ veneration.  It is true that St Paul denounced idolatry in strong terms, speaking of ‘these vain things’ (Acts 14:15) and ‘this ignorance’ (Acts 17:30), but in doing this he was only taking a position sanctioned by the highest intellects of his day, and recognized by all as a common attitude amongst thoughtful men.  Similarly today a missionary in China might denounce in strong terms the folly of Taoist superstitions, and in doing so he would receive the approval of all right-minded Chinese, because that is the proper attitude for an enlightened teacher to take up; it is the attitude of the Sacred Edict.  But that is not the same thing as to rail upon the religion of those whom he addresses.  St Paul did not do that either at Lystra or at Athens, and the Town Clerk at Ephesus is witness that he did not blaspheme the goddess of that city.  This is quite in harmony with the characteristic attitude of St Paul to his hearers which I have before noted.  Christians in later days, accustomed to more bitter methods of controversy, could not understand this.  To St Chrysostom it seemed incredible that St Paul should have refrained from fierce denunciation of the false goddess.  He explained the matter by saying that the Town Clerk was not stating a known fact, but simply using a form of speech which he thought calculated to quiet an exited crowd.  In later ages this same habit of mind still lingered on, and it is only now dying out.  Now, it is happily rare to hear a missionary revile the religion of other people, or hold up the objects of their veneration to scorn and ridicule, and it is to be hoped that it may soon cease altogether. [67-68]

The issue of strong confrontation, as Allen suggests, is also not a new issue to face the church.  Paul modeled different levels of confrontation.  The closer he was to his own people group, it seems, the stronger his rhetoric became.  This is also true of the other sermons in Acts.  Look at Peter’s Acts 2 Sermon vs. Paul’s Sermon in Athens.  They have a completely different tone and style.  This is not simply a personality difference between Paul and Peter.  Paul himself was more confrontational when addressing his own people.

I love the way the author of Hebrews approaches the religion of rabbinic Judaism.  Legitimately, he could have taken a much stronger approach.  He could have gone after the Law as powerless to save.  He could have attacked Moses as incomplete in his revelation.  He could have confronted their cultural identity and insisted instead that they become more universal.  In stead of this kind of confrontation he spoke quite highly of the Law, Moses, the priesthood, etc.  It is not that these were innately bad (or demonic, for those who favor that term), it is just that Jesus is so much better.

In attacking another religion, we might just create an atheist.  We might force them to illogically retrench and become better adherents of the religion they formerly knew little or nothing of until we attacked it.  By exalting Christ we permit the Gospel to work the way it was designed to work, that God draw people to himself through the cross.  Some of the christian apologists against other religions have simply been so harsh in their responses that they illicit an emotive response rather than repentance.  Some of these apologists have stooped to the level of ridiculing, insulting, and mocking the other side.  These approaches create more heat than light and more often than not mask the real issues by highlighting the sound-bytes.

Globalism presents many challenges and stresses for the church.  By approaching the issue from a biblical perspective rather than a cultural or political perspective we can turn the challenge of globalism into an opportunity.