The era of Western Christianity has passed within our lifetimes, and the day of Southern Christianity is dawning. The fact of change itself is undeniable: it has happened, and will continue to happen.
Philip Jenkins, The New Christendom
Change brings fear and fear is the wrong state of mind to provide leadership. Where denominations are concerned, fear and limited perspectives put behemoth organizations at risk. In our day there is a shift of tectonic proportions taking place, but if we do not see it in the light of history it can provide a basis for fear instead of faith. It should not.
Consider these facts from Exploring World Mission: Context and Challenges:
–The Christian era began in the Middle East with largely Jewish believers, but within 100-200 years had expanded to Asia becoming largely Gentile in the process.
–By 600 AD, the church had spread to North Africa and southern Europe. It’s language was primarily Greek.
–By 1,000 AD, the church had been mostly displaced from by the influx of Islam shifting the center toward Western Europe where it was solidified by 1,500 AD. Theology and mission became largely European.
–By the mid-20th century, the church was declining in the West and this decline has continued unabated.
–At the beginning of the 21st century the center of gravity for the church on planet earth is in Latin America, South America, Africa and Asia. The church is now non-Western and its theology and mission are rapidly following suit.
–By 2050, only about 20% of the world’s three billion Christians will be non-Hispanic whites.
What do these last statements demonstrate? They mean that the center of gravity of the church (or, as Jenkins terms it, “the Christian heartland”) is moving. Most American Christians have no idea what is going on around the world and many seem to think that without the American missionary force the world would go straight to hell. While it is true that by the 1950’s America was supplying 2/3 of the Protestant missionary force to the world, it does not follow that converting the world’s population to Christ was dependent on Western missionaries. African scholar John Mbiti has said:
It is utterly scandalous for so many Christian scholars in [the] Old Christendom to know so much about heretical movements in the second and third centuries, when so few of them know anything about Christian movements in areas of the younger churches.
Consider that the number of Christians in Africa grew from an estimate 10 million in 1900 to a mind-boggling 360 million in 2000. This means that there are more Christians in Africa than there are people in the United States. Adrian Hastings, in his book The Church in Africa, said:
It sometimes startles [them] to see that the three combined bodies are from Europe, and along with them there is a title “Christendom”…If [Africans] had power enough to communicate [them]selves to Europe [they] would advise them not to call themselves “Christendom” but “Europeandom.”
Africans are dynamic about sending missionaries. While in Kenya in 1995, I met a young believer named David. David was 23 years old and served as a translator for one of the preachers in our group. In addition to English and Swahili, David already spoke four tribal dialects and was learning a fifth. Not only could he speak them, he was equally proficient at translating between any two of them! It was truly amazing to hear this soft spoken man who was passionate to get the gospel to all peoples in Kenya. He did not need a Western missionary to tell him what he ought to be doing in the kingdom.
We should not forget that South Koreans are sending missionaries, as are eastern Europeans. According to the East-West Church & Ministry Report, Summer 2005 newsletter, Hungary, Poland and Romania are slowly rising up as missionary sending nations having learned from western missionaries in their midst. “One Nazarene church in Bucharest consists of only six families, each with five or more children. Nevertheless, it fully supports a missionary family in Ethiopia because it has a vision to see that country reached for the gospel.” New Bethany’s strategy in Russia includes the possibility of sending Ukrainian or Belorussian, not only American, missionaries as they are the best adapted for the culture and the language. These opportunities will only continue.
As far as American denominations go, we should be assured that the King is well able to take care of His kingdom and that the passing of the era of Denominationalism poses no threat to either of them. Because we tend to view history through the myopic lens of our own lives, many do not realize that the West has not always been the center of God’s working in the world. From the Middle East to Asia to Africa and Southern Europe to the West and now to the South, God has always been at work. In the February 5, 2001 issue of Christianity Today, Philip Yancey notes:
As I travel, I have observed a pattern, a strange historical phenomenon of God “moving” geographically from the Middle East, to Europe to North America to the developing world. My theory is this: God goes where he’s wanted.
If Yancey is correct that God goes “where he’s wanted,” then that is a warning to Denominationalists in American: if we are not alert, we will find ourselves striving to save a denomination while claiming to be in pursuit of God.
Philip Jenkins warns of this mindset:
Southern Christianity, the Third Church, is not just a transplanted version of the familiar religion of the older Christian states: the New Christendom is no mirror image of the Old. It is a truly new and developing entity….If we are to live in a world where only one Christian in five is a non-Hispanic White, then the views of the small minority are ever less likely to claim mainstream status, however desperately the Old World Order clings to its hegemony over the control of information and opinion.
As the Kingdom moves, our temptation will be to find security in our institutions, the same institutions that are themselves fighting to maintain control and importance. Our denominational structures are a primary place of such security. Without an ability to envision a future without denominations, some will continue to put forth extraordinary amounts of energy to re-animate that which is dying or already dead. Such folks are not able to envision a future without denominations; I cannot envision a future with them.
Marty,
Thanks for the good posts on post-denominationalism. You prompted me to do a mini-series on the same topic on my blog. I share your basic convictions that we are indeed facing a post-denominational world. I especially appreciated the quote by Yancey. He is one of my favorite authors and that quote is on target. Bill O’Brien, former exec. v-p of the FMB and an outstanding missiologist, shared some interesting statistics at the recent meeting of the BGCM on the southward shift of Christianity that coincide with Yancey’s affirmation.
Comment by Gary Snowden — May 9, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
Marty,
I think you are, to a large extent, on target here. I have also read Jenkins, and been impacted by what he says. I think it is definitely a “wake-up call” for all of us. The counterpoint to the argument, though, is to what extent do we, who are able to do something about is, have a stewardship responsibility beford God for the most strategic use of the wide network of resources represented by the SBC. One option would be to say, “it’s a thing of the past, it’s seen its better days” and move on to bigger and better things (or smaller and better things, as the case may be). But, when I am called to give an account before the Lord at the Day of Reckoning, I do not think our stewardship of the vast amount of resources represented by the SBC will be totally irrelevant.
Comment by David Rogers — May 9, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
Gary-
Thanks for the info; perhaps it will show up online at some point.
David-
I’m in agreement with you; so long as the SBC continues to function, the “vast” resources should be well utilized. Concerning the SBC, though, you and I both know that isn’t the case. The vast bureaucratic overlaps, squandering of resources and struggles for control makes it impossible for the resources to be used with wisdom. My point is that the time is rapidly approaching when individuals and churches, striving for obedient stewardship, will opt for that which is more efficient and effective believing God to be pleased in it. When that happens, the disintegration will be past a point of no return.
Comment by Marty Duren — May 9, 2008 @ 8:32 pm
I see in your post something else that relates to the “disintegration” of the SBC. You say that NBBC is looking at sponsoring M’s from neighboring countries to go into Russia.
It occurs to me that the IMB has never come close to that. Of course, the reason is that candidates must be sent from sponsoring SBC churches, which means that they are going to be white southerners, for the most part. I now begin to question the effectiveness of this process. Clearly, we could get more “bang for our buck” by partnering with M’s who are neighbors or even residents of the country we are trying to reach. It costs a lot less to transport them and they don’t need to come all the way to the US for furlough, etc. This is not to mention that the cultural study is less of an issue.
Yet we are in a time when even the sponsorship of the local church is not good enough to get a M into the interview process, but they must be more tightly restricted by doctrinal issues that I need not exhaust for those who read this blog.
Given that, how much more is the IMB a Landmarkish organization, since we are only exporting Southern Baptist authorized theology AND that must be carried by approved Southern Baptists.
Maybe everyone has seen that connection from the start, but it just occurred to me. There are a good many qualified M candidates out there, beyond our borders. Controlling everything through a denomination is just not making sense to a good many folks nowadays.
Comment by art rogers — May 10, 2008 @ 8:38 pm
Praise God! His Kingdom come and His will be done right here in “River City” just as it is in heaven! :)
Comment by Bryan Riley — May 11, 2008 @ 3:20 am
Great post and very encouraging to read about. Once we get over the whole SB identity thing it’s actually really exciting to see that the Lord is indeed working globally in creative ways.
Comment by Camel Rider — May 11, 2008 @ 4:17 am
The Jenkins quote, If we are to live in a world where only one Christian in five is a non-Hispanic White, then the views of the small minority are ever less likely to claim mainstream status, however desperately the Old World Order clings to its hegemony over the control of information and opinion has been a reality for most of the 20 years we have served as missionaries on the field. I find it interesting to watch as the American Church is slowly coming to the realization that we are no longer the “big guns” in God’s plans for the nations. The pivotal role we once held in shaping theology, doctrines, methodologies and practices was passed on many years ago. There are other forces and voices who have taken our place. Few believers in our context continue to look to N. American Christianity as the model to imitate.
I do think S. Baptists have played a pivotal role in “raising our children” to the point that they are now no longer dependent upon us. As spiritual parents of the generations preceding, it is often difficult to accept that our “kids” no longer need us like they used to. My role as a N. American, S. Baptist missionary is different than was that of my parents who came back in the early ’60’s. For me one of the big challenges of missions today is to try to understand the role we are now to be playing in a global movement of God to bring the nations to Jesus. I applaud your bold thinking as you continue to explore these issues.
Comment by Guy Muse — May 11, 2008 @ 8:55 pm
If what is being said here is correct (and I believe that it is), then is it possible that to continue to support the current system, including our system of sending missionaries, is to actually oppose or work in a different way than the way that God is working in the world today? If that is the case, then why do we want to continue to support this system?
When we were in India a few weeks ago, I met an indigenous evangelist/church planter. He was working with a hospital that we were working with to do our clean water project. He was going along with our project to share Christ, raise up leaders, and plant churches. I met him and heard his story. He comes highly recommended for his work elsewhere. He also walks miles each day through the mountains to visit Hindus and share Christ with them. He is showing the Jesus film and has a strategy to disciple and raise up local leaders. He has received theological training at a Bible college in the plains. We decided to support him because he was doing the same thing as the IMB missionary who was also in the area. But, he was native, knew the language and the people, was trusted and accepted, walked miles each day, and only needed $800 for 6 months full support.
The IMB would tell me not to do that because they don’t want the indigenous church to become dependent on funds from the West. Long term, they have a point – to an extent. Yet, we have mobilized a large missions force of Westerners that is dependent upon support from the West. Why don’t we use that same support and fund about 30 indigenous missionaries for the cost of funding one American? Or, use the American in a catalytic way to network with the indigenous church in a way that fuels the spread of the gospel like Guy seems to be saying.
Comment by Alan Cross — May 12, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
Alan, keep up the great work. It requires doing what you do to accomplish this, because you needed to see the man in ministry to know that he is truly doing Kingdom work, but you are spot on to find such indigenous work and support it. There still is a place for American missionaries (and they need support, too), but they should constantly be making disciples locally to carry on the work. BTW, if an American missionary is doing their job right in a third world country their needs for support won’t be much more than the indigenous, except that it is nice for them to be able to fly home or to other training/encouragement once in a while. At the same time, I’d suggest that those local ministers could also use some trips to other cultures.
Comment by Bryan Riley — May 12, 2008 @ 3:06 pm
Interesting point Alan…
I’ve always heard about our fear of creating nationals that are dependent on Western money when we ourselves are dependent on western money. The interesting thing is the double standard that we have with this. If a national works on the same field for a lifetime with very little fruit or much to show we would cut their funding but we allow it with our own people….interesting…
Comment by Camel Rider — May 12, 2008 @ 3:52 pm
Art, Bryan, Alan, Camel-
A year or so ago, the cry went out from the IMB that we needed to send more M’s to the field. I think that idea was to “tithe” our members to international fields or something along that line. I had just returned from Brazil where we had discussed the potential adaptability of Latin missionaries to middle eastern cultures due to the similarities. I raised the issue of using American dollars (of which there were plenty) to train and support missionaries from other nations, especially those that might more easily penetrate certain closed cultures. The answer was that those nations (such as Brazil) were responsible to send their own missionaries that we didn’t need to use American money for that.
One of our next steps will be to support (or find support for) two national pastors in our Siberian republic. It will be a little more than in India, but still much less than sending an American. If we eventually partner with a Ukrainian or Belorussian it might be a little more than a national, but will still be less than an American.
Comment by Marty Duren — May 12, 2008 @ 4:29 pm
Marty,
Even if it is a little more expense wise, you are still encouraging the indigenous church to take ownership over the mission – even if you are funding it for a time. Indians reaching Indians or Ukranians reaching Russians is better than Americans doing it all because it spreads the responsibility for reaching the world across the world. It will happen much faster that way, instead of locking up the mission in the hands of the very expensive and highly trained American missionary force.
Comment by Alan Cross — May 12, 2008 @ 6:08 pm
Alan-
Agreed.
Comment by Marty Duren — May 12, 2008 @ 6:12 pm
great post Marty – some really important info that most American Christians have no idea about….
Comment by tony sheng — May 14, 2008 @ 3:41 pm
Thanks, Tony and thanks for dropping in.
Comment by Marty Duren — May 15, 2008 @ 9:59 am
Never forget, though , the power of cross cultural mission. God really uses diversity to do amazing things. We need both/and, not either/or. It is amazing the doors that open to me, as an American, in some countries, that don’t open to local pastors. At the same time, in some countries doors don’t open to Americans and we need strong local Christians.
Comment by Bryan Riley — May 17, 2008 @ 5:39 am