Comments on: Word, Spirit, Gospel and Mission (Part 4)

By: Brian Karcher

Brian Karcher — Sat, 18 Aug 2012 15:48:23 +0000

Ben, I think you are correct. There are unique qualities to the UBF context, but as you point out, UBF and the surrounding controversy is really nothing new. If UBF missionaries do learn the meaning of the word autochthonous, then I think there just may be hope :) Thanks for sharing, I always enjoy learning a new word from you!

By: Ben Toh

Ben Toh — Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:10:38 +0000

Interestingly, my previous comment in 2011 was from Manila, and this one is from Malaysia. How the world is now so much smaller!

By: Ben Toh

Ben Toh — Fri, 17 Aug 2012 11:03:29 +0000

I finished reading Lesslie Newbigin’s The Open Secret. I was impressed with McGavran’s observations about foreign missions, which are eerily similar to Roland Allen’s Missionary Methods.

Reading Newbigin (1909-1998) and Allen (1868-1947) has “comforted” me in that the conflicts, angst and misunderstandings that we are experiencing between missionaries and indigenous people is really not at all unique to UBF!

What can we do? I believe that we must have more and more honest, open and transparent dialogue. To some degree it is happening more than before. Yet, in some areas, some missionaries still do not like “their territory” being encroached upon. They especially do not like their authority being challenged, or being questioned about decisions that they have made, and asked to explain or clarify themselves.

Just as autochtonous people allowed the missionaries to teach, train, mentor, disciple them over the last few decades, the missionaries must now be willing to humble themselves deeply, and truly learn from autochtonous people, just as Peter died to himself and learned from Cornelius, who was just a “brand new young sheep.”

When this begins to happen more and more, there will be a new history of UBF in this century.

By: Ben Toh

Ben Toh — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 05:39:40 +0000

Greetings from Philippines UBF in Manila, where we are enjoying 90 degree weather. Regarding abstaining from eating blood (Acts 15:29), I just finished my lunch of pork pieces cooked in pig’s blood! And it was delicious. We were laughing and joking that we were “eating food sacrificed to idols.” (Looks like I would have been excommunicated after the Jerusalem council!) How liberating is the gospel indeed. Sorry for those with weak stomachs.

The mission station strategy is surely a “blind spot,” and thus it would be a source of contention and anger if brought up or even hinted at, especially by indigenous converts. Perhaps, it would require a gracious “older” Korean missionary to gently bring this “painful” issue up, so that we can begin to reasses as objectively as possible what we are doing.

By: Joe

Joe — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 04:18:45 +0000

Thanks, Ben. I believe that all of us need to evangelized and re-evangelized throughout our lives. I guess it was culturally impossible for Peter and Cornelius to evangelize each other, but it happened. It’s the work of the Spirit, not us.

By: Ben W

Ben W — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 04:02:18 +0000

Joe,
I was wondering if you think it’s possible to have a re-evangelization of the missionaries if the missionaries come from a highly hierarchical background. Wouldn’t it be culturally impossible for converts to re-evangelize missionaries? Perhaps this issue will be addressed as the series continues. Can’t wait for the next installment–I’ve enjoyed every part.

By: Joe

Joe — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:20:08 +0000

Isn’t it interesting that there were many priests and Pharisees in the early church? (Acts 6:7, 15:5) The Apostle Paul identified himself as a Pharisee all his life (Acts 23:6). We need not view Pharisees negatively. I’m sure that many Christian Pharisees were devoted to God and their keeping of traditions was an expression of genuine love for God. But they easily misunderstood and misjudged Gentile Christians who lived differently from them, and in turn they were probably misjudged too.

By: Oscar

Oscar — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:08:16 +0000

Thanks for the clarification, this helps me to see things in a different light, though I still have some reservations, but it’s something I struggle with and pray about. An honest discussion would be very interesting. I think we mentioned this in the article about the next General Director.

By: Joe

Joe — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 07:58:36 +0000

Joshua, thank you. Speaking as a pastor — and as a husband and a father — I have been learning, mostly through my painful mistakes, that it is my job to communicate in ways that others understand. Not for me to insist that others correctly understand and interpret my preferred love languages, but for me to understand theirs. That is the essence of cross-cultural witness, and also of emotional maturity. But it’s hard. In my case, it requires me to learn how to express affection, which has always been difficult for me. And the love being expressed must be sincere, not an act designed to fool or manipulate people in order to get them to do what I want. It must be real love, the kind that comes from God as a fruit of the Spirit, not from my corrupt sinful nature. The kind that comes from a personal relationship with Christ.

By: Joshua Brinkerhoff

Joshua Brinkerhoff — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 05:46:58 +0000

I agree with Joe’s point that the expression of love differs. I’ve frequently heard professional translators talk about the difficulty of translating a joke from one language into another. If humor is hard to transfer from one cultural and ethnic context into another, how much harder it must be to transfer the expression of divine love! If my pastor was from Canada, I would come up to him, give him a big hug, and say, “Pastor, I love you. Thank you so much for your love too,” and that would be that. Over the years, sometimes I desperately wanted a hug, a squeeze on the shoulder, a word of encouragement, or something like that from my pastor to show me his love. I didn’t want to be told to write my testimony again with deeper repentance, to pray more and longer, to repent more, and go back to my Bible. Those things didn’t spell love to me at those times. Even though I surely needed such good spiritual counsel, I also wanted my pastor to communicate love to me in a meaningful way. Gradually, God is helping me to understand the deep, genuine love that underlies these comments and reinterpret his words as real, genuine expressions of sincere divine love and his desire to help me grow as a Christian. I think that sometimes people cannot make this reinterpretation, and so rather than hearing love, they grow resentful. If they leave, it is said, “They were rebellious,” or “They couldn’t accept the pastor’s spiritual authority,” but in reality the main problem is that they couldn’t understand the pastor’s expression of his real love.
I hope these thoughts are (at least tangentially) germane to the above posting! Blessings!

By: Joshua Yoon

Joshua Yoon — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 05:24:55 +0000

Joe, I am very pleased that your article on this thme is unfolding a very important issue of an elephand in the room. I agree that there must be our version of a Jeruslaem Council, an open dialogue among leaders. The council at Jerusalem was possible because there were Paul and Barnabas, Peter and James. Who should be Paul and Barnabas? Who could be Peter and James? Paul's fruitful second and third missionary journeys were possible because the leaders acknowledged an elephant in the room and discuss about it. Of course, the opposition of the traditional Jews did not cease. Yesterday while I was listening to Christian radio station while driving, I heard about "the elephantroom conference" a One-day simulcast event for church leaders on March 31, 2011. The Elephant Room will feature blunt conversations between seven influential pastors who share a common love for the Gospel but take differing approaches to ministry. The purpose is to unify the Church on essential truths. Here is the website for anyone who is interested in this event. http://www.theelephantroom.com We need an open dialogue among church leaders from different ministries and churches, and within each ministry and church. The question is, "Who should initiate the elephant room and when?" Of course, the Holy Spirit will do it. When I read Acts 15 again, I noticed that when there were conflicts between Paul (Barnabas) and some Pharisee believers, senior leaders in Jerusalem church did not ignore it. But with open minds and hearts they met to consider the matter and had much discussion. It is my hope that we will not just ignore or avoid the elephant in the room but deal with it openly through open dialogue and follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The elephant in the room is too big to be overlooked.

By: Joe

Joe — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 18:50:35 +0000

Hi Oscar. Thanks for your insights. It’s very interesting that you brought up Galatians and faith expressing itself through love. Love is the first fruit of the Spirit. The gospel should bring forth divine love. But love in an inner condition. We don’t see love itself. We only see the way that love is expressed through words and actions. And those expressions may be seen very differently in different contexts and cultures. It is quite possible for a UBF shepherd to believe that encouraging you not to miss meetings etc. is an expression of love. Perhaps it is an expression of love. But it might not look that way to you. These gospel-borne fruits really do look different across individuals and cultures. This is why we have to be careful, not too quick to judge others’ intentions and motives, and seek deeper understanding of one another in the unity and fellowship of the Spirit. This can be hard, but our common identity in Jesus should make it possible.

By: Oscar

Oscar — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 16:25:58 +0000

While I don’t have any experience in missionary work (outside of talking to people from other countries about the bible online) I do have experience in UBF. I don’t know how other churchs do it, but UBF really does seem set in its ways. It’s great a first for those who really, genuinly want to study the bible. I’m very greatful for my shepards who have helped me think deeply about the bible and helped bring me to Jesus. That being said I agree with Newbiggin when he says “They have become proponents of a new law rather than a liberating gospel.” After accepting Christ we are slaves to him. But this is often used to mean we are slaves to UBF. I can’t count how many times I’ve been pressured to go fishing, or never miss a friday meeting/(UBF)prayer service, and skip work to go to every conference, etc. Why, just the other day I was having Galatians bible study talking about faith expressing itself through love and how, if we aren’t loving people (i.e. the stuff I mentioned above) then we aren’t being faithful. Look, I don’t mean for this to be a criticism. I really do enjoy studying the bible with UBF, I just don’t like that there is an agenda behind it (or as mentioned in another article “through the looking glass of world mission”). Maybe I’m just a lazy guy who doesn’t want to do things the way UBF does….