EID journal - Mission and Dialogue: A missing element for consideration

There is a new edition of Evangelical Interfaith Dialogue journal available, the Fall 2014 edition. It focuses on "Mission and Dialogue: Critical Conversations for a Global Church." This issue includes a number of contributors from around the world, including not only Evangelicals, but also a Roman Catholic. Many of the pieces are thought provoking as Evangelicals consider the relationship between mission and dialogue.

One element is missing in my view, and that is recognition that some religious traditions view Evangelical participation in dialogue with suspicion as merely a covert for of mission and proselytizing. I have been accused of this by some Pagans, and it is helpful for Evangelicals to be aware of this concern, and to articulate the separate activities of mission and dialogue, when they may overlap, and how this might relate to those in religious traditions who see mission as incompatible with interfaith dialogue.

This edition of EID can be read here.

Sacred Tribes Journal on Ethics of Evangelism and Predatory Proselytism for Kindle

As I've mentioned previously, the next issue of Sacred Tribes Journal Vol. 8, no. 1 (Fall 2013) is devoted to an exploration of the ethics of evangelism. This is one of the best issues we've done, addressing a neglected topic from multiple perspectives, including an Evangelical exposition of the subject, a critique by a Hindu writer, responses by two Evangelicals, a review of Elmer Thiessen's The Ethics of Evangelism, and an excerpt of Myron Penner's The End of Apologetics with consideration of the politics and violence of apologetics in certain contexts.

I am working with some folks to address technical issues related to an update on the website so the new issue can be uploaded there. In the meantime, I have created an electronic version for Kindle.  Unfortunately, Amazon will not allow the option to offer the book for free, so I selected the minimum price of $.99US. So the Kindle book will sell for that price to interested individuals, and the journal edition at the STJ website will be free.

Please help share this in your network among Evangelicals, Hindus, Pagans and others who may be interested in a great conversation on this topic. I would be happy to make the PDF file available upon request for those who do not want to purchase the Kindle version.

I'll post a link to the STJ website piece when it is uploaded and published.

*Update Nov. 11: This edition is now available on the STJ website.

Fall 2013 Fuller "Evangelical Interfaith Dialogue" journal on New Religions

Cory Wilson, editor of Fuller Seminary's Evangelical Interfaith Dialogue journal, approached me in the recent past about writing the lead essay for a special issue devoted to new religious movements. Since I am a fan of the journal, and have previously written a responsive essay and book review for the publication, I accepted the invitation. In my essay for the forthcoming Fall 2013 issue, I provide a historical consideration of Evangelical responses to new religions, the rise and current dominance of counter-cult apologetic approaches, and the shift toward cross-cultural missions and dialogue means of engagement. Several people respond to my essay, including Sarah Staley, Gerald McDermott, Paul Louis Metzger, Joel Groat, and J. Gordon Melton. Philip Johnson wrote an essay on praxis related to NRMs. This edition also includes some helpful sidebars, including NRM summaries and statistical data, significant personalities, NRM stereotypes, a suggested bibliography, and references to the organizations I work with, including the Western Institute for Intercultural Studies and the Evangelical Chapter of the Foundation for Religious Diplomacy, and Sacred Tribes Journal. This issue will be available soon, primarily in an electronic version via the website, and a limited number in hard copies. I was given an advance electronic copy for distribution that can be accessed on my Academia.edu page.

I would like to thank Cory Wilson, the layout designer, Fuller Seminary, and all the contributors for their part in putting together this great issue.

Call for Papers on Predatory Proselytism

Background

For several years now the tension has been rising between Christian missionaries, mission and evangelistic organizations, and the governments and peoples of countries like India, as has been noted by organizations like the Institute for Global Engagement. At issue is the problem of unethical forms of evangelism, or proselytism, and it is not limited to Christian-Hindu interaction in India. Examples can be found elsewhere, including the United States. In an article in Hinduism Today, Padma Kuppa of the Hindu American Foundation defines predatory proselytism by way of inclusion of various elements: a quid pro quo of material enticement for conversion, misrepresentation and denigration of the religion of the other, and the intentional promotion of religious hatred and violence. In an essay at Patheos, Kuppa adds an asymmetry of power as another defining element. Evangelicals have spent some time addressing these issues, as for example in Elmer John Thiessen’s volume The Ethics of Evangelism: A Philosophical Defense of Proselytizing and Persuasion (IVP Academic, 2011), but much of the concern and reflection has been related to restrictions on Christian freedom to evangelize rather than on the ethical issues related to predatory proselytism, both in overseas missionary contexts as well as within America’s pluralistic public square.

Call for Submissions

The editor of Sacred Tribes Journal believes that this topic is an important one, and is planning on exploring various facets of it either in a special theme issue of the journal, or through a book if a publisher can be found. It is hoped that a collection of essays can be compiled from a variety of perspectives and disciplines that will address this issue. Submissions are not limited to Evangelical contributors and perspectives, but may also include those who have articulated the concerns of predatory proselytism on the receiving end of these practices. Issues discussed in papers may include the following:

• Perceptions and concerns of Hindus, Muslims, Pagans and others related to predatory proselytism.

• Religious, ethnic, and nationalist concerns about conversion and identity theft.

• Definitional and praxis issues that distinguish between ethical evangelism and predatory proselytism.

• Asymmetry of power issues related to evangelism, particularly between Christians and minority religions in an American Christendom context.

• Considerations related to finding a “middle way” or balance between the twin religious freedoms for proclamation and persuasion as well as freedoms related to a lack of interest in hearing such messages.

• How the issues of predatory proselytism should be factored into interreligious dialogue, as well as missions and evangelism.

Abstracts should be sent for review to John Morehead ( johnwmorehead@msn.com). The deadline for abstract submissions is June 15, 2013.

Predatory Proselytism: The Hard Sell

As a result of interacting with Pagan friends, and looking at the research of Padma Kuppa, a member of the Hindu American Foundation, in her exploration of unethical forms of sharing the Christian message which she calls "predatory proselytism," Paul Louis Metzger and I have written the first of a series of posts on the topic. We hope these provide information for reflection by Evangelicals, and among our conversation partners in various religions.

Essay and Book Reviews in Journal of Asian Missoin

The Journal of Asian Mission published in the Philippines and edited by Anne Harper, is focusing on new religions in a special Spring edition. Two book reviews of mine will be included, as will the following essay: "Walter Martin was Wrong: A Critique and Alternative to Evangelical Hermeneutical and Methodological Approaches to 'Cults.'"

Abstract: For many decades Evangelicals in America and the West have drawn upon a “counter-cult” approach to certain religious groups. The late Walter Martin is an exemplar of this model. This “heresy-rationalist” approach involves a contrast of Christendom’s orthodox doctrine with heretical deviations, and is often accompanied by an apologetic refutation of a religious group’s doctrine and worldview. This approach can also be found outside the West, impacting places as Asia and India. But what if the assumptions of this approach were wrong? This essay describes popular Evangelical assumptions about “the cults,” both in terms of a biblical hermeneutic, and the methodology of engagement that arises from this. A critique is offered, and then an alternative hermeneutic is presented. Consideration is given to the need for sociological assessment of the effectiveness of Evangelical counter-cult methodologies, and a cross-cultural missions model is presented by way of alternative to contemporary ways of engaging various religions.

The essay can be read here, and a review of George Chryssides' Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements, 2nd ed., can be found here. 

Op-ed: Pig-Headed Engagement of Islam

Unfortunately, there is a group of Christians who use confrontational methods in relation to other religious group, including holding up signs which attack religious leaders and sacred elements of religious cultures. This can be seen twice each year in Salt Lake City among Mormons attending General Conference, and among Muslims at places like Dearborn, Michigan as they attend an Arab American festival. A recent clash between Christians and Muslims took place in Dearborn (an example of this can be seen on the video clip below), and in response I co-authored an op-ed with Paul Louis Metzger that has been published by Aslan Media. In the essay, after describing the clash, and the current survey data on perceptions of Islam by Americans and evangelicals we ask:

Is engaging others in this manner the best way to express one's faith community's convictions? Who's listening? And if they are listening, isn't the result often more turmoil and more fighting? How ironic it is that those who are concerned most about Muslim acts that disregard human life are also reportedly perpetrating demeaning acts themselves.

The essay is titled "On the Dearborn Drama: Pig-Headed Engagement of Islam" which can be read here.

Muck and Adeney: Christianity Encountering World Religions

A few of the forthcoming volumes announced in the Baker Academic book catalog looked interesting, especially one due out in April by Terry Muck and Frances Adeney, Christianity Encountering World Religions: The Practice of Mission in the Twenty-first Century (forthcoming, 2009). Muck is dean of the E. Stanley Jones School of World Mission and Evangelism at Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, Kentucky, and Adeney is William A. Benfield Jr. Professor of Evangelism and Global Mission at Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. In my view this book will make a helpful contribution to missional reflection, and the two recently responded to a few of my questions about book's contents.

Morehead's Musings: You have co-authored a forthcoming book from Baker Academic on mission and world religions. Of course, there are many books on mission, including mission in the twenty-first century. How do you seek to make a unique contribution to this body of literature and thought through this book?

Terry Muck: In our judgment, mission to people already committed to world religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam, has reached a standstill. And that from a history of ineffectiveness. Although the church has poured mission resources into evangelizing Hindu, Buddhist, and Muslim cultures, little success can be documented as a result. We think some new thinking about this aspect of mission is called for. Our book is a start in that direction.

Frances Adeney: One way we do that is by taking a positive approach to persons and cultures of other religions, learning to understand them and respect them. Rather than seeing mutual respect and dialogue as an end in itself, however, we offer a mission model that includes giving and receiving gifts from those in other religions. One of the gifts we have to offer as Christians is the good news of the gospel. One of the ways we receive gifts is through embracing the ways that God’s grace is working both in other religions and in their followers lives and communities.

Morehead's Musings: One of your key chapters is titled "Giftive Mission." Can you define this?

Frances Adeney: We see mission as a two way street. We don’t encounter people of other religions just to “give them” the gospel. Rather we receive from them as well — wisdom, friendship, community, knowledge. And we “give” the gospel story through giving gifts — our presence, action for social good, building relationships and other mission methods.

Terry Muck: We think that using the metaphor of gift giving and receiving is a good one to describe what a Christian does when he or she shares the gospel story with a non-Christian. We call this giftive mission.

Morehead's Musings: It might seem like an easily understood concept in this chapter when you state that "the way we give the gift of the gospel needs to be appropriate to the context in which we find ourselves." Have evangelicals and other Christians always been sensitive to the concern for giftive context?

Terry Muck: Not the way we think of gift giving. In all the cultures of the world, gift giving is a reciprocal process -- the giving of gifts is just seen as the first action; the gift giver then receives a gift in return. And that then leads to a return gift, and so on. In the past, if Christians saw themselves giving the gift of the gospel, they have tended to see it as a one-time, one-way gift. We think the reciprocal, ongoing dynamic of gift giving needs to be emphasized.

Frances Adeney: Yes.

Morehead's Musings: You draw attention to the fact that "Westerners think they understand" the concept of "gift-giving practices", but you state that "because of their underlying market orientation [they] can hardly grasp it." Why and how is this so?

Frances Adeney: When Americans give a gift, we also expect one in return. Even more pointedly, when one receives a gift, immediately that person feels an obligation to reciprocate. Rather than freely receiving a gift, or buildings relationships through the giving and receiving process, we tend to see gift exchange in contractual terms. The gift creates an obligation to return a gift of equal monetary value. So what happens to the concept of gift as something freely given and received?

Terry Muck: Of all the economic systems in the world, the capitalist one has the most loose understanding of gift giving and receiving. Market economies tend to reduce gift giving to market forces in a way that de-emphasizes gift giving. This doesn't necessarily mean that market economies are wrong; it just means that a strong tradition of gift giving needs to be resurfaced in such cultures.

Morehead's Musings: At one point in the chapter on giftive mission you discuss ways in which critique of another culture enters the picture, and you remind us that "no matter how sensitively expressed, [it] cannot help but come across as being at least a but judgmental, a little bit holier than thou, a little bit triumphalistic." In your experience, how aware are evangelicals of this perception in others?

Terry Muck: Evangelicals are becoming much more aware of it. In the past we have not tended to notice this because our mission work was almost always done in a context where we have the social, political, and economic power. That is changing in many places of the world, and this has left exposed the triumphalisitc nature of much mission work.

Frances Adeney: In the method section of the book, we walk through a process of cross-cultural understanding that can undercut that triumphalistic attitude. Christians need to critique other cultures and religions. But first we need to understand our own biases and lay them aside so that we can learn the strengths of another culture. After opening ourselves to the people and ideas of another religion or culture, we bring back into the picture our own views. When done in that way, our critique of the other culture is balanced by a true appreciation of it and so comes across as less judgmental because — well because it is less judgmental. We have gone through a process of seeking understanding that lends itself to a gracious appreciation of another culture even as we critique it.

Morehead's Musings: You also state something that might take evangelicals by surprise. You say that "[o]ur gift is not doctrine. Our gift is not judgment. Our gift is not about us, but about Jesus." In my experience, many evangelicals make an intimate connection between Jesus, doctrine, and judgment. How might this need to be rethought in keeping with your thinking in this chapter?

Frances Adeney: Every religion, including Christianity, is filtered through social and cultural lenses. Our understanding of doctrine is no different. As we keep the focus on Jesus, the Holy Spirit will teach Christians from another culture to “grow up into the fullness of the knowledge of Christ.” We don’t take ready-made doctrines to other cultures — rather we share what we have received and trust God to mediate it to others.

Terry Muck: We need to see our understanding of doctrine as less than perfect (as in imperfect minds trying to understand a perfect gospel) and more conscious that judgment belongs to God and Jesus, not to us. Those are easily said remedies, but difficult to carry out.

Morehead's Musings: You say that our "task is to suggest that the story of a people's culture fits into the Jesus Story, somehow," and later you define "story" as a narrative that is not didactic or discursive. Have evangelicals perhaps emphasized doctrine and didactic elements to the neglect of considerations related to story?

Terry Muck: Some have and some haven't. We know evangelicals who are examplars of what we are suggesting, many evangelicals, actually. For those, we are just articulating in words what is already being practiced. But many evangelicals are perhaps not as aware of the primacy of the story of what God has done for us through Jesus Christ.

Frances Adeney: Christians from the West can learn from African and Asian Christians about how theology might look in another setting and how story might relate to theology for them. Reading theologies from those places helps Western Christians begin to see the cultural situatedness of our own theologies. Books like Mangoes or Bananas: The Quest for an Authentic Asian Christian Theology by Hwa Yung from Malasia, or Communicating Christ Through Story and Song: Orality in Buddhist Contexts, edited by Paul H. DeNeui are examples.

Morehead's Musings: Toward the conclusion of this chapter you reference the religious competition metaphor as one which has largely defined inter-religious interactions. You say that, "This has created, in our minds at least, a tendency to over-rely on the marketplace metaphor as the primary one to describe inter-religious interactions. The metaphors of marketplace competition and combat are particularly strong among evangelicals in inter-religious interactions in the Western context. What steps can we take to move beyond it?

Frances Adeney: When people travel to non-Western societies they learn a great deal about other metaphors: hospitality in Turkey, community in Africa, family in Asia. Even short term mission trips can help Westerners see a different complex of actions and ideas come together to illustrate the gospel.

Terry Muck: Imitate what Paul did in the Corinthian marketplace. Acknowledge that Christian mission is a market exchange on some levels, but emphasize that at its core it goes way beyond that. Christian mission aims at giving and receiving free gifts that are not material but spiritual, not temporal but eternal.

Morehead's Musings: One final question I'd like you to provide your thought on. Your book, looks at the concept of gift giving mission in light of indigenous, Eastern and Western cultures, but some subcultures in the West are strongly resistant to the notion of the gospel as gift. Neo-Pagans, for example, say that such an offer disrespects them in their choice of spiritual pathway that ignores or rejects the gospel, and they question the sincerity of Christians who engage them, even with the idea of giftive mission, as those who have an agenda. It's one thing to share our gift with those religions that are also "evangelistic" and missionary-minded, but what about those that do not have this sense? How would you respond to their concerns?

Terry Muck: Our offer of gifts will not always be accepted. Our motives will always be challenged by some. That shouldn't stop us from doing what Christ commands, though, giving the gift of the gospel to any and all. Also, it may that there are ways to give in the context of Neo-Pagaism that we haven't discovered; gospel gift-giving must always be contextualized so as much as possible cultural inhibitors are avoided and cultural opportunities are taken advantage of.

Frances Adeney: Yes. A few years ago, one of the students in my evangelism class became quite involved with Pagans in the Louisville area. As she got to know individuals in the group she repeatedly heard from them that she was the only Christian they had ever met who listened to them and really cared about their beliefs and practices. That’s a good place to start.

Morehead's Musings: Thank you again for talking about this forthcoming book. I look forward to reviewing it in the Spring once it becomes available, and I hope it contributes something meaningful to mission and inter-religious interactions.

Harold Taylor on Cross-Cultural Contextualization

Several years ago I had the opportunity to visit several areas in Australia. I was intrigued by the work that Christian colleagues were doing in engaging the holistic milieu or New Spirituality. One of the people I was fortunate to spend time with was Harold Taylor, a former missionary to Papua New Guinea who spends time applying his experience and insights as a missionary to his work with the Community of Hope in Melbourne. Harold was very helpful during my trip in that he not only shared the work of Community of Hope, but also introduced me to Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch. He later became a contributor to Encountering New Religious Movements (Kregel Academic, 2004) where he wrote a chapter on the process of contextualization in the history of Christian missions.

Harold recently drew from the depth of his experiences and wisdom to share his responses to several questions of mine.

Morehead's Musings: Harold, can you share a little about your background?

Harold Taylor: I am a retired Uniting Church minister(Uniting Church is combination of Methodist, Presbyterian and Congregational churches-formed in 1977). I was born into a working class family in 1932, in the Western Suburbs Melbourne( lower social status). I worked in Railways after leaving school and was drafted for Military national service in the early l950’s. I came to faith during time in army. Later, I became part of the Methodist Church, and trained for Methodist ministry in the mid-1950’s. I was posted to Papua New Guinea as a missionary with Methodist Overseas Missions in the 160 and served there in various situations, including 10 years in a newly formed theological college. I returned Australia in 1977, and was appointed as Lecturer at the Bible College of Victoria, responsible for missiology and pastoral care. I retired in 1996 for health reasons. From l996 to 2006 I directed the Community of Hope -- a ministry working among people searching for meaning in alternative spiritual paths, apart from the church, including New Age and other alternatives in the spiritual healing smorgasbord. I am married to Barbara and I have four children and eight grand children.

Morehead's Musings: How did a former missionary to PNG get involved in missions at Mind*Body*Spirit festivals?

Harold Taylor: Working in cross-cultural situations made me aware of the universal search for meaning in peoples lives. In PNG this was expressed through the cultural lens of a spiritual world view, where life was strongly influenced (often dominated) by a belief in spiritual powers affecting all aspects of daily life. The missionary challenge was to understand and respond to this very different world view. An important aspect in this was to understand the cultural situation and assumptions of the people, and then be able to relate the gospel in a meaningful way to their situation -- not to mine! This required a level of identification , involving language learning and forging a lifestyle which built bridges to different understandings and expressions of life and spirituality.

On returning to Australia, I became aware of the changing Australian society, including the decline of the church and the growth of many alternative spiritual paths and their rapid expansion from 1960’s onward..One of the popular expressions of this was through the so-called New Age-Mind*Body*Spirit festivals. I began to be involved in this area of ministry when there were few if any Christian groups functioning in this area. There was lots of “apologetic” material about the New Age, but few actually seem inclined to get involved in the popular "market place” level where people were searching.

In the Community of Hope we worked on a developmental model-outlined in ENRM. We revised this, and produced our own models which operates with the acronym. GLOBAL and PLEASE:

G. go
L. listen and learn the new age culture, etc. by
O. observing..meanings, colours, actions, presentations, world view etc,.
B. being ready to ask others as to meanings, involvement etc. and being ready to share your own spiritual journeys.
A. awareness of other cultural/spiritual emphases
L. love, based on knowledge and understanding and involvement in other situations following the pattern of Ramon Lull (see ENRM p. 55-56).

PLEASE

P. presence - living , being present among new age devotees/searchers in markets, etc.
L. listen and learn in order to understand..involving questions and sharing ideas
E. explain your own cultural understanding and spiritual experiences
A. awareness of different cultural and spiritual attitudes and understanding
S. service,where and if applicable
E. expressing gospel in relevant terms at the right time/place

Morehead's Musings: Why do you believe that cross-cultural missions provides a helpful contribution to the field of new religions? How does a missions model make a unique contribution to how evangelicals understand and respond to them that has not been addressed in popular apologetic approaches?

Harold Taylor: I believe that cultural missions do provide a helpful contribution in any approach to “new religions," etc. The above framework provided a basis for our approach in PNG. It involved leaving your own cultural situation and living, working, thinking in another cultural paradigm, where listening and learning and relating to others is just as, or even more important, than the theological knowledge and spiritual experience you wish to impart. This is different from the usual evangelical apologetic, which often seems to proceed on a doctrinal basis, with the task of showing the truth of the biblical revelation and comparing it to the world view and “doctrines/beliefs” of the “target” group. It seemed to me that such apologetic efforts were often conducted “at a distance," whereas the true missionary approach involves identification, and a deliberate attempt to contextualise the gospel, involving both declaring the truth( doctrinal) and also relating to others (identification).

Morehead's Musings: In ENRM, you contributed a chapter that looked at examples of contextualisation in the history of Christian missions. Can you define what contextualisation means in missions and missiology?

Harold Taylor: As stated ENRM (p. 44-45). Gilliland suggests that the goal of contextualization is its best definition. There are many definitions available, but each definition involves relating the scriptural revelation to each human cultural context, to discover what God is saying to every particular group of people. A truly contextualized gospel and church is one where those receiving the gospel and becoming part of the church , feel “at home,” i.e. it “fits” who I am and where I am, and addresses meaningfully my situation of hope, fears, and daily living.

Morehead's Musings: I was struck in a seminary course on world religions and the exegesis of cultures that there are certain worldview roots, if you will, or very basic and different ways of seeing the world, whether that of ethical monotheism; those that emphasize samsara,karma, and dharma; and those that emphasize the Tao, the yin/yang, ancestors, and divination. Obviously cross cultural translation and communication of the christian message involves far more than language but also moving into the areas of these worldviews? Is it necessary for someone to adopt a western worldview in order to embrace Christianity, or how might we have our greatest contextualisation challenges ahead of us in terms of translation in these worldviews?

Harold Taylor: I do not think it is necessary for someone to adopt a western worldview in order to embrace Christianity. In fact to the extent that others become “westernized” in their understanding and practice, is often the reason why they find it difficult to express the gospel in their own cultural thought forms and practices.

It may be helpful to understand a western worldview, in order to understand how the church has developed in the western world, but often this is equated with being truly Christian. This is one of the greatest challenges -- how to express the good news of Jesus in ways which relate meaningfully to another cultural situation, rather than using western thought forms, language, and cultural and church assumptions.

This “westernizing’” of mission is one of the greatest challenges facing the church today, and has affected the development of missionary churches. Much theological education and learning remains embedded in western patterns, and this dependence on the West, has produced a kind of “cultural captivity”, which has to be replaced by a truly indigenous contextual theology and theological education patterns.

Morehead's Musings: Is Western Christianity used to thinking in terms of cross cultural contextualisation in the West, and particularly where the new religions are concerned? Why or why not?

Harold Taylor: My impression is that the western church does not give much credence to cross-cultural communication in the West, although is changing over the last three decades. "New religions” and “spiritualities” are still approached mainly on a “heresy-doctrinal’ basis, where the emphasis is on truth and error. Whilst this is an essential aspect of sharing the gospel, this approach may not involve any identification with the “other”, whereas this is an essential ingredient of any true contextualization.

Morehead's Musings: What types of cultural assumptions might we have that impact our understanding of the gospel and contextualisation?

Harold Taylor: There are many. Some would be:

Truth as statement/doctrine, with little emphasis on relationships and identification.

The western way is the best way, and is therefore needed by others, and we have the task of sharing that with others (and often imposing it on others).

Our church structures and practices are the best way to communicate the gospel.

Western values are kingdom values, and therefore to be accepted as the “right” way, whereas they are often in conflict with truly biblical values and assumptions.

Morehead's Musings: Syncretism is a negative term in theology and missiology. Can you define that for us?

Harold Taylor: Syncretism is the mixing together of various world views and truth statements -- a fruit salad mix -- so that the resulting mix is different from the various ingredients. It is often used negatively because it suggests a dilution or contamination of the truth.

Morehead's Musings: I have the impression that conservative evangelicalism and other forms of Protestantism seem to be getting more conservative in missions and missiology over fears of syncretism. Can you speak to how we might have balance in working towards contextualisation and avoiding syncretism but not allowing fears to stop our creative missional experimentation?

Harold Taylor: I believe it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to avoid syncretism altogether, and that we are much too afraid of this happening. The challenge is to express the good news of Jesus in ways which are faithful to scripture and relevant to each cultural situation. This always involves the risk of syncretism, and there must be a constant awareness of this possibility, but this should not stop attempts to truly “indigenize” the good news. Often we think that our understanding and presentation of the gospel is free from any syncretism, and that this is a problem for “the other”. However it is easy to delude ourselves into thinking that syncretism is only problem in “non- or becoming Christian”” situations. I would maintain that the church in North America and Australia is heavily syncretised, because we have assumed that western cultural values are truly Christian, whereas the truth is that there are many areas in the western church where the gospel has been diluted and weakened and obscured because of the assumptions (often unspoken) that western cultural is somehow basically Christian in orientation.

There is always the risk of syncretism( as in both Old and New Testaments), and often this prevents any new missional experimentation, but that risk has to be taken if the gospel is to be expressed and heard in culturally meaningful ways. I think syncretism is overcome by good biblical teaching. a long and arduous but necessary task.

Morehead's Musings: Harold, thank you again for sharing some of your thoughts. I know you feel that each question is worthy of several pages if not books of discussion, but I hope that your thoughts on these issues will help stimulate careful reflection.

Afterthoughts on Cornerstone Festival 2007

I just returned from another great experience at Cornerstone Festival. I was pretty busy this year, presenting two different workshop series, leading a film discusion on a fantasy role playing game (see my thoughts on this at TheoFantastique), participating in a panel discussion on emerging church, and facilitating a discussion on cross-cultural communication and Wicca. In addition, I thoroughly enjoyed many of the presentations in the Imaginarium that touch on areas related to pop culture.

One of my seminar series was a popularization of my graduate thesis on Burning Man Festival. Thankfully the attendees were willing to consider a fresh understanding of this festival and intentional community, and the ramifications for Christian reflection.

The other series I presented was on the issues of cross-cultural missions and syncretism. This series had its genesis in the unfortunate controversy that resulted from my presentations and other activities in Imaginarium in 2006 where discussion of Halloween and the Mexican Dia de los Muertos or Mexican Day of the Day took place. Some of the more fundamentalist and reactionary brethren were present in stealth mode, and they misunderstood what was presented. After the festival they proceeded to share their "expertise" on the topics with accompanying Bible proof-texting on their blogs. As a result, Cornerstone thought the resulting questions of cross-cultural understanding, missions, and syncretism might flow naturally from such considerations.

My series related to these issues was fairly straight forward. The first session introduced the issues by defining the positive concept (in missions and missiology) of "contextualization" or the process of translating the gospel from one culture to another by framing it in a differing cultural context, as well as the negative concept (in theology and missiology) "syncretism" or the inappropriate blending of Christianity with aspects of indigeneous religion. After consideration of definitions I pointed out that while we are used to thinking about such issues in overseas missions contexts, this represents largely foreign thinking in America and the West where a Christendom mindset and a rather homogeneous concept of America that is supposedly familiar with the gospel and Christianity still holds sway.

The second session built on the first by nothing that contextualization was a well accepted concept in missions, and that it is exemplified in the Bible where God is the supreme contextualizer. I then shared several examples of missional contextualization, including Matteo Ricci among Confucianists, Karl Ludvig Reichelt among Taoists and Buddhists, various contextualization efforts among Muslims, and the work of my colleagues in Australia in contextualization at Mind Body Spirit festivals. I argued that we need to be drawing upon such examples in the creative exploration of contextualization in increasing frequency in Western churches.

The third and final session summarized the preceding seminars and the concluded with a series of basic principles that I hoped attendees would remember. One of the most important noted that while evangelical missions and missiology appears to be moving more in the direction of conservatism in relation to contextualization out of concern or fears over syncretism, in my view the real challenge is our own fears over mistakes (or potential mistakes) in this area. While we are often quick to point the finger at alleged syncretism overseas, we ignore syncretism in our churches in an Americanized Christianity, and this often prevents us from being risk takers in developing new contextualization models and in experimentation. In my view the problem is not that we have gone too far, but rather, I agree with thinkers like Terry Muck at Asbury who argue that we have not gone far enough in contextualization overseas and especially not in the West. I also called for the application of artistry and imagination to this process where "theo-" and "missio-imagineers" can be encouraged to experiment creatively with these processes.

There was nothing controversial in my seminar series this year, and nothing that should have pushed fundamentalist buttons in Imaginarium either, so perhaps the blogosphere will not reflect the alarmist postings of those supposedly sounding the warnings of discernment. But then again, last year wasn't controversial either, nevertheless, the fear mongers and reactionaries among us felt as if they had plenty of fodder.

I appreciate and value Cornerstone Festival as a place where I can explore my own reflections, I can challenge other Christians to expand their thinking, and I can benefit from the creative thinking of other speakers, not to mention the fine people who put Cornerstone Festival on for us all to enjoy.

I can't wait to see what next year holds.

Muck Lecture: "Lessons from Mormons for Missional Religious Studies"

Last night Terry Muck of Asbury Theological Seminary presented a public lecture in connection with his intensive course on world religions titled "Lessons from Mormons for Missional Religious Studies" at Salt Lake Theological Seminary.

This lecture was the second installment in a three-part series. Muck began with a summary of the first lecture wherein he is discussing the relationship between Christian mission and religious studies and how these disciplines fit together. His intention is to make the case that the best mission takes place in connection with religious studies, and further that missional religious studies is a better form of engagement in religious studies than that which claims to have no ultimate commitments in connection with it.

Muck's presentation summarized Rodney Stark's research in the areas of conversion, religious capital, and revelation that looked at these areas in relation to three religious movements, that of early Christianity, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the Unification Church. In this process of research Stark draws upon an agnostic methodology (rather than metaphysical agnosticism) which Stark (and Muck) feels represents the best methodological posture for social science research.

In the area of conversion Muck drew attention to Stark's research that indicates that people convert due to social connections rather than commitment or a change of commitment to a belief system. Stark does not engage in sociological reductionism in that he does not attempt to dismiss all religious commitments as a result of social (or other) processes, but attempts to understand the significance of social dynamics to religious commitments that Muck then connects to missiological considerations. Muck feels that a missiological implication of Stark's research on conversion is that Christians should provide a welcoming environment that brings people into Christian community.

Muck then discussed religious capital or the degree to which one masters a religious culture through the development of skills and the appropriation of a knowledge base in this religious culture. Those religious communities that allowed individuals to bring as much of their previous religious capital into the new religious community were more successful than those that did not. For example, early Christianity allowed converts from Judaism to bring their religious capital into the new religious community, as did Buddhists with Hindus, and Mormons with Protestants converts. Muck feels that the missiological implications for this are for Christians to find ways that people can use their religious capital in the church, and that priority should be given to positive points of contact with other religious cultures rather than dissimilarities (contra the thinking of missiologists such as David Hesselgrave and Gailyn Van Rheenen).

In Stark's research into revelation, people tend to dismiss those who claim to receive revelation as either frauds or insane. Stark disagreed with this and believed that normal people can receive God's revelation and that God's voice might indeed be heard and filtered through religious cultures in differing ways. The missiological implications for this, according to Muck, are the need for Christians to understand the context of community and its importance for understanding another religion's revelation and why it is understood the way it is in this context, and secondly, that we might consider the possibility that all people hear God in some way but that it is filtered through their cultural and religious matrix.

Muck then moved to his conclusions, the first being that nobody is commitment free, that is, even those religious studies scholars who claim to be completely objective have some form of ultimate commitments whether religious or irreligious. Muck feels that the best scholars are those that acknowledge their commitments up front, and he presented George Marsden as an example. His second conclusion was that all people engage in some form of rhetoric or attempts at persuasion, and Christians have as much of a right to engage in this as scholars or others. In terms of rhetoric from a Christian perspective this must be done responsibly. Muck feels that those Christians committed to bringing religious studies and missiology together in missional religious studies do better religious studies because they bring both of these areas of ultimate commitments and rhetoric together.

In April Muck will look at examples of the application of missional religious studies in the history of Christian mission for the audience to consider in terms of application and an analysis of its strengths and weaknesses.

Cross-Cultural Communication: What Can We Learn From an Extreme?

I recently received an email from someone in ministry to new religions and in follow up to that I decided to take a look at their website to get updated on their activities. I am not going to name the individual or the ministry they are connected with as I see nothing beneficial coming in locking horns with this individual, but would like to use this as an example filled with important intercultural and missiological lessons.

This ministry is well known for using antagnostic approaches that attack Joseph Smith, a revered figure for Latter-day Saints. As I reviewed the website for this ministry it appears that they also engage in "outreach to Muslims." As the reader clicks on the photos connected with this outreach we see several individuals from this ministry holding up signs that read "Muhammed Lied.com" as they stand outside a mosque in southern California with beaming smiles on their faces.

In light of our post 9/11 world and the international tensions that exist between the Islamic and Christian segments of our world, perhaps we can reflect on this for a few moments. We might ask ourselves a few questions. Does anyone seriously think that Muslims will be favorably disposed to considering the message conveyed by these Christian communicators? What message might the Muslims infer from these signs? Can it in any way be viewed positively by Muslims? Is this an appropriate form of cross-cultural communication? And, do these evangelists intend on trying this approach in those parts of the world where Islam is dominant, such as Asia or the Middle East?

And if this wasn't troubling enough, in a review of the board members for this ministry one of them was raised as a "missionary kid" and received an undergraduate degree in intercultural studies from a major evangelical seminary. Obviously, the cross-cultural communication elements associated with these areas did not sink in, or at least somehow there is a disconnect between cross-cultural missions approaches overseas and those in the United States.

This ministry indeed represents an extreme on the spectrum among evangelical approaches to new religions and world religions. Even so can we learn important lessons from what not to do as a result of reflection on this? And will we hear evangelicals share their critique and displeasure from such extremes and examples of theological and missiological naivette? I certainly hope so.