Global Ethics: Human Rights and International Development
David J. Bosch - Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission.
In the section Rediscovering the Local Church (378), Bosch uses Paul to illustrate the possibility of spreading the word without spreading dependence and inappropriate cultural practices. I think his focus on new churches as actual churches instead of missions is interesting because we can look to them as equals instead of inferiors. Bosch discusses this earlier, as well; he refers to Sundermeier’s concept of “pro-existence” which “jeopardizes… co-existence (375).” I agree with Bosch here that the churches of the “developed” world should not justify their self-importance by sending aid and instruction to other churches which are in material need. This, however, presents a difficult dichotomy rampant in almost all development discussions. How can the materially well-off follow the instruction to serve the poor without taking on an air of importance and superiority? How can the “developed” world establish a church that is actually a church when the community may not have money to pay a priest or even an area in which to worship?
When the “sponsoring” church opens its arms and wallets to support a fledgling community, there will automatically be some attachment of the congregation to the message that the church is spreading. While we can assume the church would still be a Christian one, the range of possible political, social, and economic stances that could be taken by the new church is well-known in this country and is something a sponsoring church would probably want to control. One major difference between Paul’s trusting relationship with his audience and the current situation is that as resources go, Paul was nearly on par with his new churches. Today, we see millions of dollars going into new facilities, bigger parking lots, and shiny bibles (a priest friend of mine in SC called one local mega-church “Six Flags over Jesus”) in the West while in other parts of the world churches lack even healthy parishioners.
Perhaps churches have lost focus when creating a new church to support overseas. If the original intent was to bring the word of God to people who had never known it, shouldn’t the people be on their way to self-sufficient health and economic conditions first? If so, then a mission/church would be the last institution necessary. A people cannot maintain a “developed lifestyle” that is forced on them from outside, but rather should be facilitated in creating their own form of development through a mutual understanding of needs and opportunities. A church can come later.
2 comments:
A church can come later? How much later? Many of these areas have been economically destitute and challenged by public health concerns for over one-hundred years after the end of colonization. How long do we wait to bring them the hope and support of the Good News? I think that's kind of the challenge of anyone hoping to do good work as a missionary, how much do I help physically and how much do I help spiritually (and where do I put my resources)
Thanks for the thought-provoking post!
If the original intent was to bring the word of God to people who had never known it, shouldn’t the people be on their way to self-sufficient health and economic conditions first?
Not first; at the same time. You're right that it's a "difficult dichotomy," but I'm not convinced it hast to be a dichotomy at all. To simply build a church (and I'm not sure whether you're talking about constructing a physical building or establishing a formal community, but that's really beside the point) and ignore people's material needs is foolish (see James 2). But in correcting this error, we have to be weary of overcompensating. To ignore the spiritual needs of others is also wrong. And the same Christ who commands us to coproral works of mercy also tells us to spread his Gospel. To put folks' physical needs first implies that church--including the sacraments--is secondary.
And that's the beauty of the Church Christ founded. The sacraments aren't just spiritual motions we go through when it's convenient or when we "feel" ready; they're necessary channels of God's grace through the physical world.
On the other hand, if what you mean by "church" has more to do with the developed, sponsoring church trying to maintain some sort of self-important political or ideological control over its missions, then yes, we might as well scrap the whole endeavor and go back and pray over today's Gospel.
One other note. A people cannot maintain a “developed lifestyle” that is forced on them from outside... The same comment needs to be made about churches in the developed world. A true church cannot maintain the consumerist, individualist lifestyle that is forced on it by the wider secular culture if it has any hope of remaining spiritually healty.
Post a Comment