Post-Christendom & Economic Recession

When I was a young fresh faced graduate from Bible College I was appointed to pastor a small Salvation Army Church in the East Midands of England. Opposite our church building, in fact dwarfing our church building, was a huge old factory that housed innumerable little businesses and textile sweatshops. It used to be the Imperial Typewriter Company. At one time Imperial was the acknowledged leader in a market that seemed to have a guaranteed future. After all, no matter what happened in the world economy, businesses were always going to employ secretaries, and secretaries would always use typewriters – wouldn’t they? It was said in that city that if you landed a job with Imperial then you had a job for life.

Today typewriters are curiosities and museum pieces. The PC killed the Imperial Typewriter Company, and consigned thousands of employees to the ranks of the jobless. Now, the question I am asking is, “Was the PC worth the loss of all those jobs?” Immediately I am reminded of the last document I produced on a typewriter. It was a dissertation at University, and every typo or spelling mistake meant I had to get a little pot of white paste and delicately paint over my mistake, then wait for it to dry, then scroll back up and try typing it again. I think any of us who have ever struggled to write letters or documents on a typewriter will agree that the pain in the Imperial Typewriter Company’s factory was worth the gain of the new technology.

Major changes of any kind produce great pain and great opportunity. If we fix our eyes on the opportunity then usually we can get over the pain. This is not to minimize the anguish of those who are the most affected by change. Those employees of the Imperial Typewriter Company found themselves jobless during an economic downturn that was far grimmer and more characterized by poverty than anything we have yet seen in this current recession. Yet how many of those workers, or their children, would really like to go back to the days before PCs, laptops, and desktop printers? Imagine if the development of the PC had been stifled by an understandable compassion and sympathy for those employed in the typewriter industry? Focusing on the gain can overcome the pain. But focusing on the pain will hinder you from ever achieving the gain!

The Church in North America is undergoing a process of change – because America itself is changing. Since 9/11, after five weeks of initially high national church attendance, people have been leaving America’s churches at a faster rate than in any period of history. Space does not permit me to go into the details or reasons for this (that is probably better done in a book than in a blog post) but the statistics are undeniable. What we are witnessing is the end of Christendom and the beginnings of a post-Christendom society in North America.

Now don’t get me wrong or go misquoting me. This is not the end of Christianity. In fact, the coming years may well see more born-again believers than ever before, and a more authentic kind of Christianity to boot. But Christendom is something quite different. Christendom is when the Church exercises a dominant influence on society. Christendom is where the Church calls the shots as to what laws get passed and even as to who gets elected. Christianity is the early Church in the Book of Acts when believers were persecuted by the State. Christendom is where the Church allied itself with the Roman Empire and the believers began persecuting everybody else.

We’ve already seen this in Europe. We’re already living and ministering in a post-Christendom society. Our version of Christendom stumbled into oblivion a couple of generations ago. Yet some of us have found post-Christendom Europe to be a very fruitful place indeed in which to live and minister. However, those churches that have learned to survive and thrive in a post-Christendom society have had to get rid of old mindsets and habits and to ministry in a new way (which actually turns out to be a very much older way).

For historical reasons America’s Christendom took a different shape than that of Europe, and lasted longer, but, make no mistake, it is now headed in the same direction as its European cousin. European Christendom developed as a hierarchical Church because it aped the surrounding political climate and structures. This should not surprise us. Any version of Christendom begins at the tipping point when the Church is no longer content to be merely in the world, but determines to be also of the world. European Christendom was a deliberate imitation of the royal households and nobility that controlled Europe. Therefore there developed ‘princes of the Church’ and a rigid delineation between the clergy and the laity. Decision making, and ministry, were concentrated in the hands of the few.

From the moment that the United States won its independence from Great Britain, it was obvious that the European model of Christendom could not succeed. The clergy/laity dichotomy was so profoundly undemocratic as to prove incompatible with a society where a frontier boy like Andrew Jackson could rise to become President. But that did not stop the churches from aping the surrounding culture. Commerce and capitalism proved to be a much more powerful influence than that of nobility or high birth. And so churches multiplied in the manner of businesses and corporations, a survival of the fittest where charismatic communicators mirrored captains of industry, church boards acted as boards of directors, and the ordinary church members paid their tithes in order to become stockholders who enjoyed the dividends of entertaining services and belonging to a community. So, in American Christendom, pastors became either entrepreneurs, leading from the front like ecclesiastical Henry Fords, or managers, doing the bidding of the church board. Some churches operated as parts of a national operation (denomination), others as franchises, while still others were independently owned and operated. Either way, ordinary church members were frequently relegated to the role of consumers – prone to jump ship when another church came along and offered a better product.

It was Dean Inge of St Paul’s cathedral in London who famously said that the church that gets married to the spirit of the age will become a widow in the next age. European Christendom lasted an amazingly long time, over 1500 years, because the societal norms it was wedded to were equally long-lived. But when the monarchies and nobility of Europe collapsed, or degenerated into powerless relics and tourist attractions, European Christendom quickly followed them into irrelevance and insignificance.

This is, I believe, why 9/11 has proved to be so pivotal to church attendance in the United States. It was more than just an issue of terrorism or homeland security. It was the puncturing of an illusion. Being bombed by foreigners in one’s own country was something that happened to other people in other places. America was different. America was an island of peace and prosperity in the midst of a world that was broken. American commerce, and the American way of life, was powerful and inviolate. 9/11 was more than just a despicable atrocity or a tragic loss of life. The crumbling of the twin towers on live television was a demolition of the prestige and omnipotence that the corporation had enjoyed for 250 years.

For five weeks after 9/11 churches were packed. People were searching for something deeper, something that not only promised protection and meaning, but something that could not be snatched away by the evil and hatred of men. Of course the churches were the natural place to look for such meaning! After all, the very existence of Christianity is living proof of the power of truth to triumph over the persecutions and attacks of men and nations of violence – isn’t it? So, for five weeks, churches were packed. Christians held their breath and hoped. Was this the revival that so many had prayed for and prophesied of? Then, in week six, church attendance slipped back to pre 9/11 levels – and, for every Sunday since, the levels of attendance have dropped off the charts as churchgoing has suffered an unprecedented decline. Many of us, as Christians, are tempted to dismiss this as evidence of how fickle human nature can be. I would suggest, however, that there is another, more troubling, explanation. Those seekers who temporarily packed our churches were looking for something deeper and more meaningful than anything offered by corporations or multinationals – but instead they found many of the churches were themselves modeled on the same corporation model that had been so graphically demonstrated as having feet of clay.

9/11 was one of those headline events that happen very few times in each of our lifetimes. Such events, like the collapse of the Berlin Wall or the assassination of Kennedy, do not appear out of nowhere. They sum up what has been happening on a lesser scale in a thousand different ways and usher in more events that reinforce their message. For a number of years increased secularism and the development of postmodernism had been undermining the prestige of the corporate model. The process was accelerated by scandals such as Enron. Even in the political sphere it seemed like a virtually unknown senator from Illinois could harness the power of the internet to mobilize manpower and finance that eclipsed the influence of the most powerful political and corporate machines on the planet. Then, as if to stick the boot into the ailing prestige of the corporation, came the greatest financial crisis in living memory – where the biggest names in the corporate world became derided as incompetent chumps.

Of course capitalism will continue and survive the current economic recession, and corporations will continue to provide employment for millions of us for many years to come, but the mystique and prestige of corporate power has been damaged irreparably. And that spells disaster for individual churches and denominations that are structured on the corporate model.

Let me stress again, I believe the future of Christianity in America is incredibly bright and exciting, but that will mean learning to adapt to post-Christendom. It will involve finding a model for Church life that is more authentic, and more biblical, than that of the corporation. Again, I would love to say so much more about this, but limitations on time and space would make a book, rather than a blog post, a more suitable setting for such a discussion. Suffice for now to say that the church needs to develop a model for life and ministry that is based on servanthood and where the entire church body become ministers.

So, this brings us back to the Imperial Typewriter Company. That can serve as an illustration to us in one of two ways. It can demonstrate that societal change is beneficial, and ultimately is worth even the pain of job losses and pink slips. But it can serve as a darker illustration – reminding us that bodies which fail to adapt to change face extinction.

For many years those of us involved in church planting in Europe looked to the United States for inspiration. We would visit American churches and marvel at their buildings and facilities. We dreamed of the day when we too would be able to pay full time youth pastors, children’s pastors and music pastors. American churches were a continual reminder that if we only worked hard enough, prayed fervently enough, dreamed big enough, then we too could build churches that resembled a successful corporation. Now some of us are realizing that we were deluded. We were comparing our ministries in a post-Christendom culture with those who were enjoying the trappings of Christendom. Now some of us are beginning to understand that we had it all back to front. European churches don’t need to strive to be like American churches – but maybe American churches can learn from those of us who already successfully planting and building congregations in the post-Christendom world.

One of the bits of Christendom that churches have most enjoyed is the widespread acceptance of tithing. Now don’t get me wrong, I believe in tithing. I am a tither, and I believe tithing to be biblical. But that is a belief that is based on my love for Christ and my commitment to His Church. That is a very different thing from the attitude within Christendom where tithing is accepted as a matter of course, even by many who show little or no commitment to the cause of Christ.

In the old model of European Christendom tithing was actually mandated and enforced by law. Workers were forced to pay both taxes to the King and tithes to the Church – even if deep down in their hearts they were atheists. Obviously the American separation of Church and State made such coercion unthinkable in the New World’s version of Christendom, but tithing remained strong. In talking with American pastors I hear of a phenomenon unique to the Unites States. I hear of church members who are unsupportive of the pastor personally, who demonstrate little or no evidences of practical godliness, who show no enthusiasm for the church’s vision, who do nothing to serve their fellow Christians in any meaningful capacity – yet they still pay their tithes. I still remember a pastor saying to me, “Isn’t it annoying how the biggest tithers in a church are always those who resist you the most and who cause you the most problems?” I looked at him in bafflement and incomprehension, because in a post-Christian society those are the people who never tithe! The tithers in our European churches are those who have grasped the vision and share our commitment.

So, in a post-Christendom society the church will find that it has a much narrower base of financial support. A few highly successful megachurches will still build impressive cathedrals and boast large staff – but they will be the exception rather than the rule. Many pastors, even of larger churches, will be bi-vocational. Many churches will meet in rented premises. Regional Overseers or Bishops will not be supported full time, but will double up as pastors of local churches. Youth pastors and worship pastors will minister purely for the love of it and without a sense of entitlement to a salary. Church planters will start congregations fired only by faith and without feeling that their denomination is somehow duty bound to financially support them.

To give you an example: I pastor a European church with over 800 members and with Sunday worship attendance to match our membership. Yet I am the only paid member of staff. All other workers and ministers, including a team of six other pastors, are entirely unpaid volunteers. Yet our people are enthusiastic, relatively prosperous and, by European post-Christendom standards, they are good givers. Welcome to the post-Christendom world!

So, if all the analysts and demographers are correct, and if America is rapidly becoming a post-Christendom society, what does that mean? First and foremost it means that those who try to do things the way they have always done will share the fate of the Imperial Typewriter Company! We all need to learn to do more ministry on less money. That means not just cutting the fat, but cutting flesh and bone as well. And, in what will be a personal tragedy for many of those involved, it will involve pink slips and job cuts. That will apply not just to denominational structures, but also to local churches.

I feel like a bit of a Jeremiah at this point. Nobody loves a prophet who brings bad news – and no doubt some will want to shoot the messenger! I am a big softie rather than a corporate tough guy, and I would probably lose weeks of sleep if I was ever in the position of having to cut someone from their job, but we cannot ignore the writing on the wall. Local churches (my own included) and denominations (again, my own included) are already reeling from decreasing tithes and offerings due to economic recession. Yet, paradoxically, this recession may yet be used by God to save many of our churches from going the way of the Imperial Typewriter Company.

Christians are, at times, notoriously resistant to change. It took a terrible persecution in Acts Chapter Eight to push the early church out of its Jerusalem comfort zone to fulfill is divine mandate to be witnesses to the ends of the earth. Might the current recession be the divine stimulus necessary to bring needed structural change to the Body of Christ in North America? One thing is for certain – tough times lie ahead. My own denomination that I love deeply, along with other churches and movements, has some difficult decisions to make. Good people will lose their jobs and feel pain, bewilderment and even a sense of betrayal. Some will redeploy to other areas of ministry. Some will find themselves forced to minister in a bi-vocational capacity. But I am hopeful that the end result will be a denomination, and local churches, that are transformed in order to communicate authentic Christianity to a post-Christendom society. I am hopeful that we will see new churches, and new kinds of churches, that are based on models of servanthood and shared ministry. I am hopeful that, with my own eyes, I shall see the Church as a bride prepared for her heavenly Bridegroom – without spot, wrinkle, or blemish.

Initial Evidence: The Debate Continues

The doctrine of Initial Evidence has become something of a hot topic of late in the Church of God. Our Declaration of Faith states: We believe In speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives utterance and that it is the initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost.

Let me make clear from the outset that I wholeheartedly accept and support this doctrine, and at the end of this post I’ve included a review of the biblical foundation for it. (I would have started off with that, but I was afraid that nobody would read the post through to the end ) I am, with every fibre of my being, a Pentecostal Christian.

However, I think that we have a problem in our movement in that some are confusing evidence for something with evidence against something else. To affirm that speaking in tongues is evidence of the Baptism of the Spirit is not the same thing as claiming that those who lack such evidence are therefore nor Spirit filled. In other words, our Declaration of Faith states that tongues is the initial evidence, not the qualifying evidence, of the Baptism of the Spirit.

Maybe a simple analogy can illustrate this distinction. I am typing this post on my trusty notebook computer. As I travel internationally I take a few adapters with me so I can plug into the different shaped power sockets (and different voltages) that I encounter in different countries. Each time I put the power lead into the socket, I glance at a little green light above the F1 key. If the light comes on then I know that the electric current is reaching my notebook. In other words, I treat that green light as the initial evidence that power is getting to the computer.

Now, suppose that, for whatever reason, the little green light were to malfunction. So, I plug the power lead in and see that the initial evidence is missing. Yet the screen is still displaying the words that I’m typing. I can still hear the whirr of the notebook’s cooling fan. Even more confusingly, the little icon in my toolbar tells me that I am operating on AC power. After an hour or so use I click on the Control Panel and Power Options functions and see that my battery power is still on 100%. What should my conclusion be? Obviously it would not be reasonable to automatically deduce that my notebook is being maintained by some kind of miracle. The more sensible assumption would be that the electric current is indeed reaching my computer and that the green light has malfunctioned. The reason I reach this conclusion is quite simple – I am treating the green light as the initial evidence, but not the qualifying evidence, of power reaching my notebook.

So, I believe that speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of the Baptism of the Spirit. It is the normative way by which we can tell when someone receives this wonderful empowering of the third Person of the Trinity. However, it is entirely possible that someone may, through exposure to unbiblical teachings (such as cessationism) suffer from a mental block that hinders them from manifesting this initial evidence. This would be the spiritual equivalent of the green light malfunctioning. However, what if that person evidently manifests other gifts of the Spirit, demonstrates the fruit of the Spirit, and, most importantly of all, is an effective witness to the ends of the earth – which is the very purpose for which we receive this power in the first place (Acts 1:8)?

I believe that our doctrine must be based on Scripture, not experience. However, a truly biblical doctrine should equip us to make sense of our experiences. The doctrine of the Initial Evidence, in my view, does just that when it is understood in the way I have just described. The idea of speaking in tongues as being the qualifying evidence of the Baptism of the Spirit, in my view, fails to explain what we see in the church’s history and present day experience. Let me make this plain: Any doctrine that denies that Billy Graham and John Wesley were Spirit filled, but affirms that Todd Bentley and Peter Popoff are Spirit filled is unworthy of a holiness movement.

I believe that the men who framed our Declaration of Faith were truly guided by the Holy Spirit. They defined the distinctives that make us what we are – but left us with enough freedom to become what God intends us to be in the future. There is, within the Declaration, enough latitude for a fairly wide range of doctrinal variations – without ever compromising our fundamental beliefs.

Any denomination or movement needs a doctrinal backbone. To allow any of our ministers to treat the Declaration of Faith as a table of optional extras would destroy the Church of God. However, it would be equally damaging if we started enforcing doctrinal positions (such as tongues being the qualifying evidence) that go beyond what the Declaration of Faith states.

May God grant us all grace and wisdom.

POSTSCRIPT: THE BIBLICAL EVIDENCE FOR THE INITIAL EVIDENCE

When the 120 in the Upper Room received the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, there were three specific signs mentioned. These were the sound of a rushing mighty wind, tongues of fire resting on their heads, and that they spoke in other tongues (Acts 2:1-4).

A crowd gathered and asked a question in response to the speaking in tongues (but not in response to the sound of the wind or the tongues of fire) – “What does this mean?” (Acts 2:5-13)

Interestingly, the text of Acts 2 does not report that the crowd heard some disciples speaking one language and others speaking another. Instead it says that each individual in the crowd heard the disciples speaking in that same individual’s own language. That could open up a whole new debate, or can of worms!

Peter stood up and answered the question “What does this (ie the tongues speaking) mean?” He responded that this was the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy about God’s Spirit being poured out upon all people (Acts 2:14-18).

Another point of interest is that speaking in tongues, and interpretation of tongues, are, as far as I can tell, the only gifts of the Spirit that are unique to the Church Age. Every other spiritual gift is manifested to some degree in the Old Testament. This, I believe, is because speaking in tongues represented a reversal of the confusion of languages at the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11). God was saying, at the birthday of the Christian Church, ‘Here at last is a people to whom I can entrust this power, so that, as one people speaking the same language, nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.’

The next significant Scripture to our subject is where Peter and John laid hands on the Samaritan converts so that they received the Holy Spirit. Simon the Sorcerer was so impressed by this that he offered them money if they would give him the same power (thus earning a massive rebuke, but bequeathing the word ’simony’ to the English language). This is interesting because Simon’s offer could only make sense if there was some physical sign that accompanied the Samaritans receiving the Spirit! We are not told what this sign was, but it is apparent that there was some initial evidence that Simon wanted to be able to confer (Acts 8:14-24).

There were also some ‘believers’ in Ephesus (possibly believers in the sense of being John the Baptist’s disciples) who hadn’t even heard of the Holy Spirit. Paul laid hands on them and the text says, “the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied.” (Acts 19:1-7)

However, for me the clinching Scriptural passage is what happened when Peter first preached to the Gentiles in Cornelius’ house. As he was preaching the Word says, “The Holy Spirit came upon all who heard the message. The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.” Then, as if to reinforce the point, Peter said, “Can anyone keep these people from being baptised with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have” (Acts 10:44-47). Both Peter and his companions appear to have treated speaking in tongues as evidence that the Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit.

Taking these passages together, I find it impossible not to see speaking in tongues as the initial evidence of the Baptism of the Spirit.

I am aware that some object that we should not build doctrine upon historical passages of Scripture, such as Acts, but rather on didactic passages, such as the Epistles. And it is true that there is no didactic Scripture that teaches the Initial Evidence doctrine. However, that argument, in my view, has one major flaw. According to 2 Timothy 3:16 (itself didactic) “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness”. So, a didactic passage of Scripture declares that all Scripture is useful for teaching. This would appear to rule out any objection to building doctrine on historical passages of the Bible.

Reptilian or Mammalian Church Planting

I’ve just been reading “The American Church in Crisis” by David T. Olson.  A lot of it touches on the need for American churches to learn how to do ministry in a postChristian society – something that we in Europe have already had to do.  But more of that in another blog post soon.

The thing that really struck me was where Olson talked about two different kinds of church planting.  ‘Reptilian’ church plants are where a denomination starts as many congregations as possible in the knowledge that many of them will fail.  But some, as the survival of the fittest, will take root and become new churches.  Think of it as the ecclesiastical equivalent of all those baby turtles that hatch on the beach all on the same night.  a lot of them get eaten by predators, but enough of them survive to ensure the sea stays stocked with future generations of turtles.

Mammalian church planting is where a denomination plants fewer congregations, but provides them with more nutrition, protection and support.

Baptist and Pentecostals tend to employ reptilian methods of church planting, but statistics show that this method is less fruitful in areas that are the most challenging to Christianity.  It also leaves a trail of failed church plants and disillusioned pastors, and frequently produces small churches which display less long term numerical growth than congregations planted by the mammalian method.

Most of us probably feel uncomfortable with the label ‘reptilian’ because it reminds us of horror movies about lizards invading earth.  But I have to admit that our church was a reptilian plant that survived the carnage of baby turtles on the beach!  I also have to admit that my ‘encouragement’ (the inverted comma are deliberate) of other church planters has been largely reptilian. I’ve tended to point them in the right direction and then say, “God bless you, now go for it!”

Yet, in a postChristian environment, mammalian church planting may yet prove to be the most effective option.  This may not just mean financial support – in fact, statistics suggest that bivocational church planters grow churches faster than those who are financially supported to work full time.  But what can those of us that are already pastoring churches that have made it to adulthood do to provide more nourishment and support to struggling church planters?

I feel like I’m offering more questions than answers here, but I’d love others to suggest ways in which our church planting can become more mammalian.

The Answer of Jesus to the Psalms

Last week we held another 72-hour Prayer Meeting – something that is now a regular part of our church schedule.  As part of the Prayer Meeting I lead something called ‘The Fourth Watch of the Night’ – praying from 3am to 6am.  This time I felt led to spend the first hour each night simply reading out Scripture.  We started with the Book of Psalms.

The funny thing about the Psalms is that we are normally so selective as to which ones we read out loud.  So many verses from the Psalms are so inspiring, and so familar to us from many modern worship songs, that we tend to skip past the stuff that doesn’t seem quite so uplifting.  But when you are standing in front of a microphone reading one Psalm after another in their entirety then you are confronted face to face with a lot of Scripture that seems so uncomfortable.

Have you ever noticed how much griping and moaning goes on in the Psalms?  Sometimes it leads up to a final ringing declaration of faith.  But sometimes you get an entire Psalm that is a long list of difficulties and problems that the author is facing.

And what about all those cries for revenge (imprecatory Psalms as they were called in my Old Testament classes in College)?  I am old enough to remember the German pop group Boney M reaching number 1 in the charts with ‘By the Rivers of Babylon’.  They sang the first few verses of Psalm 137.  But imagine if their song had gone on to include some of the later verses in the same Psalm.  “O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us-he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks. (Psalm 137:8-9)“

Whoa!  If Boney M had included that bit of the Psalm then they would have gone to prison, never mind number 1!  Yet, as Bible believing Christians, we believe that all Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for instruction, correction, reproof and training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16).  If we take that core belief seriously then we must grapple with the complaining, and the cries for revenge, that we find in the Psalms.  Simply glossing over such passages to find the nice stuff is intellectual and spiritual cowardice.

So how do such passages in the Psalms fit in with my Evangelical view of the inspiration and authority of Scripture?  The solution was suggested to me by an old volume that sits in one of my bookcases.  The Answer of Jesus to Job, by Dr G. Campbell Morgan, looks at some of Job’s unanswered questions to God and shows how they are answered in the New Testament.

The Book of Psalms is primarily a song book.  And, as with all good songs, they deal with the whole gamut of human feelings including heartache and heartbreak.  Some of the songs leave us with unanswered questions:

Why do the wicked sometimes prosper and never seem to be punished?  Why doesn’t God do something about the great wickedness we see in the world?  Why do good people often suffer so much?  Why do I sometimes feel so bad about myself?  These are all important questions, and if all we had was the Old Testament then they would remain unanswered.

For example, take the Babylonians in Psalm 137.  They have shown great cruelty to the Israelites.  They have murdered countless Jewish babies.  The Psalmist is crying out that, in a just world, surely they must suffer the same kind of pain that they have inflicted?  If there is no such judgement then Jews are left asking, as they did during the Nazi Holocaust, where is God?

But in Christ’s death on the Cross we have the answer of Jesus to Psalm 137.  In the agony of Calvary Christ bore the punishment, to the very last drop, of the Babylonians, the Assyrians, and the Nazis.  Justice, which had appeared to sleep during times of great tyranny, was fully satisfied in the Person of Jesus Christ.  The problem with asking God to deal with all the wickedness in the world is that I have to begin by facing the wickedness committed by the man who looks out at me from the mirror each morning.  By trusting in Christ I can accept the fact that my wickedness has already been punished in full on the Cross.  And, for those who refuse to accept Christ’s sacrifice on their behalf, the punishment will continue for all Eternity.  Either way, justice is done and the cry of Psalm 137 is answered.

But what about all the complaints that we find in the Psalms?  How do we reconcile them with the Gospel we preach of faith and hope?  For example, last week I was feeling increasingly depressed as I read out Psalm 69:

Save me, O God, for the waters have come up to my neck. I sink in the miry depths, where there is no foothold.  I have come into the deep waters; the floods engulf me. I am worn out calling for help; my throat is parched.  My eyes fail, looking for my God. Those who hate me without reason outnumber the hairs of my head; many are my enemies without cause, those who seek to destroy me.  I am forced to restore what I did not steal. (Psalm 69:1-4)

Come on, I’m thinking, when is this guy going to stop complaining?  Then, as I read on to verse 21, I am stopped in my tracks by these words: “They put gall in my food and gave me vinegar for my thirst.”

To those singing from a Jewish songbook, this is just the latest in a long list of complaints and laments.  But not to us.  We follow a Saviour who was thirsty when He was hanging on the Cross – and Scripture tells us that He was given vinegar to drink (John 19:29), or wine mingled with gall (Matthew 27:34).

In fact the Gospels contain many quotations from the Psalms and apply them to Christ’s death upon the Cross – most notably the opening line from Psalm 22:  “My God! My God! Why have You forsaken Me?”   Jesus deliberately allowed Himself to be killed in such a way that it would remind everyone of the complaints and laments of the Psalms.  He not only carried the sins of the world on His shoulders, but He also bore our sufferings on the Cross.  Every hurt, every wound, every sickness, every grief – He experienced them all on our behalf.  Therefore He is not some remote deity who is aloof from our pain.  He is a Saviour and a Comforter who has suffered in all points like us, yet without sin.  He understands.  And in this understanding the complaints and heartache of the Psalms is answered.

Yes, Jesus is truly the answer to the Psalms!

NAM UNIUS LINGUAE, UNIUSQUE MORIS REGNUM IMBECILLE ET FRAGILUM

If your Latin is not so hot then read on to the end of this post. All will be revealed!

I have recently been thinking over the themes of contextualization and syncretism. In part this was prompted by an article by Travis Johnston (and some extremely revealing comments by others in response) over on the missionalcog blog. Travis approached the subject very much from a modern practical standpoint, but it got me thinking about the subject from a theological and historical perspective.

My wife and I have just taken time out for a five day cruise out of Mobile,AL to Cozumel, Mexico. Apart from the usual stuff you do on one of those cruises (overeating, getting sunburnt, listening to a great jazz band, snorkeling with sea turtles, marveling at how many overweight Americans can fit on one sundeck etc) it gave me an all too rare opportunity to just read and think during two full days at sea. My deckchair reading material was Lamin Sanneh’s wonderful Translating the Message: The Missionary Impact on Culture (I know, it does seem a strange choice for relaxing reading on a cruise – but then I am a strange person.)

Dr Sanneh, professor of Missions and World Christianity at Yale Divinity School, argues that historically there have been three different approaches to Christianity based on how we view and relate to the world:

1. Quarantine. This is where believers feel threatened by the world and withdraw into their own self-contained community. This kind of Christianity has certain strengths. Faith is very fervent and intense, and everyone is united and agreed on points of doctrine. However, evangelistic growth is pretty limited, with the occasional convert being rescued from the big bad world outside and incorporated into the Christian community. As the community becomes more marginalized it depends for survival on biological growth, or on transfer growth from defections from other quarantined communities. A biblical/church history example of this kind of group would be the Judaizers who wanted Paul’s Gentile converts to fully identify themselves with Jewish Christianity by being circumcised. They were believers who were neither in the world nor of the world.

2. Syncretism. This is where believers break out of quarantine and embrace the world in order to reach the world. This means that the form of Christianity, and eventually its core beliefs and values, become changed by the values and belief system of the surrounding culture. This brand of Christianity may grow quite rapidly at first, but ultimately it becomes ineffective as its adherents realize that the church has become no different from the surrounding culture. A biblical/church history example of this kind of group would be those in the Corinthian Church who had embraced the world’s standards of morality and behavior with a consequent lack of clarity in essential doctrinal issues such as the Resurrection. They were believers who were both in the world and of the world.

3. Missional. (Dr Sanneh calls this “Reform/Prophetic Witness”). This is where believers restate their beliefs in ways that are relevant to the surrounding culture, but all the while holding firmly to the irreducible core of the Christian message. Sanneh maintains that this group will always be in the minority, largely because positions of unthinking extremism are always more popular than walking a balanced fine line between the extremes. Those who walk the path of Missional Christianity will inevitable make mistakes at times, exposing them to attack from the extremes. The advocates of Quarantine will attack them as heretics and compromisers (interesting how a word that means ‘co-promise’ has become an insult, isn’t it?) while the Syncretists will attack them for being intolerant. However, it is only through the Missional minority that the church truly advances into new cultures and new generations with genuine conversion growth. A biblical/church history example of this kind of group would be Paul and his apostolic team, both alongside Barnabas and Silas. They were believers who were in the world, but not of the world.

(At this point I was going to include a lot of stuff about how, in Church History, different groups have gone through phases of these different approaches to Christianity. It includes why Russians and Armenians have different alphabets, why we celebrate Christmas in December, why Serbs and Croats hate each other, why ethnic churches often decline in their second generation and why mainstream Pentecostals get riled up at Prosperity Preachers. However, that would make this post inordinately long so it might have to wait for a future book I’m working on. Also, I’m aware that not everybody shares my love of Church History, so I don’t want to bore anyone to death! If anyone actually is interested then let me know and I’ll blog a bit more about it.)

One discernable pattern from Church History is that organizations often start off Missional, then solidify into Quarantine mode (many Calvinist movements), or else stray into Syncretism (Quakerism or much of American Methodism). Others begin Missional, then lapse into Syncretism but then solidify into Quarantine (Roman Catholicism).

Most Evangelicals and Pentecostals will, quite rightly, be appalled at the excesses of Syncretistic Christianity. We shudder when we hear of mainstream denominations denying the Deity of Christ or ordaining practicing homosexuals to the ministry. However, we should recognize that Christians have actually been at their worst, not when they were being too open-minded, but rather when they were in defensive Quarantine Mode. Think of the Crusades, the Inquisition, or those Christians who fought to maintain slavery, segregation or apartheid. Think of Jim Jones, Fred Phelps, or of those Victorian missionaries who forced converts to wear Western suits and hats to church in sweltering tropical heat. These are all examples of a defensively minded Church that sees any deviation from its own culture as an insult to God that must not be tolerated.

Where Quarantine Christianity becomes particularly dangerous is when it has the political or numerical clout to try to enforce its cultural standards upon everyone else. Thankfully the likes of David Koresh or Fred Phelps are so limited in their influence and following as to only destroy a small number of lives. However, when Quarantine Christianity runs an entire country (think of apartheid era South Africa) or indeed a continent (medieval Catholicism) then the inevitable consequence is almost unlimited misery. Dr Sanneh speaks of “the possible cultural emasculation of the religion into a captive faith, professed by cultural zealots and refused only at the peril of being declared a traitor.”

What worries me is that much of modern Evangelicalism has chosen to follow the path of Quarantine rather than that of Missional Christianity. The world is seen as irredeemably evil and doomed. Evangelism consists of fishing the occasional convert out of the world and reprogramming them into our sub-culture. Some Evangelicals are so quarantined that they insist on using music and a Bible translation that belongs to a culture that ceased to exist several generations ago.

Let’s take one of the hot topics for Christians today – homosexuality and gay marriage. The Syncretistic Christian sees no problem at all. The world says homosexuality is OK so they embrace that standard within the Church. Therefore we see some mainline denominations happily conducting gay marriages and ordaining homosexual clergy. The Quarantine Christian, quite correctly, sees homosexual practices as being contrary to the Word of God. They also, quite rightly, see such practices as totally incompatible with a genuine Christian faith. However, they go beyond this to actively campaign against gay marriage and, in some cases, to advocate the criminalizing of homosexual behavior altogether. What they want to do is to enforce their standards and morality, which are informed by the Bible and by Christianity, upon people who are not Christians and who do not recognize the authority of the Bible. There is a theological term for that desire to enforce our religious beliefs upon others – it is called ‘Shariah’ or ‘Jihad’ (we’ll come back to that shortly). The Missional Christian, like the Quarantine Christian, will acknowledge the unbiblical, and indeed sinful, nature of homosexual behavior. They should also affirm the incompatibility of such behavior with genuine Christian faith – otherwise they are straying into Syncretism. However, the key concern of the Missional Christian will be to learn how to reach out to homosexuals in a culturally relevant way with the saving message of Christ, then to allow the Holy Spirit to set the homosexual free from their behavior, as well as from other damaging sins such as lying, gossip, or self-righteousness. This is the way of Jesus rather than the way of the Pharisees – the way of the Cross rather than the way of Jihad or Sharia.

Now, I have no doubt that I have just lost some readers who were with me right up until that last paragraph. Some may even (through malice or by an intellectual inability to read simple English) falsely accuse me of condoning homosexual behavior. That is part of the risk we run in being Missional. I am also aware that my use of the term ‘Jihad’ will prove offensive to some. Any such offence was not intentional, but it is probably unavoidable. The ultimate example of Quarantine religion is Islam, because it deliberately rejects the concept on which contextualization is built – that of translatability.

The genius of the Christian faith is that it can be translated into any language or culture. An American Church should not look like an Irish Church, and an Irish Church should look totally different again. Missional Christians since Saul of Tarsus have recognized the need to translate the Bible and Christianity into the language and culture of those whom we are trying to reach. This is why the Gospels were written in Greek instead of the Aramaic that Jesus and His disciples originally spoke. The Four Gospels were ‘translated’ into Greek long before anyone thought of translating them out of the Greek! The early Church was a Missional Church.

However, when Mohammed was formulating a new faith in Arabia the dominant strain of Christianity was most decidedly Quarantine. A formerly Syncretistic Church (Roman Catholicism which had eagerly embraced Constantine’s pagan beliefs almost wholesale) had solidified into Quarantine through a hierarchical leadership structure and now possessed the political power to enforce its culture further afield. I find it fascinating that Carthage and North Africa, despite being an important center of early Christianity (think Tertullian and Augustine), apparently never possessed a Bible in their native language of Punic. Translatability was now unwelcome and Latin was forced upon the Christians of North Africa. Small wonder that the spread of Islam easily toppled a weak and ineffectual Church in North Africa instead of meeting the resistance it encountered in Europe.

Mohammed simply copied what he saw in the Christianity of his day, but he did it even more ruthlessly and efficiently. He developed a Syncretistic faith, including many elements of Arabian moon worship, and turned it into a Quarantine religion with no translatability or contextualization. Islam is certainly a missionary faith, if you include forced conversion by the sword as a missionary endeavor, but by no stretch of the imagination can it be called Missional. The Koran is only deemed to be the Word of God in its original Arabic, losing its inspiration if it is translated. This is why millions of Muslims who neither speak nor understand Arabic spend a large proportion of their time diligently learning to recite the Koran in Arabic. The spread of Islam, by very definition, involves the spread of Arabic culture that is deemed to be inherently superior to any other culture.

‘Jihad’ is the waging of warfare against a culture that we feel to be alien or even a threat to our own more godly culture. ‘Sharia’ is the enforcing of our religious morality upon others, even upon those who do not share our religious beliefs. Both ‘Jihad’ and ‘Shariah’, therefore, are appropriate terms for Quarantine Christianity that feels constantly threatened by the world and, as a defensive measure, tries to force unbelievers to live like believers. Both Jihad and Shariah stand in direct opposition to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to Missional Christianity.

Now, one last example of how Missional Christianity differs from Quarantine Christianity. Migration from one country to another, with its accompanying cross-cultural mix, has always been part of the human experience. Our Latin title for this post is attributed to St Stephen, the great Apostle to Hungary. It translates as, ‘for weak and fragile is a kingdom with one language and custom’. To this Dr Sanneh adds the devastatingly perceptive comment, “Enlightened minds at that time perceived cultural pluralism as the antidote to political inertia and social parochialism, whereas in our day it is viewed with suspicion by leaders of thought and society for being a threat to truth.”

Historically immigration was viewed as an enormous blessing and benefit to any society. Passports and visas, often viewed today as a means of limiting the number of people who enter a country, were originally devised as a means of stopping people from leaving. They limited the number of people who would take their skills and innovation to bless and improve another society. History demonstrates that immigrants are more likely to introduce economic and technological innovation than are native-born citizens, and on average they will bring economic and cultural benefits to their new homeland.

Immigrants are also more open to receive the Gospel than almost anyone else on earth. They have already taken one huge leap of faith by relocating to a new land, so the step of faith required to become a Christian seems less daunting than to other people. They also need to integrate into a community and support network in their new location, and that is something that churches can provide better than almost anyone else.

Today migration has increased to levels unprecedented in human history. The reasons for this, while fascinating, are too numerous to go into here (more material for my book). Immigration makes some people incredibly defensive. “Why should we let more people come into our country?” or “There just aren’t enough resources to go around! We need to curb immigration so we can concentrate on helping our own people.”

Now, I believe a little objective thinking should demonstrate the moral emptiness of such defensive statements. Let’s face it – the reason why many of us enjoy the benefits of living in a wealthy country is because our ancestors were better than the next guy when it came to killing off or ripping off the land’s original inhabitants! Furthermore, I see no reason why my tax dollars or euro should be spent on a lazy workshy parasite who happened to be born in my country instead of spent on a hard working entrepreneur from Lagos or Bucharest. To limit others from enjoying the opportunities we enjoy is the moral equivalent of those in a lifeboat from the Titanic preventing drowning men from climbing in with them on the basis that saving them will make the boat more crowded and uncomfortable for the rest of us. I believe that future generations will look upon the current clamor for immigration controls as being every bit as morally indefensible as we view the actions of past generations of Christians who defended slavery or racial segregation.

As I talk and listen to Evangelical believers in both North America and Europe I am saddened by how many look at the issue of immigration through the eyes of Quarantine rather than Missional Christianity. Current trends in migration represent the greatest opportunity for sharing the Gospel since the Day of Pentecost, yet all too many believers respond defensively by seeing immigration as a threat to their ‘sacred’ culture and way of life. Being Missional is so much more than just doing church in a trendy way. It reflects our fundamental attitudes to Jesus, to the world and to ourselves.

72-hour Prayer Meeting

God has been leading our local Church (Solid Rock CoG in Drogheda) into a deeper experience of prayer.  Last night we kicked off a 72-hour Prayer Meeting.  We are trying to help our people experience many different kinds of praying, drawing on the insights of the 24/7 Prayer Movement and also the International House of Prayer in Kansas City.

From 8pm-10pm we have a time of corporate prayer.  Last night we began with “In His Presence” for 2 hours.  This is IHOP style prayer/worship with musicians worshipping in song, and many prophetic songs and prayers.  Tonight we have a Communion Service.

Then, from 10pm -1am each night we have a Night Vigil led by some of our wonderful Nigerian members.  This is noisy intercessory prayer, led from the front and very high energy stuff.

From 3am – 6am each morning I lead “The Fourth Watch of the Night”.  This is primarily Spiritual Warfare Prayer.  Numbers thinned out a good bit by this time last night – there were a dozen of us but it was pretty intense as we wept before God and intereceded for the rest of the Church.

Then, from 6am – 7am. I lead a Devotional Study of John’s Gospel.  We spend an hour going through the biblical text and, after a short exposition of each paragraph or so, we pray and apply it to ourselves.

Also each evening from 5pm – 7pm we have a Healing Room where our members can bring sick friends or loved ones and have them prayed for.

The rest of the time we have the building set up as a ‘furnace’ or ‘boiler room’ where individuals come and seek God’s face.  At any one time day or night there is a handful of people there to experience God.  We have set up various displays, posters, tents, candles, a graffiti wall etc. to help people explore new ways of praying.

So far we are 19 hours into this thing, and the response from our people has been fantastic.  I’ll try to get a few photos posted here as well.

Narrowcasting the Gospel

Narrowcasting is, as the name suggests, the opposite of Broadcasting.  In Broadcasting we scatter a message far and wide and hit as broad a selection of targets as possible.  In Narrowcasting we aim at a clearly defined target.

My thinking about this was sparked by a meeting I attended while in the US recently.  The preacher was a fairly young guy (younger then me anyway!) but his preaching was of a style that seemed to belong to an older generation.  It was very stylized – with lots of shouting, sweating and ‘huh’s.  I have to admit that it was so alien to my culture that I sat transfixed by the spectacle.  I felt like an anthropologist observing some kind of fertility rite in a newly discovered tribe in the jungle.

Some ministers that I respect enormously were sitting near me – and they were loving it!  They were shouting encouragement, waving their hands, standing to their feet on occasion – and I’m asking myself if I am just plain unspiritual or a ungodly heathen because it was all leaving me cold.  At the end of the meeting another friend whom I really respect said, “Well, we really had some preaching tonight, didn’t we?”

I didn’t know how to answer so I just kept my mouth shut.  Evidently my friend had experienced what to him was ‘real preaching’ – but I just felt like I had experienced a cultural performance – interesting, but not something that helped me sense the presence of the Holy Spirit.

Thinking on this some more, I realised how our styles of ministry, including preaching, are becoming more and more examples of narrowcasting as society continues to diversify into a multitude of subcultures.  I guess my normal preaching style (conversational, storytelling interspersed with jokes, strolling about the platform) would hardly seem like ‘real preaching’ to someone raised on a diet of shouting, sweating and ‘huh’s.  To our people in Ireland it can mediate the presence of the Holy Spirit, but to those raised on grits it might just manifest itself as an intriguing cultural performance.

Our style of ministry will speak volumes about which segments of the population we are trying to reach.  If we are narrowcasting to a receptive and growing demographic then Church Growth should, all other things being equal, result.  If we are narrowcasting to a resistant or shrinking demographic then tough times are coming.  As Frank Sinatra sang, “There may be trouble ahead …”

One of the joys about multicultural ministry is that you learn to be adaptable.  You can present your message in different ways.  I’ve learned to preach like an Irishman, a Romanian and an African when the occasion demands.  I guess the sweating, shouting, ‘huh’ing preacher I heard recently, judging by the reactions of those sitting round me,  was spot on as far as most of his audience were concerned.  I found myself wondering what kind of people populate his church.  Are they all raised on that kind of preaching?  Or maybe he’s as adaptable as they come and wows an unchurched crowd with a superb Bill Hybels impression.

What is scary is when you get people who can’t adapt their style of ministry to fit the congregation.  We’ve had a few guest speakers come to Ireland and get quite upset with our congregation.  “Why are y’all so quiet?”  they demand, “I thought this was supposed to be a Pentecostal Church!”  What they don’t realise is that our people will shout the house down if they are getting a bit of revelational truth that meshes with their spirits – but they aren’t about to mistake the shouting of cliches with increased volume for the anointing of God.  In some cases our congregation was genuinely quite concerned that the screaming sweating visiting preacher was about to have a heart attack (we have a number of medical doctors in the Church).

So, what is the conclusion to be drawn from these cultural musings of mine?  Quite simply we need to be aware of the power of narrowcasting.  If we’re happy with the results that our ministry is producing and the demographic that we’re touching then great!  If not, then it’s time to adapt our changing presentation of the unchanging message to narrowcast to our intended target group.  Just thinking we can broadcast the message indiscriminately will leave a whole swathe of unreached people groups in our immediate vicinity.

IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP & NATIONHOOD

This is a chapter I contributed to a booklet the Evangelical Alliance of Ireland produced called Vote Wisely – a guide to help Christians discuss key issues in our upcoming national elections.

In November 2006 a UK television station, Channel Four, aired a documentary entitled 100% English. Eight volunteers, who considered themselves to be totally English, submitted to DNA tests to determine their ethnic make-up. Viewers watched in amusement as the show’s participants, including Carol Thatcher and Lord Tebbit, discovered that a considerable number of their ancestors hailed from Eastern Europe, Asia, the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa. One volunteer, a lawyer who is campaigning to have the English recognised as a distinct ethnic group, has since threatened to sue Channel Four because her test revealed her considerable Romany origins.
The fact is that mankind, ever since Noah and his family stumbled out of the Ark, has migrated across the globe in pursuit of an improved life. Individuals, families and tribes have fled the ‘push’ factors (famine, natural catastrophes, war, oppression and poverty) and pursued the ‘pull factors’ (food, peace, liberty and prosperity). For most of human history people have defined their identity in relation to their family, religion or dialect. Continually shifting alliances and empires, combined with migratory movements, meant that an individual could, in one lifetime, easily come under any number of political or national coverings. It was not until the rise of the nation-state in the seventeenth century that people began to define themselves primarily in respect to their nationality.
Even the Israelites, with their unique calling to be distinct and separate, were able to assimilate a surprising number of foreign elements. For example, Moses married a Midianite, Joseph married the daughter of a pagan Egyptian priest, and Rahab and Ruth (a Canaanite and a Moabite respectively) were ancestors of King David. An entire book of the Hebrew Scriptures attributes the survival of the Jews as a people to the fact that an Israelite girl, Esther, married a pagan king in direct disobedience to the Law of Moses.
We tend to look at increased worldwide migration in recent years as a new phenomenon. The truth is probably more that mankind is reverting to its normal pattern of behaviour after a 300 year blip caused by the rise of the nation-state. Politicians found it expedient for people to see themselves as being ‘English’ or ‘German’, rather than defining themselves primarily as a Yorkshireman, a Lutheran, or even a Christian. The idea that those from a particular nation were somehow superior to foreigners encouraged the rise of patriotism. The word ‘patriotism’ literally means ‘of one’s fathers’ – in other words, loyalty to one’s fellow countrymen on the basis of a shared racial origin. It was obviously in the interests of rulers and politicians to encourage patriotism, as a plentiful supply of foot-soldiers willing to die for their ‘fatherland’ gave them the strength to enforce their ambitions against the rulers of neighbouring nations.
Citizenship had, at one time, simply denoted that a resident within a particular political unit possessed certain obligations and privileges. Citizenship was not, in its earliest forms, automatically conferred by birth or ancestry. Thus the apostle Paul was a Roman citizen, even though he was a Jew from Tarsus, while many of the working-class population of Rome were denied that status. However, the emphasis on patriotism in the developing nation-states necessitated maintaining some degree of racial purity. Therefore it became essential for rulers to enforce border controls to reduce the level of foreign contamination. Citizenship became a means of identifying those who were born in the fatherland, descended from those who bore the blood of the fatherland, or a special privilege to be extended to a small group of foreigners who would prove economically or militarily useful to the nation-state.
Of course some nations were more attractive to immigrants than others, because their citizenship conferred greater status and economic opportunity. Other nations, for example those on islands, were more geographically remote. At one stage Ireland was seen as a destination offering the pull factor of economic opportunities. Scottish Presbyterians, escaping the push factors of a harsh climate and a stagnant economy, were geographically adjacent and so flooded into the north-eastern corner of Ireland. However, political mismanagement eventually caused large numbers of these immigrants’ descendants to depart for America, becoming one of the New World’s culturally dominant ethnic groups.
Ireland’s lack of economic opportunity, coupled with its geographical isolation, ensured that for 300 years there would be little or no immigration. Ireland became one of the most mono-cultural and mono-ethnic regions in Europe. Indeed, huge numbers of Irish men and women departed as economic migrants, primarily to North America or Britain. This pattern continued until recent years, when the economic boom of the Celtic Tiger, coupled with a worldwide increase in migration, magnified Ireland’s pull factors to the point where immigration exceeded emigration.
This increase in worldwide migration has several causes. One is the decreasing ratio between the cost of international travel and earnings. For example, early Irish emigrants to North America sold themselves as indentured servants. This form of temporary slavery meant that an emigrant might work unpaid for four, or even seven, years in his new home in return for his passage across the Atlantic. However, modern immigrants to most industrialized nations need only work for one month in a minimum wage occupation to repay the cost of their plane ticket.
A second reason for increased worldwide migration is the all-encompassing reach of modern media. There have always been drastically differing living standards in different parts of the world. However, word-of-mouth reports of the opportunities to be found overseas were never strong enough to motivate more than a tiny minority to run the risks involved in emigration. However, today those who live in the most abject poverty can view magazine photographs and watch an infinite number of television shows that convincingly portray the fabulous wealth and opportunities that other parts of the world enjoy. For this reason alone I believe that migration can only increase for the foreseeable future, possibly becoming the dominant issue in world politics.
A further contributory factor to increased migration has been the erosion of patriotism. As educational standards have increased, more and more people have become aware of the absurdity of believing that one race or nationality is somehow superior to another. Samuel Johnson was ahead of his time in declaring patriotism to be the last refuge of a scoundrel. Years ago would-be Irish emigrants were encouraged to believe that staying at home would be an act of patriotic duty (an argument bolstered by anti-emigration poems such as The Ballad of Noreen Bawn), but today increasing numbers of people are perfectly happy to exchange one passport for another if it results in a better lifestyle.
Ireland’s unique history of emigration has undoubtedly made Irish people more sympathetic to those now seeking to enter Ireland. The kind of xenophobic nationalism manifested in certain UK tabloids is thankfully rare on this side of the Irish Sea. I’ve often heard the observation, “Sure they’re just doing what we ourselves did for centuries.” This has also produced a different concept of nationhood. It is hard to imagine the English rejoicing over George Bush’s English ancestry as the Irish did when John F. Kennedy became US President!
The current wave of emigration into Ireland began in the 1990s. A booming economy was joined to a loophole in the Constitution which, following the Good Friday Agreement, gave anyone born on the island the right to become an Irish citizen. A clause that was composed entirely with Northern Ireland in mind became a pull factor for immigrants. Members of some of our Romanian churches in Dublin used to jokingly refer to their newborn babies as “my Irish Green Card”.
Most of these immigrants were officially asylum seekers, but many, once they received permission to remain in Ireland on account of their Irish children, immediately went on holidays to the same places from which they had fled! The inescapable conclusion is that the system was forcing economic migrants to portray themselves as asylum seekers, since that represented the best way to remain in Ireland.
Today, following the enlargement of the European Union, most immigrants into Ireland are clearly economic migrants and are happy to be recognized as such. Interestingly, a 2006 survey revealed that 70% of the Irish population believe that anyone who wants should be allowed to come into Ireland providing that they work and pay taxes.
I am aware that some people, including Christians, have strong views on the subjects of immigration, race and nationhood. However, as evangelicals we need to distinguish between views based on politics and human traditions and those that are rooted in the Bible as God’s inspired Word. The Scripture is clear that in Christ our racial differences become irrelevant (Galatians 3:28). Our citizenship is in heaven (Philippians 3:20) and the heroes of the faith in Hebrews are described as those who were “longing for a better country—a heavenly one.” (Hebrews 11:16)
Neither should we attempt to use the separation of Israel as a people as a template for any immigration control policy. The principles God applied to the nation of Israel may be transferable to the Church, but to apply them to a modern man-made nation-state is theologically illiterate at best. Indeed, trying to identify any modern national identity with the people of God will only result in racism (as in white supremacist cults in the US) or in idolatry (as in the twin deities of “God and Ulster” that were worshipped on gable walls during my childhood in East Belfast).
I believe that it is morally and intellectually indefensible to argue that someone deserves to enjoy better economic opportunities because they happened to be born in Limerick rather than Lagos. Migration has become an unstoppable force on a worldwide scale, quite possibly because it is, like slavery or segregation, fundamentally a moral issue. Future generations may well judge rich nations’ attempts to restrict access to their resources as a historical aberration comparable to apartheid or the burning of witches.
Many of us who live in wealthier societies do so because our forefathers were lucky enough, or ruthless, to grab resources and exploit others. Today we argue that we cannot allow unrestricted immigration because that would harm ourselves economically. Such an argument is not supported by history – but even if it were, would that make it right? This is akin to shipwreck survivors in a lifeboat preventing the rescue of other survivors, who are drowning, on the grounds that the lifeboat would then become uncomfortable and crowded.
Certainly immigration drastically affects our culture and concepts of nationhood and citizenship. Culture is never static, and the Church, as the salt of the earth, can help ensure that such cultural change is positive. The wave of asylum seekers in the 1990s significantly increased the percentage of evangelical believers in Ireland and helped erode the monolithic Catholicism which treated evangelicals as second-class citizens. To a great extent our reaction to cultural change will depend on whether we are governed by fear or faith. For example, do we bemoan increased Muslim immigration into Ireland as a threat, or do we rejoice at the opportunity given to us to share our faith with people whom no missionary or church could reach in their home countries?
A multicultural Ireland will also change our concepts of nationhood and citizenship. To be Irish will be defined less by patriotism or race and more by choice. To be a citizen will mean to enter into a social contract where we agree to abide by laws and mores in return for the State providing good governance and economic opportunities. Many of us already view citizenship and nationhood in this light. If the State fails to provide good governance, as happened in Germany during the 1930s, then we are perfectly free to emigrate and apply for citizenship elsewhere without feeling that we are somehow traitors.
Ironically government policies have accelerated this looser concept of nationhood. I personally know many immigrants who have applied for Irish passports because it has become the only way for them to continue to live and work here legally. They will continue to think of themselves as Nigerian or Romanian, but the Irish passport is necessary for continued economic advancement. Their citizenship is based on a social contract, not on any shared ancestry or cultural values.
To sum up, immigration into Ireland will continue for the foreseeable future. Such immigration will inevitably modify Irish culture, not necessarily a bad thing. It is perfectly possible that such sustained immigration is compatible with continued economic growth, but even if it were not then I can see no biblical or moral justification for condemning others to live in abject poverty in order to protect our own narrow self-interest.
As evangelicals we should steadfastly refuse to vote for any candidate or party that attempts to pander to racism, xenophobia or patriotism for the purposes of political gain.

Restoring the Rightful Responsibility for Evangelism

For a long time I have been puzzling as to how we can encourage the Church Body to assume the vision and responsibility for evangelism.  Much of our outreach fails because our congregations see themselves as helping the church leadership in their responsibility to evangelize.  The way I see it, those of us in leadership have a biblical mandate and imperative to reverse this unScriptural relationship.  Our task is to help the members of the church fulfill their responsibility to evangelize.

Our church, in Drogheda, Ireland, has grown to the stage where we have more worshippers than we have seats.  I worked out that, with a little creative squeezing together, we can cram another 150 seats into our worship center.  We also have about 150 families in our church.  Coincidence or Serendipity?

We launched 2007 by introducing the Empty Chair Program.  We invited every family to purchase a chair.  This is their chair – if they leave the church then they can take their chair with them!  Every family who purchased a chair also made a commitment to do everything they can this year to win someone to Christ and fill that chair.  The vision we painted was that, on the final Sunday of 2007, each family could look across the congregation and see someone that they have led to Christ sitting on a chair that they have paid for.

Take-up was pretty good.  Some families chose not to get involved, but others got excited enough to commit to purchasing and filling two or more chairs.  We got our 150 chairs – and 150 commitments to reach others for Christ.  But something much more exciting has happened – the Body has reassumed the responsibility for evangelism!  Now our people no longer see themselves as helping the leadership to evangelize – they are viewing each outreach event or initiative as the Church leaders helping them to achieve their goals.

Five weeks into the program, and our Sunday worship attendance has jumped by 60 people (an increase of 15%).  Already we are planning to go to 2 services to cope when the extra 150 chairs are filled.  This is an idea that could be adopted by many churches as a gimmick for church growth, or, much more importantly, adapted as a plan to restore the rightful responsibility for evangelism.

Using the Irish Republican Army as an Example for Missionary Support Groups

BUILDING SUPPORT GROUPS A paper presented to Cooper City Church of God Missions Conference, February 9^th 2007 

by Nick Park (National Overseer, Church of God in Ireland)Introduction

The Northern Irish peace process has been an unexpected solution to one of the Twentieth Century’s intractable problems.  The Irish ‘troubles’ appeared, like the Middle Eastern conflict or poverty in
Africa, to be an unsolvable crisis.  Instead, as with the dismantling of apartheid and the collapse of the Berlin Wall, it represents a rare example of international political progress.What is not commonly appreciated or understood is that the Northern Irish peace process occurred as a direct result of the failure by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) to maintain its support groups. 1.  Historical Context

On the face of it, Northern Ireland in the early 1990s had enough bitterness and hatred to keep the centuries-old conflict running for another thousand years.  Ethnic cleansing, atrocities and separate Catholic and Protestant educational systems (each teaching a one-eyed view of Irish history) provided a wellspring of violence and mutual distrust.However, the IRA, even at its peak, never had more than a few hundred active members.  To operate effectively they needed three support groups: the Catholic community who would turn a blind-eye to their activities; Marxist governments that would provide weaponry; and the Irish-American community that gave the money to purchase that weaponry.In the 1990s the large Catholic communities in Belfast and Derry were war-weary.  The ongoing violence had degraded their quality of life to the point where the pain of continued conflict outweighed their legacy of hatred for the British.  Increasingly IRA safe-houses and arms dumps were being located by police on the basis of ‘information received’.  Simultaneously, many of the Marxist regimes that had previously supplied the IRA’s weaponry were collapsing and being replaced with democratic governments.Thirdly, US interests began to suffer terrorist attacks, quickly dispelling the romantic view of the IRA as freedom fighters.  The inherent contradiction of a movement using American money to purchase weapons from Marxist organizations became impossible for the Irish-American population to ignore.The breakdown of these three support groups meant that the IRA had to pursue a peace agreement or face eventual military defeat.  2.  Missionary Application

We may not welcome the comparison, but there are parallels between the role of missionaries and the IRA.  Missionaries are a very small group conducting a huge enterprise.  We need the concrete support of those who will provide finance and equipment.  We also cannot function effectively without the goodwill and tacit cooperation of the larger church community.  Building, and maintaining, support groups is vital to the success of our mission. 3.  Positive Lessons

The IRA, although violent and morally reprehensible, managed to cause severe disruption, both militarily and economically, to one of the most powerful nations in the world for many years.  How did a few hundred active volunteers manage this?Firstly, they tapped into the existing traditions and desires of their support groups.  For the Irish-American community and the Catholic communities of Ulster this meant that they could support the IRA, thereby vicariously fulfilling the anti-British strand of their national identity.  Similarly, missionaries fulfill the Great Commission, going on behalf of the wider Church to make disciples of all nations.  This is why presenting yourself as ‘Your missionary to xxxx-land’ is more than just a play on words.Secondly, the IRA helped further the goals of their support groups.  For example, Marxist regimes wanted to destabilize western regimes so as to spread their propaganda.  The Irish conflict created a variety of splinter terrorist groups that were much more extreme and open than the IRA in their Communist rhetoric.  Missionaries need to ensure that support groups are a two-way process.  Those who compose your groups must be more than just supporters, they need to be supported by you also.Thirdly, the IRA had a tremendous public relations department.  Newspapers and other publications, photographs and film documentaries, as well as creatively adapting a rich heritage of songs and storytelling combined to keep the support groups motivated.  Similarly, we as missionaries need to constantly communicate with our support groups using every technology at our disposal.  4. Negative Lessons

Ultimately the IRA’s support groups drifted away. Firstly there was the increasing perception in Catholic ghettos that the pain and inconvenience of the armed struggle outweighed the actual and potential benefits.  The cultural traditions and the vicarious participation in the fight for independence were simply not worth the tangible costs of continued violence with its accompanying social deprivation.  Missionaries need to give their support groups something that will outweigh the cost of being supportive.  This will mean ministering to them, rather than viewing them simply as a cash cow.The IRA also failed to adapt to changing circumstances.  The collapse of communism left them stripped of their sources for weaponry.  Searching for alternative sources in the Islamic world and in Colombia only served to further alienate their financial support group in the
USA.  Today’s missionaries are ministering in the most rapidly changing period ever in world history.  Traditional methodology alone will condemn them to defeat.Finally, the IRA’s network of support contained an inherent contradiction in that their communist affiliations were deeply offensive to their financial backers in the
US.  This lack of integrity was bound to be exposed eventually.  A support group needs to be built on mutual vision and goals.  It is my prayer that missionaries in the Church of God will lay the groundwork for successful support groups, and then display sufficient innovation and creativity to nurture those groups through changing conditions and circumstances.  We can learn from the ultimate failure of the IRA, but we do, of course, have a whole added dimension of help and guidance in the Person of the Holy Spirit.