Global South Anglican

Michael Nai-Chiu Poon, Singapore
Director, Centre for the Study of Christianity in Asia

“God wants his church to grow up in maturity (not just in numbers)”, so begins   Dr John Stott’s Langham Logic. More than thirty Christians from East Asia in the   past thirty years have benefited from the Langham Scholarship programme that Dr   Stott pioneered. They have since returned home and are serving in seminaries, churches and Christian organizations in the region. This essay is offered as a   tribute to “Uncle John” (as we fondly call him) for his personal commitment to   strengthen the church worldwide.  [1]

My purpose in this essay is to explore the particular mission challenges and   opportunities that churches in the Global South face, in order to help them to   coordinate their efforts more effectively in the coming decades.

To see the world afresh: beyond East-West confrontations

I begin with an oft-quoted remark from Andrew Walls. He noted the Christian   centre of gravity has “steadily moved away from the West and towards the   Southern continents”.  [2]     Missiologists and mission practitioners have devoted much energy in reckoning   this demographical shift. It captures the imagination even of popular writers. [3] Yet, discussions so far mainly focus on how churches and mission societies in   the west should adapt to this new condition. Some speculated on its   implications for the new world order. Yet so far hardly any discussion touch on   the geopolitical contours in the Global South, and their impact on mission. This   is not to suggest that mission scholars are to turn into political commentators.  Rather, mission is not merely a series of fragmentary activities; it needs to be   connected with the geopolitical realities. And at the same time, without proper   theological conceptual understanding, we cannot come to a true understanding of   geopolitical realities.  [4]

To some extent churches in the Global   South are responsible for this gap in understanding. Geopolitical issues are   sensitive matters; people are reluctant to discuss them in public. Some make a   radical separation between spiritual and secular matters, and take the attitude   that Christians should confine themselves with religious matters. After all,  there is already more than enough on the immediate horizons to absorb the energy   of busy pastors, so such reasoning goes.

Yet, churches in the Global South should   offer a coherent account of their work and priorities. Without this, their words   and actions may appear fragmentary and reactionary, unable to link to an overall   social vision. Mission is public and political in nature. This is what being   “salt of the earth and light of the world” is about. What Christians have to say   about societies is of huge interest to secular authorities and other faith   communities. It offers a point of engagement with the wider society.  [5]

It is important for the Global South to   realize the West cannot do this work for them. Western mission scholars are   increasingly unfamiliar with present-day politics outside their immediate   horizons, unless they impact their daily life. Theological colleges in the West,  generally speaking, do not educate their seminarians the histories of   Christianity outside the Western world. So the newer generations of Christians   in the West have little understanding of the histories and geographies of the   non-Western world.

Take the present Anglican Communion   crisis as a case in point. Some Christians in the West continue to misunderstand   the Global South. To them, Global South churches are conservative, reactionary,  and harbour deep resentment against the West. Such views perhaps are not   intentionally malicious. They simply show how unfamiliar they are with the wider   world.

It remains the task of Christians in the   non-Western world to give an account of the reason of their faith and hope. Can   the Global South be positive in anything?

And yet, it is not helpful to interpret   the present-day world along an East-West divide. The Global South is not   homogeneous. I refer earlier how unfamiliar people who live in the West are with   the geographies and histories of the rest of the world. The same applies to   those in the Global South. East Asians often do not know Africa and Latin   America. I assume the case is the same for those who live in other parts of the   world. More importantly, neighbouring nations, cultures and ethnic groups may   pose more immediate dangers than the “imperialist” West. Take East Asia for   example, Southeast Asian countries may see the resurgent China and India as   posing greater threats to regional interests than America. Within Southeast   Asia, neighbouring countries may be involved in long histories of bitter   conflicts and rivalries, and still find it difficult to be reconciled with one   another. And within a society, ethnic communities may hold deep fear and   resentment over a dominant group. We find such scenarios in other parts of the   world.

What can Christians contribute to the   present-day world? Anglicans cannot avoid such question, though perhaps other   Christian communities may brush this aside to be irrelevant. After all,  Anglicans are a world-affirming catholic community. This much at least we learn   from F D Maurice and William Temple.

Four theses on missionary engagement Let me propose four theses.

1. Hermeneutic principle

The Suffering Servant rather than the   Davidic dynasties provide a more fruitful model for understanding mission today.  It was as an exiled people that God’s People rediscovered the mission to be a   light to all nations (Isaiah 49: 6). The Abrahamic promise “that in [him] all   the families of the earth shall be blessed” did not find its fulfilment when   nations paid homage to Solomon. Rather, God’s People became a blessing to all   nations only when they – as exiles – sought “the welfare of the city” in distant   lands (Jeremiah 29:7).

The challenge to God’s People was to   “sing the Lord’s song in a foreign land (Psalm 137: 4)” when they were stripped   of the familiar signs of God’s presence – the land, the Temple and the City.  They had to reinterpret what obedience to the Law meant in this new condition.  This led to the long meditation in Psalm 119. They rediscovered the calling to   move out to the world. “The earth, O Lord, is full of your steadfast love; teach   me your statutes (Psalm 119: 64).”  [6] Yahweh’s word became lamp to their feet and a light to their path as they   travelled through unfamiliar terrains in the world (Psalm 119: 105). Peter   developed this approach to Christian life in 1 Peter.

2. Space-time orientation

We need to pay attention to   intraregional undercurrents to understand the particular challenges in   present-day mission. Post-Christendom, postcolonial and post-missionary   categories can no longer provide a satisfactory pattern for understanding the   Global South. Such categories still bind Christianity in southern continents to   European experiences.

Churches in the Global South need to pay   closer attention to the regional socio-historical interactions to interpret the   rise of Christianity in the region. To take Southeast Asia as an example, it is   helpful to study the interactions between nations and cultures within Asia   itself to understand the character of local forms of Christianity.  [7]

3. Ecclesiological focus

It follows that we need to restore the   church to be the focal point in mission. Partnership between churches in   different geographical locations becomes the driving force in mission. To a   great extent, the days of Western mission societies are ending. Missionaries   were once interpreters of cultures and societies. The Chinese Repository in the 19th century is a case in point. It opened new horizons for   East-West exchanges. Such is no longer the case. The ease of air travel and   information technology change all that.

Missionary societies in the West try to   adapt themselves to this changed time. Mission now takes place “from everywhere   to everywhere”, so Michael Nazir-Ali suggested in the 1990s. Samuel Escobar   picked up this theme to insist that the gospel is for “everywhere to everyone” [8].  Yet I do not think such proposals go far enough. They do not pay enough   attention to the geopolitical challenges in particular places. To them, mission   takes place within a “Global context”. One can picture the world as a network   with hubs “from everywhere to everywhere”. Yet, hubs are dispensable by   definition. Therefore, such mission paradigm focuses on the flow processes. The   geographical locations of Africa, Latin America and Asia become unimportant.  Christians are simply faceless resources in the interchange. After all, the   “traffic controllers” are still in the West. They hold the purse and propriety   rights to information technology, and continue to manage the traffic as they   like.

This is why I expressed elsewhere deep   reservation for the so-called “Global Christianity”. [9] It is a poor substitute for the universal Church in this age of Globalization.  Missiologists living in the West, however well-meaning they are, cannot   interpret and speak for church worldwide. The so-called interfaith dialogues and   cross-cultural engagements are abstracted from the geopolitical realities, and   so lose their critical edges. They may help post-Christian societies in the West   to grapple with their own multicultural issues. Yet they are far from able to   embrace the multifaceted human condition in the wider world.

4. Meaning of mission engagement

The Great Commission constrains   Christians to effect reconciliation with peoples who were or still are hostile   against their own nations.

Saint Paul announced: “Christ is our   Peace . . . and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility   between us. . . . So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are   citizens with the saints and members of the household of God (Ephesians 2:  14-19)”. He also depicted his apostolic ministry to be an “ambassador for Christ   (2 Corinthians 5:20)”.

These words are of special significance   for those in the Global South. The Global South consists of nation-states that   are still grappling with histories of ethnic and religious conflicts. Colonial   and imperialist policies have dictated national boundaries and political   identities. I speak of course not simple of expansionist exploits from the West,  but among ethnic groups and nations in the “Global South” itself. All are   involved in a web of atrocities. For example, in East Asia, we can think of   China’s aggression against Vietnam, Japan against South-eastern Asia and   suchlike. It is ironic that most countries in the Global South, perhaps on   grounds of national security and economic interests, have made peace with the   West since World War II. Yet, they are far from reconciling with one another.  The Cold War legacy and the present-day American domination contribute to   further conflicts among peoples within the Global South.

Most missiologists are not sensitive to   such political undercurrents. True, they are mostly alert to the cultural,  religious, and racial dimensions in mission. After all, societies in America and   Britain are becoming such.

When the risen Lord commissioned his   apostles to go and make disciples of all nations, he has in mind the need of   carrying the message of reconciliation to old and present enemies. The story of   Jonah is instructive. The messenger (and not just the message) himself is an   offer of reconciliation and contrition. The act of receiving the messenger is   equally a sign of hope. It offers hope to the eventual reconciliation among   peoples who are bitterly divided. This is why the Love Commandment remains the   most potent testimony of the Christian community.

It is unfortunate that Western Churches   have all along misunderstood the Great Commission. They read the Commission as a   call for civilizational changes. Christianity then stands for historical   progress. Missionaries sought conversion of nations and kings to advance   Christendom around the world. For example, Otis Cary of the Church Missionary   Society wrote these astonishing words one hundred years ago:

“The influence   of Japan upon the nations of the continent is becoming more and more marked.  Unless all the signs are deceptive, much of the world’s history during the next   century will centre about Eastern Asia. Great political, social, and religious   changes are at hand. If Japan should be given over to materialism and   infidelity, the Church will have lost a powerful ally and will have its   difficulties increased. If Japan should speedily become a Christian nation,  Korea, Siam, and the vast empire of China would be profoundly influenced by the   event itself, while the Japanese Christians, imbued with a missionary spirit,  would join the Churches of the West in hastening forward to bring about the   redemption of Asia.  [10]”

These words came in the heat of the   Meiji reform period, when Japan sought to adopt the superior infrastructures in   the West. With hindsight of Japan’s aggression in East Asia shortly afterwards,  we may greet with anxiety Otis’ optimistic assessment. Yet he aptly summarized   the mission tactics of Western churches: (1) targeting friendly nations as   regional launch-pads; (2) expecting domino effects in the region; (3) equating   Christianity with political reform. Is it not it the time for missiologists to   re-examine the legacies of such naïve attempts on peoples within the Global   South?

The manner of love: Till they have   homes

To rebuild homes among peoples whom we   have wronged is the practical task of love in present-day churches.

Earlier I refer to   God’s dealing with his ancient People of Israel. How did God fulfil his promise   to Abraham, that by him all families of the earth shall bless themselves   (Genesis 12: 3)? How were the People of God to fulfil their calling? Surely the   Old Testament does not give us a story of the expansion of a Jewish Empire. As   we trace the rise and fall of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, we find how they   were chastised for their disobedience. They lived as sojourners, slaves, and   exiles among powerful nations throughout. As they reflected their painful   history, they came to see that they would fulfill their vocation in the manner   of a Suffering Servant rather than as a conquering king. God re-commissioned his   discouraged and exiled People to be light for the nations in a new way, in the   role of a Suffering Servant (Isaiah 53: 2-3;  49: 3-6).

Jesus Christ fulfilled   the role of the Suffering Servant. He accepted a life of homelessness so that he   can restore this world to be a home for us all. Because he had nowhere to lay   down his head, so we who were once strangers and aliens could have a share in   the household of God. When Jesus charged his disciples to go the ends of the   world, he has in mind that they were to leave their familiar homes and   countries. He called them to venture to the far corners of the world that   peoples may be reconciled and live together as one household that is built on   the foundation of Jesus Christ.

We would no longer watch the war   refugees, the aliens and the uprooted in the world in the safe distance before   our computer monitor or television screen. God calls us to let go of protected   surroundings and familiar suppositions to draw close to them in real life. This   would challenge us to live in homeless conditions so that others may rebuild   their homes again. Healing and restoration would come out of such endeavours,  and provide the necessary conditions where peoples who were once enemies can   live together in harmony.

This has special relevance for   Christians who live in materially rich nations within the Global South. For   example, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore enjoy a living   standard that is much higher than that of their immediate neighbours. It is   important for Christians there to stand alongside their fellows in the wider   region.

Such lines of approach lead to practical   tasks that the entire Christian communities can undertake. Christians need to   move from the natural instinct “till we have homes” to “till they have homes”.  To a great extent, rebuilding homes was a Global preoccupation since World War   II.

I can think of my own parents’  generation who fled to Hong Kong and rebuild their lives there. Life was hard;  yet there was relative social stability. They got on with practical tasks in   raising the family with their meagre earnings, put the children through school,  and hoped for the day when life would be better in their children’s generation.

I believe many can tell such a story.  And we can count ourselves fortunate. There are many more children and parents   who live in volatile societies. Home continues to be an elusive dream for many   whose lives are shattered through famine, natural disasters, diseases, and   fratricidal wars within families and societies.

Can we move from the political vision of   nation-building to the social vision of home rebuilding, and from rebuilding our   homes to those of others? Who are our neighbours? Love calls us to discern such   practical tasks. [11] For some, this may mean we need to discover fitting ways to serve those whom our   forebears have wronged. For others, the form of Christian discipleship lies in   welcoming children from broken families into their homes. Whatever form it   takes, it contributes to reinforce the moral and spiritual fabrics of our   communities, and make them increasingly stable. They are practical tasks in   overcoming evil by good (Romans 12).

Beyond a defence of Western   missionary legacy

To put the present discussion in sharper   relief, we turn to Brian Stanley’s recent “Defence of Mission”. In his 2006   Ramsden Sermon in Cambridge University “In Defence of Mission”, Stanley tried to   answer two charges against mission. First, the conviction that mission is   “inextricably tied to processes of domination [by the West]”; and second, the   “Christian claim to be in receipt of revealed truth about God” is at odds with   present-day cultural relativism. [12]

On the first charge, Stanley pointed out   that missionaries were the ones who pioneered “the vernacularization of the   Christian message”. This carried “new cultural and even political significance”  among the peoples who were touched by the gospel. “The Bible has far more often   been a vehicle of liberation than one of domination.” On the second accusation,  the insistence on questions of truth and faith in fact provides “the most secure   basis for insisting that no claim to religious knowledge should be suppressed or   ridiculed”. Stanley pointed out that all four gospel writers “record some form   of commission by the risen Christ, instructing his followers on his authority to   teach and make baptised disciples of all nations, that is from all cultural,  ethnic and religious backgrounds. . . . It is a commission, not to dominate the   world, but to serve it, not to divide the world, but to unite it”.

These are fine words. It calls for three   comments. First, Stanley saw the need to mount a “defence” of mission. This is   necessary as Christianity retreats from Western societies; it is fast becoming a   marginalized and privatized faith. Should Christianity remain as a credible   academic discipline that receives public funding? Christian communities and the   wider public may well ask. Stanley tried to instil a renewed sense of confidence   in mission.

Second, Stanley’s effort is more   properly a “Defence of the Legacies of Western Missionary Movements”, an apology   of Western forms of missionary practice, past and present. But how   successful is he? He refuted the charge that missionaries conspired with   structures of empire against the indigenous peoples. The missionaries expressed   the Gospel in local languages and sanctified them to be catalysts for cultural   and political reform. Indeed, the Christian printing presses in Shanghai in the   19th century were instrumental to China’s modernization. The work of   John Fryer, William A Martin, Timothy Richard and Allen Young are cases in   point.

However, Stanley did not deal with a   more fundamental issue in the first charge. Protestant missionaries on the whole   linked Christianity with social and historical progress. What was new in   colonial expansion from the 19th century was the ability to conquer   distant lands. Africa and eastern Asia had to contend with a “West” that was   structurally far superior to them. Japan was the first in Asia to adopt Western   infrastructures, and used it with stunning success against her neighbours in the   20th century. [13]  Many missionaries might have dissociated themselves from the Western powers.  However, the fundamental premise “Christianity is the catalyst of civilizational   progress” stays unchallenged.  [14]

We must ask: must Christian advances go   hand in hand with liberal values as espoused in the West? If so, it follows   Western democratic ideals would still shape mission practices. And such is still   often the case. Many still confuse the Christian cause with Western cultures,  American foreign policies and individual-rights issues. Now that Western   societies have by and large lost a social vision in this post-Christendom era;  mission becomes private, individual, and short-term pursuits. Mission trips can   thus become no better than a niche market in the tourism trade.

I suggest it is important to rediscover   the ways how Christians outside the Christendom world share their faith.  Christians who live in political and social structures that are different from   Western societies may have important lessons for us today. Churches in the   non-Western world need urgently to begin fresh approaches to mission.

Third, it also follows that Stanley also   did not fully meet the truth-claim criticism in the second half of his defence.  Indeed, as Stanley put it: “Jesus Christ embodies the fullness of divine truth.  . . . The Christian internationalism that was rooted in the missionary   enterprise . . . was fuelled by a conviction that the Church is called to be a   sign of God’s redemptive purposes for a divided humanity.” Yet what if cultural   relativism is not the issue on hand? The charge against missionaries is that   they sought to carve out the world along their denominational and doctrinal   positions, and hence deprived churches in Asia, Africa and Latin America the   whole truth and full inheritance of the Gospel. Here missionaries might have   inadvertently replicate tactics of Western powers, whether in the form of a   “Scramble for Africa” or “Christian Occupation in China”, made possible by the   superior infrastructures of Western civilization. Such practices to carve out   spheres of influence still continue in subtle forms of financial aid to   vulnerable churches and regions in the non-Western world. The world becomes no   more than a theatre of establishing Western power blocs, whether they be   Anglo-catholic or evangelical, liberal or fundamentalist, this or that church   growth technique from America, and suchlike. So, Western churches would not   expect new voices from the Global South. Western models still dictate their view   of truth.  [15] For them, the world may as well just be viewed in terms of human resources and   market opportunities.

I used Stanley’s sermon for illustrative   purposes. The “Defence” was within a short sermon and surely did not represent   Stanley’s fuller view on the matter.

At the same time, the above discussion   shows that we Christians need to urgently understand world histories and   geopolitical configurations if we are to be effective for mission in the new   world-order of the twenty-first century. Stanley saw Jesus’ commission embracing   “all nations, that is from all cultural, ethnic and religious backgrounds”. The   “political” dimension is strangely missing. In Christian mission we announce the   coming of the King: “the Kingdom of God is at hand”. It challenges the ways that   all secular powers organize their societies and nations in light of Christ’s   advent. Therefore, Christian message is always dangerous, and discipleship   costly.

Theologians, mission scholars and   historians across the world have a special responsibility to promote a   theological understanding such understanding. It is disturbing that discussion   on mission in the West over the past thirty years has become increasingly   abstract, and increasingly become the preoccupation of the experts. For example,  the Anglican Communion adopted the following five marks of mission in the   Anglican Consultative Council in 1984 and 1990:

i. to proclaim   the good news of the kingdom of God;

ii. to teach,  baptize and nurture new believers;

iii. to respond   to human need by loving service;

iv. to seek to   transform the unjust structures of society;

v. to strive to   safeguard the integrity of creation, and sustain and renew the life of the   earth.  [16]

Notice how such outlook arise from   questions within Western Christianity. The five marks seek to bridge the   evangelical and social activist divide; find new ways for the West to engage the   rest of the world; and take up ecological concerns brought about by   Globalization. Yet, how can mission activities be concrete and effective if we   do not have a theological understanding of geopolitical infrastructures that   human communities are connected with?  [17]

Nor do the evangelicals offer better   insight. Samuel Escobar’s influential treatment on mission is a case in point.  In the Iguassu Dialogue, he identified Global shifts towards the southern   continents and Pentecostal forms of Christianity. He further discussed the   impact of Globalization and fundamentalism on the post-Christendom world-order.  It was puzzling that he was silent on the particular geopolitical agenda of the   Global South. [18]  The Iguassu Dialogue dealt mainly with contextual and interfaith issues. There   was little exploration on the tensions within the Global South.  [19] It was as if the conversations were between the west and the rest of the world.  Along similar lines, the Iguassu Affirmation touches on issues of gospel and   culture, pluralism, the impact of Globalization and ecological crisis. Yet there   is little reflection on the particular political challenges of today except in   the context of religious persecution and human rights. [20] This reveals how dominant the Christendom-mentality still takes hold of mission   discussions. Such outlook tends to be abstract and idealist, and so unable to   direct us to practical tasks.   An invitation to break into the real   life of the people Let   me end. During World War II, Bishop R O Hall of   South China wrote a small classic The Art of the Missionary: Fellow-workers   with the Church in China. In one the chapters he encouraged Western   missionaries to move out of their protected life, the “concession areas” carved   out in China where foreigners enjoyed consular protection. He pleaded: “To break   through into the real life of the people is the task of the modern missionary.” [21]

Despite the hype surrounding Wall’s   observations that “the Christian centre of gravity has moved to the southern   continents”. I contended above that there is little advance in mission thinking.  In the West, mission studies are fast becoming professional, abstract, and   remote from church life. The Christendom experience still dictates Christian   outlooks. Christianity still confines itself, using Hall’s analogy, within the   concession areas in the world.

To break into the real life of the   people – this is the mission task of the twenty-first century. Churches in Asia,  Africa and Latin America need to wake up to their calling to shoulder this   responsibility. Only then could the Christian faith become a truly universal   faith, and indeed a world-affirming faith. The truth of the Gospel is more   evangelical than what Evangelicals have understood it; more liberating that what   the Liberals have insisted on; more catholic and historic than what the   Anglo-Catholics have espoused. Churches in the Global South need to work towards   extending our horizons of the Christian faith.

Such conviction carries practical   implications. I suggested Christians to have a special responsibility in taking   the lead to bring about reconciliation between peoples who are (still) locked in   hostility against one another. Can we re-enter the wider world to rebuild homes   and stable societies for others without empire-building intents? Christians   should blaze the way.

And there is a deeper meaning in such   practical tasks of love. For they point to the One who for our sakes became poor   and homeless, that we may have a place in the Father’s house. For all those who   “live as strangers and foreigners on the earth” for his sake, “God is not   ashamed to be called their God; indeed, he has prepared a city for them (Hebrews   11: 13-16).”

Sixty-first Anniversary of the End of the Pacific War

August 2006, Singapore 

Footnotes: