Micah Challenge Framework Papers A series of papers commissioned by the Micah Challenge Campaign to provide frameworks for co-operative development of campaign strategies The Micah Challenge is a global campaign to mobilise Christians against poverty. It is facilitated by the World Evangelical Alliance and the Micah Network The campaign aims to deepen Christian engagement with the poor and to influence leaders of rich and poor nations to fulfil their public promise to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, and so halve absolute global poverty by 2015 For further information and other papers in this series visit www.micahchallenge.org Framework Paper 1 Barriers to the Embrace of Integral Mission * Dr Tim Chester, July 2004 In 1966 more than a thousand evangelical Christians from over 100 countries gathered in Berlin. 1 Developments in ecumenical theology, of which evangelical Christians were highly critical, had created an impetus towards an evangelical ecumene. 2 Evangelical Christians saw themselves as taking up the task of world evangelisation which they believed had been discarded by the ecumenical movement. But at Berlin there were also signs of a renewed emphasis on social involvement. The past forty years have seen a remarkable change in evangelical attitudes towards social concern with a rediscovery of the social involvement that characterised evangelicalism prior to the twentieth century. With this has developed an integrated or transformational understanding of mission. It was the follow-up conference to Berlin, the Lausanne Congress in 1974, that truly established social involvement as a dimension of the evangelical understanding of mission. In the opening plenary session, John Stott argued that mission should not simply be equated with evangelism. Instead, we should speak of the total mission the church, including both evangelism and social concern. 3 This, Stott acknowledged, was a change from the view he expressed at Berlin in 1966. 4 But it was the new generation of Third World evangelical Christians that really set the conference alight, particularly the contributions of the Latin Americans, Samuel Escobar 5 and René Padilla. 6 At the heart of their 1 For a fuller telling of the story of evangelical re-engagement with integral mission see Tim Chester, Awakening to the World of Need: The Recovery of Evangelical Social Concern (IVP, 1993) and C. René Padilla, Integral Mission and its Historical Development in Justice, Mercy and Humility: Integral Mission and the Poor, ed. Tim Chester (Paternoster, 2002). 2 David Bosch, Witness to the World: The Christian Mission in Theological Perspective (MMS, 1980), 181. 3 John Stott, Christian Mission in the Modern World (Kingsway, 1975, 1986), 15-34, especially 24. 4 John Stott, Christian Mission, 22-23; see also Tim Chester, Awakening, 72-73, 210 fns. 13 and 14. 5 Samuel Escobar, Evangelism and Man s Search for Freedom, Justice and Fulfilment, Let the Earth Hear His Voice, ed. J. D. Douglas (World Wide Publications, 1975), 303-326; also published in
concerns was the fear that the Congress would endorse a strategy that, for the sake of numerical results, would compromise the claims of discipleship, particularly as these affected social issues. The resulting Covenant said we affirm that both evangelism and socio-political involvement are both part of our Christian duty. The Congress and Covenant have been the most significant events in what has proved to be the re-emphasis upon social concern among evangelical Christians. René Padilla says of Lausanne, social involvement had finally been granted full citizenship in evangelical missiology. 7 That such a representative gathering should endorse social involvement gave legitimacy and confidence to those evangelical Christians whose social commitments had been viewed with suspicion by their fellow evangelical Christians. Not everyone was happy. A number of evangelical Christians feared that in the inclusion of socio-political involvement would inevitably be edged out. In June 1982 the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization brought together both sides of the debate for the Consultation on the Relationship between Evangelism and Social Responsibility at Grand Rapids, USA. With very differing perspectives represented the gathering was at times stormy, but as the consultation progressed participants began to understand one another s concerns and agreement was reached. The report said that social action can precede, accompany and follow evangelism. Evangelism, it said, has priority in two senses. First, it has a logical priority since Christian social responsibility presupposes socially responsible Christians though this does not mean evangelism must come first in every context. Second, evangelism has a priority that stems from the unique nature of the gospel, for it relates to people s eternal destiny, and in bringing them Good News of salvation Christians are doing what nobody else can do. 8 The report went on to acknowledge that in reality the choice is largely conceptual. In practice, the ministry of Jesus, in which the two were inseparable, is to be our model. Evangelism and social responsibility, while distinct from one another, are integrally related in our proclamation of and obedience to the gospel. 9 This idea of an integral relationship was affirmed more recently when evangelical development agencies from around the world met in 2001 in Oxford to form the Micah Network. They produced a statement called The Micah Declaration on Integral Mission. The term integral mission comes from the Spanish misión integral, the term commonly used in Latin America for what others describe as holistic ministry, Christian development or transformation. The declaration defines integral mission as follows: Integral mission or holistic transformation is the proclamation and demonstration of the gospel. It is not simply that evangelism and social involvement are to be done alongside each other. Rather, in integral mission our proclamation has social consequences as we call people to love and repentance in all areas of life. And our social involvement has evangelistic consequences as we bear witness to the transforming grace Mission Trends: Third World Theologies, eds. G. H. Anderson and T. F. Stransky (Paulist/Eerdmans, 1976), 104-110. 6 C. René Padilla, Evangelism and the World, Let the Earth Hear His Voice, 116-146; also published in C. René Padilla, Mission Between the Times (Eerdmans, 1985), 1-44. 7 C. René Padilla, How Evangelicals Endorsed Social Responsibility 1966-1983, Transformation, 2:3 (1985), 29. 8 The Grand Rapids Report, Evangelism and Social Responsibility: An Evangelical Commitment (Paternoster, 1982), p. 25. 9 The Grand Rapids Report, p. 24.
of Jesus Christ. If we ignore the world we betray the word of God which sends us out to serve the world. If we ignore the word of God we have nothing to bring to the world. 10 These conferences have not only been significant in shaping evangelical thought, but provide a gauge of the development of evangelical thought. For the most part, the conferences did not create a renewed emphasis in evangelicalism on social concern, rather they provided a clear picture of changing evangelical attitudes. A number of factors contributed to this shift of thinking. The 1960s saw growing confidence within evangelicalism. Because liberalism had taken over mainstream denominations in the first half of the century, evangelicalism became defensive and inward-looking, concerned with the maintenance of truth. However, as their numbers grew and as evangelical academics began to provide a credible defence of evangelical orthodoxy, so evangelical confidence grew and with it a growing concern to be outwardlooking, applying their understanding of the faith to all areas of life. At the same time, the radical movements of the 1960s forced many within evangelicalism to look afresh at the Bible for teaching on social issues. Christians, particularly in the Third World, needed a response to the Marxist critique of Christianity and in so doing discovered a critique of pietistic evangelical attitudes. A key factor in the rediscovery of evangelical social concern has been the coming of age of Third World evangelicalism, and the opportunities to contribute to mainstream evangelical debates afforded to them by the new international gatherings. The thinking of Third World evangelical Christians has inevitably been shaped by the day to day reality of poverty which they faced. Meanwhile in the West the growth of television ownership brought the reality of that poverty, in some measure, into the living rooms of Western evangelical Christians. The past twenty to thirty years, then, have witnessed a remarkable change in evangelical attitudes towards work among the poor. Evangelical Christians have re-emphasised the place of development in the life of the church and its mission. But despite these developments the debate continues. Commitment to integral mission remains an issue within evangelicalism. For some there is a reluctance to embrace the social involvement dimension of integral mission. For others there is a reluctance to embrace the evangelism dimension of integral mission. This paper explores some of the underlying barriers to the embrace of integral mission. It is important to recognise at the outset that many of these barriers are not theological. The debate that has taken place within evangelicalism about integral mission has been largely a theological debate. One would expect nothing else from a movement that is defined by its commitment to the authority of Scripture. Evangelical Christians judge their actions according to the teaching of the Bible. Nevertheless swirling around the theological discussion are prejudices, presuppositions and fears which are shaped by other factors. Not least among these, as the history above illustrates, is a person s own experience of wealth and poverty. We all approach theological debates with certain presuppositions. At best these presuppositions are transformed by our engagement with God s word, but often our presuppositions shape the way we read the Scriptures. The following list of barriers is not intended to be comprehensive. Listed are broad generic categories, each with specific examples. Readers may well be able to think of other examples. The aim is to provide a conceptual framework 10 The Micah Declaration on Integral Mission in Justice, Mercy and Humility: Integral Mission and the Poor, ed. Tim Chester (Paternoster, 2002), p. 19.
to help identify and address barriers to the embrace of integral mission. Each genetic barrier inevitably overlaps with others. They have been arranged so that the greatest overlap is with adjacent barriers. Some of the barriers make people antagonistic to the concept of integral mission. Others mean that, even when people assent to integral mission in principle, they are slow to become engaged with the poor in practice. 1. Theological Barriers Uncertain of mandate Some people remain uncertain about whether integral mission and social involvement are proper pursuits for Christians. For them the issue is one of biblical mandate. For others this question is narrower: they accept the need to care for the poor, but question the legitimacy of political campaigning. These concerns may be articulated in a number of ways: 11 > Jesus did not try to reform Roman society > Paul tells us in Romans 13 to submit to state authorities rather than challenge them > injustice is part of living in a fallen world this is the way things are and our role is to prepare for the coming world > we are involved in a spiritual battle with spiritual powers rather than a battle with earthly powers Commitment to evangelism alone Some Christians argue that evangelism is the only historical aim of mission. They (rightly) argue for the centrality of gospel proclamation and then (wrongly) argue that social involvement is a distraction from this central aim. Such people may accept that individual Christians should have compassion on those they meet who are in need, but believe that the organised, corporate mission of the church is evangelism alone. 11 See Graham Gordon, What If I Got Involved: Taking a Stand Against Social Injustice (Paternoster, 2003), pp. 4-16.
These issues have been the main focus for debate as evangelical Christians have embraced integral mission over the past forty years. They have generated a large amount of literature. But often these theological concerns reflect other underlying issues. 2. Cultural Barriers Public-private split The Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century undermined the hegemony of the Medieval church. There was no longer one Christian voice on matters of either theology or politics. The question of what was true was met with a different answers. This fragmentation took place within a Christendom model of church and state relations in which it was assumed that the state would support the church. The writings of the Reformers were typically addressed to Princes and other political leaders to gain support for the cause of the Reformation. It was inevitable therefore that the theological differences of the Reformation should manifest themselves in political divisions and sometimes even in war. This led in Europe to a search for a non-religious foundation for social morals. Theology, it was argued, could no longer make universal claims certainly not regarding public policy. Hugo Grotius (1583 1645) argued that public morality should be conducted etsi Deus non daretur as if God did not exist. Individual religious conviction was separated from public morality. At the same time the Renaissance had led to an explosion of learning. Isaac Newton was making radical new developments in science. The printing press made the dissemination of new ideas possible in an unprecedented way. It was a time of great confidence in human reason and it was to reason that the Enlightenment turned as a basis for public life. By crying I think therefore I am René Descartes (1596 1650) laid the foundation for the modern worldview in which reason is the arbiter of truth. Emmanuel Kant called the Enlightenment the spirit s determination to exercise its intellectual faculties with unfettered integrity. The hope of modernism was that through shared human reason humanity could find a shared basis for human society. Romanticism reacted against the cold rationalism of the Enlightenment. The Romantics like William Blake (1757 1827) and William Wordsworth (1770 1850) believed that transcendent truth was apprehended through humanity s aesthetic and spiritual sensitivities. But Romanticism did not replace reason. Human reason still dominated the public realms of politics, science and economics, while Romanticism secured a place for spirituality within the realm of personal beliefs and values. These intellectual changes were reinforced by social changes. Before the industrial revolution most people lived and worked at the same location so that private life and public life were one. The blacksmith s forge was next door; the weaver s loom was in his home. But the industrial revolution and increased urbanization radically changed this. The factory replaced the household as the place of work. The public world of work and the private world of the home become separate realms with different codes of conduct. The public world was a world of reason. Religion belonged to the private world. God was no longer part of commercial or political discourse. Public truth and private faith were polarized. You could hold religious beliefs, but you could not let them intrude into public life. Theological liberalism arose as many Christians succumbed to the rationalism of the age. Human reason was no longer a tool by which we understood divine revelation. It was the criteria by which people judged the veracity of revelation.
Evangelical Christians were ill-equipped to respond to this intellectual debate. Most opted instead to operate within the private world of faith which modernity allowed for it. Evangelical Christians practised their religion and maintained their orthodoxy within their own circles. But they no longer engaged with public truth. They no longer asserted the gospel as public truth; as truth relevant to politics, economic or science. This modernistic worldview with its split between public truth and private faith is still a significant influence on many evangelicals. For some it means Christians should not be involved in politics because Christianity is to do with personal faith. For others it means Christian political involvement is confined to issues of morality. They cannot conceive of Christianity speaking to issues of social justice For some it means that, while the Bible regulates their personal life, they never think it might speak to their business practice. Consumerism Ray Bakke was speaking to a church about the need to care for the urban poor. Someone asked, Isn t that just the social gospel? The social gospel was a movement that believed the kingdom of God could come in history through Christian social action. In response Ray Bakke asked: Where do you live? It was a pleasant neighbourhood. What is your house like? It was a large house. What car do you drive? It was an up-market model. What hopes do have your children? And so it went on, until Ray Bakke said: It seems to me that you are the one living out the social gospel. This story illustrates the extent to which many arguments against involvement with the poor are in reality an attempt to justify a consumerist lifestyle. If we accept the validity of concern for the poor then we will have to accept that our lifestyles must change and that we will not accept. We have succumbed to the consumerism of our culture. We have believed the lie that consumer goods bring identity, meaning and satisfaction. We cannot change our position because our identity is at stake. Take away the pursuit of consumer goods and you take away our hope. Only by exposing consumerism as idolatry can we liberate people to find identity and satisfaction is knowing and serving God including service among the poor. Relativism For many evangelical Christians the challenge of integral mission has been the challenge to accept the importance of social involvement. This has been the focus of the debate over the past forty years and this debate rumbles on. But for many among a new generation of evangelical Christians the challenge is the reverse: it is the challenge to accept the role of evangelism among the poor. In the West especially, the prevailing culture is now a postmodern one characterised by relativism. Commitment to absolute truth is seen as arrogant and so some Christians hesitate to proclaim the revealed word of God. They readily assent to social action which, after all, meets with the approval of their unbelieving peers, but are less sure about proclaiming the liberating truth of the gospel. But a commitment to integral mission is as much a commitment to make evangelism integral with social action as it is to make social action integral with evangelism. What defines the Micah Network is its commitment to keep proclamation and demonstration integrally related in the mission of the church among the poor. 3. Institutional Barriers
The cultural barriers highlighted above arise because of the influence of the wider culture on the church. We have conformed to the pattern of this world rather than being transformed by the renewing of our minds (Romans 12:2). They concern the impact on the church of a culture that is external to the church. The institutional barriers below, in contrast, concern the internal culture of a church. Models of success Too many of our notions of successful ministry are shaped by middle-class notions of success. Successful ministries are seen as those reaching professionals. The leaders of affluent, suburban churches dominate conference platforms and their models for ministry are presented as models to which all should aspire. Our images of successful churches involve well-resourced staff teams with professionals, middle-class families and students participating in well-organised programmes. Often this is what leaders aspire for their churches. But ministry among the poor will not look like this. It will not meet these criteria of success. When a university-educated, middle-class person is converted they usually begin contributing to church life immediately. When someone with a range of social problems is converted they need time and resources. Models of ministry It is sometimes said that church leaders should focus on teaching God s word. They have been gifted by God as teachers and that should be the focus of their ministry not running programmes for the poor. And indeed there is much to be said for this argument. The problem comes when this is combined with clericalism so that the leader s ministry defines the ministry of the church. Instead of each member exercising different, complimentary gifts, everyone else s ministries are expected to reflect the leader s ministry. As a result there is no place for those gifted to work among the poor gifts of service as Peter puts it (1 Peter 4:11). And conversely, because the diversity of ministries is not recognised, advocating integral mission is perceived as a threat to the ministry of the church leader. Institutionalism Churches can very easily become institutions rather than communities of believers. Decision-making is dominated by hierarchical procedures rather than participatory processes. Programmes matter more than people. In this context integral mission can be stifled through a lack of permission. Those with authority can be reluctant to give authority away or release people into works of service. Moreover the poor often find it hard to relate to, and even harder to contribute to, an institutional culture. One common feature of an institutional culture, although it can be a feature of less institutional cultures as well, is that they are risk averse. Greater involvement with the poor can be seen as risky. The nature of the risk overlaps with other barriers to the embrace of integral mission. People may perceive a risk of compromise or the failure to achieve the models of successful ministry discussed above. For some it is simply the risk of failure. They would rather fail to take initiatives than to try initiatives that fail. In some cases this may be compounded by disillusionment that has come from past failures. Sometimes the disappointment and hurt of past events need to be addressed before a church can move on. A maintenance mentality
The core problem with institutionalism is that it creates a maintenance mentality instead of a mission mentality. The structures and resources of the church are geared to maintaining the status quo rather than promoting mission. Preservation rather than propagation is the focus. Risky ventures are avoided. Change is resisted. Integral mission becomes one item on the agenda, competing with all the others. Instead of seeing integral mission as the modus operandi of the church, it becomes yet one more thing that it would be good to do. At best it receives some attention some of the time, but never in a sustained way. It is never allowed to define what it means to be church. 4. Capacity Barriers Lack of skills and confidence A church may lack the skills to get involved with the poor. They may have no sense of where to begin. But involvement with the poor is more about relationships than technical know-how. Where there is determination, skills can be acquired and knowledge gained. More debilitating is a lack of confidence. People may fear something new. They may fear the cultural differences involved. They may conceive of social involvement only in terms of grand projects with large budgets that are beyond their capacity. Many churches do not embrace integral mission because they assume they cannot. They agree with it in principle and would like to get involved in the future, but do not think they can do it at present. Lack of time The problem of busyness is not unique to integral mission. Modernity is characterised by overwork. The rationalisation of many companies over the past twenty years has created longer working hours with less security. Information and communications technologies are blurring the boundaries between work and non-work. According to Christianity we find identity in knowing and serving God, and the Protestant Reformation rediscovered work as a means by which we could serve God. But in secular cultures God is omitted so that work itself becomes the means by we find identity and meaning. These factors combine for many people Christians included to create a culture of overwork, leaving little time for relationships. 5. Relational Barriers The relational barriers are similar to the issues of capacity. Christians may lack not only the technical know-how and confidence, but also the relational skills to relate to the poor or to other groups working in the same field. It may be that differences of social class make it hard for people to relate to the marginalised. They may feel they have nothing in common with them. It is all too easy to let a person s poverty become their sole defining characteristic in our minds. We think of them as the poor rather than as people who happen to be poor. Sometimes these issues are unseen. Church members do their best to be welcoming and inclusive, but are unaware how much the culture of their church is shaped their social class. Someone on the door of a church, for example, may hand a new-comer a hymn book, Bible, service guide and newssheet with a smile and greeting without realising how intimidating these can be to someone from a non-literate culture. The social activities to which the poor are invited, the decision-making processes of the church, the unwritten dress code, the style of teaching all these can be alien to the marginalised. As a result, however warm the welcome, the poor can feel marginalised within the church just as they are outside.
6. Identity Barriers Tradition Insecurity can create a barrier to new ideas. If a church is unsure what defines its identity then it may fear that a new activity will move it away from its core identity. It is not a clear sense of the gospel that impedes integral mission, but the inability to distinguish between gospel imperatives and sub-cultural norms. In this situation tradition ceases to be the foundation on which we build and becomes the line we will not cross. We only do what we have always done for fear of doing something which will compromise our identity. In the case of engagement with the poor this attitude is compounded by the assumption that social involvement is something that liberals do. There is a guilt by association. The fear is that if we begin to get involved with the poor we will loose our core evangelical commitments. This kind of attitude is not helped by those evangelical social activists who have indeed lost their theological moorings though they have often done so because their marginalisation by other evangelical Christians has driven them into the arms of those of a more liberal theological persuasion. Fear of compromise through collaboration Social involvement commonly involves working with others. Many Christians fear that this will lead to compromise. Instead of seeing collaboration as a new arena in which to witness to Christ, they are concerned that people will believe they hold the same beliefs to those with whom they are collaborating. Again, this fear often arises from an insecurity about one s own identity. Fear of compromise through contact with poor A couple began working with a local church in a poor area of Mexico City. The members of the church were more affluent and came from outside the area in which the church building was located. The church wanted to reach people from the local area and initially welcomed the help they received. The couple began to reach prostitutes and drug addicts, befriending them, ministering to their needs and sharing the gospel with them. Much of the work was funded with their own money. They started to some of the prostitutes and drug addicts coming to the meetings of the church. The couple were excited about the ways things were developing and the opportunities that were opening up to reach marginalised people. One Sunday morning the couple turned up to find the building locked. The members of the church did not want prostitutes and drug addicts corrupting their children. They had decided to move elsewhere without telling the couple. The ministry collapsed overnight. This story dramatically illustrates the fears that some Christians have that working with the poor will compromise the purity of the church. Parochialism Sometimes the barrier to engagement in integral mission is parochialism. A church community becomes inward-looking. It either cannot see beyond its own local community or even beyond itself. This attitude often reinforces a maintenance mentality. As often as not it is a failure of imagination, a key ingredient to compassion. People cannot imagine the lives of the poor. The poor, if they are noticed at all, are seen as a threat. There is no empathy. 7. Spiritual Barriers
Some of the barriers we have identified so far are the result of proper concerns. Some arise from human weakness or ignorance. Some are the result of failure: the failure to take risks, the trust God, to empathise with the poor and on. The final set of barriers also involve culpability. Prejudice, pride and apathy are sins. Prejudice and pride Normally prejudice is not expressed. It lurks beneath the surface of people s discourse. People raise various objections to social involvement, but the real blockage is their racial or social prejudice. But sometimes prejudice is articulated. The poor are said to be poor through their own fault. Sometimes this is expressed in national terms as, for example, when corrupt leaders are blamed. Sometimes it is expressed in individual terms as, for example, when addictions are blamed with little attempt to engage with underlying causes. There is often some truth is these kinds of assertions, even if it is rarely the whole truth. We should not be naïve or romantic about the poor. But to present such assertions as barriers to integral mission is an expression of pride. The underlying reasoning is: I have made it on my own and so should the poor. This is often a strong attitude among those who were once poor. Gregory the Great said belief in inequality arises from the spring of pride. 12 Instead of being humbled by the grace of God, people make inequality acceptable by arguing that their privileges are the result of some kind of superiority whether skills, hard work or national character. Apathy Christian discipleship is costly and involvement with the poor in Christ s name is certainly no exception. It is a cost some Christians are not willing to pay. As in the case of prejudice, they may present other reasons for non-involvement, but the reality is they are not prepared to get out of their chair to help those in need. They count the cost and decide they will not pay it. Conclusion Advocates of integral mission among the poor are often passionate about their convictions. Persuaded of the moral force of the arguments, they press them on others with vigour and enthusiasm. They can be impatient with, even dismissive of, dissent. But we need to hear the concerns that underlie the arguments of those who oppose integral mission. Sometimes those concerns are quite proper concerns. Concern that the proclamation of the gospel is not neglected or that the witness of the church is uncompromised are valid and important concerns. We will only persuade such people by demonstrating that these concerns are our concerns and showing how integral mission can be done without compromising the gospel. At other times people s underlying assumptions and prejudices may need to be challenged. It is only by setting aside our slogans and listening carefully to the reasons that underlie a person s opposition to integral mission that we can genuinely engage with their heart. * Dr Tim Chester is part of a church planting team in Sheffield, UK. He was previously Research and Policy Director for Tearfund UK and visiting lecturer in Christian Community Development at Redcliffe College, Gloucester. He is the author of a number of books including Good News to the Poor: Sharing the Gospel through Social Involvement (IVP, 2004), Awakening to a World of Need: 12 Cited in Duncan B. Forrester, On Human Worth, p. 115.
The Recovery of Evangelical Social Concern (IVP, 1993) and the editor of Justice, Mercy and Humility: Integral Mission and the Poor (Paternoster, 2002). This series is edited by the Micah Challenge International Campaign Office. The aim of this series is to encourage discussion on the issues raised. Any comments are welcomed at the email address below. Micah Challenge gives permission for Framework Papers to be reproduced, complete or in part, with acknowledgment. Please do not alter the contents of this document. Micah Challenge Framework Papers in this series 1. Barriers to the embrace of intergral mission Micah Challenge International Campaign 100 Church Road Teddington Middlesex TW11 8QE UK campaign@micahchallenge.org