The Lausanne Global Conversation is on the World Wide Open Network
Author: Sadiri Joy Tira
Date: 07.05.2010
Category: Diasporas
A response to Samuel Escobar’s ’Migration & Ethnic Conflict’
I first read Samuel Escobar’s timely article aboard a flight from Toronto, Ontario, bound for Edmonton, Alberta. Flying across Canada, a nation touted for its ’vigorous immigration policy’ and official Multiculturalism Act, I recalled migrant stories of both welcome and triumph, of rejection and despair. In his article, Escobar poignantly describes the trauma often experienced when races and cultures meet.
Though the world is increasingly borderless, humans are still evidently ethnocentric, Christians included. Addressing this innate ethnocentrism, Escobar explains that Christians must grasp the apostle Paul’s theology in Romans 15:7 on mutual acceptance. He exhorts the people of God to ’welcome each other’ in the name of Jesus Christ ’for the glory of God.’ Christians will sometimes find this challenging, but welcoming each other for the glory of God is indeed ’the heart of the gospel.’
The story of Millbourne Alliance Church (MAC) and First Filipino Alliance Church (FFAC) in Edmonton is a story of hope in ’the heart of the gospel.’ FFAC was born to MAC, a congregation composed of primarily European descendants, in Edmonton in the early 1980s. MAC loved FFAC from birth. The mother congregation welcomed Filipinos, accepted them, provided for them, and protected them. MAC leadership assisted Filipinos in fighting injustices, and rallied their members to assist in practical ways, such as providing furniture for new immigrants.
However, clashes are to be expected when cultural differences are forced to the forefront—such as when carefree Filipino children would disrupt joint worship services, seemingly oblivious to the sanctity of the occasion, or when the Filipinos, in moments of over-familiarity, would fail to leave the church basement exactly as they found it. Certainly, there were times when MAC deaconesses felt inhospitable to the Filipinos. Still, MAC loved the Filipinos and in many ways modelled the acceptance of Christ. They showed the fledgling congregation the ’heart of the gospel.’ Once FFAC had matured to be self-governing, self-propagating, and self-supporting, MAC set her free with blessings.
In the following years, FFAC would take her inheritance of acceptance and would herself receive other New Canadians representing a host of races and ethnic backgrounds, would ’mother’ other ethnic groups, and would initiate ministries for New Canadians. Ministries such as PALM in Edmonton, a non-profit organization that provides settlement assistance to New Canadians from all continents, can trace its roots back to FFAC.
MAC–FFAC is a success story of a host church accepting and investing in migrants. I have heard of many traumatic stories too—stories rife with ethnocentrism and indifference. In reflecting on these, I echo Escobar’s three challenges aimed primarily at host Christians—the receiving church. To this I add two challenges to migrants—the ’people on the move’:
(1) The challenge to people on the move to also be sensitive and compassionate, to reciprocate kindness, and to be responsible and respectful.
It takes two to create a conflict. There is such a thing as reverse racism and discrimination—and many migrants are guilty of these. Racism and indifference toward others have a negative effect on the testimony of the church and her effectiveness to represent Christ in our broken world. This evil co-exists with the good, just as in the parable of ’wheat and tares’ (Matthew 13:24–29). The Gardener, Jesus Christ, will ultimately resolve this. For now, receiving Christians must be hospitable, but migrants must reciprocate, acting responsible and respectful.
Migrants should respond with thanksgiving and kindness, respect local rule and order, and be responsible for time and space. For example, migrants should not cut others off in a queue, throw their garbage into the streets as if they were still living in Manila’s Smoky Mountains, or speed when driving in front of schools. Migrants should use pedestrian lanes, say ’excuse me’ and ’thank you,’ and tidy up the church basement after having a party.
(2) The challenge to systematically and strategically prepare Christian migrants to actively participate in evangelism.
The ’people on the move’ can be mobilized for missions. I have met countless Christian migrants who are effective witnesses of Christ to their hosts, including the head baker for a royal family in Africa, the maids of wealthy Chinese bankers in Hong Kong, caregivers of seniors in Israel, and crews working aboard cruise ships. Migrants are not just subjects of evangelism but have emerged as a missions force in the 21st century. Homeland churches should understand that migration is an avenue for the evangelistic dimension of mission. With this understanding, homeland churches can prepare people on the move to be effective witnesses of Christ wherever they may be transplanted. Christians on the move should be affirmed, encouraged, equipped, and mobilized for the kingdom advance, all for the glory of God.
Conflicts between migrants and their hosts are unavoidable, but can be managed in a Christ-like manner. As Christians—both migrants and their hosts—demonstrate ’the heart of the gospel,’ opportunities arise for ministry. Kingdom partnerships are forged between the receiving and migrating peoples to help fulfil the Great Commission. Together, migrants and hosts can work with the whole church to bring the whole gospel to the whole world.
Sadiri Joy Tira is Senior Associate for Diasporas of the Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization, International Coordinator for the Filipino International Network, and Global Ministries Diasporas specialist for the Christian and Missionary Alliance Canada.
Copyright © 2010 Christianity Today/The Lausanne Movement.
Keywords: diaspora, migration, trauma, ethnocentrism, mutual acceptance, differences, mothering, evangelism, investment, sensitivity, mutual responsibility, conflict, partnership
Views: 10908
Comments: 3
Recommendations: 0
Conversation Post Comment
United States
Thank you so much for your openess and sharing your experience. I would love to understand better how your second point is accomplished. In my heart, I agree. In my head, I am not able to conceptualize it. Any feedback would be very helpful for me.
18.04.2011
United States
Thank you for sharing this real-life and very relatable experience. I appreciate the heart behind both challenges. The unique experiences of migrants – such as facing the difficulties in adapting to the laws and customs of another country -- can help prepare them for cross-cultural ministry.
Your article prompted a few questions in my mind which relate to the assimilation of migrants. First, should it be the goal of a migrant congregation to become a self-governing, self-propagating and self-supporting church (and if so why)? Secondly, would you clarify how you are defining “migrant” and “host”? For me, this pairing of terms suggests that migrants are temporary guests, not full members of the community or family. My parents are naturalized citizens of the “host” country and have now lived longer in the “host” country than they did in their birth country – are they migrants or hosts? If they are migrants, am I a “host” by virtue of the fact that I was born in the “host” country or am I also considered a “migrant”? A couple of the churches which my parents have attended began among “migrants” and continue to serve “migrants” today. These churches have been around for over a hundred years (close to half of my country’s age) – are they considered “migrant” churches or “host” churches? At what point do “migrants” become “hosts” (for individuals and for congregations)? I look forward to hearing your thoughts!
22.05.2010
Canada
@ Katherine_Lorance:
Katherine,
Pardon my delayed response I have been a "migrant" in a literal sense for seemingly weeks on end. To the point:
1. Should the goal of a migrant congregation be to become self-governing, self-propagating, and self-supporting? Who are the migrants? Fundamentally, they are "people on the move" (e.g. refugees, temporary residents, international students, sea-farers, soldiers, diplomats, etc.). They are often transients. If these people decide to form a local church they will need to have some kind of structure. Then some may choose to become self-governing, self-propagating, and self-supporting. However, others may choose to become a fellowship group within an existing local church, or become a "satellite congregation" of a larger body. Hence, the three "S" are not a rule for all migrant congregations.
2. Secondly, "migrants" can be as you have described "temporary", while a host is one who "hosts" others. "Host congregations" are those who host migrants. A migrant church (e.g. international student congregations) may want to host another migrant group (e.g. refugees or temporary contract workers). A host congregation may also be a congregation composed of permanent residents in a given locality or citizens of a country. These permanent residents or citizens of a country may host seafarers, or students, or a newly immigrated ethnic group, or a group of new-comers to the city. Thus, any church can become a "host congregation." Let us not confuse migrants and immigrants.
Your parents were "newly landed immigrants" at some point when they first arrived from another country. A host congregation hosted them. Now that they have become permanent residents and citizens and have assimilated and acculturated into their new society, they have become members of a congregation and therefore can now be hosts.
Your parents’ church may be an ethnic church that is perhaps homogenous based on their ethnicity, but they they are a "host" congregation if they are hosting migrants.
The USA and Canada, for example, are nations composed of immigrants. Pardon my lay-man language, I am not an anthropologist or a sociologist, but in my opinion a host congregation is simply one that hosts "people on the move." A European or Asian congregation that is strictly homogenous and is not ministering to migrants cannot be considered "hosts" (e.g. an ethnic Filipino-American church that seeks only other Filipino-Americans, but does not have a vision for migrants). How can they be considered hosts if they are not reaching beyond themselves?
Let us also not be confused about "migrant" vis-a-vis the terms "visible majority" (population) and "visible minority." In many cases, migrants are considered visible minorities (e.g. new immigrants from Sudan settling in Calgary, Alberta); however, a migrant does not have to be a "visible minority," and may very well be considered a member of the "visible majority" (e.g. a temporary contract worker of German citizenship who is working in Winnipeg, Canada for 9 months; or a Chinese University Student from China studying in Singapore).
I wish that we had the time to exchange opinions and thoughts. Others who read our comments may want to add theirs for the discussion. Great question Katherine. Glad to know your parents are hospitable folks.
04.06.2010
You must be logged in to post a comment. If you don’t have an account, you can sign up now (it’s free and easy!).