The Lausanne Global Conversation is on the World Wide Open Network
Author: Patrick Fung
Date: 29.07.2010
Category: Partnership
Editor’s Note: This Cape Town 2010 Advance Paper has been written by Patrick Fung as an overview of the topic to be discussed at the Morning Plenary session on “Partnering in the Body of Christ toward a New Global Equilibrium.” Responses to this paper through the Lausanne Global Conversation will be fed back to the author and others to help shape their final presentations at the Congress.
I was asked to address the theme “Partnering in the Body of Christ toward a New Global Equilibrium” at this Lausanne Congress. However, I face a fundamental problem. I have struggled with the title. The more I reflect on the theme, the more I am convinced that “towards a new global equilibrium” might be an inappropriate title. I struggled with the word “equilibrium”. The word “equilibrium” is interesting. It signifies the condition of a system in which competing influences are balanced. Equilibrium suggests that we are trying to equalize the powers of different forces. This title seems to suggest that global equilibrium would be our final and ultimate goal.
1. The mission of God- Pursuing global equilibrium or world evangelization?
I can understand the reason why the Lausanne Congress would like to put the emphasis on “a new global equilibrium”. This may not be irrelevant as participants from some parts of the world might have great power – whether the nature is financial, organizational or political – while others may have very little. While Samuel Escobar passionately argued that “missionary and theological tasks have a global dimension wherein neither imperialism nor provincialism have a place,” (1) it was claimed that nearly one million people go out on a short-term mission every year, mainly from the rich Western countries. (2) “[An] often negative aspect of short-term mission is that westerners often give the impression that our wealth is the secret to helping people come into right relationship with God.” (3)
The numeric centre of gravity in terms of Christian growth has shifted to the Global South while the fiscal centre of gravity remains in the Global North, though this might be changing. The concept and the practice of the “powerful” bringing the good news to the “powerless” has been rightly challenged.
God’s power
Firstly, the biblical concept of mission is NOT primarily or particularly about equilibrium or the balance of power. It is about the power of God given to His people through His Spirit in the proclamation of Christ. If anything, it is about the imbalance of power, the power of God upon His people who are the recipients of His power. It is about God’s sovereign power that thrusts us out into the world to witness boldly for Christ. The early church, whilst seemingly powerless, acknowledged the sovereign rule of God and the power of God in the lives of the disciples (Acts 4:24-31). The power of God is not dependent upon equilibrium of resources. As we have learned, the spreading of the gospel in the early church period was not dependent on charismatic leaders nor any grand strategies of the established Jerusalem Church, but by the nameless, “powerless” people who acknowledged the Lordship of Christ and experienced the power of the Spirit (Acts 11:19).
God’s mission
Secondly, partnership in the body of Christ should ultimately enhance world evangelization, not global equilibrium. I am glad that LCWE stands for Lausanne Congress for World Evangelization and not Lausanne Congress for World Equilibrium. Lindsay Brown, in his letter on the Third Lausanne Congress, urged churches around the world: “Please help us by your prayers. Our goal in every aspect of the Congress is to strengthen the Church in fulfilling Christ’s final command on earth, which has never been rescinded – to make disciples of all nations”. Making disciples of all nations must be our urgent and ultimate goal as we partner together in the body of Christ. Our energy must primarily be spent on the urgent task that “the gospel must first be preached to all nations” (Mark 13:10).
God’s resources
Thirdly, although a better state of equilibrium will avoid the tendency of dependency, the biblical concept of partnering in the body of Christ should be interdependence. The younger church of Antioch decided to provide help for the brothers living in Judea, the impoverished church in Jerusalem, each according to his ability (Acts 11:29). Generosity was a way of life for the early Christians. Both willingness to give and humility to receive are needed. Yet, over-giving and over-receiving often cripple the work of God. (4) A pastor from China once said to me, “We do not need money from the West. Money will divide the church in China”. It is very encouraging to know that a group of participants from the Majority World attending this Lausanne Congress has asked the Congress not to sponsor them so that resources can be channelled to others in need.
In pursuing God’s mission, unity is more important than equilibrium.
All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possession was his own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all (Acts 4:32).
Here we see the disciples testify boldly with the power of God and share generously with the resources from God. Increasingly, resources for God’s mission will not only be channelled from the West to the rest, but also from “anywhere to anywhere”. (5) The time will come when churches from the Global South or the Majority World will contribute significantly to world evangelization. Equilibrium will never eliminate comparison and competition. However, unity with one heart and mind under the Lordship of Christ will bring about a sacrificial sharing of God’s resources for world evangelization.
2. The redemptive purpose of God- Reconciliation as the basis of our partnership
The call to reconciliation
The first time I read John Stott’s book, God’s New Society – The Message of Ephesians back in 1979, I was struck by the profound statement in the preface, “For the sake of the glory of God and the evangelization of the world, nothing is more important than that the church should be, and should be seen to be, God’s new society [community]”. This new community is characterised by reconciliation – reconciliation to God and reconciliation to one another. Christ has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility (Eph 2:14). Christ crucified has brought into being nothing less than a new, united human race, united in itself and united to its Creator. (6) Christianity is not international, it is supranational. (7) God’s new community will always transcend racial, linguistic and national barriers as it reflects the nature of the kingdom of Christ.
Thus, reconciliation is the foundation of all Christian partnership. Reconciliation is to happen not only between ethnic groups, but also between generations, between the old and the young and between genders. For the Spirit of God has been poured out on all peoples. God’s new community includes those from the West and East, from the North and South, sons and daughters, young and old, men and women (Acts 2:17). Every generation owes the next generation a commitment to journey with them and partner together in serving God’s purpose (Acts 13:36).
As I reflect on the nature of God’s new community, I cannot help but think of brothers and sisters who by their ethnic background were taught to be enemies of other peoples because of political and racial conflicts. Yet, the power of the cross has brought together those who were alienated from one another to be united in Christ. Today, many who were once enemies are serving together on the mission fields, proclaiming the message of reconciliation. Chinese are bringing the gospel to the Japanese and Japanese are sharing their faith with the Chinese. It is as if the sins of aggression and hostility in the past were nailed to the cross. Recently in her will a Japanese Christian designated her assets for the ministry of the gospel amongst the Chinese people. The message of reconciliation is to be lived out by God’s new community, which the fragmented world needs to see. A senior communist party member once said to me, “If we communists could truly love one another like the Christians do, our society would be totally transformed”.
The call to “death to self”
Reconciliation is a position that Christ has achieved for us through the cross. We are reconciled to God. But we also know that in our human failures and weaknesses, reconciliation to one another sometimes is not evident; thus partnership becomes impossible. However, the foundation of all Christian partnership is reconciliation, and the foundation of reconciliation is the cross. The cross symbolizes death to self – death to our own rights – just as Christ did.
The Boxer Rebellion in China of 1900 will never be forgotten. Missionaries were murdered and mission compounds set on fire. Thousands of Chinese believers lost their lives. The China Inland Mission suffered heavy loss during that rebellion, with 58 missionaries and 22 children being killed. It was in the province of Shanxi that the violence of the Boxers reached its height, with the greatest number of casualties. When the Boxer Uprising finally ended, and reparations were offered, it came as a surprise to the Chinese government as well as to the foreign powers that the China Inland Mission refused to accept any compensation.
On 11 October 1901, the governor of Shanxi issued an edict. Placards were seen wherever the CIM had worked and suffered, throughout Shanxi. On each placard was written these words:
The Mission, in rebuilding these Churches with its own funds, aims in so doing to fulfil the command of the Saviour of the World, that all men should love their neighbours as themselves, I, the Governor, charge you all, gentry, scholars, army and people, those of you who are fathers to exhort your sons, and those who are elder sons to exhort your younger brothers, to bear in mind the example of Pastor Hoste [and the China Inland Mission], who is able to forbear and forgive as taught by Jesus to do so… signed by the Governor of Shanxi (CIM 1902:33, 36).
Missionaries in the past demonstrated a “death” to self in the proclamation of the gospel.
Out of the most severe trial, their overflowing joy and their extreme poverty welled up in rich generosity. For I testify that they [the Macedonian churches] gave as much as they were able, and even beyond their ability (2 Corinthians 8:2).
Similarly, the biblical model of Christian partnership is not a “win-win” model as the world promotes but always a sacrificial partnership.
3. The sovereign rule of God - The danger of pride and self-pity
Winds of Change
The Edinburgh Conference in 1910 has often been referred to as the defining moment for the modern Western Missionary Movement with epoch-making significance. There was such strong energy and commitment from the conference to carry the gospel to the entire non-Christian world. The period of the 1910s also coincided with new possibilities due to advances in technology from the Western industrial world. Technological progress was hailed as the handmaid to the spreading of the gospel worldwide. (8)However, the delegates were overwhelmingly Christians from the Western countries, mainly British and Americans (1000), and with a small minority (170) from continental Europe. Very few came from the younger churches from Asia. (9) There were also no Latin American or African participants. And the participants were mainly male.
It is encouraging to see that the picture is very different today. It is reported that Korea has sent out more than 20,000 cross-cultural missionaries to over 160 countries.(10) With a Christian population of more than 70 million, there is an increasing concern for world evangelization from the church in China. Over half of the delegates from this Third Lausanne Congress are from the Majority World. Many scholars, including Philip Jenkins, emphasize a shift of power from Western churches to those South of the equator. (11)
While I rejoice in the growth of the Asian Missionary Movement, I still have a nagging restlessness. There is a thought that is circulated among Chinese Christians that the 21st century mission or the next century mission belongs to the Asians or to the Chinese. Sometimes, even the Westerners boost the confidence of our Asian brothers and sisters by promoting this concept, which unfortunately is to our harm. I do not deny the wealth and the tremendous resources with which God has blessed many of the Asian countries, including China. However, I am concerned that we as Asians may be repeating the same mistake that our Western brethren might have committed in the past – that is, to equate economic and political power with advances in the spreading of the gospel. We continue to reinforce the notion that the spreading of the gospel is always from the powerful to the powerless, the haves to the have-nots. There is a sense of Asian triumphalism that makes me nervous.
Winds of God
The early Christians acknowledged a fundamental truth in the spreading of the gospel, namely, the sovereign rule of God (Acts 4:25). Our sovereign Lord is the one in control of history, the Lord of all political powers and the one who determines our times. The Most High is sovereign over kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes (Daniel 4:25). No one ethnic group or nation can claim the exclusive privilege of being the ones to finish the Great Commission. We need to acknowledge that the Lord in the Bible even used Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar to fulfill His purpose. He does as He pleases.
God, by His sovereign grace, has created in Christ a new spiritual community from all tribes and nations to bring the good news to the world. God’s new community of all tribes, nations and tongues is to be a community of mutual encouragement and learning. Professor Andrew Walls insightfully highlighted the concept of polycentrism: the riches of a hundred places learning from each other. He believes that there is no one single centre of Christianity or one single centre of missionary activity. He said, “One necessitates the other”. (12)
Arrogance and self-pity will be the major barriers to pursuing world evangelization. Arrogance with ethno-superiority can be hidden within the justified vision for world evangelization. Self-pity undermines God’s work in us and through us. There is a rich heritage of the modern Western Protestant Mission from which the non-Western Christian community can learn. The faith and perseverance of Western missionaries who gave their lives for the sake of the gospel should be re-discovered. The stories should be retold. On the other hand, there is also a spiritual vibrancy from the Global South that the Western world needs to observe. Also there is a desperate need for more missiological thinking beyond the Western paradigm, which speaks to the contemporary political, social, religious and ethnic contexts. (13,14)
We are God’s global community united in Christ. Partnership is based upon this firm foundation. Partnership must spring from a deep sense of gratitude to God for what Christ has done. He has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility that separates us from God and from one another. Sacrificial partnership with a commitment to “death to self” will be the only way to world evangelization, for the very shape of mission is cruciform. The cross lies at the very heart of mission. (15)
© The Lausanne Movement 2010
Keywords: Partnering, partnership, equilibrium, power, global, Global South, Majority World, evangelization, centre of gravity, mission, interdependence, resources, reconciliation, community, cross, pride, arrogance, self-pity, sovereign, polycentrism, unity
Patrick Fung has not Contributed any other Resources entries. To see other content that Patrick Fung has Contributed, click here
Views: 28726
Comments: 41
Recommendations: 10
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | The Lausanne Global Conversation is powered by World Wide Open | What is World Wide Open?
Conversation Post Comment
Singapore
Patrick, thanks for this. I agree with much that you have shared and am convinced that God-ordained partnership isn’t really so much about the powerful lording it over the powerless. From my experience of working in partnership with various Christian bodies, I’ve seen that the most fruitful ones have been when all parties have intentionally adopted attitudes of servanthood, each fully committed to helping the other to succeed, and the humility to admit that they might not always have all the answers.
17.08.2010
Australia
Thanks, Patrick. A stimulating article regarding a significant area for world evangelization for the next decade as I don’t want to see the dependency issue continue to hinder the growth of Christianity in the Majority world. I appreciate your concern with the use of ’equilibrium’ but I think it is attempting to re-dress the imbalance that exists in partnership globally with the power and resource base being in the Western world. A better term could be found like ’paradigm’ as has already been discussed or ’synergy’. Unity is a vital outcome of healthy partnerships.
I agree with you about the need to consider reconciliation, dying to self and submitting to the rule of God.
My experience of partnerships between the Western world Christian organisations and Majority world Christian organisations reflects often the one way focus of partnerships. It would be great to see the resources and the sharing being genuinely two way. The benefits can be two way. The challenge is for Western churches to be ready to receive from those they are partnering with in the Majority world. Is this possible? What creativity will be needed to make this happen? Any good stories about this?
The one statistic that challenged me was the estimate of 1 million short-termers. This area has grown in the last two decades. What is the source of the statistic? Is this globally? Would most of these trips be from the Western world to the Majority world? Out of Australia most short-term trips cost a minimum of A$1,500. If this is the case over $1.5 billion is spent on short-term trips annually. Is this a healthy use of Christian resources? Short-term service can be useful but are all trips needed and relevant. Who really benefits? Is it value for money?
14.08.2010
Kenya
@ David_T:
There is a growing team of people looking into ways of ‘receiving’ from the majority world as you say. Please take a look at www.vulnerablemission.com. Welcome to the discussion! Please sign up to the list-serve discussion or regular Bulletin if you want to.
I think there are some good stories about this, (I speak with experience in Africa) – but they are not easy to come by at all. That is, the degree of dependency etc. that has been / is there is enormous.
The statistic I was aware of was 2,000,000 short termers. Indeed – those are incredibly large figures. I share your concern in this area.
Thanks for your challenging comment …
15.08.2010
China
谢谢您的贡献！
合作与合二为一的关系确实是很复杂。 加上文化区别、经济势力等因素而真实的“平衡合作“好像是一个永远达不到的目标。 不过，用保罗的比喻老说，我们在主的身体不都是同一个肢体； “神配搭这身子，把加倍的体面给那有缺欠的肢体， 免得身上分门别类，总要肢体彼此相顾。” （林前12:24-5） 平衡不是最重要的因素；互相尊敬、接纳 而彼此相顾——这应该是合作的特性。 遗憾的是我自己在国内很少见这种合作。 无论是国外与国内合作项目或国内不同教牧人员的合作项目，本人感觉是失败的比成功的往往多。 是因为人的骄傲？ 是因为关系不够成熟， 信任的根基没有打好？ 或是因为双方没有诚恳地沟通？ 但愿神怜悯中国教会！
12.08.2010
China
谢谢您的贡献！
合作与合二为一的关系确实是很复杂。 加上文化区别、经济势力等因素而真实的“平衡合作“好像是一个永远达不到的目标。 不过，用保罗的比喻老说，我们在主的身体不都是同一个肢体； “神配搭这身子，把加倍的体面给那有缺欠的肢体， 免得身上分门别类，总要肢体彼此相顾。” （林前12:24-5） 平衡不是最重要的因素；互相尊敬、接纳 而彼此相顾——这应该是合作的特性。 遗憾的是我自己在国内很少见这种合作。 无论是国外与国内合作项目或国内不同教牧人员的合作项目，本人感觉是失败的比成功的往往多。 是因为人的骄傲？ 是因为关系不够成熟， 信任的根基没有打好？ 或是因为双方没有诚恳地沟通？ 但愿神怜悯中国教会！
12.08.2010
Indonesia
Thanks to Patrick for bringing up relevant issue.
Few comments:
1) In my opinion neither the word equilibrium nor paradigm will do justice to the issue of global parnership in mission today. We need to partner because we believe in UNITY. as already Patrick explained. Thus I think we better use the word UNITY, it is more biblical I suggest.
2) Partnership and Unity of the church is doing global mission also means that there must be a recognition and respect of plurality. I have seen examples of mission work that does not pay respect to this. When a mission endeavour comes with denominational agenda. Not only mission is about bringing the Gospel to the community rather it also carries a mission of converting other Christians in the place to become new converts to the sending denomination.
3) Partnership and Unity also means that we MUST NOT sell our method or approach of mission to other Christians. We must learn from one another. If mission is just about promoting a method we have betrayed the true meaning of sharing Christ. A missionary is not always a teacher to others, I guess s/he is a learner on the same way.
Lastly, I see that in this context, we are not talking about the global south is taking a primary role in completing the task of world evangelization. We should not see that a reversal stream of mission from south to north as a sign of global south maturity. Global unity, in my point of view means that the stream of missional work of the church is no longer boxed into the north to the south (vice versa). It is a movement of the whole body of the church to give hope and healing to the world’s pain. Thus when we talk about global unity the talk about south and north, the older and the younger church is no longer relevant. Is a mission from all parts of the globe to all part of the globe. A mission of all denominations unified (respecting each uniqueness).
05.08.2010
Kenya
Thanks to Patrick for this piece. A few comments.
1. Patrick mentions the way that ‘giving’ can result in an over-strong orientation to control by churches from a certain region. This is why I think it is important in the church to remove strings from giving. Unfortunately, if this is impossible (which I unfortunately believe to be the case – see http://www.jim-mission.org.uk/articles/difficulties-in-giving.html ), then at least some missionaries ought to separate their ministries from their people’s ‘givings’.
2. It is striking how often in the Lausanne discourse, I have found that I need to be ashamed of being a male English-speaking Western missionary of British origin. The way to bring ‘equilibrium’ is not to put certain people down, but it should be to lift others up! Let’s stop bashing male British and American missionaries …
3. It is hard to see how the desired ‘equilibrium’ will be achieved while the British / American language dominates the scene! The fact that it dominates, however, shows that it is the British/Americans who are dominating. We can blame them (and I am sure at times I do), but in line with my comment above – why do others not instead learn from them? British / Americans are in this conversation using mother tongue. Many others are not. Let’s encourage others to set up their ‘Lausanne’s’ in their mother tongues (or their own ‘trade languages’).
30.07.2010
Nigeria
@ Jim_Harries:
"This is why I think it is important in the church to remove strings from giving. Unfortunately, if this is impossible" Please why do you think it is IMPOSSIBLE to remove strings from giving? These missionaries who "separate themselves from their people’s giving, how do they raise their upkeep - are they ’tent makers’ or do they recieve support from some of their people?
"The way to bring ‘equilibrium’ is not to put certain people down, but it should be to lift others up! Let’s stop bashing male British and American missionaries …" and "It is hard to see how the desired ‘equilibrium’ will be achieved while the British / American language dominates the scene! The fact that it dominates, however, shows that it is the British/Americans who are dominating. We can blame them (and I am sure at times I do)". What exactly are you saying here? Is it that the bashing is too hard and blaming is softer? How do you advocate the setting up of local "Laussanes" - where, in what language, funded by who?
02.08.2010
Kenya
@ besoman:
As to why it is ‘impossible’ to remove strings from giving; please see the article I mentioned (which is like a long book review of a book on ‘giving’ http://www.jim-mission.org.uk/articles/difficulties-in-giving.html . It is impossible because there is no way to do it. Unless, maybe, if I have a phone directory for Nigeria and then selected a name at randomn and sent whoever that is $1000? But then, we still have to ask – why Nigeria? Why $1000? Why not share that amongst two people? etc. etc.
The missionaries who I envisage above as ‘separating themselves from their people’s giving’ could mean that they become tent-makers, although tent-makers may still be receiving support from their own people. (If a Westerner was to look for a job in Nigeria, I guess by far the most lucrative employment in 99% of cases would be in jobs in which they used English and acted as a kind of ‘bridge’ with the West. So then they are still working for their own. An example where that wouldn’t be the case, may be joining others sewing clothes on the roadside, but even then their peculiar identity is bound to set them apart …). The way I really have in mind, is that the individual not allow his / her donors to ‘control’ them. This is difficult enough in itself, as of course donors to a missionary are also looking for accountability, and want it in a way they understand …
Your questions are legitimate. The above comment is ‘thoughts in process’. You can hardly blame Americans (say) for using their language. Can they be blamed for having made their language the world language? Certainly any particular generation of Americans – probably not. Should Americans then ‘stop talking’ – don’t believe it. Even if they talk less at one point, they will probably make up for it somewhere else – as the issues concern them, and are dressed up in their (our) way. Africans chose to follow English, as did (and do) others in the world, thus empowering Americans.
When I talk of ‘local Lausanne’s’, I am really I guess meaning that there ought to be Christian discussion intra-language – in whatever form that takes. Sometimes nowadays the international (English) discussion can be so powerful as to demote other discussions into a kind of ‘2nd class status.’
04.08.2010
Nigeria
@ Jim_Harries:
It is not difficult let alone impossible to remove ’Strings’ from giving. Someone, in these discussions, shared a ministry experience where his church got some money that was far more than what they needed. They took the percentage they needed, took another for future use and divided the rest between two other ministries that had need. In the first instance these ministries did not ask their help and secondly the donors attached no "reciprocity".
Three months ago, a friend sent me a sum of money and asked me to apply it to whatever aspect of ministry I deem most necessary. Candidly I do not seem to understand this impossibility you talk about.
The "Local Laussanes" as you describe it had been and are on-going all over the world. The Church is marching on!
05.08.2010
Taiwan (ROC)
Thanks Patrick for your article. One point I particularly liked in your article was your hesitancy about "Asian" replacing "Western" as a new power in missions...I hope that Lausanne will be a place which is so united by the gospel that there are only brothers and sisters and no nationailities. I hope it will be a little glimpse of heaven and what that might mean.
I have experienced this unity often in our mission ’family’ and am blessed by it. I’ve been encouraged by your article and many others that it is possible if the focus is the gospel.
Thanks also for your church history examples -always appreciate those.
YSIC
04.08.2010
United Kingdom
Thanks Patrick for a very interesting article. I agree with the comments that it should have been better to use the word paradigm instead of equilibrium. There is a danger that we will fall exactly in the same trap as in previous decades with some groups and nations viewing themselves as more powerful in mission than others because they have more resources whether it be people, finances, etc. The challenge is how to collaborate in a globalised mission community sharing resources in such a way that people might respond to the Gospel and the Kingdom of God becoming a reality in communities.
03.08.2010
Russia
Thanks to Patrick for this insightful article. I was a little uneasy at first with the title mentioning "Equilibrium" - it seemed like one of the "tolerance/diversity" terms with heavy connotations from globalization, political correctness and religious relativism. In itself, diversity, tolerance, and respect for the views of others are not bad things; what they have been made to mean, however, is often used to undermine the truth of Scripture. But the author of the article pointed to a difference between maintaining a global equilibrium and having a true partnership in Christ, which I found interesting.
Being from Russia, but having studied in the US and having traveled a bit in Europe and Asia, I agree with Patrick’s descriptions of West vs. East proclaiming the Gospel, with economic and political prominence almost equated with being qualified or having responsibility to preach among other nations. Other countries, including my own, need to get over the paradigm of American/Western "missionareesm" and come up, both on the level of ideology and on the level of practice, with the understanding of their participation in fulfilling the Great Commission in their countries and abroad.
I should admit, however, that having a more advantegeous position politically and economically opens a lot of doors, so the situation will probably remain similar to what we see now, only shifting gradually from the West to, say, China and some South American countries. Nevertheless, each country and each Christian has to take ownership in joining with other believers in the great work of evangelism, at home and abroad. And we need to do it with a soilid Scripture-based approach, good theology and great motivation.
01.08.2010
Singapore
What was meant by a “new global paradigm” was not the geographical scope of mission. A more pressing need could be how to develop creative inter-disciplinary approaches to wrestle with complex global issues. In other words, how to employ multiple resources and encourage the mutual dependence of different networks in the body of Christ. We need to reflect together and respond in the light of God’s Word.
30.07.2010
Nigeria
I agree with Valerie on replacing "Equilibrium" with "paradigmn". I also think that "God’s new community of all tribes, nations and tongues is to be a community of mutual encouragement and learning" with the idea of missions going from "anywhere to anywhere" or "anywhere to everywhere" should be given a stress in the article. The conclusion therefore is that the global church is encouraged to unite to carry the gospel from everywhere to everywhere. There are southerners planting the kind of churches that express the vibrant nature of our worship in the West. This should be encouraged, while the west learns from their experience by partnering with them as she also continues her work in the rest of the world. Thanks Patrick for this wonderful piece.
30.07.2010
Singapore
Patrick, thanks for these reflections. Perhaps, that last word in the title should be “paradigm” (not “equilibrium”). In our age of increasing globalization, the body of Christ needs to cooperate even more, in order to better understand and respond to complex global issues. No region should dominate; whether north or south or east or west. Instead, as you have reflected, there should be greater interdependence, humility, and sacrificial partnership in the whole community.
30.07.2010
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!).